I've been trying to catch up on back numbers of Times Higher Education that have been around for a week or two, and as a result I have come up with a little riddle.
What do the following universities have in common with each other (and with no other)?
Bucks New
Cumbria
Gloucestershire
Kingston
Leeds Trinity
St Mark and St John (Plymouth)
One obvious comment (for those in the know) might be that among these 6 universities half have female vice-Chancellors and half male. Bucks New, Leeds Trinity, and MarJohn (as it's very often known) all have female Vice-Chancellors - and in the case of Bucks New the new VC (Rebecca Bunting) recently replaced a female who was previously in the role - Ruth Farwell - a rare succession.
Across UK universities only 14% of VCs are female, whereas in this group of six 50% are women.
But that's not what is distinctive about the group, because it doesn't set them apart from any other group that could be constructed.
No, instead these are the only universities in the UK where, in the tables of salary information produced in Times Higher, female academics average a higher salary than male acacdemics. We can only speculate whether there is some influence from having a female VC, but I suspect that's not the case. In a senior research intensive university headed by a female VC (that actually narrows it down to one so I might as well admit I am talking about Manchester) the average female academic salary lags that of the average male by £7k per annum. Certainly in every university other than the 6 listed above the average salary of acacdemic men is higher than for women in similar positions.
These gender differences in salary are interesting and cause for concern. But as a social scientist I am always looking for comparisons to be made on a like for like basis, standardising on key variables. And that leads me to think about the distribution of men and women around various departments and faculties. That leads into a number of observations that might temper a simple view of gender discrimination in salary:
1. There are very few female heads of departmnt in Engineering faculties, yet in Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities or in some subjects in Medical faculties female heads are commonplace. In Sheffield there have as yet been no female heads in Engineering, yet all but one of the current heads in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities are women - as is their leader, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty.
2. This is in the form of a hypothesis. I could unearth the data to test it but it would take some time. I hypothesise that the average salary in subjects such as Mechanical Engineering or Physics is higher than in, say, Social Work or Education. The first two of those subjects are weighted towards men in their staff complement, the latter two towards women.
3. It may therefore be that gendered differences in salaries are as much caused by the uneven distribution of women and men between high-paying and low-paying departments. Of course, university promotions committees are there to ensure fair play for all, but perhaps there are greater claims for paying 'higher than average' for those in some departments - on an argument about market competition.
4. This could easily become self-fulfilling, with disciplines with low percentages of women, and no female heads, 'expecting' higher salaries and acting through committee discussions to secure the permission to pay them.
So the simple statement that all bar six universities in the UK pay men on average more than women may need nuancing. As important may be a pattern of paying those in certain disciplines less than those in others. And that may also have a gendered dimension to it.
What I would like to see would be a table of average salaries for men and for women in faculties of science, engineering, arts, social sciences etc across the country, along with counts of males and females in each. That could be interesting.
What do the following universities have in common with each other (and with no other)?
Bucks New
Cumbria
Gloucestershire
Kingston
Leeds Trinity
St Mark and St John (Plymouth)
One obvious comment (for those in the know) might be that among these 6 universities half have female vice-Chancellors and half male. Bucks New, Leeds Trinity, and MarJohn (as it's very often known) all have female Vice-Chancellors - and in the case of Bucks New the new VC (Rebecca Bunting) recently replaced a female who was previously in the role - Ruth Farwell - a rare succession.
Across UK universities only 14% of VCs are female, whereas in this group of six 50% are women.
But that's not what is distinctive about the group, because it doesn't set them apart from any other group that could be constructed.
No, instead these are the only universities in the UK where, in the tables of salary information produced in Times Higher, female academics average a higher salary than male acacdemics. We can only speculate whether there is some influence from having a female VC, but I suspect that's not the case. In a senior research intensive university headed by a female VC (that actually narrows it down to one so I might as well admit I am talking about Manchester) the average female academic salary lags that of the average male by £7k per annum. Certainly in every university other than the 6 listed above the average salary of acacdemic men is higher than for women in similar positions.
These gender differences in salary are interesting and cause for concern. But as a social scientist I am always looking for comparisons to be made on a like for like basis, standardising on key variables. And that leads me to think about the distribution of men and women around various departments and faculties. That leads into a number of observations that might temper a simple view of gender discrimination in salary:
1. There are very few female heads of departmnt in Engineering faculties, yet in Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities or in some subjects in Medical faculties female heads are commonplace. In Sheffield there have as yet been no female heads in Engineering, yet all but one of the current heads in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities are women - as is their leader, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty.
2. This is in the form of a hypothesis. I could unearth the data to test it but it would take some time. I hypothesise that the average salary in subjects such as Mechanical Engineering or Physics is higher than in, say, Social Work or Education. The first two of those subjects are weighted towards men in their staff complement, the latter two towards women.
3. It may therefore be that gendered differences in salaries are as much caused by the uneven distribution of women and men between high-paying and low-paying departments. Of course, university promotions committees are there to ensure fair play for all, but perhaps there are greater claims for paying 'higher than average' for those in some departments - on an argument about market competition.
4. This could easily become self-fulfilling, with disciplines with low percentages of women, and no female heads, 'expecting' higher salaries and acting through committee discussions to secure the permission to pay them.
So the simple statement that all bar six universities in the UK pay men on average more than women may need nuancing. As important may be a pattern of paying those in certain disciplines less than those in others. And that may also have a gendered dimension to it.
What I would like to see would be a table of average salaries for men and for women in faculties of science, engineering, arts, social sciences etc across the country, along with counts of males and females in each. That could be interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment