SPECIAL SECTION: THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK
EDUCATION
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Izumi Sakamoto
Beverly A. McPhail
University of Toronto
University of Houston
Jeane W. Anastas
Lisa G. Colarossi
New York University
Fordham University
This invited study sought to determine the current status of women in social
work education for the special section of the Journal of Social Work Education.
Analysis of the latest data available indicate that gender differences remain pervasive across many aspects of social work education, including pay, rank, job
duties, and tenure. Women appear disadvantaged in almost all areas analyzed
when compared to men. Additionally, pilot study data collected in Canada suggest that women academics are similarly disadvantaged. The article concludes
with a discussion of the limitations of available data, broader contextual issues
for women in social work, and suggestions for implementing change.
AS AN INVTTED STUDY for this Special section that
addresses women in social work education,
the authors were charged with the task of
assessing and reporting on the current status
of female faculty within the profession. To
place this assessment in context, a brief history
of the status of women within the profession
precedes the more current literature review.
To ascertain the current status of women
in social work academia, an analysis of secondary data from the Council on Social Work
Education (CSWE) was conducted. In the
interest of inclusivity and gaining international perspectives, a pilot project was undertaken in Canada to collect preliminary
data about the status of female academics.
. deemed particularly necessary due to the
absence of ongoing national data collection.
The pilot study was designed to gather preliminary data to inform future directions for
research. The ultimate goal of the analyses
is to identify and address equity issues between female and male faculty, which seems
especially important in a profession that values social and economic justice. The article
concludes with an assessment of the current
status of women in social work education in.
the United States and Canada, a discussion
of the limitations of available data, the
broader contextual issues for women in
social work, and suggestions for implementing change.
Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Winter 2008).
Copyright © 2008, Councii on Sociai Woric Education, inc. Aii rights reserved.
37
38
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Literature Review
The examination of the status of women
within the social work profession intensified
U.S. and Canadian Women in Sociai
Woric
during the second wave of the women's
movement during the 1960s and 1970s reveal-
Social work has long beeri termed "a woman's
ing sexism (Chafetz, 1972; Kravetz, 1976;
profession" (Kadushin, 1976; Scotch, 1971), a
Rosenblatt, Turner, Patterson, & RoUosson,
"female dominated" profession (Stromberg,
1970; Scotch, 1971; Valentich & Gripton, 1978),
1988), and a "semi-profession" (Etzioni, 1969).
sex role stereotyping (Brager & Michael,
In the United States, women comprise 79% of
1969), sexist assumptions about the nature of
the membership of the National Association of
the profession (Meyer, 1982), and gendered
Social Workers (NASW) and 62% of clients
pay inequities (Becker, 1961). This brief histo-
served (NASW, 2003, 2005 respectively). In
ry suggests that women have historically
2001, 86% of social work baccalaureate and
occupied a second-class status within social
84.8% of master's graduates were female (Len-
work, ironically in a profession they are said
non, 2004). Almost two thirds of social work
to "dominate," leading McPhail (2004) to term
faculty are female (Lennon, 2005). In Canada,
social work a "female majority, male dominat-
according to the 1996 census, 75.9% of social
ed" profession. More currently, four topical
workers were estimated to be women (Statistics
areas have emerged in discussions about the
Canada, 2001). Further, close to two thirds of
status of women within social work educa-
social work faculty are women (Canadian
tion: (1) professional advancement, (2) pay
Association of University Teachers, 2006).
inequities, (3) scholarship conducted by
History of Gender inequity
work-family balance. Each will be briefly
Although women played a major role in founding and shaping the nascent profession of social
work (Carlton-LaNey, 2001; Chambers, 1986;
Costin, 1983; Deegan, 1988; Muncy, 1991;
Rauch, 1975; Vandiver, 1980), as early as 1890,
female social workers voiced concern about the
lack of women in leadership positions at the
National Conference of Charities and Corrections (cited in Giovarmoni & Purvine, 1974).
In the early history of social welfare, male
workers were more lücely to be paid professionals and women unpaid volunteers (Dressel,
1987). In the 1950s; attempts were made to "professionalize" and "defemiriize" social work by
actively recruiting men (Chafetz, 1972).
reviewed.
female
faculty, and, most recently, (4)
Professional advancement. Studies of social
work practitioners reveal that men are more
likely than women to hold managerial positions, assume these positions earlier in their
careers, and earn more money than women in
these positions (Fortune & Hanks, 1988; Gibelman & Schervish, 1993; Zimz, 1991). Williams (1992) found that men in the social work
profession are likely to encoimter a "glass
escalator" rather than a "glass ceiling." Consistent patterns of female faculty being less
likely than men to be tenured and for women
to be more numerous at the lowest ranks of
academia has been established in the United
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
States (Petchers, 1996; Schiele, 1992) and internationally (DiNitto, Martin, & Harrison,
1984), including in Canada (Stromberg, 1988).
Di Palma (2005) found that compared to
other disciplines, female social work faculty
hold a higher percentage of positions at all
ranks that she attributed to: (1) the large number of w^omen in social work graduating with
doctoral degrees, (2) the low status of the profession, (3) shared social work values of social
and economic justice, and (4) the efforts of
CSWE and the Council on the Role and Status
of Women in Social Work Education in monitoring and advocating for women's advancement. However, Di Pahna also found that
female social work faculty were less likely to
be well-represented in prestigious Tier I
research institutions and that social work educators are doing worse than other disciplines
in the number of women in non-tenure-track
faculty positions.
A qualitative study (DiNitto, Aguilar,
Franklin, & Jordan, 1995) revealed female
social work faculty's concerns with the
tenure-track process, including the perception
that scholarship is valued over teaching;
quantitative methods valued over qualitative
methods; female faculty are held to a higher
standard than male faculty; female faculty are
responsible for more of the school's "organizational housework" leaving less time for
research; both race and gender play a role in
tenure decisions, with some respondents
believing candidates of color were held to a
lower standard and others believing they
were held to a higher standard; and many
female faculty attested to the stress and anxiety of the tenure process. Although the major-
39
ity of female faculty were able to maintain a
balance between family and work lives, it was
achieved with much effort and planning.
Pay inequities. Researchers have documented consistent pay inequities between
salaries paid to male and female social work
faculty and social workers (Gould & Kim,
1976; Nornnan 1986) ranging from more than
$3,000 to $8,000 differentials (Huber &
Orlando, 1995; Gibelman & Schervish, 1993;
Gibelman & Schervish, 1997; Koeske &
Krowinski, 2004). In an analysis of the broader category of "service industries" workers
using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data,
Gibelman (2003) identified a consistent
pattern—as the percentage of women in a service industry occupational group increased,
their weekly salaries decreased.
Scholarship. Several studies have foimd
male scholars more hkely than female scholars to successfully publish in social work journals (Bentley, Hutchison, & Green, 1994; Kirk
& Rosenblatt, 1984; Rosenblatt et al., 1970;
Schiele, 1992, 1995). However, a more recent
study foxind no gender differences in the
number of articles, books, or books chapters
published and grants awarded (Holley &
Young, 2005).
Work-family balance. Recently, within and
outside of academia, there is growing concern
for how working women can balance family
and career responsibilities (Blades & RoweFinkbeiner, 2006; Crittenden, 2001). Mason
and Goulden (2004) believe that assessing
gender equity in academia should include
family as well as professional outcomes. A
qualitative survey of social work faculty
found that more than 80% of female and male
40
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
faculty spoke of the importance of familyfriendly policies (Young & Holley, 2005).
Nonetheless, there were indications that "caregiving continues to be more 'women's work'
than 'shared work'" (p. 148), because more
mothers than fathers and more women without children than men without children noted
the importance of family-friendly policies.
