Women Faculty on the Tenure

Track: The Compounding Role of

Being the Breadwinner
Bridget Kelly
University of Maryland

Kristin McCann
University of Chicago
Abstract: This study highlights the compounding challenge of women
being breadwinners for their household while striving to earn tenure
within gendered structures of faculty life. Findings are based on a
longitudinal qualitative study of women faculty’s experiences at two
research universities in the United States. A critical feminist and
agency lens contributed to analysis of participants’ experiences.

Keywords: women, faculty, breadwinner

Introduction
Imagine you are a woman faculty member—newly hired for a
salary that is lower than your male counterparts and in a tenure
track assistant professor position that women disproportionately
leave before promotion for reasons such as lower satisfaction, a
sexist campus climate, and heavier teaching and service loads that
can impede research productivity. You are aware the position has
a six-year probationary period, and if you do not meet expectations
you will be asked to leave the university. In order for you to take

Bridget Kelly is an Associate Professor in the Counseling, Higher Education, and

Special Education Department at the University of Maryland.

Kristin McCann is the Associate Dean of Students and Executive Director at the
University of Chicago Medical Scientist Training Program.

Copyright © 2019 by The Journal of the Professoriate, an affiliate of the Center for
African American Research and Policy. All Rights Reserved (ISSN 1556-7699)
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 74

an academic job, your partner left a position to move across the

country with you and is searching for new opportunities—though
without support or resources from your new employer. Your
children have been uprooted to new schools, and you are now
farther away from family and social support systems. Thus, in
addition to earning tenure in order to remain a viable academic,
your household’s financial viability depends upon your ability to
earn tenure in a system that was not built for you. Described here
are some of the challenges women faculty face as their household’s
breadwinner in the context of a historically and traditionally male
context.

For example, tenure-track faculty work—traditionally

defined as research, teaching, and service—is distributed and
weighted “based on culturally imbedded beliefs and assumptions
about gender” (Maranto & Griffin, 2010, p. 2). Although the
demands of tenure-track faculty life are universal, women are more
negatively affected by the gendered organization of faculty life
compared to White male counterparts (Tierney & Bensimon,
1996). The gendered organization of the academy is illustrated
through disproportionate numbers of tenured and full-professor
women faculty compared to men (Christman, 2003; Finkelstein,
Seal, & Schuster, 1998; Glazer-Raymo, 2001; Jobe, 2004; Moody,
2004; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000; Trautvetter, 1999), a lack
of critical mass of mentors for women faculty (August & Waltman,
2004), a chilly (i.e., sexist) climate (Acker & Armenti, 2004), a
devaluing of women faculty’s research (Glazer-Raymo, 2001), and
ways in which women faculty’s intersecting identities such as race
present additional challenges to their experience (Kelly &
McCann, 2013, 2014). Moreover, assumptions about women
faculty often result in their relegation to “historically undervalued
and underrecognized relational and domestic functions of
academic work” (Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell., 2014, pp. 59-
60) such as heavier service workloads and teaching responsibilities
(August & Waltman, 2004; Gardner, 2013).
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 75

Underexplored in research on the gendered organization of

faculty life—and, at times, explicitly left out of higher education
research due to limitations of a study’s scope (Wolf-Wendel &
Ward, 2006)—is a focus on women faculty who are their
household’s breadwinner. The quantitative higher education
literature explores faculty salary and gender from the perspective
of the “gendered wage gap” and provides compelling disparities in
salary of women faculty compared to men (Nettles, Perna,
Bradburn, & Zimbler, 2000; Perna, 2000, 2003; Toutkoushian,
1998; Umbach, 2007; U. S. Department of Education, 2012).
However, what is missing from the literature is research that
explores qualitative experiences behind these statistics. Thus, this
study focuses on a unique finding from a longitudinal study on
women faculty members’ experiences on the tenure track at two
research extensive universities in the United States. This study’s
primary research question asks: How, if at all, did the role of being
a household’s breadwinner contribute to the gendered organization
of faculty life for tenure track women faculty at a research
extensive university? To understand the phenomenon of women
faculty who were breadwinners, we applied a critical feminist lens
and the concept of ‘agency’ (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky,
2011; O’Meara, 2015). While research exists that focuses on
women faculty’s agency in their experience in a gendered
organization, only rarely has a critical feminist lens been used in
tandem (Kelly, McCann, & Porter, 2018). Moreover, in
O’Meara’s (2015) qualitative study of 37 women faculty, a focus
on agency in research university contexts is “especially important”
(p. 332) in that the gendered organization of faculty life enables
accumulated disadvantages for women faculty’s career
advancement through mediators of segregated work roles, less
access to career sponsors, and “ideal worker norms embedded in
departments that devalue balance of work and family priorities” (p.
332). What is more, we agree with O’Meara’s (2015) assessment
that, “while there is clearly an extant body of work that has
documented the disparities that grow from gendered organizations,
there is only a limited body of work that has systematically
addressed the ways in which women take agency” (p. 332).
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 76

Literature Review
To foreground the gendered organization of faculty life and its
impact on women faculty breadwinners we focus on the concept of
“the ideal worker”. Such a focus highlights a prototypical worker
that is valued by the academy. By scaffolding this archetype, how
women faculty who are breadwinners may or may not have agency
in a male dominated academy is further understood.

Ideal Worker
The ideal worker is one who is dedicated completely to the
workplace and free from outside responsibilities—including being
free from personal and family responsibilities (Acker, 1990;
Bailyn, 2003; Drago & Williams, 2000; Ely & Meyerson, 2000;
Hochschild, 1989). According to Sallee (2012), “While certainly
either men or women could fulfill the role of the ideal worker . . .
women typically perform more of the childcare responsibilities in
the home and thus are those who are often excluded from living up
to the norms of the ideal worker” (p. 784). Furthermore, in the
context of women faculty, “A faculty member looking to establish
her career in the face of conflicting time demands between
workplace and home may not be able to be an ideal academic
worker” (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012, p. 7).

For this study in particular, women faculty as breadwinners

presents another way in which participants in this study differed
from an ideal worker and experienced unique challenges to be
“good workers” and “good women” on the tenure track. One way
to show this tension is through the relationship between research
on dual-career couples and academic motherhood compared to the
ideal worker prototype.

The ideal worker and partners

Drawn from findings in Hochschild’s (1989) in-depth qualitative

study of 50 couples that uncovered a “second shift” that women
perform in the home after a work day, the concept of the ideal
worker does not account for both partners desiring to work and
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 77

have a career as a dual-career couple. Conversely, the ideal

worker model assumes the worker is male, makes a wage to
support a family, and has a partner at home who attends to
household duties and childcare (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006).
Men are traditionally thought to be a household’s breadwinner
(Emslie & Hunt 2009), and women stereotypically shoulder more
of the household and caretaking responsibilities (Ely & Meyerson,
2000; Emslie & Hunt 2009). In Sallee’s (2012) study on academic
fatherhood, several studies suggested that men’s productivity and
role as a good father is to support their children and household
through economic means solely.

