Perceived Gender Differences: Leadership Roles Among Faculty in higher Education Communication Sciences and Disorders Programs in Missouri
By Marie Fleming
Overview
Historically, teaching professionals in higher education have been predominantly male, and while a growing number of females have entered the teaching profession at colleges and universities, it remains a male-dominated field (Mamiseishvili, 2012). However, in female-dominated fields of study, it is important to note whether or not the educators in those fields are also primarily female. Furthermore, it is necessary to identify who among these educators at colleges and universities hold administrative positions, and whether or not administrative positions are also male-dominated in order to determine if gender bias and/or discrimination is at play. Specifically, in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders, males comprise only 4.7% of the constituents of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA, 2018). Only 3.3% of all ASHA constituents are employed by a college or university, and only 7% of those constituents hold administrative positions (ASHA, 2018).
What ASHA fails to report is how many males versus females hold these administrative positions in colleges/universities. Because there are no comprehensive studies that map out this gender difference in Communication Sciences and Disorders, this researcher will be conducting a descriptive study of perceived gender differences within higher education Communication Sciences and Disorders programs in Missouri. Not only is the field of professionals female-dominated, but current students studying Communication Sciences and Disorders at a higher education level are also primarily female (ASHA, 2018). Therefore, it is important to investigate and identify gender differences between the people who hold administrative positions at universities and the current students and future professionals who they are educating. While ASHA has an interest group revolving around “Issues in Higher Education,” none of their goals or professional and study issues are focused on gender equity within higher education (ASHA, 2018). However, in order for the ASHA special interest group to meet their goals and fulfill their mission statement, it would seem that issues revolving around gender equity would need to be addressed and methodology would need to be put in place to ensure gender equity.
The purpose of this literature review is to identify themes that are consistent within the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the professional level. Several abbreviations will be used throughout this study. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association will be abbreviated as ASHA, Communication Sciences and Disorders as CSD, speech-language pathologist as SLP, and audiologist as AuD. “Gender” in this review is inclusive of only men and women and is often referred to in terms of sex (male and female). All of the studies referenced in this paper only studied gender differences in terms those two gender identities and were not inclusive of non-binary identities. Additionally, the term “leadership” in this review is characterized by faculty who have administration as a portion of their workload. The review will first address gender differences within the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, comparing demographics in different educational, clinical, and administrative positions. At the higher education level, the review will discuss gender differences in Communication Sciences and Disorders faculty and methods of addressing gender equity. Professionals in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders need to understand the importance of gender equity in all settings. Acknowledging when there is not equal opportunity for certain groups and attempting to alleviate these issues is a skill that is essential for any person holding an administrative position. Although speech-pathology and audiology are female-dominated fields, the number of male faculty, male faculty with leadership positions, and male faculty ranking is disproportionate to the total number of SLPs and AuDs. Therefore, further research needs to be conducted in order to determine why this is the case.
Gender Differences Within the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Overall trends within ASHA identify females as holding a significant majority of SLP and AuD positions both nationally and at the state level (ASHA, 2018). Additionally, only a small percentage of ASHA constituents hold administrator positions, which can include administrator/executive officer, chair/department head/manager, supervisor of clinical activity, other director/supervisor, or some other type of position (ASHA, 2018). These positions can be described as leadership positions within the field. The percentage of constituents whose primary work setting is at a college/university is also relatively small (ASHA, 2018). The sections below further breakdown the numbers of female and male SLPs/AuDs, the percentages of constituents who hold administrator positions, and the percentages of constituents who work at a college/university.
National Data
Nationally, the fields of speech pathology and audiology are female dominated. According to ASHA, in 2017, there were 185,330 ASHA certified audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and speech, language, and hearing scientists. 4.7% of ASHA constituents are male, leaving the remaining 95.3% as female. From a total of 185,563 ASHA constituents, 7% of these members hold some type of administrator position as their primary employment function. However, ASHA does not disclose how many members of this 7% are male. To be considered proportionate to the total number of ASHA constituents, the number of males holding administrative positions would be approximately 611. Additionally, 3.3% of the 185,563 constituents cited a College/University Educational Facility as their primary employment facility. The document does not state the number of males versus females who hold administrator positions. It is unknown whether some of these individuals work both in a College/University setting and as an administrator. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate how many of these administrator positions are within a College/University context. In another survey, ASHA provides data regarding the total number of academic and clinical faculty. Nationally, there is a total of 2,925 academic faculty and a total of 2,228 clinical faculty who work in higher education settings (ASHA, 2018). There is no data describing how many males versus females hold academic or clinical faculty positions.
