Insights on Canadian Society
Differences in tenure status and feelings of fairness in hiring and promotions among male and female faculty in Canadian universities

by Sharanjit Uppal and Darcy Hango

Text begins

Acknowledgment

This study was funded by Women and Gender Equality Canada.

Start of text box

Introduction

Achieving tenure is a key goal in the career progression of faculty in universities. Tenure grants a professor permanent employment at their university and protects them from being fired without cause. The concept is closely tied to academic freedom, as the security of tenure allows professors to research and teach on any topic.^Note 

Past work suggests that—apart from the higher salary associated with being tenured—it is the prestige, stability, academic freedom and other benefits that go hand in hand with tenure that make it very appealing for individuals who pursue this type of career.^Note  In fact, achieving tenure is often the goal among PhD students, even if it is less attainable today than in the past.^Note  Recent PhD graduates face a highly competitive job market with more applicants competing for fewer tenure track jobs and a potential trend toward hiring contract sessional lecturers to fill the positions once held most frequently by tenured faculty.^Note  Non-tenured positions are staffed by instructors on contracts and are characterized by lower pay and more teaching responsibilities, which can lead to less time to conduct research and publish.^Note 

Achieving tenure is not necessarily experienced equally by men and women. Women are less likely than men to be in tenured positions. In 2019, 63% of tenured positions in Canadian universities were held by men compared to 37% by women.^Note  However, this gap has been decreasing – in 1990 women accounted for 14% of tenured positions. Moreover, by 2019, women in tenure track positions almost reached parity at 49%, up from 33% in 1990.  

Existing US research suggests that several factors may account for the persisting gender gap in tenure achievement, including differences between women’s and men’s fields of study and departments, time since the completion of highest degree, and  workplace dynamics that may be less favourable to women.^Note  Another important factor is the age structure of the tenured faculty, which continues to be dominated by older (mostly) male professors. Since there is no mandatory retirement age in academia, faculty continue to hold tenured positions and the younger, more diverse faculty, are in a holding pattern until these positions become vacant. Moreover, there is a differential impact on women and men of having children and becoming parents at the beginning of an academic career,^Note  although this impact of childcare may be decreasing over time.^Note 

This study uses 2019 data from the University and College Academic Staff System (UCASS) and the Survey of Postsecondary Faculty and Researchers (SPFR) to examine gender differences in employment and career progression among faculty in Canadian universities (see Data sources, methods and definitions).^Note 

In the first section, UCASS data are used to profile men and women who are full-time faculty members, with a focus on tenure status. Several factors that could explain the difference between men and women in tenure achievement are considered, including the time since the completion of the highest degree, highest level of education and department.

In the second section, SPFR data are used to study the association between parental leave and time to tenure among men and women in tenured positions.

Finally, self-reported opinions on fairness and equity in hiring and promotion are examined in the last section. While differences between men and women remain the main focus, SPFR data allow further disaggregation, for example, by racialized groups^Note , Indigenous identity and disability status. It is relevant since previous research has suggested that certain groups, such as those belonging to the racialized population, are less likely to obtain tenure track jobs and less likely to achieve tenure in their respective institutions.^Note  As a result, they may also be more likely to perceive unfairness in hiring and promotion processes.

In 2019, almost 6 in 10 full-time university faculty members in Canada were men

In 2019, based on data from the UCASS, full-time university faculty in Canada were not equally distributed across gender—59% were men and 41% were women (Table 1). The majority of full-time university faculty were aged 45 to 64 (59%) and about one-quarter were aged 35 to 44.

Most full-time university faculty (79%) held an earned doctorate as their highest level of education. The remaining 21% were distributed across other levels of education, with the highest proportion having a master’s degree, at 10%.

Full and associate professors made up well over two-thirds (70%) of all full-time university faculty in Canada, while a further 19% were at the assistant level.

With respect to departments, about one in five (18%) were employed in social and behavioural sciences and law, while 17% were in health and related fields, and 28% were in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, composed of physical and life sciences and technologies; mathematics, computer and information sciences; and architecture, engineering and related technologies.

Meanwhile, almost half of full-time faculty were employed in universities with medical and doctoral programs, nearly 3 in 10 worked in comprehensive universities, and 1 in 10 worked in primarily undergraduate institutions.^Note 

Finally, almost two‑thirds of full-time university faculty in Canada were Canadian citizens (64%), and 6 in 10 received their highest level of education in a Canadian institution. Meanwhile, almost 2 in 10 received their highest degree from an American school, while about 1 in 10 earned it from a European school.