Other research on dual career couples reflected additional

challenges. For example, dual career faculty may experience
delayed career advancement (Moen & Sweet, 2002) and income
because of the need to take non-preferred positions (Quinn &
Rubb, 2010). For instance, Moen and Sweet (2002) found it was
more difficult for dual career couples to change jobs because they
also had to consider their partner’s career. Dual career couples
experience an added stressor compared to those in single-searches,
as “marriage frequently results in a sub-optimal job search” (Quinn
& Rubb, 2010, p. 37). Dual career couples may also have
decreased performance in the workplace because of lack of
satisfaction with partner either not finding a position, being
underemployed, not in fulfilling position, or living long-distance
away.

Some institutions have resources to assist faculty with partner

hires. For instance, respondents to a survey on dual career couples
noted how assisting in helping spouses or domestic partners of
faculty hires increased faculty morale, compensated for low
salaries and assisted families (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, & Rice,
2000). As one participant in their study noted, “our university is
committed to ‘family values’—easing stress/pressures on academic
couples who both seek employment, especially if they must
relocate” (Wolf-Wendel et al., 2000, p. 301). Sexual orientation is
an additional factor, as previous research on academic dual career
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 78

couples showed that heterosexual “couples who attempt ‘rational’

career decisions often find themselves favoring the husband’s
career” (Bird & Bird, 1987, p. 98). Although same-sex couples
can legally marry in the U.S. as of June 26, 2015, historically,
“primary” hires in same-sex couples had less negotiating power
with an institution compared to heterosexual male counterparts
(Miller & Skeen, 1997). Adding to how partnered women
breadwinners diverge from an ideal worker is motherhood.

Conceptual Framework

Policies and practices of the academy are acted out on real bodies,
and for this study women were the ultimate “knowers” of the
impact that gender and breadwinner status had on their tenure track
experiences. To unpack the women faculty experiences on the
tenure track, we drew upon tenets of critical feminist theory and
agency. These lenses authorize gender, the academy’s history and
context, and power as mediators of human experience,
respectively. “First, the critical feminist perspective is not about
comparing women’s experiences to men” (Bensimon & Marshall,
2000, p. 138). Feminist research compels researchers to “consider
the ways in which gender norms are maintained or disrupted by
current institutional practices” (Ropers-Huilman & Winters, 2011,
p. 671)—in this case, the tenure track and how gender interacts
with that institution practice. What makes the lens a critical look
at gender is its focus on power. Research has been compelling in
noting how women lack power because of sexist, gendered
assumptions embedded in academy policy and practice. Women
tend to lack power because their status as pre-tenured essentially
has them in a probationary period where the tenured faculty and
administrators are judging whether the pre-tenure women faculty
are worthy of a lifetime, tenured appointment.

Women’s experiences are valuable sources of

understanding the gendered aspects of the academy, but also as
individual agents who have power over their research, teaching and
service performance. Agency, as defined by O’Meara and
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 79

Stromquist (2015), entails “perspectives and actions taken by

participants to achieve meaningful goals” (p. 340). Agency also
acknowledges “the need for both individual and collective action”
and is specific to a given context or organizational environment (p.
340). In this study, the context is the academy and the area is the
tenure track within the institution of the academy. From an agency
lens, we focused this study on perspectives and behaviors that
women faculty breadwinners exhibited relative to their ultimate
goal of earning tenure. Founded on the theoretical and empirical
conceptualization of agency from scholars in sociology,
psychology, and human development (e.g., Archer 2000; Ganz,
2010; Marshall, 2000), we operationalize agency as “strategic and
intentional views or actions toward goals that matter to the
professor” (Terosky et al., 2014, p. 61). Agentic perspectives are
shaped by social contexts and refer to ways in which one interprets
situations relative to a goal—such as career advancement—and
often function as “a response to barriers and opportunities”
(O’Meara, 2015, p. 333). Agentic behavior or action “consists of
individuals asserting free will and influencing their own life
trajectories through strategic tasks or steps” (Terosky et al., 2014,
p. 62). Thus, in relationship to this study, the context in which
women sought to advance their career was the tenure track at a
research university. Agentic perspectives and behaviors were
relative to women’s goals of earning tenure and supporting their
households as the breadwinner. This conceptual framework holds
that women faculty participant’s experiences are meaningful, that
their experiences occur in a particular power and gendered context,
and that their agency may be challenged or supported as a result.

Methods

Because we were interested in the meaning women gave to their

experiences on the tenure track, a qualitative approach was
appropriate. In Christman’s (2003) synthesis of the literature on
women faculty, she argued, “the academy must commit to an
honest attempt to understand women faculty members’
experiences” (p. 10). Assumptions of qualitative research include
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 80

interpreting phenomena for how people make meaning of them

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Specifically, we relied on a
phenomenological method for data collection and analysis.
According to van Manen (1990), “What first characterizes
phenomenological research is that it always begins in the
lifeworld” (p. 7). Extended, multiple phenomenological interviews
were the primary mode of understanding the essence of
participants’ ‘lifeworlds’ on the tenure track

Data Sources and Data Collection

For the purpose of understanding the experiences of women

faculty, we recruited women on the tenure track at two public
doctoral universities—one in New England and one in the mid-
Atlantic. Through purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling was
used to set up criteria for participants that would provide the
richest data (Patton, 2002). For our study, this was faculty who
identifed as women, was appointed as a full-time, and was on the
tenure track at a doctoral institution. Participants were recruited
with the assistance of administrators in the Provost’s Office and
The Center for Excellence in Teaching, respectively. Ultimately,
22 tenure track assistant professors consented to the larger Women
in the Academy study, and participants consisted of seven women
of color and 15 White women. The Women in the Academy study
is a longitudinal research project that interviewed women from
year one through one year after tenure (ended earlier for women
who did not earn tenure; approximately 4-5 total interviews per
women faculty member in the study) and sought to understand why
women faculty disproportionately leave the tenure track before
earning tenure.

Within the larger Women in the Academy study, we

identified ten participants who experienced being their household’s
breadwinner at one or more points during their time on the tenure
track (see Table 1). Such participants emerged due to distinct
themes related to their experiences compared to others in this study
who did not identify as their household’s breadwinner. Of the ten
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 81

participants, seven were employed in one institution and three in

the other. Additionally, all ten participants worked in fields that
are traditionally lower paying such as hearing/speech sciences,
education, counseling, sociology, English, and social work. This
coincidence enhanced our ability to study the phenomenon of
interest given this rich concentration of data (Merriam, 2009). Put
another way, perhaps themes related to participants’ breadwinner
experiences were more salient given the lower-paying fields in
which they worked compared to how themes might have emerged
had they worked in historically higher-paying fields such as the
sciences or medicine. The participants also held different
intersecting identities that impacted their experience (e.g. race,
nationality, sexual orientation). Of the ten participants, two were
U.S. faculty of color, one was an international faculty member of
color, and one was a White woman in a same-sex marriage. The
remaining six women were White and in different-sex marriages.