In summary, there is a significantly higher number of females than males who work in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders nationally. Only a small percentage of people hold leadership positions and an even smaller number work at colleges/universities (ASHA, 2018). It is important to determine how many females hold these administrator positions in Colleges/Universities in order to determine if there is a disproportionate number of males holding them. These administrator positions are typically higher-paying and more respected than clinical work or teaching (Mamiseishvili, 2012). Greater and more in-depth research must be conducted to identify the gender differences within higher education nationally. In order to alleviate gender stereotypes and discrimination that often accompanies female-dominated fields, ASHA and professionals in CSD at large need to understand the numbers behind these gender differences and the significance in what they represent.
State-Level Data: Missouri
To follow the national data, ASHA presents data on the demographic profile in each state. The state in which this researcher’s data comes from is within higher education programs in Missouri. Therefore, this section will address the current demographic profile and trends within this state. In Missouri, only 3% of ASHA Member and Nonmember Certificate Holders Certified in Speech-Language Pathology are male, and the remaining 97% are female. Of those who work in SLP, 6.8% hold “administrator” positions, which is comparable to the national average of 7% for both SLP and AuD (ASHA, 2018). Only 2.8% of certified SLPs selected a College/University as their primary employment facility, which is a 15% difference from the national number (ASHA, 2018).
In Audiology, 15.8% of ASHA Member and Nonmember Certificate Holders in Missouri are male and 84.2% are female. There is a much greater percentage of males in Audiology in Missouri compared to the national percentage for both SLP and AuD, which is 4.7%. Of the AuD certificate holders in Missouri, 6.9% hold “administrator” positions as their primary employment function, which is also comparable to the 7% national average. 11.6% of audiologists in Missouri cited “College/University” as their primary employment facility, which is a 61% difference from the national percentage of 7.2%. (ASHA, 2018). It is still unknown how many of these administrator positions are within the College/University facility in Audiology in Missouri.
The data presented in this study does not show what the combined statistics would be for both SLP and AuD. In Speech-Pathology, the number of female SLPs and the percentage of administrator positions is similar to the national data ASHA provides. In Audiology, there is a significantly higher percentage of male AuDs in Missouri compared to the national average. Additionally, there is a significantly greater percentage of AuDs that work at colleges/universities in Missouri than compared to the national average (ASHA, 2018). Like the national data ASHA provides, there is no indication as to the percentages of males vs. females who work in university/college settings or who hold leadership positions, and whether or not these leadership positions are at colleges/universities. By conducting further research to answer these questions, there can be a greater understanding regarding gender differences in Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Gender Differences in Higher Education Among CSD Faculty
While ASHA failed to report more specific gender differences within the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders, other studies found significant data to contribute to the question of gender equity. The following sections aim to highlight some of the key perspectives on gender equity in higher education and in Communication Sciences and Disorders and also includes some methods which have been used to address gender equity.
Which Individuals Impact Communication Sciences and Disorders
In a study done in 2017, Stuart, Faucette, and Thomas examined the “author-level impact metrics for faculty in the communication sciences and disorders research field” from 257 accredited programs in the United States and Canada. In other words, the researchers studied which groups of people had the greatest impact in the field of CSD. The metrics included analyzing faculty expertise in both the fields of audiology and speech pathology, academic rank, and gender. They discovered there were a total of 2,010 speech pathologists and audiologists among academic faculty at these programs in the US and Canada (Stuart, Faucette &Thomas, 2017). Additionally, they found that women comprised 68.1% of faculty, and men comprised 31.9% (Stuart et al., 2017). This is data that were not provided by ASHA’s surveys. This presents a stark difference between the national data provided by ASHA, which indicated that men comprised only 4.7% of ASHA constituents, meaning that there is a significantly disproportionate amount of men in faculty positions at universities compared to the national number of male ASHA constituents (ASHA, 2018).
In specific areas of expertise, it was discovered that among faculty in audiology, 46.3% were men (Stuart et al., 2017). In contrast, the percentage of male audiologists who are ASHA constituents is 14.6% (ASHA, 2018). In speech pathology, males comprise 27.3% of faculty at these universities (Stuart et al., 2017), while they only comprise 3.7% of SLPs nationally according to ASHA (2018). Because this study does not provide any possible explanations as to why there is such a disproportionate number of males who hold faculty positions in AuD and SLP, further research needs to be conducted to find some conclusions to this question. The results of the study determined that faculty members who had a greater impact in the field of CSD were people who had higher academic rank, such as Professors rather than Associate or Assistant Professors, males rather than females, and those in audiology rather than speech pathology (Stuart et al., 2017). Furthermore, the study concluded that these groups who had a greater impact may be more likely to be offered tenure and promotion review, grant applications, and employment (Stuart et al., 2017). This data is significant because it describes a discord between men and women in the academic world.
