women at emory: the present
Claire E. Sterk

Women are relatively new to the academic landscape, while men continue to dominate the faculty labor force. Nationwide, one in four faculty members are women compared to one in three at Emory. A quick review of key indicators related to gender equity—such as compensation, tenure and promotion rates, leadership roles, and awards—reveals relatively equal treatment of men and women at Emory. For example, on average, the adjusted faculty compensation for women and men is virtually equal at all ranks, and the data show no significant differences between women and men regarding tenure and pro motion decisions, sabbaticals, and professional development resources such as internal grants for teaching and research. Moreover, no major gender differences are identified when counting the representation of women in more visible roles such as department chair, committee chair, distinguished chairs, academic leadership, and faculty governance roles.  

At the same time, the available quantitative data show an unequal representation of men and women across the University. For example, whereas women form a majority of the nursing faculty, they constitute a minority in schools such as business, theology, and medicine. In 2006 women represented approximately 33 percent of the tenure-track and tenured faculty in the School of Medicine and 42 percent in Emory College. In addition, the gender distribution across ranks is uneven, with women being overrepresented at the lower tenure-track and non-tenure ranks. In the past decade Emory has worked to improve the number of women at the professorial rank, and in 2006 approached the national average of 20 percent. Nevertheless, that leaves us with only one in five women holding the title of professor. Contrary to the pattern among male professors, a majority of the women were promoted from within. Some observers view this as a positive trend, while others perceive this practice as perpetuating the myth that high-status professors often are men who are recruited from the outside. The key is that there appear to be different patterns for men and women, and we need to ask ourselves why that is the case. Furthermore, we must recognize that quantitative indicators capture a partial picture of the aggregate level that reveals a "regression to the mean" while ignoring outliers.    

When moving from numbers to academic culture, the data show a differential engagement of men and women in faculty service activities. Anecdotal information from across the University and recent systematic data collection in some of the units show that men are more likely to be involved in visible and higher-status service activities than their female counterparts. Women more commonly serve in time-consuming and less-prominent service roles that are difficult to capture quantitatively. The commitment to service and institution building are salient themes in conversations about the differences in the career trajectories of female and male faculty. It is important that we build on the experience and strength of each individual and strive for a balanced engagement from members of all groups independent of their perceived or allocated status. A more nuanced approach involves an inquiry into the everyday reality behind the numerical facts, including an exploration of the culture at all levels—ranging from clusters within departments to departments, academic units, and the University at large. For example, women-sensitive central policies will have little impact unless translated into everyday practice and honored in small-scale interactions.  

Some of the most powerful lessons I have had about the reality behind numbers come from my involvement outside the academy. As a social scientist studying HIV/AIDS since its emergence in the 1980s, numerical data allowed for the identification of risk and protective factors, the geographical and social clustering, and trends across time. However, upon reviewing the life histories of those impacted by the virus, I quickly realized that it was a proxy for many other aspects of their lives, including the intersection of poverty, racism, sexism, and stigmatization.  

Within the University, there is a similar need to bridge statistical and real-life significance. The result will be a cultural environment that considers numbers as well as lived experiences. I find myself drawing comparisons with the formative collaboration we conducted in preparing a women-specific HIV risk-reduction intervention. The goal is not telling people what to do but assisting them in setting their own priorities. Too often, programs are designed to achieve specific outcomes, ignoring the importance of the processes that yield the desired results.  

When reflecting on the status of women at Emory, I recognize how I have had remarkable opportunities. If my employee ID were pulled out as an exemplar of women at Emory, it would identify a faculty member who moved successfully along the career trajectory and who has been offered several opportunities to lead. What the numbers do not show are the many people who have served as my mentors, who nurtured me and listened to me, who provided me with the confidence to take risks, and who supported my determination to have an impact on the world through small but important changes. It is from them that I learned to do the same for the next generation. Often, I remind myself that I may be busy but that I still have control over setting my priorities and that humor can go a long way.  

Our individual experiences differ, as do the meanings we attach to these. As a consequence, the same experience may be perceived as positive or negative depending on who we are, whom we are with, and how we interpret and reinterpret the event. When reinterpreting some key turning points in my life, I recognized that some accomplishments were not due only to luck and being at the right place at the right time, but also due to my commitment and the recognition by others of the contributions I could make. A true contribution is made in collaboration and without creating divisions.  

Most of us are members of multiple communities and typically hold several social roles. However, it is a human tendency to emphasize one role and to categorize persons. I recall an instance where an idea that I proposed as a faculty member was perceived entirely differently when I proposed it after accepting a partial administrative role. I was even more stunned when the same male colleague told me that he had no work experience with a woman in a leadership role. When I responded that we were in this together, he pointed out that I was the one who had chosen a different path.   Subsequently, I have had similar experiences and find myself regularly shifting between an assigned insider and outsider role in the various worlds in which I operate. I also learned that I experienced challenges from women different than those posed by men, especially given that I sometimes am accused of having drifted off into a man’s world. I never will tire of explaining that without blurring the lines between the different worlds, positive change will be much slower. At a personal level, such experiences have taught me to differentiate between who I am and what I do and to treasure knowing that nobody can reduce me to just one social role. Such encounters also highlighted the value of being proactive when it comes to change as opposed to waiting for it to occur or asking others to do it for us. I have come to recognize the power of small steps toward the achievement of a larger vision.  

We have much to be proud of regarding the status of women a t Emory. Nevertheless, there is room for important continued action. For example, we want to continue increasing the number of women at all levels of the academy. At the same time, and maybe more important, we want to ensure that we shape a culture that is supportive and accepting of diversity, where people do not feel isolated, and where people are willing to tackle existing barriers by stepping outside their comfort zone. In doing so at Emory, we must consider the larger picture of University policies and practices while also staying attuned to the everyday experiences in the classroom or the laboratory, at department meetings, and in our formal and informal interactions with each other.

Consider the tension surrounding the University’s maternity and other leave policies and their implementation. In some schools, women are told that although the policies exist, the financial means for individuals to make use of them are not available. In some departments, male as well as female colleagues have labeled those seeking such leave as failing to carry their fair load. Together, we have the power to create practices, norms, and values that bring us closer to our goal of equity and excellence. To date, we have made major strides, but much work is left to be done.

Claire E. Sterk is senior vice provost for academic planning and faculty development and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Public Health. Her scholarship covers areas such as women’s health, health disparities, and community-based prevention interventions.