Given the few number of participants in each field, it was

not possible to analyze experiences based on discipline/field
differences, both in terms of department/college culture as the
study was focused on the examination of women faculty’s
experiences in public doctoral universities. This decision was
made because “the disparity at doctoral universities [is]
particularly striking (only one-fourth of tenured faculty were
women)” (Philipsen, 2008, p. 1). Moreover, according to Perna
(2001), although salaries at doctoral universities are associated
with higher salaries relative to other institution types, new assistant
professors experience the lowest salaries at doctoral institutions.
The sample used for this study is a rich site for data analysis, given
our participants’ status as women assistant professors at doctoral
universities.
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 82

Table 1

Participant Demographics
Faculty Field Race/Nationality/ Kids Partner Status Partner Status Tenured
Sexuality at Time of Hire Change
Angela Sociology White/ U.S./ 2 Looking for work Graduate school Yes
Heterosexual for career switch
Diana Education Filipino/ U.S./ 2 Looking for work Partner changed Yes
Heterosexual fields & found
work
Carrie Education White/ U.S./ 2 Looking for full- Part-time adjunct Yes
Hetero-sexual time faculty work work
Eva Education Filipino/ 2 Looking for work No change No
Philippines/
Heterosexual
Kathy Education White/ U.S./ 4 In failing self- Found work in Yes
Heterosexual employed related area
business
Kayla Counseling White/ U.S./ 2 Looking for work Found work in No
Heterosexual related area
Kendall Education Chinese/ U.S./ 0 Looking for full- Graduate school Yes
Hetero-sexual time faculty work for career switch
Stacey Social White/ U.S./ 2 Partner in part- No change Yes
Work Lesbian time work
Sydney English White/ U.S./ 3 Looking for full- Part-time adjunct Yes
Heterosexual time faculty work work
Tina Hearing & White/ U.S./ 2 Partner looking Partner changed No
Speech Heterosexual for work fields & found
Sciences work

Following a longitudinal research design, semi-structured,

phenomenological interviews with an open protocol were the
primary sources of data in this study. According to Kvale and
Brinkmann (2009), “A semi-structured life world interview
attempts to understand themes of the lived everyday world from
the subjects’ own perspectives . . . with respect to interpretation of
the meaning of the described phenomena” (p. 27). Participants
were interviewed every year of their tenure track until one year
after tenure or one year after they departed the institution.
Participants in this study participated in an average of five audio-
recorded, hour-long interviews and responded to seven questions
that pertained to their experience on the tenure track each year.
The interviews were then transcribed verbatim, and all transcripts
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 83

were read and re-read as a preliminary stage before coding. The

first stage of coding involved analyzing transcripts in order to
describe and interpret women faculty experiences. Second, we
coded for experiences related to a gendered organization in the
academy and third we analyzed transcripts from a power and
agency lens. The data were categorized into themes, and
commonalities and disparities within and across participants’
experiences were noted.

Measures to Increase Trustworthiness

We employed several strategies to both increase the accuracy of

our study (Creswell, 2013) and to attend to our positionality as
researchers. To enhance trustworthiness of the study, we
individually reviewed transcripts and came to independent
conclusions on the themes that emerged. We relied on intercoder
agreement (Creswell, 2013) to increase reliability of the study. For
example, after coding the first transcripts separately, we met and
came to agreement on what code was assigned to key passages in
participants’ transcripts. At each stage of data analysis, we had a
colleague check interpretations, categories, and themes that
emerged. This colleague was a woman faculty member from a
different department and cultural background than the researchers.
Our independent coding and subsequent analytical conversations
with a colleague and with each other increased credibility in the
study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).

The analytic conversations also enabled us to address our

researcher bias (Creswell, 2013). Our identities as women of color
with partners were essential to our positionality throughout
conceptualizing, conducting, and analyzing the study. As we read
the literature about women faculty with partners we sought to
understand how White and women of color were experiencing the
reality of being the breadwinner. One author experienced being
the breadwinner for her partner and children after earning tenure.
She reflected on how race, gender and her position of tenured
professor shaped her experience as a breadwinner to bring
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 84

awareness of her perspective as different from those seeking tenure

in this study. For the other author, as a woman of color with a
partner, she identified with the highlights and challenges
participants experienced in relationship to race and gender; yet, she
did not hold the position of a tenure track faculty member and did
not hold the role of breadwinner in her relationship. Thus, we
were both outside of the experience participants in this study had
of working toward tenure while being a breadwinner, but inside in
some ways of being women, women of color, and in the faculty
role (for one author). Our ongoing researcher reflexivity
(Creswell, 2013) and data analysis strategies enhanced the
trustworthiness and reliability of the study (Crewsell, 2013).
Themes that emerged from coding transcripts were the basis for the
findings reported for this study.

Findings

Although the original intention of the longitudinal study did not

include the explicit focus on women faculty as breadwinners,
salient themes related to this status emerged when participants
described their professional challenges. Through these
descriptions of professional challenges, the 10 women
breadwinners discussed how being the household breadwinner
impacted their tenure track experiences.

Based on that rich data, four themes emerged around how

they behaved relative to their role as breadwinners and the agency
they enacted. The first three themes related to the participants’
agentic behaviors: (a) feeling “stuck” or remaining in faculty roles
that did not bring them job satisfaction because of their obligation
as household breadwinner; (b) an inability to navigate certain
challenges they faced on the tenure track due to unsupportive
universities; and (c) altering their behavior in the presence of their
partner due to gendered norms around breadwinner status.

The fourth theme, related to participants’ agentic

perspectives, was (d) how women faculty in the study navigated
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 85

challenges through changing their perception. Participants focused

on the ‘flexible’ nature of their job, administrators who they
perceived as more supportive than others, the satisfaction they
gained from family relationships and support; and finding meaning
in their research and teaching. These agentic perspectives could be
considered buffers to challenges that inhibited women’s ability to
take action to advance their careers and support their families.
Women participants reframed the perception of challenges they
faced as a household breadwinner in order to survive on the tenure
track.

Feeling Stuck – “If You’re Supporting Your Whole Family

You’re Really Stuck”

Of the 22 women in the larger study, the 10 women faculty who

identified themselves as breadwinners all expressed an additional
layer of pressure to remain as viable candidates on the tenure track.
Participants were determined to earn tenure whether they were
satisfied with their job and desired to apply for different positions
or not. Put another way, although all women in the study wanted
to earn tenure so as to remain in the academy and advance their
research agendas and teaching practices, those who were
breadwinners felt an additional pressure to make decisions about
actions they would or would not take related to their career in order
to allow their families to survive financially.