Male university faculty are older and more likely to be full professors than their female counterparts

Female university faculty are younger than their male counterparts. In 2019, 34% were younger than 45 years of age, compared with 27% of men (Table 1). At the same time, there was a greater proportion of men (42%) aged 55 and older than women (34%).

This difference in the age profile of female and male faculty can be explained in part by time since the completion of the highest degree. Almost half (48%) of women completed their highest degree between 2004 and 2019, compared with more than one-third (35%) of men.^Note  This trend reflects a growing number of women in academia in recent decades. It is also evident when looking at rank: men were much more likely to be full professors (43%) compared with women (26%). Rank is directly related to the age of faculty (or time since the completion of the degree), with older faculty more likely to be full professors.^Note 

Female faculty are also less likely to have an earned doctorate degree as their highest level of education. About 75% of female faculty had a PhD, while this proportion was 82% for male faculty. In contrast, women (13%) were more likely to have a master’s degree as their highest level of education than men (7%). One explanation for this difference relates to the instructional program—women were more likely than men to be employed in health and related fields (22% versus 14%), and these fields less often require a PhD.

With respect to departments, women were more likely than men to be employed in education (7% versus 3%), while men were considerably more likely than women to be employed in STEM-related fields, including physical and life sciences and technologies; mathematics, computer and information sciences; and architecture, engineering and related technologies (36% versus 16%). A gender gap among postsecondary students and graduates in STEM fields is well documented.^Note  Women also appear to be slightly less likely than men to be employed in universities with medical and doctoral programs (46% versus 50% for men).

Finally, female full-time faculty were more likely than men to be Canadian citizens (66% versus 62%) and trained in Canada (63% versus 57%).^Note  Conversely, men were more likely than women to have their highest degree from the United States or Europe (31% versus 24%).

Women are less likely to be in tenured positions than men

University faculty positions are composed of three types: tenured, tenure track, and non-tenured. Tenure is highly sought-after given that it entails greater job security and higher earnings.^Note 

According to the UCASS, in 2019, tenured positions accounted for 70% of all full-time university faculty positions, while tenure track accounted for 18% and non-tenure track made up 8% (see Table 2). Women are less likely to be in tenured positions than men. Less than two-thirds (63%) of female faculty held such positions, compared with three-quarters (75%) of men. In contrast, women were more represented than men in non-tenured or non-tenure track positions (11% versus 7%) and tenure track positions (22% versus 16%).

There is a strong relationship between tenure status and the time since the completion of the highest degree. For example, 16% of faculty who had completed their highest degree in the past five years were tenured. That percentage climbs to 46% for 6 to 10 years since completion and 74% for 11 to 15 years since completion. Conversely, nearly two-thirds (63%) of faculty for whom it had been five years or less since the completion of their highest degree were in tenure track positions, and 17% were in non-tenure track positions. At the same time, university faculty with an earned doctorate were more likely to be tenured (75%) and much less likely to be working in non-tenured or non-tenure track positions (5%).

With respect to the department, certain programs have greater proportions of tenured faculty than others. More than three-quarters (76%) of university faculty in physical and life sciences and technologies were in tenured positions, while slightly lower proportions of faculty held tenured positions in architecture, engineering and related technologies (75%); humanities (73%); social and behavioural sciences and law (72%); and agriculture, natural resources and conservation (72%). On the other hand, business, management and public administration (66%) and health and related fields (60%) had relatively lower proportions of tenured faculty.

Tenure status also varies by type of university. For instance, faculty in universities with medical and doctoral programs were somewhat less likely than their counterparts in comprehensive universities to be in tenured positions (68% versus 73%) and, conversely, more likely to be in tenure track positions (21% versus 16%).

Faculty in full-time positions who obtained their highest level of education in Europe had the highest proportion of tenured positions. For example, 77% of the European-trained faculty were in tenured positions, while 74% of the American-trained faculty were in similar positions, and slightly less than 7 in 10 (69%) of the Canadian-trained faculty held a position with tenure.

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that differences exist among some groups when it comes to holding a tenured position. Some of these differences may be driven by differing characteristics. For example, while women are less likely to be in a tenured position, they are, at the same time, less likely to have an earned doctorate, an attribute associated with a higher likelihood of being in a tenured position, and are more likely to be younger.

To determine whether personal characteristics account for all or some of the differences in holding a tenured position between men and women, regression models were estimated (Table 3). In the base model (Model 1), only gender was included. Results show that male faculty had a higher predicted probability (12-percentage-point gap) of being in a tenured position compared with female faculty (0.75 versus 0.63).