Montgomery (1989) found that career demands
had an effect on decisions about parenting,
causing some female social work faculty to
choose to have fewer children, no children, or
to delay having children in order to meet the
demands of academia and the tenure clock.
In summary, the literature documents a
history of gender inequities in the social work
profession. However, assessments of the
recent status of women educators in social
work varies, ranging from identifying a lack
of progress (Petchers, 1996) to noting
improvement in some areas with inequities
continuing in others (Sowers-Hoag &
Harrison, 1991) to one of optimism and
progress (Di Pahua & Topper, 2001; Di Pahna,
2005). Research questions are: (1) What is the
current status of female faculty in social
work? (2) Which assessment in the literature
of the status of women in social work education do the latest data from the CSWE annual
survey support—a lack of progress, some improvement, or optimism?, and (3) In light of
the lack of armual national data collection in
Canada, what is the current status of female
faculty in Canada, and what should be examined in future studies?
Available Data on Social Work Faculty
Given the ongoing discussion in the social
work literature about the role and status of
women in social work education, research
data are appallingly lacking. One social work
organization, CSWE, collects annual descriptive data on faculty job characteristics (as well
as student enrollment) for accredited U.S.
schools and departments of social work.
Authors of this article are members of the
Coimcil on the Role and Status of Women in
Social Work Education (referred to as the
Women's Coimcil [WC] of CSWE). The WC is
considered one of three "advocacy" committees of CSWE; it provides input to CSWE's
staff and Board of Directors, but does not have
formal decision-making power. Upon reviewing the 2005 CSWE report on social work education (Lennon, 2005), these authors requested
access to this data file to conduct a refined
analysis on gender differences taking into
account various job characteristics of social
work faculty. The corresponding organization
in Canada, the Canadian Association of
Schools of Social Work (CASSW), does not collect or analyze comparable data, which necessitated data collection by a coauthor of this
article rather than a secondary analysis of data
collected by a national organization. Because
of the distinctly different scope and methods
of the study used for each country, the data
sets could not be combined and, therefore,
methods and analyses are reported separately.
A Note About Canadian and U.S.
Education
Canadian social work education resembles
U.S. social work education in many ways in
terms of the knowledge base, pedagogy, curriculum, and structure of the universities in
which social work programs are located. At
the same time, the understanding of diversity
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
41
issues in social work reflect different political
and social histories in Canada. For example,
rate responses, these are the most comprehensive data available on accredited social work
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
educational programs in the United States—
1982 (Department of Justice Canada, n/d) and
their enrollments, their students, and their
the Multiculturalism Act in 1988 (Department of faculty members. The purpose of this analysis
Justice Canada, 2007a) are considered the hallwas to refine the information available on
marks of legislative efforts protecting the rights
gender differences in pay equity and profes(including Aboriginal rights) and promoting
sional advancement in social work education
the equity of every individual as well as desigin Lennon (2005).
nated "equity" groups. These laws affect social
Case Selection
work in several ways including the coexistence of Francophone and Anglophone
For this analysis, 3,606 cases that represent
social work programs, many schools of social
full-time rather than part-time or adjunct facwork have programs focusing on Aboriginal
ulty were initially selected based on being
social work, and the social work curriculum
reported as "100% time" in thé social work
has a focus on anti-oppressive practice (as
program. Cases in which gender was not
opposed to multicultural social work in the
recorded were also excluded, resulting in a
United States, Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). The
sample of 3,567. However, because of variaUnited States has more than 10 times as many
tions in how program administrators reported
accredited social work programs as Canada,
the characteristics of their faculty, it is likely
perhaps consistent with the 10-fold difference
that our efforts to include only full-time faculin populations. (For example, there are 628
ty was not wholly successful (e.g., some cases
BSW and MSW programs in the United States
with very low salaries still remained in the
compared to 59 in Canada; the population of
data set, which may or may not indicate
the Urüted States is 296 million, while Canada
part-time faculty status). Therefore, findings
has approximately 32 million. See Canadian
should be viewed with some caution. In addiAssociation of Schools of Social Work, 2005;
tion, as indicated by the differing sample sizes
Personal communication with Jessica Holmes
for various analyses reported, the numbers of
of CSWE on August 2, 2006; Statistics Canada,
faculty records with data on all relevant vari2006a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005.)
ables varied widely.
Method: U.S. Study
The Council on Social Work Education made
the raw datafilesdescribing social work faculty for 2003 available to the authors for reanalysis (see Lennon, 2005, for information
about the methodology). Although these data
are limited by low response rates, missing
data across variables, and potentially inaccu-
Study Variables
Demographics. Gender was measured using
a categorical variable with two categories:
male and female. Age was measured continuously in years. CSWE measured race/
ethnicity using the following categories
(some of which were collapsed for our
analyses): White, non-Hispanic, African
42
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
American/Other Black, Latino/Hispanic,
American Indian/Other Indigenous, Asian
American and Pacific Islanders, "Foreign"
(no resident visa). Multiple/Other, and
unknown. Data on sexual orientation, disability status, and other equity statuses were
not available.
Salary. CSWE calculates an "adjusted
salary" variable to create a common metric for
those faculty and administrators on 9-month
and 12-month contracts. The adjusted salary
variable reflects rate of pay for 8 or 9 months;
it thus under-estimates total salaries but
makes pay comparable for faculty members
despite length of contract.
Status-related variables. Highest degree
earned was measured ordinally as MSW,
other master's, doctorate in social work/welfare, other doctorate, medicine or law, and
other. MSW degree indicated whether or not a
faculty member held an MSW degree (with or
without an additional degree). Rank was
measured in categories of full, associate, assistant, instructor, and clirücal. Tenure status is
indicated as with or without tenure. Years at
rank and years at full-time status were also
recorded.
2,001-4,999; 5,000-9,999; 10,000-19,000; or
20,000 and over.
Professional activities. Work assignments
were measured as percentages of time devoted
to teaching, tield-related activities, and research as well as the percentage of time
assigned to the doctoral program, master's
program, and the bachelor's program. Percent
of salary externally funded was also reported.
Publication type recorded the number of journal articles, books, book chapters, monographs, and reviews published in that year,
and a "total publications" variable was created
by summing these values. The variables on
publication scholarship were only available
for the specific year of data collection and were
recorded for orüy about 70% of the sample. No
data were available to examine work-family
factors that affect women in acadenüa.
Data Analysis
Bivariate statistical tests for gender differences were performed as appropriate to the
level of measurement of each variable. (Any
reported f or one-way F tests used the appropriate versions for equal or unequal variances
as indicated by the prior Levene's test for
School/department characteristics. One inno- equality of variances.) Because there were
vation in this analysis was to link characterisgender differences on several variables related
tics of the program setting to individual facul- to adjusted salary, multivariate analysis,
ty data. Based on institutional information
specifically hierarchical linear regression, was
also reported annually, level of program is
performed to control for these effects. A fully
defined as graduate only, undergraduate only,
refined analysis was not possible because of
and joint/both. Auspice indicates whether the
limitations in the data available, which
program is in a public, private religious, or
excluded, for example, the length and nature
private "other" category. Institution size is
of each faculty member's experience and
measured by full-time equivalent student
accomplishments in the profession prior to
enrollment for the college or university as a
hiring, scholarly productivity over time, and
whole and is categorized as under 2,000;
quahty of teaching, to name a few obvious fac-
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
tors that can affect faculty compensation.
However, this multivariate approach was able
to control for some factors related to salary,
such as age, rank, and tenure status, that are
also correlated with gender. Race/ethnicity
was also examined.
Results: U.S. Study
As expected, women represented the majority
of faculty in this sample, with 64.0% females
and 35.0% males («=3,567). Bivariate analyses
indicated that statistically-significant gender
differences in faculty work, faculty advancement, and faculty compensation were pervasive (see Table 1). Some of these differences
were related to the employing institution and
some to the individual faculty member.