Several examples highlight how women participant’s

ability or inability to take action was shaped by their role as
household breadwinner. Kayla shared how she experienced
additional pressure to remain in her faculty role, because “it was
kind of getting to a crisis point” mid-way through her tenure track
journey when her partner was out of work for one year. Kayla also
felt heightened pressure to be successful in her position because
she uprooted her family from their hometown for her job. She
said, “Well I wouldn’t say they’re [her family] rooting for me.
Everybody kind of hates the fact that we moved here . . . mostly
my son, who’s just turned 16, and my husband who’s still trying to
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 86

find a job down here.” Diana also remarked about supporting her
partner who was looking for work and their two kids, “the financial
piece is hard. We would love to travel more but it’s really hard for
us. We’re limited…because I have a teacher salary.” Sydney’s
partner was also looking for a full-time job when they moved for
her career. Sydney noted how her success on the tenure track was
tied to her ability to start a family. As she shared, “So, I mean the
financial stuff has been very difficult . . . I have to say I’m right
now deciding if I can have another kid in terms of tenure . . . and
that just to me seems awful to have to make that decision.”

Sydney also described how her sense of free will relative to

her job was impacted by her role as breadwinner,

I mean you always hear faculty are men supporting you

know stay at home wives, and it’s true. It’s not a well-paid
profession, so it’s sort of you’re really in a double bind
because you’re not making that much money, and then if
you’re supporting your whole family you’re really stuck.

Tina faced a similar challenge to her agentic action or behavior

when, midway through the tenure process, she realized she would
thrive better at an institution that valued teaching more or equal to
research productivity. However, because she already uprooted her
family and committed to her role as the family’s breadwinner in a
tenure track role, she thought that she could not apply for jobs
elsewhere. Tina explained,

Well I think I might have considered it [applying for a

different tenure track job] if I was in a different state in my
life . . . And there are several factors, personal factors, that
would prevent me from doing that. One of the biggest one
is that my husband is doing very well at his job here, and it
would not be a good time for us to pick up and uproot him
from his position. He basically moved to [name of state]
for me, quit his job, and happened to get the job he’s in
now . . . You know we moved here for my job . . . And the
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 87

honest thing is I have two kids, and I have a lot of family in

the region.

Related to Tina’s perspective of being stuck in her tenure track job

due to being the family’s breadwinner and being able to rely on
family support to assist with childcare, Carrie remarked,

Realizing I’m the primary wage earner in our family, and

you know if I don’t get to keep my job then a lot of people
are counting on me . . . I made a commitment to move here
and this is the third place I’ve been to, and I’m kind of tired
of moving. So it’s not so much like, you know if I didn’t
get tenure, okay. Pack up the kid, and sell the house and
move again.

Although Carrie was less worried about “finding another

job or anything like that”—and even felt confident she could
“probably even apply for associate jobs”—she did not want to put
her family through additional stress of moving again and enduring
the stress of her partner trying to search for a new job. Angela was
in a similar situation as her partner was out of work and back in
school to change career paths. If tenure did not work out she stated
she would not “have it in me to do the push for tenure at another
place.” Like Tina and Carrie, for Angela, “There’s no way I would
have moved the kids, because I think it would have been too hard
on them, and I had already moved them from Colorado to Ohio
and Ohio to here...”

Slightly counter to the women breadwinners who believed

they could not take action to move to a new job due to their role as
breadwinner, other women were open to uprooting their families
again if it meant they could be a more stable breadwinner in the
long-term. Eva—who viewed “the financial piece” as the “biggest
challenge” for her on the tenure track—worried, “Will we have
enough savings in the bank? You know the survival piece is still
there.” She also felt additional “stress and pressure of finding
another source of income” during the summer as she navigated the
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 88

“basic need to be able to earn enough to support your family.” A

few years into her tenure journey, this stress got to the point where
she questioned whether the institution was a place where she could
be successful and earn tenure, and this compelled her to start
searching for other jobs. Eva asserted,

I continue to support the family, but when you know that

you’re just on a nine-month contract, and you have no
source of income during the summers that leaves you with
a zero balance by the beginning of fall. And it was just
getting to be too much of an anxiety provoker and I began
to think I might be earning more somewhere and be doing
what I like.

In addition to ways in which women’s agentic behavior was

impacted by their role as breadwinner—and in the context of a
gendered academy—women’s agentic behavior was also affected
by a lack of institutional support.

Unsupportive Universities—“You Know There’s the Family

Medical Leave Act, But That’s Unpaid”

Women also named a lack of institutional support—relative to

their role as breadwinner—as a challenge to actions they wanted to
take toward the goal of earning tenure. All the participants
mentioned needing to take on extra paid work that ultimately
distracted from their research productivity as faculty members.

For example, Sydney shared, “I mean our salaries don’t

help. . .And so I know you don’t go into a profession for the
money but it’s constantly I’m going ‘Is this really worth the
compensation?’” Additionally, Tina said, “You know this summer
I wasn’t paid. I got no salary this summer except for the course I
taught . . . The rest of the time is supposed to – I’m unpaid, but I’m
supposed to be focusing on my research.” Tina also commented,
“We couldn’t afford to hire a nanny, and childcare is cripplingly
expensive even if you don’t hire nannies.” Tina further explained,
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 89

[B]ecause I’m a 9 1/2 month employee, of course I get no

annual leave. I get only sick leave, and they don’t have a
maternity leave. You basically have to use your
accumulated sick leave. You know there’s the Family
Medical Leave Act but that’s unpaid. . . . I would love not
to have to put her [child] into daycare until the summer if I
could.

Like Tina, Eva’s stress as the family’s breadwinner was

impacted by the terms of her nine-month contract. She stated, “I
had expressed in the past how unhappy my family situation was
because of the pressures we were experiencing financially. Being
on a nine-month contract can put so much pressure especially
when summer months start coming. And living in [New England
region], it’s just um a higher standard of living…” Eva noted how
her status as an international tenure track faculty member on a
work visa exacerbated her inability to take action to earn tenure
and support her family,

I’m confined to your university, so I have no other source

of income. I can’t get extra for conferences or anything like
that. Last, my husband cannot work [due to visa
stipulations]. I’m the sole breadwinner of the family . . .
[T]here’s so many things going on which I feel [name of
institution] could support us a little more by sort of being
on top of that process. Stacey also felt unsupported by her
institution due to the low salary she earned in the

context of “trying to raise these two kids and love them and
support them and survive financially” and with her partner
working part-time. Stacey asserted, that “even with the union,”
she “felt a very strong lack of support from the university by their
fooling around over the salary negotiations.” Stacey also shared,

I think that’s absolutely inexcusable given what the salaries

are and how low they are . . . Completely disrespectful . . .
They [central administration] asked me to put time into
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 90

helping them with strategic planning . . . [N]othing

happened, you know? . . . We owe the students more. We
owe the faculty more. We owe the staff more than that, and
we can do better.