After the model was adjusted for the time since the completion of the highest degree, the gap between men and women is reduced from a 12-percentage-point gap to a 5-percentage-point gap (predicted probability of 0.72 for men and 0.67 for women) (Model 2). After the highest level of education was taken into account, the gap between male and female faculty decreases further to a 3-percentage-point gap (0.71 for men and 0.68 for women) (Model 3). As mentioned earlier, female faculty are more likely to have graduated in the recent past than male faculty, and, as a result, when the time since the completion of the highest degree is considered, most of the gender difference is explained. Moreover, women are less likely to have an earned doctorate,^Note  and this finding also explains some of the gender gap.

In an additional model (Model 4), controls for the university type, department of instruction, country of highest degree, country of citizenship and province of residence were included. The inclusion of these variables did not close the gap between men and women in the probability of being tenured (0.71 for men and 0.68 for women).

The foregoing results are important because they establish that some gender gap in tenure, although more modest, holds even after considering other important factors. However, a shortcoming of this analysis is that information on indicators of productivity, such as research output and funding, is not available in the dataset. These indicators have an impact on tenure decisions and might differ across groups.

Time to tenure is affected by parental leave, but more so for women than men

While women are less likely to be in tenured positions, those who are in such positions have often taken longer to achieve tenure than their male counterparts. This may have implications for female faculty, since delaying tenure may affect salary later in one’s career.^Note 

In the SPFR, tenured faculty^Note  were asked about the number of years it took them to obtain tenure after their first tenure track appointment. This is an important measure because taking longer to achieve tenure may indicate that some faculty face potential barriers. One such example is that women who have children while in tenure track positions may have to delay their tenure due to time off for maternity leave.^Note  The same effect of starting or having a family may be lower for men, as male faculty have been found to provide fewer hours of childcare than female faculty.^Note 

For the purpose of this article, the duration to achieve tenure was grouped into three categories: less than five years, five to six years and more than six years.^Note  In general, one in three tenure track faculty obtained tenure in less than five years after their first tenure track appointment. Another 44% got tenured in five to six years, and the remaining 26% took seven years or more. These proportions were almost the same for men and women.

These values change, however, when the incidence of taking parental leave is considered (Chart 1). In this survey, the timing of the birth of children is not known, but information was collected on whether faculty members had ever taken parental leave since their first tenure track appointment.^Note  When men and women are examined separately, the impact of family leave on the time to achieve tenure appears to be much stronger for women.

Among women who took parental leave, fewer than one in five (19%) obtained tenure before year 5, while about 36% of women who did not take parental leave obtained tenure during these early years. In contrast, 41% of women who did not take parental leave achieved tenure in 5 or 6 years, while 52% of women who took parental leave achieved tenure during this same time frame. The same trend is prevalent beyond year 6, but the effect of taking time off for parental leave is not as large. For men meanwhile, there were no significant differences related to time to tenure between men who took parental leave and those who did not.^Note  Thus, these results suggest that women who did not take parental leave may have had an advantage in terms of obtaining tenure faster than their counterparts who took parental leave.^Note 

Women are less likely to feel that hiring is fair and equitable

Bias and unfairness in hiring and promotion processes have been considered as possible factors to explain women’s underrepresentation in academia and tenured positions.^Note  To understand how common these perceptions are, faculty were asked whether they thought that decisions related to hiring and promotions at their institution were fair and equitable.

With respect to hiring, almost two-thirds (64%) of faculty in universities agreed or strongly agreed that hiring decisions were fair and equitable, while about 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Another 14% neither agreed nor disagreed, and the remaining 7% stated that they did not know (Chart 2).

There is a gender difference in self-reported perceptions of fairness and equity in hiring. Women were more likely than men to disagree or strongly disagree that hiring was fair and equitable at their institution (20% versus 12%). That conclusion remained unchanged after considering numerous important characteristics in a regression model, including personal characteristics, instructional program, province of institution, and tenure status (Table 4). The probability of women disagreeing or strongly disagreeing was 0.21 compared with 0.13 for men.

Other groups that were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree included faculty belonging to racialized groups or a sexual minority^Note , or faculty members with a disability. Among faculty belonging to racialized groups, the probability was 0.21, which was higher than that for non–racialized faculty (0.16) (Table 4). Persons with a disability were notably more likely than those without a disability to disagree or strongly disagree (0.30 versus 0.16). Similarly, the probability was higher among sexual minorities (0.23 versus 0.16).