While this study provides key information regarding gender differences among faculty in Communication Sciences and Disorders programs, it gives no data regarding those who hold administrative positions and if there are any gender differences among those. Additionally, the study included programs in Canada, which could skew the data if it were analyzed only in the United States. This study does describe a dissonance between male and female leadership opportunities, however, by describing that men contribute more of an “impact” and therefore are more likely to be offered tenure and promotions (Stuart et al., 2017). According to Campbell and LaCost, women are required to perform at a higher skill level than a man has to perform at in order to be recruited for administrative or leadership positions, including tenure and promotions (2010). Further research needs to be conducted in order to determine why men are making more of an impact within the field and what can be done in order to alleviate this gender difference.
Perspectives
There is minimal research that studies the reasons why men are so disproportionately holding these higher ranking, more respected positions. However, in a study conducted by Litossliti and Leadbeater (2013) in the United Kingdom, the researchers present some perspectives as to why the profession of speech pathology is so gendered and segregated. It is important to note that the study analyzes careers in only speech-language pathology and does not include audiology. Additionally, the study was conducted in the United Kingdom, not the United States. However, the study is still relevant to issues regarding speech pathology in the United States because similar issues are present in the UK as the US. The study discussed if there are structural gender inequalities within the profession and included some ideas as to why this could be so.
In one of the focus groups the researchers composed, a female speech-language therapist believes that one of the reasons men move through the ranks so quickly is because “… men tend to identify managerial leadership skills that they have earlier actually because they see a career progression… I think that it’s just that success is measured more in the male psyche by the status that you have through the profession” (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013, p. 97). This statement addresses the fact that some men may believe that success is measured through how high you rank in your designated profession. For speech-language pathology, that may mean holding those administrative and management positions. Another teacher of speech-language pathology suggested that men are not as attracted to the “emotional aspects” of the profession, and instead they would rather focus on management or research (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). This is based off the traditional gender stereotypes that women are more emotional, and men are more rational. These quotes from female SLPs suggest some possible explanations as to why there is such a disproportionate amount of men who hold these administrative positions in speech pathology.
The study also included some male perspectives on the issue. One male SLP offered his opinion as to why it seems harder for female SLPs to rise through the ranks. He suggests that it is because the people who are making those decisions as to who gets to hold those positions are currently men (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). This suggests a possible discriminatory factor into why there is an imbalance in gender equity in administrative positions. This perspective is also mentioned in a study done by Abdul-Raheem, where it is discussed that lack of recruitment of minorities, including women, may be affected by biases and lack of experiences by the members of the hiring committee (2016). Additionally, another male SLP quoted something his manager told him about taking a more “male-appropriate” direction within the field by stating “…oh you don’t want to carry on working with teddies and dollies” (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013, p. 97). This statement may be indicative that working with clients, specifically children, in therapy is women’s work. Other men within the study described how they felt they were being expected to work in certain settings as an SLP, specifically in hospital settings (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). Hospital settings may be perceived as more respectable and more masculine that other potential settings, such as schools, skilled nursing facilities, or clinics.
This study concludes that there is not enough information to make a firm statement about gender imbalance in the field of speech-language pathology, and that any suggestion that there are structural gender inequalities within the field need to be researched more in depth in order to make a valid claim (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). However, it does offer some potential explanations as to why there is an imbalance between men and women in the field of SLP and why men hold more administrative positions than is proportionate to their total numbers. Some other studies indicate that a need for mentoring is essential in order for women to apply for tenure and promotions into leadership positions (Mullen, 2009). This study explores key issues which need to be researched more in order to acquire a more comprehensive view of gender equity in the field of SLP. Future studies need to include perspectives in audiology as well in order to be inclusive of all avenues of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Methods of Addressing Gender Equity
From the studies analyzed in this review, it is clear that there is a gender inequity among faculty in the fields of speech pathology and audiology in universities. It is important that these inequities be addressed both at the departmental, university, state, and national level. In order to determine whether or not there is a gender bias present in the field of CSD, research needs to be done to uncover the reasons why men are so disproportionately holding leadership positions within the field. Some universities are attempting to look into this imbalance and find ways to ensure gender equity among its faculty.
All of universities this researcher is studying have some type of office and/or task force dedicated to inclusion and equity at the university level. The universities the researcher is conducting her study include ones that have higher education programs (master’s and/or PhD) in Communication Sciences and Disorders (speech pathology and/or audiology). Some universities have a specific task force or commission dedicated to gender equity, while some combine their gender equity efforts with other issues such as diversity and inclusion. For example, one of Saint Louis University’s methods for addressing gender equity is the “Gender Equity Task Force” that was formed in order to determine whether “…faculty are treated equitably and are not disadvantaged because of their gender.” Several topics revolving around gender equity including academic rank, tenure, leadership opportunities, and promotion are addressed in some of these universities’ offices and/or studies.
While these offices and task forces present an effort made by the universities to address gender equity and methods for equalizing opportunity, they are all at the university level. Efforts are not specified for each department within the university, and often do not have different goals for each department. This is an important issue that needs to be tackled because each department has different issues that need to be addressed and worked through. Some departments and programs, such as CSD, do not necessarily have issues with including women in the workplace in academia, but have issues regarding opportunities for advancement and leadership. It is necessary for universities to develop programs for each specific department in order to cater to their direct needs and concerns.
Conclusion
Contributions of this literature to the field
The studies analyzed in this review offer several contributions to the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders. They describe the numbers of men and women in the field, both in speech pathology and audiology, and reveal the percentages of people who work at colleges/universities and who hold administrator positions. However, the data ASHA presents does not describe how many men versus women work at colleges/universities or how many hold leadership positions. Other studies conducted outside of ASHA do reveal how many men versus women hold faculty positions at colleges/universities, but still does not tell us how many of these faculty members hold leadership positions within the university and how many of those people are men versus women.
It is determined that there is a significant disproportion of men who work at colleges/universities compared to the national percentage of men who work as SLPs or AuDs in general (ASHA, 2018) (Stuart et al., 2017). Some perspectives were offered as to why this is so, however no concrete evidence was presented to indicate the validity of these perspectives (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). Additionally, none of these studies were fully comprehensive of what this researcher is studying. Some of the studies were conducted in or included different countries other than the United States, and none of them fully described who holds leadership positions within the field. This information is essential to this researcher, in order to determine if there is a significant gender difference among faculty who hold leadership positions at colleges/universities with higher education SLP and AuD programs. While it is important to determine gender differences between men and women, it is also important to be inclusive of other non-binary gender identities, which were not included in any of these studies.
Because of the key factors these studies do not incorporate, this researcher is conducting a study in order to analyze gender differences among faculty holding leadership positions in CSD higher education programs in Missouri. Compiling analytical data of who holds leadership positions along with perspectives from faculty will provide a more comprehensive view of gender differences within the field. From this research, a greater effort can be made in order to alleviate potential gender differences and biases and provide equal opportunity for all people in the field, regardless of their gender identity.
References
Abdul-Raheem, J. (2016). Faculty Diversity and Tenure in Higher Education. Journal Of
Cultural Diversity, 23(2), 53–56. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=27439231&site=eds-live
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). ASHA Demographic Profile
Certificate Holders by State, year-end 2017. Retrieved from www.asha.org.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). ASHA summary membership and
affiliation counts, year-end 2017. Retrieved from www.asha.org.
Campbell, S., & LaCost, B. Y. (2010) CLS to higher education administrator: the price they paid.
Clinical Laboratory Science: Journal Of The American Society For Medical Technology, 23(3), 157-165. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN276208923&site=eds-live
Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders & American Speech-
Language- Hearing Association. (2018). Communication sciences and disorders (CSD) education survey national aggregate data report: 2016–2017 academic year. Retrieved from www.capcsd.org and www.asha.org.
Litosseliti, L., & Leadbeater, C. (2013). Speech and language therapy/pathology: Perspectives
on a gendered profession. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 48(1), 90–101. Retrieved from
http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1010060&site=eds-live
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Thriving in academia: Understanding and managing the complexities
of faculty work. Perspect Iss Higher Ed, 15(2), 77-84. doi: 10.1044/ihe15.2.77.