Female faculty members were more likely to
be employed in undergraduate only programs
with males more likely to be employed in joint
programs. Women were over-represented in
the two smallest categories of institution size
and under-represented in the largest. Women
were also somewhat over-represented in
religiously-affiliated programs.
On average, male faculty members were
older and had a higher mean number of years
at their current rank. Men predominated
among those with tenure and those at the rank
of full professor. To some extent, this may represent hiring practices of the past, but women
were over-represented among clinical faculty
(non-tenure track) as well as among those at
the assistant and instructor levels (tenure
track).
Women were over-represented among
those whose highest degree was the MSW,
likely reñecting their over-representation in
baccalaureate-only settings. Women were
43
under-represented among those with an
"other" master's, "other" doctorate, "other"
degree, or a degree in medicine or law, suggesting that men were more likely to be perceived as having expertise to offer a faculty
even without the doctorate in social work or
social welfare. Similarly, 7.3% of males in this
faculty sample did not have an MSW, while
only 3.5% of females did not.
Work assignments also varied slightly but
significantly by gender. Women had lower
percentages of time working in doctoral programs, master's programs, classroom teaching, and research. Men had lower percentages
of time reported in the bachelor's programs,
in field, and in liaison work. Significant gender differences were also found in total publications reported for the year, with men having
the greater number of publications than
women in refereed articles and books, but not
the other categories. However, publication of
refereed articles in particular is more likely to
be rewarded in rank and salary than other
forms of scholarly work.
Salary
As reported in Table 1, there was a statistically significant difference in adjusted salary by
gender in this sample, with males on average
earning $9,000 rnore than females. Adjusted
salary was in turn correlated with a number of
other variables on which there were gender
differences, including age {r=.35l, p<.001),
years full-time (r=.448, p<.001), years at rank
(r=.335, p<.001), percentage of time spent in
research (r=.226, p<.001), the number of articles published {r=.22Q, p<.001), and the total
publications for the year (r=.226, p<.001).
Adjusted salary was negatively correlated
44
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
TABLE 1 . Gender Differences in Worit, Compensation, and Advancement Among
U.S. Sociai Wori{ Facuity (N=3,567)
Male
Variable
Female
%
n
%
Test and
Significance of
Difference'
Level of Program
Graduate only
307
23.9
504
22.1
Joint
684
53.3
1,104
48.3
Undergraduate only
292
22.8
676
29.6
Pubhc
929
73.2
1,563
69.2
Private—religious
144
11.3
323
14.3
Private—other
196
15.4
372
16.5
Under 2,000
111
8.7
245
10.8
2,000-4,999
116
9.1
274
12.1
5,000-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000 and over
231
278
535
18.2
21.9
42.1
424
415
907
18.7 .
18.3
40.0
White, non-Hispanic
African American, other Black
906
70.6
170
13.3
1,583
377
69.3
16.5
Combined Latino/Hispanic
American Indian and other
indigenous people
Asian American and Pacific Isl.
65
5.1
106
4.6
19
1.5
56
5
2.9
16
4.4
0.4
1.2
35
67
6
22
0.3
1.0
46
3.6
88
3.9
234
18.6
689
30.8
10
0.8
13
0.6
57.3
1,162
52.0
Other doctorate
723
272
21.6
350
15.7
Medicine or law
Other
11
11
0.9
0.9
11
0.5
0.4
X^=19.466, df=2,
p<.001
Auspice
t=7.728, df=2,
p=.O2
Institution's FT Enrollment
t=í6.228, df=2,
p=.O21
Race/Ethnicity^
Foreign (no resident visa)
Multiple and "other"
Unknown
1.5 .
ns
Highest Degree*
MSW
Other master's
Doctorate in social work/social
welfare
10
X'=70.898, df=5,
p<.001
Continued
45
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
TABLE 1 . (Cont.)
Male
Test and
Significance of
Difference'
Female
Variable
n
%
n
%
MSW (% Without)*
93
7.3
81
3.5
X^=24.292, d/=l , p<.001
Tenured (% with)*
809
63.1
1,123
49.2
816, df=l. p=<.001
Full
432
33.7
402
17.6
Associate
401
31.3
698
792
30.6
237
10.4
155
6.8
Rank*
Assistant
333
26.0
Instructor
74
Clinical
43
5.8
3.4
X^=148.158, df=4, p=<.001
34.7
M
M
t
df
P
Doctoral program
5.2
3.9
2,549
.008
Master's program
50.6
46.1
2.626
3.157
2,755
.002
Bachelor's program
34.9
42.3
^.940
2, 797
<.OO1 •
58.6
2.4
56.5
2.009
3,344
.045
4.7
3,436
<.OO1
5.6
7.8
-5.756
-4.687
3,200
<.OO1
14.6
11.7
13.8
Percentage of Time Assigned to:
Percentage of Time Devoted to:
Classroom teaching
Field*
Liason*
Administration
Research*
Percent of salary externally funded
7.4
ns
9.5
9.7
3.403
-2.252
2,483
.001
1,988
.004
Number in Print in Current Year:
Refereed articles
0.60
2.391
1,619
.011
Books*
0.73
0.14
0.06
5.299
1,263
<.OO1
Book chapters
0.30
0.25
ns
Monogaphs
0.38
0.32
ns
Reviews
0.14
0.14
ns
1.36
1.07
Total of above items in print
Age of faculty member
Years full time
Years at rank
Adjusted salary
53.2
11.4
7.9
$60,800
2.391
1,619
.011
51.1
8.5
5.4
6:637
3,214
<.OO1
9.324
10.291
2,158
<.OO1
1,985
<.OO1
$51,333
11.863
2,152
.008
Continued
46
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
with percent of time spent in field (r=-.149,
with post-hoc tests indicating that faculty in pri-
p<.001), percent of time spent in haison work
vate religiously-affiliated schools earned signif-
(r=-.126, p<.001), and percent of time spent in
icantly less than others. These data are further
the bachelor's program (r=-.314, p<.001).
evidence of a segmented employment structure
Institutional factors also related to adjusted
salary, which was modestly correlated with
for faculty in social work education in the
United States (Anastas, 2006).
institution enrollment (r=.22O, p<.001). Adjusted salary also differed by level of program
Multivariate Anaiysis
(F=172.6, df=2,3,241, p<.001), with mean adjust-
Because of gender differences in salary and in
ed salaries of $44,720 in bachelor's-only set-
the correlates of salary, and because some of
tings, $55,858 in joint programs, and $64,298 in
the correlates of salary were modestly corre-
graduate-only settings (posttests indicating that
lated with each other, an exploratory hierar-
all 3 means were significantly different from
chical multiple regression analysis was per-
each other). The percentage of time spent in
formed using only predictors of adjusted
research (F=106.367, dfr2,3,582, p<.001) differed
salary that showed bivariate gender differ-
across all 3 program types, with a mean of 4.0%
ences. Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations
for faculty in bachelor's programs, 11.1% for
among the variables used in the equation;
faculty in joint programs, and 16.0% for faculty
almost no prohibitive multi-coUinearity was
in graduate-only programs. However, for some
found. In the first step in the regression
correlates of salary, like total publications for
model, the variables entered were institu-
the year (F=28.446, df=2, 2,330, p<.001), article
tional factors—program level, auspice, and
publications for the year (F= 40.898, df=2,2,624,
enrollment. In the next step, the individual
p<.001), percentage of time spent in field
factors that were correlated with salary and
(F=25.705, df=2, 3,582, p<.001), percentage of
that showed gender differences were entered.
time spent in liaison work (F=4.136, df=2,3,582,
In the last step, gender was entered to deter-
p=.O16), and age (F=3.611, df=2, 3,224, p=.O27),
mine if there was any correlation with adjust-
post-hoc tests indicated that the significant dif-
ed salary net of all of the gender-related pre-
ference was between faculty in bachelor's pro-
dictors already in the equation. The results are
grams compared to those in graduate or joint
given in Table 3 below, showing the variables
programs. In addition, there was a significant
newly entered at each step in italics.
