IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00926-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The pregnancy drop: How teaching evaluations penalize pregnant faculty

Author

Listed:
  • Ronke M. Olabisi

    (University of California)

Abstract

The “leaky pipeline” and the “maternal wall” have for decades described the loss of women in STEM and the barriers faced by working mothers. Of the studies examining the impact of motherhood or pregnancy on faculty in higher education, most focus on colleagues’ attitudes towards mothers; few studies explore pregnancy specifically, only a handful examine student evaluations in particular, and none include female faculty in engineering. This study is the first to compare student evaluations across fields from female faculty when they were pregnant against when they were not. Two scenarios were considered: (1) the lived experiences of faculty who taught classes while pregnant and while not pregnant and (2) an experiment in which students submitted teaching evaluations for an actress whom half the students believed was pregnant while the other half did not. Among faculty respondents, women of colour received lower scores while pregnant and these scores lowered further when women were in engineering and/or had severe symptoms. Depending on their demographics, students who participated in the experiment were awarded teaching evaluation scores that differed when they believed the instructor was pregnant. Findings suggest that in fields with fewer women, the maternal wall is amplified and there is a unique intersectional experience of it during pregnancy. These findings may be useful for Tenure and Promotion committees to understand and therefore account for pregnancy bias in teaching evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronke M. Olabisi, 2021. "The pregnancy drop: How teaching evaluations penalize pregnant faculty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00926-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00926-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00926-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00926-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meg Urry, 2015. "Science and gender: Scientists must work harder on equality," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7583), pages 471-473, December.
    2. Hengel, E., 2017. "Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1753, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    4. Boring, Anne, 2017. "Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 27-41.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paredes, Valentina & Paserman, M. Daniele & Pino, Francisco J., 2020. "Does Economics Make You Sexist?," IZA Discussion Papers 13223, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Priyanka Chakraborty & Danila Serra, 2021. "Gender and leadership in organizations: Promotions, demotions and angry workers," Working Papers 20210104-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    3. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2019. "Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020)," Working Papers 1918, Banco de España, revised Mar 2020.
    4. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Measuring research excellence amongst economics lecturers in the UK," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 386-404, April.
    5. Arceo-Gomez, Eva O. & Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M., 2019. "Gender stereotypes: The case of MisProfesores.com in Mexico," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 55-65.
    6. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    7. Ayllón, Sara, 2022. "Online teaching and gender bias," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    9. Hani Mansour & Daniel I. Rees & Bryson M. Rintala & Nathan N. Wozny, 2022. "The Effects of Professor Gender on the Postgraduation Outcomes of Female Students," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(3), pages 693-715, May.
    10. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    11. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2020. "Pay and Job Rank among Academic Economists in the UK: Is Gender Relevant?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 82-113, March.
    12. Arceo-Gomez, Eva O. & Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M., 2022. "Gender Bias in Evaluation Processes," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Martina Viarengo & Ugo Panizza & Enrico Nano, 2021. "A Generation of Italian Economists," CID Working Papers 400, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    14. Nina Zipser & Lisa Mincieli & Dmitry Kurochkin, 2021. "Are There Gender Differences in Quantitative Student Evaluations of Instructors?," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 62(7), pages 976-997, November.
    15. Keng, Shao-Hsun, 2020. "Gender bias and statistical discrimination against female instructors in student evaluations of teaching," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Arnaud Philippe, 2020. "Gender Disparities in Sentencing," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1037-1077, October.
    17. Ryo Takahashi, 2022. "Gender differences in tolerance for women's opinions and the role of social norms," Working Papers 2123, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    18. Nicolás Urdaneta Andrade, 2021. "¿Hombres "cracks" y mujeres "amables"? Sesgos de género en encuestas de profesores," Documentos CEDE 19557, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    19. Ayalew, Shibiru & Manian, Shanthi & Sheth, Ketki, 2021. "Discrimination from below: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2022. "Female leadership: Effectiveness and perception," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 134-162.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00926-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.