Mullen, C. A. (2009). Challenges and breakthroughs of female department chairs across
disciplines in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 29(9), 1. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=44460922&site=eds-live
Special Interest Group 10, Issues in Higher Education. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.asha.org/SIG/10
Stuart, A., Faucette, S. P., & Thomas, W. J. (2017). Author Impact Metrics in Communication
Sciences and Disorder Research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2704–2724. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1155819&site=eds-live
By Marie Fleming
Overview
Historically, teaching professionals in higher education have been predominantly male, and while a growing number of females have entered the teaching profession at colleges and universities, it remains a male-dominated field (Mamiseishvili, 2012). However, in female-dominated fields of study, it is important to note whether or not the educators in those fields are also primarily female. Furthermore, it is necessary to identify who among these educators at colleges and universities hold administrative positions, and whether or not administrative positions are also male-dominated in order to determine if gender bias and/or discrimination is at play. Specifically, in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders, males comprise only 4.7% of the constituents of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA, 2018). Only 3.3% of all ASHA constituents are employed by a college or university, and only 7% of those constituents hold administrative positions (ASHA, 2018).
What ASHA fails to report is how many males versus females hold these administrative positions in colleges/universities. Because there are no comprehensive studies that map out this gender difference in Communication Sciences and Disorders, this researcher will be conducting a descriptive study of perceived gender differences within higher education Communication Sciences and Disorders programs in Missouri. Not only is the field of professionals female-dominated, but current students studying Communication Sciences and Disorders at a higher education level are also primarily female (ASHA, 2018). Therefore, it is important to investigate and identify gender differences between the people who hold administrative positions at universities and the current students and future professionals who they are educating. While ASHA has an interest group revolving around “Issues in Higher Education,” none of their goals or professional and study issues are focused on gender equity within higher education (ASHA, 2018). However, in order for the ASHA special interest group to meet their goals and fulfill their mission statement, it would seem that issues revolving around gender equity would need to be addressed and methodology would need to be put in place to ensure gender equity.
The purpose of this literature review is to identify themes that are consistent within the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the professional level. Several abbreviations will be used throughout this study. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association will be abbreviated as ASHA, Communication Sciences and Disorders as CSD, speech-language pathologist as SLP, and audiologist as AuD. “Gender” in this review is inclusive of only men and women and is often referred to in terms of sex (male and female). All of the studies referenced in this paper only studied gender differences in terms those two gender identities and were not inclusive of non-binary identities. Additionally, the term “leadership” in this review is characterized by faculty who have administration as a portion of their workload. The review will first address gender differences within the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, comparing demographics in different educational, clinical, and administrative positions. At the higher education level, the review will discuss gender differences in Communication Sciences and Disorders faculty and methods of addressing gender equity. Professionals in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders need to understand the importance of gender equity in all settings. Acknowledging when there is not equal opportunity for certain groups and attempting to alleviate these issues is a skill that is essential for any person holding an administrative position. Although speech-pathology and audiology are female-dominated fields, the number of male faculty, male faculty with leadership positions, and male faculty ranking is disproportionate to the total number of SLPs and AuDs. Therefore, further research needs to be conducted in order to determine why this is the case.
Gender Differences Within the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Overall trends within ASHA identify females as holding a significant majority of SLP and AuD positions both nationally and at the state level (ASHA, 2018). Additionally, only a small percentage of ASHA constituents hold administrator positions, which can include administrator/executive officer, chair/department head/manager, supervisor of clinical activity, other director/supervisor, or some other type of position (ASHA, 2018). These positions can be described as leadership positions within the field. The percentage of constituents whose primary work setting is at a college/university is also relatively small (ASHA, 2018). The sections below further breakdown the numbers of female and male SLPs/AuDs, the percentages of constituents who hold administrator positions, and the percentages of constituents who work at a college/university.
National Data
Nationally, the fields of speech pathology and audiology are female dominated. According to ASHA, in 2017, there were 185,330 ASHA certified audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and speech, language, and hearing scientists. 4.7% of ASHA constituents are male, leaving the remaining 95.3% as female. From a total of 185,563 ASHA constituents, 7% of these members hold some type of administrator position as their primary employment function. However, ASHA does not disclose how many members of this 7% are male. To be considered proportionate to the total number of ASHA constituents, the number of males holding administrative positions would be approximately 611. Additionally, 3.3% of the 185,563 constituents cited a College/University Educational Facility as their primary employment facility. The document does not state the number of males versus females who hold administrator positions. It is unknown whether some of these individuals work both in a College/University setting and as an administrator. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate how many of these administrator positions are within a College/University context. In another survey, ASHA provides data regarding the total number of academic and clinical faculty. Nationally, there is a total of 2,925 academic faculty and a total of 2,228 clinical faculty who work in higher education settings (ASHA, 2018). There is no data describing how many males versus females hold academic or clinical faculty positions.