. difference in mean adjusted salary by insfitu-
The results in the first step show that
tional auspice (F=52.420, df=2, 3,227, p<.001).
institutional factors such as size, religious aus-
TABLEl. (Cont.)
'Were a Bonferoni correcfion to be applied to correct for Type 1 error in repeated tests, the required
level of significance would be .00185. Asterisks (*) are used to indicate those variables significant at
this level. However, the more conservative level of significance (.05) was used to select variables
possibly relevant to the mulfiple regression procedure.
^These are the categories as named by CSWE, although some groups were combined for analysis.
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
pice, and level of program did correlate with
adjusted salary but explained only 13% of the
overall variance in salary. Program level was
the strongest predictor in this group of variables. Much more variance was explained by
the next set of predictors—selected individual characteristics of faculty members. The
beta weights indicate the size and statistical
significance of each variable's effect on salary
independent of every other factor in the equation. Women are disadvantaged in all of these
factors correlated with salary: age. Tank, time
at rank, tenure status, being more often
assigned to work in the bachelor's and master's programs as opposed to doctoral programs, spending less time in research, and
publishing fewer articles and books in the
year studied. Note that the variable "rank" is
crudely ordinal and reverse-coded, with
higher values indicating not just assistant
professor but also instructor and clinical
ranks where women are over-represented.
In the third step, gender itself was entered
as a variable. Even when controlling for the
above gender-related factors affecting salary,
gender showed a small but significant correlation with salary, indicating an "excess" effect
beyond other personal factors like age, rank,
and publications. The good news is that this
effect is very small; the bad news is that it is
equal to or greater than the effects of age, the
percentage of time assigned to the doctoral program, the number of books published for the
year, the percentage of time spent in research,
and the size and auspice of the employing program. Overall, the fuU model explained almost
half of the variance in salary (R^=.53O). However, these findings should be interpreted with
caution because the listwise deletion of cases
47
with missing variables resulted in a smaller
sample of 2,064 faculty members.
Race/ethnicity. One remaining question is
about the effects of race/ethnicity, if any, on
gender and salary issues. Although there were
no gender differences in race/ethnicity in this
sample, there were some differences in compensation by race/ethnicity (F=7.910, df=7,
3,236, p<.001). Post-hoc tests showed that
those whose race was recorded as "unknown"
or as foreign-bom and without a resident visa
earned the least; those whose race was recorded as Asian American or Pacific Islander
(combined for this analysis) earned the most;
and the other groups fell together in the middle range of salaries. Thus a 3-group variable
describing ethnicity was created on this basis
and the stepwise regression procedure described above was repeated with ethnicity
entered on step 3 and gender entered in step 4.
There was no significant F change or R^
change when the ethnicity variable was
entered in step 3; in addition, the beta weights
for this variable were not significant in step 3
or step 4. Gender was significant to exactly the
same degree when entered in a fourth step
(ß=.O67). Thus in this sample, gender has its
effect on faculty salaries independent of race
and ethnicity, which is similar to what has
been reported in other social work samples
(see for example, Gibelman & Schervish,
1997).
Methods: Canadian Pilot Study
There is a dearth of literature in Canada on the
role and status of women social work educators. As the Canadian Association of Schools
of Social Work (CASSW) does not collect any
data on faculty, there is no information avail-
48
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
able on the status of social work educators
who are women or members of other equity
groups, or both. Examining not only the role
and status of women but also the intersection
of identities is important (Sakamoto & Pitner,
2005), The orJy recent statistical data that
seem to answer at least part of our demographic questions were those provided by the
Canadian Association of University Teachers
(CAUT, 2006), The purpose of the current
investigation, therefore, was to further analyze the CAUT data and collect the preliminary data on the role and status of women in
social work education in Canada with special
attention to the intersection of different
minority (equity) statuses. This pilot study
will serve as the foundation for designing a
more comprehensive study in the future.
Design and Procedures
The pilot study used three methods. First, a
secondary analysis of the most recent public
data on university teachers in social work
(CAUT, 2006; collected by the Statistics Canada) was conducted by gender and rank (no
other variables were available). Second, a pilot
TABLE 2. Correlations Among Variabies Showing Gender Differences Among U.S.
Adjusted
Salary
Variable
Adjusted salary
Level
^
Auspice
Enrollment
Age
MSW
Degree
Rank
Tenured
Years at rank
Years FT
% Research
% Field
% Liaison
% Bachelors
% Master's
% Doctoral
# Articles
# Books
Gender
Level
Auspice
Enrollment
-,331
-,192
—
,251
,225
-,343
—
-,489
—
Age
.349
-,080
-,047
(,014)
—
MSW
Degree
-,135
,138
,424
-,289
,041
-,200
-,068
,251
-,060
—
,124
-,089
—
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
survey study was designed to collect descriptive data on the faculty demographics in each
school of social work. The study received the
University of Toronto's institutional research
board approval. Further, CASSW's Women's
Caucus officially endorsed the project at its
annual meeting. In 2006, this short questionnaire was sent via e-mail to the deans or directors of all 35 CASSW-accredited schools of
social work (CASSW, 2005). The French version of the questionnaire was sent to the nine
Francophone schools. Participation was
voluntary. It should be noted that, because
49
questionnaire data were collected through
administrators and not through individual
faculty members, the number of faculty members who belong to each equity status should
only be seen as estimates. Third, to supplement the other two methods, publicly available data were collected through Internet sites
to obtain an estimate of the number of male
and female social work faculty members at
various ranks and the number of male versus
female deans and directors at the 35 accredited schools of social work in Canada. The
researchers used multiple methods to identify
Social Work Faculty (Ar=2,064)
Rank
Tenure
Years at Rank
Years FT
-.553
.062
(-.021)
.519
-.069
.333
-.044
-.041
.430
(-.013)
-.042
(.027)
(.016)
-.048
(.032)
.044
% Research
.244
-.208
-.164
.295
% Field
% Liason
-.166
.103
(.025)
-.157
(-.035)
(-.012)
.128
.048
-.360
.424
.507
.531
-.070
-.060
(-.023)
.059
-.047
-.078
-.053
-.091
.042
.050
-.448
—
.325
(.032)
.133
.268
-.239
-.220
-.230
.372
—
.070
-.022
-.133
.190
-.147
.226
-.012
—
(-.022)
(-.012)
—
-.629
—
.070
-.162
(-.007)
-.047
-.052
-.156
-.142
-.112
(.006)
Continued
50
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
the gender of the deans and directors, first by
ethnicity was asked as part of the equity sta-
their first names (e.g., Nancy for woman, John
tuses reflecting the unique Canadian context,
for man), and second by the pronouns used in
whereby people of color would be identified
the Web sites referring to the respective deans
as either "Aboriginal persons" or "visible
and directors (e.g., mention of "she" or "he").
minorities." The Canadian Federal Employment Equity Act defines women. Aboriginal
Measures
peoples, "visible minorities," and people with
Demographics. Gender was asked in three
disabilities as four designated equity groups,
categories of women, men, and other. Race/
for whom employment equity is of particular
Table 2. (Cont.)
Variable (cont.)