Also, Stacey explained she was initially offered $36,000 as

an assistant professor and made $50,000 as a doctoral student. To
increase the offer, she “pushed and pushed and pushed and I
pushed” to $39,000. Yet, she remained frustrated, as “I learned
enough from my doctoral program that the words and the music
have to go together or you’re in the wrong place. And all the
words were the right words, which drew me to that doctoral
program, but the music was wrong.” She considered returning to
“consulting work” on the side, but she decided, “It just doesn’t
work you know? Nor do I want to be seen by other faculty as out
doing other things rather than what I’m supposed to be doing.” In
addition to not feeling supported by their institution as women
faculty breadwinners due to financial strain and a lack of family
leave policies—except for the Family Medical Leave Act that
provided unpaid leave—the absence of support around their
partner’s job search was also cited as a challenge to their agency to
thrive on the tenure track.

Another challenge that impacted women’s agentic behavior

stemmed from the fact that many of their partners were the
accompanying partner and needed to find new work when they
relocated. None of the women in this study were hired with a
clause in their contract for a partner hire. Kayla, who began her
tenure track role as a visiting assistant professor, drew upon her
institution’s resources to help her partner find work. Kayla stated,

The university has this–an office that’s supposed to help

the spouses of faculty. So I went to her [a staff member in
the office], and my husband had tried connecting with
them; but basically this woman gave him a list of websites
for job searching…
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 91

While the institution did technically provide spousal support for

faculty, the support Kayla’s partner received was not helpful. This
lack of support led Kayla to take further action, and she sought
support from her dean despite hesitancies around the power
dynamic, as the dean would impact Kayla’s tenure decision. Kayla
shared,

The dean’s husband works in the field [same field as

Kayla’s partner], and so I went to her to ask her just if she
had any contacts either within the university or outside the
university for him to follow up on . . . It was really difficult
to both be trying to focus on doing a good job here and
finishing my dissertation and dealing with him [Kayla’s
partner] . . . So anything the university could do . . . And
her [dean] first response to me was ‘Well I can’t do
anything for you. You haven’t completed your doctorate
and how long have you been here so far and you’re still not
done yet?’ . . . What I think she was trying to say was there
are resources in the university for faculty on tenure track
for retention of faculty. Well I’m not on a tenure track
technically

Although the institution endorsed Kayla’s initial hire as a visiting

assistant professor (before ultimately moving her into a tenure
track assistant professor role), their lack of support for her
partner’s hire impeded her ability to take actions she needed to be
successful in her job—such as complete her dissertation.

Eva also experienced a lack of support around her partner

finding work and relayed the toll it took being a person of color in
a state that severely lacked racial and ethnic diversity. She stated,

My husband’s job search in [name of state] has been a very

demeaning process. It did not take long for him to realize
that his race and ethnicity were getting in the way of
obtaining a job . . . When you live in a place where you
have no voice, where you are considered invisible and
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 92

unimportant, it affects the way you view yourself as well as

your outlook in life.

The lack of institutional support and one institution being in an

overwhelmingly White area of the U.S., added strain of having
partners who were out of work while these women faculty tried to
be successful on the tenure track.

As alluded to in relationship to women participant’s challenges to

“making it work” with lower salaries and less than 12-month
contracts, when women participants took action to seek out more
income to help their families survive, this detracted from their
ability to be successful on the tenure track. Of this challenge, Tina
stated,

You know we were going around and around about who

would teach it [an additional summer course in her
department], and the real motivating factor for me was that
my husband and I could really use the summer salary. You
know cause your summer salary goes down, so you know it
was really more of an economic decision. And I wish I
wasn’t making it . . . I need to be so focused on my
research this summer and this is gonna take another six
weeks away from [research].

Like Tina, Eva also needed to take on extra work to support

her family, and this detracted from her productivity. She said,
“And sometimes I’d take on two sections of ‘Race and Culture’
every semester and I would do that because that was my only way
to compensate for the summer months when I wouldn’t be
employed.”

Kathy also tried to find ways to manage paid work that

could count toward her service on the tenure track. She stated, “So
I don’t feel like I would have to apologize to anyone cause I
could—I know I can say without any hesitation ‘Hey that
worked…’ Yeah it puts money on the table, and that’s really
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 93

critical for me but it also informs my work as a professional.” Yet,

Kathy shared, “if we were better compensated I wouldn’t need to
do as much of that as I do.” As with the other women in this study,
Kathy noted taking on extra work to support their households “has
to diminish somewhat you’re ability to do the stuff that you’re
primarily paid to do.” Katie said the extra paid work had “less to
do with tenure than it just has to do with making ends meet.”

In addition to the practical strain that finding more sources

of income put on the women’s ability to focus on the goal of
earning tenure, these challenges also added a layer of
psychological or emotional stress for the women participants.
Although Tina wanted to take time away from teaching to focus
more on her research, she wished that she could say, “I’m gonna be
gone for the semester, and just don’t pay me.” Then Tina noted,
“But then my husband and I would probably lose our house, and I
don’t think they’d look on that real favorably here.” Also, for Eva,
it was difficult for her “to think straight when you’re stressed out
about life and making ends meet.” Another challenge to women
participant’s agentic action or behavior relates to gendered norms
around the breadwinner’s identity.

Responding to Gendered Norms—“And as a Man, It’s Almost

Harder, Because It’s a Man Not Working”

Different from relationship-related challenges that women in the

larger study experienced—such as their partners not understanding
the demands of tenure track faculty life—women breadwinners
experienced strains on partnerships due to gendered norms around
breadwinner status—(i.e., men or men-identified partners as the
prototypical breadwinner). This strain resulted in women adjusting
their perspectives on their accomplishments—such as a publication
or a positive mid-tenure review. Instead of viewing their
accomplishments with satisfaction or pride, they downplayed their
success and felt guilty for their achievement. For example, Kathy
who was “the main breadwinner for quite a few years” before her
husband was offered a job shared,
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 94

I think a challenge for us is because a lot of times he sees

himself as supporting my role, yet he sees me as the
primary breadwinner. That creates some tension for us. Its
created some tension about how he feels about what he
does, and how the world perceives him. At times when I
feel really good about work, sometimes I think it may
diminish how he feels about his contribution to the family .
. . And as a man, it’s almost harder because it’s a man not
working.