In summary, there is a significantly higher number of females than males who work in the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders nationally. Only a small percentage of people hold leadership positions and an even smaller number work at colleges/universities (ASHA, 2018). It is important to determine how many females hold these administrator positions in Colleges/Universities in order to determine if there is a disproportionate number of males holding them. These administrator positions are typically higher-paying and more respected than clinical work or teaching (Mamiseishvili, 2012). Greater and more in-depth research must be conducted to identify the gender differences within higher education nationally. In order to alleviate gender stereotypes and discrimination that often accompanies female-dominated fields, ASHA and professionals in CSD at large need to understand the numbers behind these gender differences and the significance in what they represent.
State-Level Data: Missouri
To follow the national data, ASHA presents data on the demographic profile in each state. The state in which this researcher’s data comes from is within higher education programs in Missouri. Therefore, this section will address the current demographic profile and trends within this state. In Missouri, only 3% of ASHA Member and Nonmember Certificate Holders Certified in Speech-Language Pathology are male, and the remaining 97% are female. Of those who work in SLP, 6.8% hold “administrator” positions, which is comparable to the national average of 7% for both SLP and AuD (ASHA, 2018). Only 2.8% of certified SLPs selected a College/University as their primary employment facility, which is a 15% difference from the national number (ASHA, 2018).
In Audiology, 15.8% of ASHA Member and Nonmember Certificate Holders in Missouri are male and 84.2% are female. There is a much greater percentage of males in Audiology in Missouri compared to the national percentage for both SLP and AuD, which is 4.7%. Of the AuD certificate holders in Missouri, 6.9% hold “administrator” positions as their primary employment function, which is also comparable to the 7% national average. 11.6% of audiologists in Missouri cited “College/University” as their primary employment facility, which is a 61% difference from the national percentage of 7.2%. (ASHA, 2018). It is still unknown how many of these administrator positions are within the College/University facility in Audiology in Missouri.
The data presented in this study does not show what the combined statistics would be for both SLP and AuD. In Speech-Pathology, the number of female SLPs and the percentage of administrator positions is similar to the national data ASHA provides. In Audiology, there is a significantly higher percentage of male AuDs in Missouri compared to the national average. Additionally, there is a significantly greater percentage of AuDs that work at colleges/universities in Missouri than compared to the national average (ASHA, 2018). Like the national data ASHA provides, there is no indication as to the percentages of males vs. females who work in university/college settings or who hold leadership positions, and whether or not these leadership positions are at colleges/universities. By conducting further research to answer these questions, there can be a greater understanding regarding gender differences in Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Gender Differences in Higher Education Among CSD Faculty
While ASHA failed to report more specific gender differences within the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders, other studies found significant data to contribute to the question of gender equity. The following sections aim to highlight some of the key perspectives on gender equity in higher education and in Communication Sciences and Disorders and also includes some methods which have been used to address gender equity.
Which Individuals Impact Communication Sciences and Disorders
In a study done in 2017, Stuart, Faucette, and Thomas examined the “author-level impact metrics for faculty in the communication sciences and disorders research field” from 257 accredited programs in the United States and Canada. In other words, the researchers studied which groups of people had the greatest impact in the field of CSD. The metrics included analyzing faculty expertise in both the fields of audiology and speech pathology, academic rank, and gender. They discovered there were a total of 2,010 speech pathologists and audiologists among academic faculty at these programs in the US and Canada (Stuart, Faucette &Thomas, 2017). Additionally, they found that women comprised 68.1% of faculty, and men comprised 31.9% (Stuart et al., 2017). This is data that were not provided by ASHA’s surveys. This presents a stark difference between the national data provided by ASHA, which indicated that men comprised only 4.7% of ASHA constituents, meaning that there is a significantly disproportionate amount of men in faculty positions at universities compared to the national number of male ASHA constituents (ASHA, 2018).
In specific areas of expertise, it was discovered that among faculty in audiology, 46.3% were men (Stuart et al., 2017). In contrast, the percentage of male audiologists who are ASHA constituents is 14.6% (ASHA, 2018). In speech pathology, males comprise 27.3% of faculty at these universities (Stuart et al., 2017), while they only comprise 3.7% of SLPs nationally according to ASHA (2018). Because this study does not provide any possible explanations as to why there is such a disproportionate number of males who hold faculty positions in AuD and SLP, further research needs to be conducted to find some conclusions to this question. The results of the study determined that faculty members who had a greater impact in the field of CSD were people who had higher academic rank, such as Professors rather than Associate or Assistant Professors, males rather than females, and those in audiology rather than speech pathology (Stuart et al., 2017). Furthermore, the study concluded that these groups who had a greater impact may be more likely to be offered tenure and promotion review, grant applications, and employment (Stuart et al., 2017). This data is significant because it describes a discord between men and women in the academic world.