% Bachelors
% Master's
% Doctoral
Adjusted salary
.336
.137
.300
.197
.180
-.233
Level
.769
.217
-.657
-.231
-.100
-.080
.058
-.155
-.084
-.069
-.055
.049
Enrollment
-.364
.264
.122
.075
.044
-.065
Age
MSW
-.085
.078
.048
(.003)
.058
-.128
-.048
(-.031)
.046
-.040
-.140
.089
Degree
Rank
-.319
.236
(.021)
.151
.233
-.124
.105
-.155
-.150
.090
Tenured
Yrs/rank
-.098
(-.047)
.118
.198
-.146
(-.036)
.040
-.208
YrsFT
(-.013)
(-.011)
-.037
.083
-.079
.071
-.165
% Research
-.236
.103
(-.017)
—
.048
(-.028)
-.041
-.166
.062
.094
.230
—
-.048
.086
Auspice
% Field
% Liaison
% Bachelors
% Master's
% Doctoral
# Articles
# Books
Gender
.084
-.050
.110
-.824
—
-.173
.157
.059
.101
.184
-.074
-.098
-.277
-.051
—
# Articles # Books
-.028
.211
-.087
-.071
-.166
.100
.127
—
Gender
.078
.073
-.044
-.039
-.052
-.110
—
Note. Because the gender difference in program auspice and in salary levels was most pronounced for those coded as private and religiously-affiliated, a dummy variable for this group
was created and used as the "auspice" variable for calculating the correlation and in the regression equation (Table 3). Although generally low, most correlations were statistically significant
due to the large sample size. Those not statistically significant are in parentheses.
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
51
TABLE 3. Multiple Regression of Gender-Related Predictors and Gender on
Adjusted Salary Among U.S. Social Work Faculty (JV=2,064)
Variables Entered
ß
Level
-.280*
Religious auspice
-.077*
Enrollment
R
Adj. R'
Rechange
-.154*
Religious auspice
-.059*
Eru-oUment
Significance
F=100.961,
.358
.128
.127
.128
.092*
Level
d/=3,2,060;
P^-'^^l
.049*
Age
MSW
.063
-.026
Degree
F=128.249,
.095*
Rank
-.275*
Tenured
Years at rank
Years full time
% time in research
-.005
-.001
% of time bachelors
-.234*
% of time master's
-.212*
% of time doctoral
.050*
No. of articles published
.074*
No. of books published
.042*
Level
-.156*
Religious auspice
-.058*
Enrollment
.048*
Age
.062*
.
.530
.526
.402
^^'^^^
-.023
.092*
-.265*
Tenured
.144*
Years at rank
.111*
Years full time
.055
% time in research
% time in field
.728
.142*
.128*
.048*
.056*
% time in
field
% of time in liaison work
MSW
Degree
Rank
R^
F=123.458,
ii/=19.
2,044;
.731
.534
.530
.004
P^-^^^
.056*
-.002
Continued
52
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
concern (for explanation see Department of
tor, program directors (i.e., BSW, MSW, and
Justice Canada, 2007b). Under the Employ-
PhD directors/coordinators), field directors
ment Equity Act, members of "visible minori-
(i.e., BSW and MSW field directors), research
ties" are dignified as "being non-Caucasian in
director, and other leadership positions.
race or non-White in color," other than
School/department characteristics. Ques-
Aboriginal peoples (Statistics Canada, 2006b).
tions about the respective universities and
The terms, "Aboriginal people" or "Aborig-
schools of social work were asked, including
inal peoples" are commonly used to signify
the estimated population of the city/town in
the diverse groups of indigenous people(s) of
which the school is located, student enroll-
Canada (for more information see Indian and
ment in the university as well as school of
Northern Affairs Canada Communications
social work, and whether the school of social
Branch, 2004). Also, an optional question
work has a special program or initiative focus-
asked whether any of the faculty members
ing on the recruitment/retention of students
publicly identified themselves as lesbian, gay,
who belong to any of the equity groups or
bisexual, transgender,
specific studies of equity group populations.
transsexual,
two-
spirited, intersex, or queer (LGBTT2IQ; twospirited people were traditionally believed to
Results: Canadian Pilot Study
carry two spirits, both male and female, in
Aboriginal cultures; Queen's University Positive Space Program, n/d).
Census Data on University teaciiers
in Social Work
Status-related variables. Rank/title was
There were 312 full-time university teachers in
asked in categories of full, associate, assistant,
social work according to the individual data
instructor/lecturer, and other full-time faculty.
collected by Statistics Canada (CAUT, 2006).
Gender distributions of leadership positions
The data were only broken down by rank
were asked with the options of dean/director,
(full, associate, assistant professors, and other)
associate dean/director, assistant dean/direc-
and gender (female, male) with no institution-
TABLE3. (Cont.)
Variables Entered
R
% of time in liaison work
% of time bachelors
.001
-.233*
% of time master's
-.212*
% of time doctoral
.052*
No. of articles published
.073*
No. of books
Gender
.038*
.067*
Note. Asterisk (*) denotes significant beta weight.
Adj.
Change
Significance
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
al data. Of 312 university teachers, 58.7% were
women. However, among 63 full professors,
only 38.5% were women, while among 114
assistant professors, 75% were women. The
data give strong evidence supporting an
unequal rank distribution of men and women
faculty (x'=35.46, df=3, p<.001).
53
individual faculty members in social work.
However, because of the low cell counts,
some of the demographic ir^formation obtained
(e.g., gender breakdown of those in "equity"
groups) will be withheld to protect the
anonymity of participating institutions and
individuals.
Gender. Of 184 faculty members, approximately two thirds (117) were women and one
Institutional information. Within the study's third (67) were men, including full professors,
associate professors, assistant professors, lectimeframe, 34.3% (n=12) of schools completed
turers, instructors, and other full-time teachthe questionnaire. Overall, the disclosure of
ing faculty members. No faculty members
the individual demographic data of employwere identified as "other" in the gender cateees was seen as a privacy concern and limited
gory. Some of the lectureirs and instructors
our data collection, which will be explained
held tenure-track positions but were in the
further in the discussion section. To further
rank of lecturers and instructors until they
ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of
completed their doctoral degrees. Due to the
the data, the variables were aggregated where
small sample size, the data on rank was aggreneeded, verifying that no individual or instigated and analyzed using only two categories:
tution would be identifable.
those who are usually in tenured positions
Five of the respondent schools of social
(i.e., full professors and associate professors)
work belonged to universities that are categoand
those who hold un-tenured positions
rized as primarily undergraduate according to
(assistant professors and other full-time
the commonly-cited Macleans (2006) university ranking, and the rest were considered com-, teaching faculty including full-time lecturers
and instructors). The analyses revealed
prehensive or medical/doctoral. The particistrong evidence for an unequal rank distribupating universities had student populations
tion of men and women: 43.6% (51) of female
ranging from under 2,000 to 20,000 and over,
faculty were categorized as full or associate
and were located in cities of various sizes. The
professors,
as opposed to 77.6% (52) of male
student enrollment in social work programs
faculty (x'=20.012, df=l, p<.0001). The
ranged from what is considered in Canada as
Internet search revealed that 48.6% (17) of 35
small programs (e.g., 50 full-time students) to
deans and directors of schools are women.
large programs (e.g., more than 300 stuThe questionnaire data revealed no statistical
dents). Notably, half of the participating
difference in gender distribution of faculty
schools offered special degree programs or
members in administrative leadership posirecruitment/support initiatives geared
tions. However, when the field directors were
toward Aboriginal students. The completed
excluded from these senior faculty positions.
questionnaires yielded data on 184 full-time
Pilot Survey and Internet-Based Data
54
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
men were more likely to be in senior administrative positions (29,9% of men) tban
women (14,5% of women; x^=6,225, df^l,
p=.O13). In otber words, only 1 in 7 women
were in senior leadership positions when
field directors were excluded from the analysis, as opposed to close to 1 in 3 male faculty
members.
