Market outcomes starting in 2014 and going back 10 years offer no evidence women are at a disadvantage in tenure-track competitions.
That’s the primary finding of a study by Sean Allen-Hermanson, associate professor of philosophy at Florida International University. The study, “Leaky Pipeline Myths: In Search of Gender Effects on the Job Market and Early Career Publishing in Philosophy,” was recently published in Frontiers in Psychology.
The study focuses chiefly on the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) work of Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced). Allen-Hermanson argues that the APDA findings strongly support the conclusion that “men are significantly less likely to obtain permanent positions.” Additionally, “female candidates had about half as many publications as their male counterparts.” He adds, “men and women appear to be held to different standards.”
When it comes to the prestige of a candidate’s PhD-granting department, Allen-Hermanson notes that “program prestige correlated positively with the output of high-quality publications regardless of gender.”
there was evidence candidates from relatively lower prestige institutions lack upward mobility: Whereas top candidates of either gender could expect to find a position at a Gourmet-ranked institution a bit less than half the time, this was true of other candidates only 7–8 percent of the time… This might indicate that there are, in effect, two semi-independent job markets. In terms of outcomes, there seems to be a top-20 market mostly closed to non-elite candidates and a non-top-20 market open to all.
The whole study is here.