While this study provides key information regarding gender differences among faculty in Communication Sciences and Disorders programs, it gives no data regarding those who hold administrative positions and if there are any gender differences among those. Additionally, the study included programs in Canada, which could skew the data if it were analyzed only in the United States. This study does describe a dissonance between male and female leadership opportunities, however, by describing that men contribute more of an “impact” and therefore are more likely to be offered tenure and promotions (Stuart et al., 2017). According to Campbell and LaCost, women are required to perform at a higher skill level than a man has to perform at in order to be recruited for administrative or leadership positions, including tenure and promotions (2010). Further research needs to be conducted in order to determine why men are making more of an impact within the field and what can be done in order to alleviate this gender difference.
Perspectives
There is minimal research that studies the reasons why men are so disproportionately holding these higher ranking, more respected positions. However, in a study conducted by Litossliti and Leadbeater (2013) in the United Kingdom, the researchers present some perspectives as to why the profession of speech pathology is so gendered and segregated. It is important to note that the study analyzes careers in only speech-language pathology and does not include audiology. Additionally, the study was conducted in the United Kingdom, not the United States. However, the study is still relevant to issues regarding speech pathology in the United States because similar issues are present in the UK as the US. The study discussed if there are structural gender inequalities within the profession and included some ideas as to why this could be so.
In one of the focus groups the researchers composed, a female speech-language therapist believes that one of the reasons men move through the ranks so quickly is because “… men tend to identify managerial leadership skills that they have earlier actually because they see a career progression… I think that it’s just that success is measured more in the male psyche by the status that you have through the profession” (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013, p. 97). This statement addresses the fact that some men may believe that success is measured through how high you rank in your designated profession. For speech-language pathology, that may mean holding those administrative and management positions. Another teacher of speech-language pathology suggested that men are not as attracted to the “emotional aspects” of the profession, and instead they would rather focus on management or research (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). This is based off the traditional gender stereotypes that women are more emotional, and men are more rational. These quotes from female SLPs suggest some possible explanations as to why there is such a disproportionate amount of men who hold these administrative positions in speech pathology.
The study also included some male perspectives on the issue. One male SLP offered his opinion as to why it seems harder for female SLPs to rise through the ranks. He suggests that it is because the people who are making those decisions as to who gets to hold those positions are currently men (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). This suggests a possible discriminatory factor into why there is an imbalance in gender equity in administrative positions. This perspective is also mentioned in a study done by Abdul-Raheem, where it is discussed that lack of recruitment of minorities, including women, may be affected by biases and lack of experiences by the members of the hiring committee (2016). Additionally, another male SLP quoted something his manager told him about taking a more “male-appropriate” direction within the field by stating “…oh you don’t want to carry on working with teddies and dollies” (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013, p. 97). This statement may be indicative that working with clients, specifically children, in therapy is women’s work. Other men within the study described how they felt they were being expected to work in certain settings as an SLP, specifically in hospital settings (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). Hospital settings may be perceived as more respectable and more masculine that other potential settings, such as schools, skilled nursing facilities, or clinics.
This study concludes that there is not enough information to make a firm statement about gender imbalance in the field of speech-language pathology, and that any suggestion that there are structural gender inequalities within the field need to be researched more in depth in order to make a valid claim (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). However, it does offer some potential explanations as to why there is an imbalance between men and women in the field of SLP and why men hold more administrative positions than is proportionate to their total numbers. Some other studies indicate that a need for mentoring is essential in order for women to apply for tenure and promotions into leadership positions (Mullen, 2009). This study explores key issues which need to be researched more in order to acquire a more comprehensive view of gender equity in the field of SLP. Future studies need to include perspectives in audiology as well in order to be inclusive of all avenues of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Methods of Addressing Gender Equity
From the studies analyzed in this review, it is clear that there is a gender inequity among faculty in the fields of speech pathology and audiology in universities. It is important that these inequities be addressed both at the departmental, university, state, and national level. In order to determine whether or not there is a gender bias present in the field of CSD, research needs to be done to uncover the reasons why men are so disproportionately holding leadership positions within the field. Some universities are attempting to look into this imbalance and find ways to ensure gender equity among its faculty.