In relation to otber markers of "equity"
status, there were no gender differences in
representation of faculty of color (i,e,, visible
minority and Aboriginal faculty members) or
among those faculty members identified as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT),
However, faculty members with disabilities
were more likely to be female than male
(Fisher's Exact Test p=,049), although because
of a particularly small number of respondents
from this population in this study, this result
should be interpreted with caution.
Other equity groups. As a result of the
small sample size, it was not possible to test
whether female faculty with other intersecting equity (minority) statuses were more likely to be non-tenured or in lower academic
ranks than men. It is noted that there were
higher proportions of Aboriginal peoples represented in the social work faculty (8,7%)
than in the general population (4,4% reporting some Aboriginal ancestry in 2001 Census;
Statistics Canada, 2004), However, when the
data on each equity group were examined.
Aboriginal full-time faculty members were
more likely to hold assistant professor or lecturers/instructor positions than full and
associate professor positions (x^=4,348, df=l,
p=,037). There were 7,1% of faculty members
who were identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual.
or trangender, but none were identified as
two-spirited, intersexed, or queer/questioning. Faculty who are visible minorities
(10,3%) or LGBT-identified were no more
likely to be in assistant professor or lecturer
positions, than in full or associate professor
positions when the data were analyzed separately for these variables. However, when all
the equity statuses were aggregated, faculty
members who are visible minorities, with disabilities. Aboriginal, or LGBT-identified were
more likely to be in assistant professor or lecturer positions, than in full or associate professor positions (x^=4,126, df=l, p=,042).
Discussion
There is persistent gender disparity across
many aspects of social work education in both
Canada and the United States, Our purpose is
not to conduct a cross-national comparative
analysis, as the variables and methods are too
divergent across studies. Nonetheless, examining these two countries separately highlights the need for future cross-national data
collection to examine the prevalence of gender
inequity, and the intersection of gender with
other social categories. Additionally, presenting pilot data from Canada brings to light tbe
fact that there are no national monitoring or
data collection mechanisms to date, but points
to the need to implement one.
The U,S, analyses show that women receive
lower salaries even after controUihg for numerous other job characteristics that influence salary.
Furthermore, gender differences were found
across most of the job characteristics that were
used to predict salary, indicating a pervasive
problem for women in status, rank, and job
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
duties, as well as in salary. Women in these data
are over-represented in undergraduate-only
programs, schools with small enrollment, and
reUgiously-affiliated schools, as well as in clinical and instructor positions. Women are
under-represented in the largest schools, joint
BSW/MSW programs, as tenured faculty, as
full professors, and in joumal and book publications. In terms of percentages of time
assigned to work tasks, women more often perform field and liaison roles, while men more
often perform administrative and research
roles and teach more doctoral and master's
classes and fewer BSW classes.
In the Canadian study, the pilot data
showed that men were more likely to hold
higher academic ranks than women faculty
members, and that equity is an issue particularly for Aboriginal faculty members. At this
point, there is little evidence that Canadian
legislation targeting the increased representation of equity groups has had an impact.
Meanwhile, the higher proportion of women
and other minorities, as well as the presence
of Aboriginal-focused academic programs in
half of the participating schools, could be
interpreted as resulting from schools' successful efforts to increase the numbers of women
and other minorities in social work academia,
but these efforts are only truly successful if
these individuals are retained and promoted.
As a pilot study, the analyses presented here
raise important questions and suggest that the
status of women in Canadian social work education is a pressing concern that requires close
monitoring. Further, variables other than gender need to be examined to take into consideration the diversity within the class of women
55
and promote a more nuanced examination of
women's status in social work education (e.g.,
the status of women of color. Aboriginal
women, women with disabilities).
One of the most striking experiences we
encountered was the various limitations of
available data on social work faculty members
by gender, rank, and minority status as well as
on their earnings and the nature of their work.
Although social work programs are mandated
to include diversity concerns, data about
social work faculty equity are not being accurately collected by accrediting organizations
in the U.S. or in Canada. In Canada, no systematic data are being collected by social
work organizations, and public data are only
available on gender distributions by rank, but
not by other intersecting identities such as
race/ethnicity. Aboriginal heritage, and disability status. Further, in the United States, the
data are severely limited because of low
response rates; the use of one, often unidentified, reporter from each school about all the faculty within that school (rather than a direct survey of individual faculty); high levels of missing or inaccurate data; and lack of survey
foUow-up and data cleaning. In Canada, the
recent implementation of the Freedom of
Informafion and Protecfion of Privacy Act (Informafion and Privacy Commissioner Ontario,
2007) puts limits on the coUecfion of comprehensive insfitufional data for research purposes.
Protecting faculty members' privacy and confidenfiality is important, especially for those who
do not wish to disclose parficular social category membership or who fear discriminafion
based on their parficular social status. When
administrators report on individual faculty
56
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
members, the potential for inaccuracies and
violation of privacy is greater than if individuals report their own information in a way that is
protected by human subjects laws and by
aggregating data so that individuals can not be
linked to particular schools or programs, and
principle investigators are responsible for protecting participants' confidentiality.
The need to obtain improved data through
systematic, on-going research that uses sophisticated design, sampling, and data collection
methods is apparent and urgent. We recommend that data be coUected from all U.S. and
Canadian schools using probability sampling of
faculty and admirüstrators in aU ranks and job
positions. Individual participants should report
their own job characteristics and salaries, rather
than using a single reporter per school to "estimate" entire faculties and individuals' demographic/diversity characteristics, job duties,
and pay. A single reporter, such as an administrator, could provide separate information
about overall school characteristics such as size,
enrollment, auspice, etc. Survey measures
should encompass a wide variety of variables,
at least all those mentioned in the literature, and
allow for analysis of multiple demographic categories and their interaction. A large-scale
study of all educators should be conducted at
least every 5 years to monitor change over time.
Data should be available upon request for secondary analysis, as well as reports released
periodically and systematically, and results
used for school accreditation assessments.
Research on the profession as a whole should
obtain similar data for comparison across academic and nonacademic jobs. Finally, we want
to note that some schools in the United States
and Canada have implernented progressive
family leave and other equity policies to correct
for various forms of discrimination. A more indepth data collection about policies, in addition
to the outcome variables, would allow for an
evaluation of whether these policies are producing the intended outcomes or better outcomes than schools without such policies.
Broader Implications and Future
Directions
We should note that while the proportion of
women and men on social work faculties is
similar in the United States and Canada
(approximately 58-65% women), it is not
reflective of the profession as a whole where
there is a much higher proportion of women
(approximately 80%). To imderstand these
data within a broader social context and compared to other research findings, we note that
male advantage has also been found to exist
among non-academic social workers (Anastas, 2007; NASW, 2002). It is also important to
note that the status of women in social work
education is similar to the status of women in
higher education in general. While women
students are now the majority in higher education, female faculty and administrators
have not achieved equity in numbers, pay,
position, salary, or status (Fogg, 2003; Twombly & Rosser, 2002).
Why are gender differences so enduring?
Some scholars have held institutional sexual
discrimination and patriarchal norms and
practices responsible for female faculty's
second-class status (DiNitto, Martin, &
Harrison, 1982; Dressel, 1987; Kravetz, 1976),
while others downplayed institutional sexism
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
57
but highlighted différences in productivity and
order to create change. Solutioris require a sys-
rank (Rubin, 1982,1988). Given that salary dif-
temic focus and include: mentoring and net-
ferences exist even after controlling for factors
working, including cross gender and racial
such as rank and productivity, it seems likely
mentoring (Simon, Bowles, King, & Roff, 2004);
that a multitude of direct and covert discrimi-
flexible time for tenure application and the cre-
nation, disparate impact, and the continuing
ation of part-time, tenure-track positions
primary role of women as caregivers, wives,
(Sowers-Hoag & Harrison, 1991); a more trans-
spouses, and mothers influence salary and job
parent tenure process, greater value placed on
status. For instance, the fact that tenure clocks
diverse research methods and topics, equaliz-
often run during women's prime reproductive
ing the type and amount of work assigned to
period and most universities do not hire their
male and female faculty as well as the available
own graduates disparately affect women who
resources, increasing women's leadership
seem to be less geographically mobile than
(DiNitto et al, 1995); and using the CSWE
their male counterparts, often out of deference
accreditation process and the Council on the
to their spouse's career (Young & Holley, 2005).