Carrie also felt the need to protect her partner from her
accomplishments as the family’s breadwinner. She stated, “Yeah.
He has a Ph.D. and he can’t get an academic job, so I can’t really
you know – I don’t like going home and saying, ‘I’m great.’ You
know because it’s a sore spot for him so.” Diana, too,
acknowledged her partner’s “sacrifice” of quitting his job so they
could move for her tenure track position. In her taking on the role
as breadwinner she shared, “He really has made a big sacrifice . . .
[H]e never blames me, but sometimes it has been hard now and
then. . . . [H]e talks about, ‘Well I feel like your life will still be
starting and mine will be ending…’” Kendall also noted how—
even though she was her household’s breadwinner—her partner
still wanted to prioritize his career. She stated,

The thing that makes me bitter about him though is he—

you know as he looks for his job he is completely
singularly focused on what it is that he wants. And he never
really asks me like how is this gonna work with starting a
family . . . Where are the good school systems? What’s a
decent commute for both of us?

In addition to challenges that inhibited or facilitated particular

agentic behaviors, there was a final fourth theme related to
women’s agentic perspectives as they navigated the challenges of
both earning tenure and being the household breadwinner.
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 95

Changing Perspective—“If I Only Cared About Money I

Wouldn’t Be Doing This”

In addition to the previously discussed themes, there were

commonalities in how women breadwinners framed their
experiences in the context of the challenges they faced to keep
their families financially viable. Viewing their tenure track jobs as
flexible, supportive senior administrators or colleagues, supportive
families and partners, and finding meaning in their work as faculty
collectively facilitated women’s ability to take action toward their
goal of tenure in the context of their role as their household’s
breadwinner.

To earn extra income, women breadwinners took advantage

of the flexibility they perceived in their faculty role. Most of the
women were nine-month salaried employees; consequently, to
make ends meet they took on additional work to earn more income
for the other three months of the year—even if this extra work
detracted from their need to produce research. Kendall explained,
“I went into higher ed because it’s portable.” Angela agreed that,
“a perk is having a portable job…” and noted how her partner who
was finishing a teacher education graduate program allowed them
both to be teachers “which will be nice” due to having “so much
time in the summer.” By ‘portable’, the women referred to the
ways in which their work could be performed outside of one set
space or time, which for them was a benefit.

In addition, although some women did not have the support

of senior level administrators in easing the challenges of being the
breadwinner right away in their career or at all, some perceived
senior administrators as supportive relative to their goal of earning
tenure. For example, toward the end of Eva’s tenure track
experience, she built a strong relationship with a new dean. Eva
said, “She’s given me an opportunity to have a research
assistantship in places outside of our university where I could also
receive extra income.” Furthermore, Tina discussed how the
encouragement of a senior colleague to apply for a grant resulted
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 96

in a successful application. Tina stated, “So that was – the nice

thing about that internal grant is it essentially gave me summer
salary support without my having to teach so that I can focus 100%
this summer on collecting data and writing, which is exactly what I
have to do.”

Too, all of the women in this study repeatedly underscored

the ways in which their partners or family members (e.g., children,
parents) supported their path. This support mitigated women’s
feelings of guilt toward pursuing a less financially lucrative career
and, in some cases, uprooting their families to take the tenure track
job. For example, Alice shared, “I mean I feel like I’m very lucky.
I mean my husband is totally supportive.” Diana relayed how in
her first year she got two publications out to journals and credited
her partner being home with the kids so she had time to stay at
work at write,

[M]y husband . . . is staying at home—and there’s no rush

to do things before [kids are out of school]. And he’s also
been very supportive. He knew that was my goal and he
knows it’s my goal to get tenure so that I really think that
played a great factor into my ability to finish that [journal
articles].

Of her greatest support, Kathy also stated, “Family, my husband . .

. shopping and a lot of cooking and a lot of laundry. He does a lot
of transportation of kids, and that has been really, really helpful.”
Tracy commented, “You feel like you’re just suffering in this little
bubble . . . He is the greatest emotional support I have, and he’s
been really wonderful and I think he’s as understanding as he can
be.” Kayla, whose husband eventually became more supportive of
her needing to move to a different institution to earn tenure shared,
“And him being supportive of that [needing to apply for different
jobs] so that I’m not feeling stuck. You know for a while, for a
long while I think I was feeling stuck.”
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 97

Furthermore, when women in this study felt stressed about

making ends meet, they reframed that challenge by reminding
themselves of why they chose the career path of a tenure track
faculty member. The meaning the women found usually circled
back to was their love for research or for teaching their students.
The role of students in women’s career satisfaction is explored in
more depth in another study based on the larger longitudinal study
(Author, 2012). Kathy’s comment exemplifies what most women
landed on when they considered all of the challenges to thriving
financially as a breadwinner and ‘making it’ on the tenure track.
She stated, “And I do value–I do value this job tremendously, and
if I only cared about money I wouldn’t be doing this. I might be
doing something in education but it wouldn’t be working here.”

Discussion

Women faculty breadwinners are antithetical to how the tenure

system was designed in the academy. The findings from this study
support previous research on the gendered organization of faculty
life (Kelly & Fetridge, 2012; Perna, 2003; Ward & Wolf-Wendel,
2004) and add to what is known when the role of breadwinner is
considered. Through the framework of agency in tandem with a
critical feminist approach, this study provided a different lens
through which to make meaning of participants’ experiences. As
shown in the findings, women faculty’s agentic actions and
perspectives were shaped by the gendered context of the academy
and their identity as women breadwinners.

For instance, a lack of institutional support around partner

hires and gendered norms around accompanying partners and
breadwinners challenged women participant’s ability to shape their
career and work toward tenure. Embedded in this lack of support
is arguably the gendered idea that male faculty’s spouses work in
the home and do not need gainful employment. Related to
gendered norms around breadwinner identity, women exhibited
agentic behaviors that downplayed their success on the tenure
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 98

track. The gendered notion that men should be the breadwinners

and providers of their families was in tension with the reality of
women’s lives. This tension resonates with existing literature on
the ideal worker who is male and untethered by outside
responsibilities (Acker, 1990; Bailyn, 2003; Drago & Williams,
2000; Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Hochschild, 1989; Sallee, 2012;
Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012).

In addition, the model of nine-month contracts for tenure

track faculty presumes that faculty can financially support
themselves based on the salary earned during the academic year.
This assumption does not take into consideration that the woman
faculty member is the household breadwinner and further
accentuates how such breadwinners differ from the ideal worker
(Sallee, 2012). Nine-month contracts also worsen the impact of
statistics that show women earn less salary than male counterparts
(Perna, 2000; Umbach, 2007). In response to these institutional
assumptions, participants exhibited agentic behaviors by seeking-
out extra teaching and consulting in order to stay financially afloat.
Participants also exhibited agentic behaviors that detracted from
their goal of tenure, as they spent valuable summer months to earn
money to support their families. These decisions were
compounded by knowing if they did not earn tenure, their family
members’ sacrifice of quitting jobs, changing schools, and
relocating were in vain.

