In Search of Token Women in Academia

Carlotta Joyner Young, Doris Layton Mackenzie, Carolyn Wood Sherif

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the “token women” adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) non-token women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)508-525
Number of pages18
JournalPsychology of Women Quarterly
Volume4
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1980

Fingerprint

Sexism
meritocracy
discrimination
Law
marginality
Marital Status
marital status
Group
university
trend
Discrimination
Meritocracy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gender Studies
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Young, Carlotta Joyner ; Mackenzie, Doris Layton ; Sherif, Carolyn Wood. / In Search of Token Women in Academia. In: Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1980 ; Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. 508-525.
@article{d06d6261058b4136a1f0a0a02cf046d2,
title = "In Search of Token Women in Academia",
abstract = "Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the “token women” adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) non-token women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.",
author = "Young, {Carlotta Joyner} and Mackenzie, {Doris Layton} and Sherif, {Carolyn Wood}",
year = "1980",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00723.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "508--525",
journal = "Psychology of Women Quarterly",
issn = "0361-6843",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

Young, CJ, Mackenzie, DL & Sherif, CW 1980, 'In Search of Token Women in Academia', Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 508-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00723.x

In Search of Token Women in Academia. / Young, Carlotta Joyner; Mackenzie, Doris Layton; Sherif, Carolyn Wood.

In: Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, 01.01.1980, p. 508-525.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Search of Token Women in Academia

AU - Young, Carlotta Joyner

AU - Mackenzie, Doris Layton

AU - Sherif, Carolyn Wood

PY - 1980/1/1

Y1 - 1980/1/1

N2 - Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the “token women” adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) non-token women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.

AB - Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the “token women” adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) non-token women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925922369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925922369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00723.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00723.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84925922369

VL - 4

SP - 508

EP - 525

JO - Psychology of Women Quarterly

JF - Psychology of Women Quarterly

SN - 0361-6843

IS - 4

ER -