Role and Status of Women in Social Work
Further, numerous studies have shown
Education to continue to monitor and improve
that gender stereotyping and cultural beliefs
women's status (Bentley, Valentine, & Haskett,
about women's lower job competencies in rela-
1999; Trolander, 1997); and paid family leave,
tion to nien influence decision making on a
reduced workload after childbirth, job sharing,
variety of levels that affect advancement.
well and sick drop-in chUdcare, adult day care,
However, when specific individuals' behaviors
long-term care insurance, and assistance in
are measured and rated, women often equal or
locating services (Young & Holley, 2005). With
outperform men, but beliefs about women's
the recent emphasis on advocating for famüy-
lower competence in general persist, especially
friendly policies, and some schools already
in men's schémas (Catalyst, 2005; Valian, 1999).
adopting such policies, it is imperative that non-
Further, gender stereotypes interact with other
traditional families, such as LGBTTZIQ families,
bias perceptions about ethnic, racial, and other
are included in the definition of family.
minority groups to compound discrünination
Finally, a greater emphasis on under-
for minority women (Task Force on Women in
standing how stereotyping and cognitive
Academe, 2000). The "accumulation of advan-
schémas that influence decision making
tage" over time results in male dominance in
should be placed in curriculum as well as
administrative and decision-making positions
scheduling regular faculty and administrative
(Catalyst, 2005; VaUan, 1999).
work groups to review how these processes
DiNitto et al. (1982) outline five levels of
might be influencing faculty hiring, promo-
social organization that affect women: (1) soci-
tion, job duties, and the distribution of
etal, (2) institutional, (3) organizational, (4) role,
resources. Accumulating advantage by gen-
and (5) individual, while suggesting that inter-
der occurs on a variety of levels from differen-
ventions must be addressed at aU levels in
tial promotions, salary, job assignments, and
58
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
resources (e.g., assignment of student assis-
Brager, G., & Michael, J. A. (1969). The sex dis-
tants, office space, course releases, summary
tribution in social work: Causes and con-
salary, discretionary funds)—all of which
sequences. Social Casework, 50, 595-601.
must be transparent, systematically moni-
Canadian Association of Schools of Social
tored, and open for discussion. Social workers
Work. (2005).' CASSW directory. Retrieved
must be willing to actively engage in practices
August 1, 2007, from http://www.cassw
that support the profession's stated goals, val-
—acess.ca/xSCH/sclxl.htm
ues, and ethics related to social justice and
Canadian Association of University Teachers.
equity, which requires a willingness to moni-
(2006). Almanac of post-secondary education
tor and change everyday practices and poli-
2006. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http:
cies that disadvantage women. When educa-
//www.caut.ca/en/publications/alman
tors do not model a commitment to social and
ac/default.asp
economic justice, students note the disparity
Carlton-LaNey,
I.
(Ed.)
(2001).
African
and hypocrisy between social work rhetoric
American leadership: An empowerment tradi-
and reality.
tion in social welfare history. Washington,
DC: NASW Press.
References
Anastas, J. W. (2006). Employment opportunities in social work education: A study of
jobs for doctoral graduates. Journal of
Social Work Education, 42,195-209.
Anastas, J. W. (2007). Theorizing (in)equity for
women in social work. Affilia, 22(3),
240-244.
Catalyst. (2005). Women "take care," men "take
charge." Stereotyping of U.S. business leaders
exposed. New York: Author.
Chambers, C. A. (1986). Women in the creation of the profession of social work.
Social Service Review, 60(1), 1-33.
Chafetz, J. S. (1972). Women in social work.
Social Work, 17(5), 12-18.
Becker, R. (1961). Study of salaries of NASW
Costin, L. B. (1983). Edith Abbott and the
members. New York: National Association
Chicago influence on social work educa-
of Social Workers.
tion. Social Service Review, 57(1), 94-111.
Bentley, K. J., Hutchison, E. D., & Green, R. G.
Crittenden, A. (2001). The price of motherhood:
(1994). Women as social work scholars: An
Why the most important job in the world is
empirical analysis. Affilia, 9(2), 171-189.
still the least valued. New York: Metropol-
Bentley, K. J., Valentine, D., & Haskett, G.
itan Books.
(1999). Women's issues and social work
Deegan, M. J. (1988). Jane Addams and the men
accreditation: A status report. Affilia,
of the Chicago school, 1882-1918. New
14(3), 344-363.
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Blades, J., & Rowe-Finkbeiner, K. (2006). The
Department of Justice Canada, (n/d). Cana-
motherhood manifesto: What America's moms
dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982,
want—and what to do about it. New York:
Retrieved January 8, 2007, from h t t p : / /
Nation Books.
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html
STATUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Department
of Justice Canada.
59
(2007a)
Gibelman, M. (2003). So how far have we
Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1985, c. 24
come? Pestilent and persistent gender
(4th Supp.). Retrieved August 1, 2007,
gap in pay. Social Work, 48, 22-32.
from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/shovi^
tdm/cs/C-18.7
Department of Justice Canada. (2007b).
Employment Equity Act 1995, c. 44. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/E-5.401
Gibelman, M., & Schervish, P H. (1993). The
glass ceiling in social work: Is it shatterproof? Affilia, 8(4), 442-155.
Gibelman, M., & Schverish, P H. (1997). Who
we are: A second look. Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
DiNitto, D., Aguilar, M. A., Franklin, C , &
Giovannoni, J. M., & Purvine, M. E. (1974).
Jordan, C. (1995). Over the edge? Women
The myth of the social work matriarchy.
and tenure in today's academic environ-
In Official Proceedings 100th Annual Forum
ment. Affilia, 10(3), 255-279.
of the National Conference on Social Welfare
DiNitto, D. M., Martin, P. Y, & Harrison, D. F.
(1982). Sexual discrimination in higher edu-
(pp. 166-195). New York: Columbia University Press.
cation. Higher Education Review, 14,33-54.
Gould, K. H., & Kim, B. C. (1976). Salary
DiNitto, D. M., Martin, P. Y., & Harrison, D. F.
inequities between men and women in
(1984). Sexual inequality among social
schools of social work: Myth or reality?
work faculty: An international compari-
Journal of Education for Social Work, 12(1),
son. International Social Work, 27(2), 29-36.
50-55.
Di Palma, S. (2005). Progress for women facul-
Holley, L. C , & Young, D. S. (2005). Career
ty in social work academia. Affilia, 20(1),
decisions and experiences of social work
71-86.
faculty: A gender comparison. Journal of
Di Pahna, S. L., & Topper, G. G. (2001). Social
work academia: Is the glass ceiling beginning to crack? Affilia, 16, 31-Í5.
Dressel, P (1987). Patriarchy and social welfare work. Social Problems, 34, 295-309.
Etzioni,A. (Ed). (1969). The semi-professions and
their organization. New York: Free Press.
Fogg, P. (2003, April 18). The gap that won't
Social Work Education, 41, 297-313.
Huber, R., & Orlando, B. P. (1995). Persisting
gender differences in social workers'
incomes: Does the profession really care?