Furthermore, women participants maintained particular

agentic perspectives of faculty life in relationship to challenges
they faced. Consistent with the literature on agency in academia
(Campbell & O’Meara, 2013; O’Meara, 2015), agentic
perspectives are typically a response to barriers and opportunities.
Women in this study exhibited agentic perspectives in response to
barriers to their success on the tenure track more so than to
opportunities. For example, the women faculty cited supportive
families and memories of why they initially entered the academy
as agentic perspectives toward perceived barriers. Some
participants viewed senior stakeholders in their institutions as
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 99

supportive—such as Eva’s new dean who enabled her to take on

research-related work that also provided an opportunity to earn
money; and Tina’s senior colleague who encouraged her to apply
for a grant.

In addition, this study resulted in interpretations of agency

relative to the extant literature. Agency has largely been
researched from the perspective of White women faculty members
(Campbell & O’Meara, 2013; O’Meara, 2015), but the ways in
which women faculty in our study’s intersecting identities shaped
their experience with agency is instructive. O’Meara (2015) noted
that gender identity intersects with race, nationality, discipline, and
family status that may limit the privilege and use of agency in the
faculty role. Unlike the tenured women faculty who were involved
in National Science Foundation ADVANCE programs in
O’Meara’s (2015) study, this study’s participants were untenured
and lacked the status and job security that typically coincides with
tenure. For example, Eva, an international faculty member had
agentic perspective of securing funding for summer months in such
a way that would not violate her visa status, but was unable to
access such funding until a new dean, woman of color, came to the
university and worked with her to secure an internal grant.
Unfortunately, Eva’s partner still faced racism and visa stipulations
that kept him out of work and unable to contribute financially to
their household. Intersecting identities of being untenured,
working in low-salary field, being an international faculty member
of color in an overwhelmingly White university and geographic
location, having two children, and being a breadwinner negatively
impacted Eva’s agency and ultimately contributed to her leaving
the university before earning tenure.

Kayla and Tina also did not earn tenure at their original
university despite exhibiting their agency (O’Meara, 2015). In
Kayla’s case, she used her agentic behavior to ask her dean for
partner hire assistance and worked with the university office for
spousal assistance. However, due to her initial status as a visiting
professor, the behaviors did not result in the university providing
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 100

effective partner hire support. Tina employed agentic perspectives

to use her summers to conduct research; but, due to her intersecting
identities of her family status and lower-prestige discipline for
large funding opportunities, she spent her summers teaching to
provide financially for her family. Thus, women faculty
breadwinners in this study enacted “alternatives to grand narratives
through their framing of context and their role in them” (O’Meara,
2015, p. 332) in the context of a work environment that supports a
very different type of worker and perpetuates cumulative
disadvantages (Grant et al., 2000; Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006).

Implications

Implications for institutional practice and future research are many.

For instance, women faculty breadwinners cited paid maternity
leave being non-existent or unpaid through the Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA). Other researchers (O’Meara & Campbell,
2011) found faculty may not take leave offered by institutions for
fear of being seen as needing extra time to meet tenure
requirements. This culture is one that can be addressed through
policies that encourage not only women faculty breadwinners who
have children but all faculty—such as those who must care for an
aging parent or ill family member and men-identified faculty who
wish to use paternity leave. Thus, a policy for encouraging women
to have paid leave for childbirth or adoption could have larger
implications and serve a wider audience of faculty. Therefore,
beyond supporting leave through federal mandates (i.e., the
FMLA), we recommend that department chairs provide, not only
in theory, but also in practice, the use of sick time and vacation
days so that faculty have access to paid leave when they need it
most. Paid leave is of particular importance when a faculty
member is a breadwinner. In this study, women faculty
breadwinners did not mention such resources being available and
wished institutions provided better support for their faculty as not
only workers, but people with outside responsibilities. Senior
administrators such as department chairs must communicate these
policies to untenured women faculty who are new to a university
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 101

system and exist in a gendered context is critical. Of the resources

that could have reduced participants’ anxiety and increased their
agency are paid maternity leave, partner job support beyond
websites to browse, subsidized childcare provided by the
institution, opportunities for summer research stipends especially
when nine month contracts are employed, and higher starting
salaries. It is encouraging that seven of the ten women faculty
breadwinners in this study earned tenure and could use their
position as associate professors to push for cultural shifts.
However, as O’Meara’s (2015) study of tenured and full women
professors found, rarely did women use their agency to challenge
the system; rather they used their agency to work around or within
a gendered system.

With a study of ten breadwinners at research universities,

there is more research needed on how women faculty experience
the compounding factor of being a breadwinner on the tenure
track. For example, additional studies that examine the
intersection of gender and breadwinner status with race, citizenship
(e.g., international faculty), sexual orientation, socioeconomic
status, ability, faith, academic discipline, among other identities
would add to the literature. Last, research that critically examines
the institution’s “accountability for eliminating gendered practices”
(O’Meara, 2015, p. 333) is needed. No matter how much agency
women faculty breadwinners exhibit, if an institution does not
address the gendered organization of faculty life, implications of
studies such as the present one will relate to imaginary rather than
real contexts.

Conclusion

Overall, the pressures that women faced in being the primary

breadwinners for their households while on the tenure track caused
them to question the cost-benefit ratio of whether the tenure track
was “worth the compensation” they received. For the ten women
faculty in this study, being their family’s primary breadwinner
functioned as a lesser researched compounding challenge on the
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 102

tenure track; and, for some women, inhibited their ability to

ultimately earn tenure at their original institution. For the seven
who earned tenure, the compounding role of being a breadwinner
resulted in an additional source of stress throughout participants’
journey toward tenure. As institutions continue to hire women—
many of whom might be their household’s breadwinner in addition
to having to face the many challenges that women faculty already
encounter according to the literature—institutions must do more
than simply rely on women faculty knowing how to navigate a
gendered academy. Institutions must also remember that policies
and practices are acted out on real bodies and should support rather
than unnecessarily impede women faculty breadwinners’ success
and contributions to the academy.

References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered
organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. DOI:
10.1177/089124390004002002

Acker, S. & Armenti, C. (2004). Sleepless in academia. Gender

and Education, 16, 3-24.

Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

August, L., & Waltman, C. (2004). Culture, climate, and

contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty.
Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 177–192.

Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons

learned from MIT. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2),
137–153. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0432.00008
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 103

Bensimon, E. & Marshall, C. (2000). Policy analysis for

postsecondary education: Feminist and critical
perspectives. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B. K. Townsend and B.
Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher education: A
feminist perspective, (pp. 133-147). Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publsihing.

Bird, G.W. & Bird, G.A. (1987). In pursuit of academic careers:

Observations and reflections of a dual-career couple.
Family Relations, 36, 97-100.

Campbell, C. & O’Meara, K. (2013). Faculty agency:

Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers.
Research in Higher Education, 54(4). 49−74. DOI
10.1007/s11162–013–9303-x

Creswell, (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research: Choosing

among the five approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Christman, D. (2003). Women faculty in higher education:

Impeded by academe. Advancing Women in Leadership
Journal, Winter,1-16. Retrieved on April 13, 2005 from
www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter2003/CHRIST~1.ht
ml

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative

research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Drago, R. & Williams, J. (2000). ‘A half-time tenure track

proposal’, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32,
46–51. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601767
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 104

Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in

organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis
and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22,
103–151. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2

Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’? A

qualitative study of gender and work-life balance among
men and women in mid-life. Gender, Work and
Organization, 16(1), 151–172.

Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K. & Schuster, J. (1998). The new

academic generation: A profession in transformation.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ganz, M. (2010). Leading change: Leadership, organization and

social movements. In N. Nohira & R. Khurana (Eds.), The
handbook of leadership and practice (pp. 509–550).
Danvers, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gardner, S. K. (2013). Women faculty departures from a striving

institution. Between a rock and a hard place. The Review of
Higher Education, 36(3), 349-370. DOI:
10.1353/rhe.2013.0025

Glazer-Raymo, J. (2001). The fragmented paradigm: Women,

tenure, and schools of education. In W. Tierney (Ed.),
Faculty work in schools of education: Rethinking roles and
rewards for the twenty-first century, (pp. 169-187). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Grant, L., Kennely, I., & Ward, K. (2000). Revisiting the gender,
marriage, and parenthood puzzle in scientific careers.
Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28(1), 62-85.

Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and

the revolution at home. New York: Viking Press.
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 105

Jobe, D. (2004). “On track.” American Association of University

Women Outlook 98, 8-13.

Kelly, B. T., & Fetridge, J. (2012). The role of students in the

expience of women faculty on the tenure track. NASPA
Journal about Women in Higher Education, 5(1), 22-45.

Kelly, B. T., McCann, K. (2013). Women of color: Success stories

from the margins. Journal of the International Asscoation
for the Study of the Global Achievement Gap, 2013-2014
Special Issue: The Contempary Global Glass Ceiling in the
Academy1, 29-44. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/jiasgag/

Kelly, B. T., & McCann, K. (2014). Women faculty of color:

Stories behind the statistics. The Urban Review, 46(4), 681-
702.

Kelly, B. T., McCann, K., & Porter, K. (2018). White women’s

faculty socialization: Persisting within and against a
gendered tenure system. The Review of Higher Education,
41(4), 523-547.

Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft

of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Maranto, C. L, & Griffin, A. E. (2010). The antecedents of a

‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education.
Human relations, 64(2), 139-159. DOI:
10.1177/001B726710377932

Marshall, V. (2000, Aug). Agency, structure, and the life course in

the era of reflexive modernization. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Washington, DC.
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 106

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, D.C., & Skeen, A. (1997). POSSLQs and PSSSLQs:

Unmarried academic couples. In M.A. Ferber & J.W. Loeb
(Eds.), Academic couples: Problems and promises (pp.
106-127). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Moen, P. & Sweet, S. (2002). Two careers, one employer: Couples

working for the same corporation. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 466-483.

Moody, J. (2004). Supporting women and minority faculty.

Academe, 47-52.

Nettles, M., Perna, L.W., Bradburn, E.M. & Zimbler, L. (2000).

Salary, promotion,and tenure status of minority and women
faculty in U.S. colleges and universities. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2000-173).

O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives

of women faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 86(3),
332- 359.

O’Meara, K. & Campbell, C. (2011). Faculty sense of agency in

decisions about work and family. Review of Higher
Education, 34(3), 447-476.

O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011,

November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual
framework for research and action. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Charlotte, NC.

O'Meara, K. & Stromquist, N. (2015). Faculty peer networks: Role

and relevance in advancing agency and gender equity.
Gender and Education. 27(3), 338-358. DOI:
10.1080/09540253.2015.1027668
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 107

Patton, M. (2002). (3rd ed.) Qualitative evaluation and research

methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Perna, L.W. (2000). Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort

analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Perna, L.W. (2001). Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and
promotion. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 541-567.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196442

Perna, L.W. (2003). Studying faculty salary equity: A review of

theoretical and methodological approaches. In J.C. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research,
18 (pp. 323-388). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Phillipsen, M. I. (2008). Challenges of the faculty career for

women: Success and sacrifice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Higher and Adult Education.

Quinn, M. & Rubb, S. (2010). Spouse overeducation and family

migration: Evidence from the U.S. Journal of Family
Economic Issues, 32, 36- 45.

Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M.D. & Austin, A. (2000). Heeding new

voices: Academic careers for a new generation. New
Pathways Inquiry #7. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.

Ropers-Huilman, R., & Winters, K.T. (2011). Feminist research in

higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 82(6), 667-
690. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2011.0035

Sallee, M. W. (2013). Gender norms and institutional culture: The

family-friendly versus the father-friendly
university. Journal of Higher Education, 84(3), 363-396.
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-012-9256-5
Journal of the Professoriate (10)1 108

Sallee, M. W. (2012). The ideal worker or the ideal father:

Organizational structures and culture in the gendered
university. Research in Higher Education, 53(7), 782-802.

Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling

possibility: Women associate professors’ sense of agency
in career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 7(1), 58-76. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035775

Tierney, W. & Bensimon, E. (1996). Promotion and tenure:

Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY:
Statue University of New York Press.

Toutkoushian, R. K. (1998). Sex matters less for younger faculty:

Evidence of disaggregate pay disparities from the 1988 and
1993 NCES surveys. Economics of Education Review,
17(1), 55-71. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7757(97)00015-0.

Trautvetter, L. C. (1999). Experiences of women, experiences of

men. In R.J. Menges (Ed.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to
settling in, becoming established, and building institutional
support, (pp. 59-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor

market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in
Higher Education, 48(2), 169-192.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Full-time instructional

faculty in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity,
sex, and academic rank: Fall 2007, fall 2009, and fall 2011.
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_264.asp

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human

science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Abany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Women Faculty as the Breadwinner/Kelly & McCann 109

Ward, K. & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Academic motherhood:

Managing complex roles in research universities. Review of
Higher Education, 27(2), 233-257. Retrieved from
http://education.washington.edu/areas/edlps/profiles/faculty
/nerad/Ward-Academic%20Motherhood.pdf

Ward, K. & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). Academic motherhood: How

faculty manage workand family. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Wolf-Wendel, L., & Ward, K. (2006). Academic life and

motherhood: Variations by institutional type. Higher
Education, 52(3), 487-521. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735024

Wolf-Wendel, L., Twombly, S., & Rice, S. (2000). Dual-career

couples: Keeping them together. Journal of Higher
Education, 71, 291-321. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ608289