All of universities this researcher is studying have some type of office and/or task force dedicated to inclusion and equity at the university level. The universities the researcher is conducting her study include ones that have higher education programs (master’s and/or PhD) in Communication Sciences and Disorders (speech pathology and/or audiology). Some universities have a specific task force or commission dedicated to gender equity, while some combine their gender equity efforts with other issues such as diversity and inclusion. For example, one of Saint Louis University’s methods for addressing gender equity is the “Gender Equity Task Force” that was formed in order to determine whether “…faculty are treated equitably and are not disadvantaged because of their gender.” Several topics revolving around gender equity including academic rank, tenure, leadership opportunities, and promotion are addressed in some of these universities’ offices and/or studies.
While these offices and task forces present an effort made by the universities to address gender equity and methods for equalizing opportunity, they are all at the university level. Efforts are not specified for each department within the university, and often do not have different goals for each department. This is an important issue that needs to be tackled because each department has different issues that need to be addressed and worked through. Some departments and programs, such as CSD, do not necessarily have issues with including women in the workplace in academia, but have issues regarding opportunities for advancement and leadership. It is necessary for universities to develop programs for each specific department in order to cater to their direct needs and concerns.
Conclusion
Contributions of this literature to the field
The studies analyzed in this review offer several contributions to the field of Communication Sciences and Disorders. They describe the numbers of men and women in the field, both in speech pathology and audiology, and reveal the percentages of people who work at colleges/universities and who hold administrator positions. However, the data ASHA presents does not describe how many men versus women work at colleges/universities or how many hold leadership positions. Other studies conducted outside of ASHA do reveal how many men versus women hold faculty positions at colleges/universities, but still does not tell us how many of these faculty members hold leadership positions within the university and how many of those people are men versus women.
It is determined that there is a significant disproportion of men who work at colleges/universities compared to the national percentage of men who work as SLPs or AuDs in general (ASHA, 2018) (Stuart et al., 2017). Some perspectives were offered as to why this is so, however no concrete evidence was presented to indicate the validity of these perspectives (Litossliti & Leadbeater, 2013). Additionally, none of these studies were fully comprehensive of what this researcher is studying. Some of the studies were conducted in or included different countries other than the United States, and none of them fully described who holds leadership positions within the field. This information is essential to this researcher, in order to determine if there is a significant gender difference among faculty who hold leadership positions at colleges/universities with higher education SLP and AuD programs. While it is important to determine gender differences between men and women, it is also important to be inclusive of other non-binary gender identities, which were not included in any of these studies.
Because of the key factors these studies do not incorporate, this researcher is conducting a study in order to analyze gender differences among faculty holding leadership positions in CSD higher education programs in Missouri. Compiling analytical data of who holds leadership positions along with perspectives from faculty will provide a more comprehensive view of gender differences within the field. From this research, a greater effort can be made in order to alleviate potential gender differences and biases and provide equal opportunity for all people in the field, regardless of their gender identity.
References
Abdul-Raheem, J. (2016). Faculty Diversity and Tenure in Higher Education. Journal Of
Cultural Diversity, 23(2), 53–56. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=27439231&site=eds-live
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). ASHA Demographic Profile
Certificate Holders by State, year-end 2017. Retrieved from www.asha.org.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). ASHA summary membership and
affiliation counts, year-end 2017. Retrieved from www.asha.org.
Campbell, S., & LaCost, B. Y. (2010) CLS to higher education administrator: the price they paid.
Clinical Laboratory Science: Journal Of The American Society For Medical Technology, 23(3), 157-165. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN276208923&site=eds-live
Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders & American Speech-
Language- Hearing Association. (2018). Communication sciences and disorders (CSD) education survey national aggregate data report: 2016–2017 academic year. Retrieved from www.capcsd.org and www.asha.org.
Litosseliti, L., & Leadbeater, C. (2013). Speech and language therapy/pathology: Perspectives
on a gendered profession. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 48(1), 90–101. Retrieved from
http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1010060&site=eds-live
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Thriving in academia: Understanding and managing the complexities
of faculty work. Perspect Iss Higher Ed, 15(2), 77-84. doi: 10.1044/ihe15.2.77.
Mullen, C. A. (2009). Challenges and breakthroughs of female department chairs across
disciplines in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 29(9), 1. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=44460922&site=eds-live
Special Interest Group 10, Issues in Higher Education. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.asha.org/SIG/10
Stuart, A., Faucette, S. P., & Thomas, W. J. (2017). Author Impact Metrics in Communication
Sciences and Disorder Research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2704–2724. Retrieved from http://ezp.slu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1155819&site=eds-live