Social Work, 40(5), 585-591.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Communications Branch. (2004). Words first:
An evolving terminology relating to Aborig-
go away. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
inal peoples in Canada. Retrieved May 10,
Retrieved September 11,2003, from http:/
2006, from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca
chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i32/32
/pr/pub/wf/index_e.html
a0201.htm
Information
and
Privacy
Commissioner
Fortiine, A. E., & Hanks, L. L. (1988). Gender
Ontario. (2007). Freedom of Information and
inequities in early social work careers.
Protection of Privacy Act. Retrieved August
Social Work, 33, 221-226.
1, 2007, from http://www.e-laws.gov.
60
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
on,ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_stat
utes_90f31_e,htm
Kadushin, A, (1976), Men in a woman's profession. Social Work, 21,440-447,
Kirk, S, A,, & Rosenblatt, A, (1984), The contribution of faculty to social work journals.
Social Work, 29, 67-69,
Koeske, G, F,, & Krowinski, W, J, (2004),
Gender-based salary inequity in social
work: Mediators of gender's effect on
salary. Social Work, 49(2), 309-317,
Kravetz, D, (1976), Sexism in a woman's profession. Social Work, 21(6), 421^26,
Lennon, T, M, (2004), Statistics on social work education in the United States: 2001. Alexandria,
VA: Council on Social Work Education,
Lennon, T, M, (2005), Statistics on social work
education in the United States: 2003. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work
Education,
Mason, M, A,, & Goulden, M, (2004), Marriage
Montgomery, M, B, (1989), The decision to
have children: Women faculty in social
work, Afßlia, 4(2), 73-84,
Muncy, R, (1991), Creating a female dominion in
American reform, 1880-1935. New York:
Oxford University Press,
National Asscociation of Social Workers, (2002),
Social work income 2, Practice Research
Network, 1(6). Washington, DC: Author,
National Association of Social Workers,
(2003), Demographics, Practice Research
Network, 2(2), Washington, DC: Author,
National Association of Social Workers,
(2005), Practice Research Network II: Final
Report. Washington, DC: Author,
Norman, E, (1986), A new look at salary equity for male and female faculty in schools
of social work. Affilia, 1(4), 39-Í8,
Petchers, M, K, (1996), Debunking the myth of
progress for women social work educators. Affilia, 11(1), 11-38,
and baby blues: Redefining gender equity
Queen's University Positive Space Program,
in the academy. The Annals ofthe American
(n/d). Positive space glossary. Retrieved
Academy of Political and Social Science,
August 1, 2007, from http://www,queen-
596(1), 86-103,
su,ca/positivespace/glossary,htm
Macleans, (2006), 2006 university rankings. Re-
Rauch, J, B, (1975), Women in social work:
trieved August 1, 2007, frojtn h t t p : / /
Friendly visitors in Philadelphia, 1880,
www,macleans,ca/education/univers
Social Service Review, 49(2), 241-259,
ties/article,jsp?content=20061113_136532
Rosenblatt, A,, Turner, E, M,, Patterson, A, R,,
_136532
McPhail, B, A, (2004), Setting the record
straight: Social work is not a femaledominated profession. Social Work, 49,
323-326,
Meyer, C, H, (1982), Issues for women in a
'woman's profession,' In A, Weick & S, T,
Vandiver (Eds,), Women, power, and change
& RoUosson, C, K, (1970), Predominance
of male authors in social work publications. Social Casework, 51, 421-^30,
Rubin, A, (1982), Why do women occupy
lower academic ranks: Discrimination or
progress? Social Work Research and Abstracts, 18(4:), 19-23,
Rubin, A, (1988), Gender and salary in gradu-
(pp, 197-205), Washington, DC: National
ate schools of social work: An outworn
Association of Social Workers,
issue? Affilia, 3(3), 63-82,
STArUS OF WOMEN IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
61
Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R. (2005). Use of critical
Statistics Canada. (2006b). Visible minority.
consciousness in anti-oppressive social
Retrieved July 1,2006, from http: / /www.
work practice: Disentangling power dy-
statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions
namics at personal and structural levels.
/vis-minorit.htm
British Journal of Social Work, 35,420-437.
Stromberg, A. H. (1988). Women in female-
Schiele, J. H. (1992). Disparities between
dominated professions. In A. H. Strom-
African-American women and men on
berg & S. Harkess, (Eds.), Women working
social work faculty. Affilia, 7(3), 44-56.
(pp. 206-224). Mountain View, CA: May-
Schiele, J. H. (1995). Submission rates among
African-American faculty: The forgotten
field Publishing.
Task Force on Women in Academe. (2000).
side of publication productivity. Journal of
Women in academe: Two steps forward, one
Social Work Education, 31, 46-54.
step back. Washington, DC: American Psy-
Scotch, C. B. (1971). Sex status in social work:
Grist for women's liberation. Social Work,
26(3), 5-11.
chological Association.
Trolander, J. A. (1997). Fighting racism and sexism: The Council on Social Work Educa-
Simon, C. E., Bowles, D. D., King, S. W., &
Roff, L. L. (2004). Mentoring in the careers
tion. Social Service Review, 17(1), 110-134.
Twombly, S. B., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Women ad-
of African American women in social
ministrators: Overview. In A. M. Mardnez
work education. Affilia, 19(2), 134-145.
Alemán & K. A. Renn (Eds.), Women in
Sowers-Hoag, K. M., & Harrison, D. E (1991).
Women
in
social
work
education:
Progress or promise? Journal of Social Work
Education, 27, 320-328.
Statistics Canada. (2001). Table: Labour force 15
higher education: An encyclopedia (pp. 459465). Santa Barbara: ABS CLIO.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Annual estimates of
the population by race alone and Hispanic or
Latino origin for the United States and states.
years and over by detailed occupation (based
Retrieved July 25, 2006, from h t t p : / /
on the 1991 Standard Occupational Classifi-
www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/ta
cation) and sex, for Canada, 1996 Census
bles/SC-EST2005-04.xls
(20% sample data). Retrieved August 1,
2007, from
http://www.statcan.ca/en
Iish/census96/marl7/occupa/tablel/tl
pOOe.htm
Statistics Canada. (2004). Aboriginal peoples of
Valentich, M., & Gripton, J. (1978). Sexism and sex
differences in career management of sodal
workers. Social Science Joumal, 15(2), 101-111.
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement
of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Canada. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from
Vandiver, S. T. (1980). A herstory of women in
http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/cen-
social work. In E. Norman & A. Mancuso
susOl/Products/Analytic/companiOn/a
(Eds.), Women's issues and social work prac-
bor/canada.cfm
tice (pp. 21-38). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Statistics Canada. (2006a). Population estimate.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hid-
Retrieved July 1,2006, from http:/ /www.
den advantages for men in the "female"
statscan.ca/menu-en.htm
professions. Social Problems, 39,253-267.
62
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Young, D. S., & Holley, L. C. (2005). Combining
Zunz, S. J. (1991). Gender-related issues in the
caregiving and career: Experiences of social
career development of social work man-
work faculty. Affilia, 20(2), 136-152.
agers. Affilia, 6(4), 39-52.
Accepted: 05/07
Izumi Sakamoto is assistant professor. Faculty of Social WorK University of Toronto. Jeane W.
Anastas is professor. School of Social WorK New York University. Beverly A. McPhail is adjunct faculty and director of the Women's Resource Center, University of Houston. Lisa G. Colarossi is associate professor. Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University.
The authors acknowledge Jessica Holmes, research associate at the Council on Social Work Education,
for her expert and generous assistance to the authors through providing access to and support in working with the 2003 CSWE data on social work educators in the United States. The authors also thank
research assistant, Bixidu Lobo-Moinar.
Address correspondence to Beverly A. McPhail, Women's Resource Center, 7 University Center Satellite,
Houston, TX 77204-4014; email: [email protected].