Compared with faculty in social and behavioural sciences and law (0.21), faculty in the following fields were less likely to disagree or strongly disagree: health and related fields (0.12); agriculture, natural resources and conservation (0.12); and physical and life sciences and technologies (0.16). Non-tenured or non-tenure track faculty were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree compared with tenured faculty (0.20 versus 0.13). Lastly, among the provinces, faculty in Newfoundland and Labrador (0.27) were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree compared with faculty in Ontario (0.15).

Analyses were conducted separately for men and women to see whether gender differences existed regarding feeling that hiring practices were unfair and inequitable. Results show that feelings of unfairness and inequity in hiring vary somewhat between men and women (Table 4). For instance, the probability for women who were sexual minorities to disagree that hiring was fair and equitable was 0.32 compared with 0.21 for their heterosexual counterparts. Among men, the difference was not statistically significant.

Based on some other characteristics, men and women had similar feelings about the fairness and equity of hiring practices at their institution. For instance, results showed that both men and women with a disability were significantly more likely than their peers without a disability to report feelings of unfairness and inequity in hiring. In particular, women with a disability were twice as likely (0.41) as women without a disability (0.20) to perceive unfairness in the hiring processes at their institutions.

Similarly, both male and female faculty members belonging to racialized groups were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree compared with their non–racialized counterparts.

Women are less likely to feel that promotions are fair and equitable

With respect to promotions, around one-half (51%) of faculty in universities agreed or strongly agreed that promotion decisions were fair and equitable, while about 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed (Chart 3). Another 17% neither agreed nor disagreed, and the remaining 14% stated that they did not know.

As was the case with hiring, proportionally more women than men perceived unfairness and inequity related to promotions. Specifically, women (23%) were more likely than men (14%) to disagree or strongly disagree that promotions were fair and equitable at their institution.

There was also a notable difference between faculty with a disability and those without—around 31% of the former disagreed or strongly disagreed compared with 17% of the latter. Faculty members belonging to racialized groups were also more likely to disagree or strongly disagree than the non–racialized population (22% versus 18%). A similar result was found for sexual minorities compared with their heterosexual counterparts (26% versus 18%).

None of the conclusions on promotions changed after adjusting for numerous characteristics in a regression model (Table 5). However, differences in views on fairness were noted by discipline, tenure status and province. Results from the model showed that, compared with faculty in social and behavioural sciences and law (0.25), those in the following fields were significantly less likely to disagree or strongly disagree that promotions were fair and equitable: mathematics, computer and information sciences (0.16); health and related fields (0.19); and physical and life sciences and technologies (0.19).

Some gender differences were also noticeable when estimating separate regressions related to promotions for men and women. For example, with respect to the population belonging to racialized groups, the effect was statistically significant only for women. Some gender differences were also found for the instructional programs and the province of the institution.

Conclusion

This study examined the tenure status, the time to achieve tenure, and ideas about fairness and equity in hiring and promotion among faculty at Canadian universities. A major finding suggests that women are less likely to be in tenured positions than men, but this difference is partially explained by gender differences in the time since the completion of the highest degree and highest level of educational attainment. A shortcoming of the analysis is that information related to research productivity and teaching could not be considered since this is not available in the dataset. Moreover, information on childcare and family responsibilities, which could also be associated with tenure—especially for women—was not available and could not be considered.

Past research also suggested that family responsibilities may be affecting the time to obtain tenure. In this study, the time to attain tenure was affected by parental leave, especially for women. For instance, less than one-fifth (19%) of female faculty who had taken parental leave obtained tenure before year 5, while just over one-third (36%) of their counterparts who did not take parental leave obtained tenure during these early years. A similar trend is present at years 5 and 6 as well. For men, the impact of parental leave is also present, but more muted.

Not only were women less likely to be in tenured positions, they were also less likely than men to feel that hiring and promotions are fair and equitable at their institutions. This was true even after considering age, education, instructional program and other characteristics. Other groups that were also more likely to state that hiring and promotions at their institution were unfair and inequitable were the racialized population and individuals with a disability. The gap is especially large between those with and without a disability. In particular, women with a disability were twice as likely as women without a disability to feel that hiring at their institution was not fair or equitable.

To conclude, though women are less likely to be in tenured positions, this gap has been closing over the past three decades. Furthermore, women are equally likely to be in tenure track positions. Following retirement of older, mostly male faculty in the coming years, the gender gap in tenured positions is likely to narrow further.

End of text box