Faculty play a crucial role in educating future researchers, advancing knowledge, and shaping the direction of their fields. Diverse representation of social identities and backgrounds within the professoriate improves educational experiences for students (Lockwood, 2006; Stout et al., 2011), accelerates innovation and problem-solving (Hofstra et al., 2020; Page, 2008; Yang et al., 2022), and expands the benefits of scientific advances to a broader range of society (Koning et al., 2021; Kozlowski et al., 2022). Gender equality in particular is a foundational principle for a fair and just society in which individuals of any gender identity are free to achieve their full potential. However, the composition of the professoriate has never been representative of the broader population, in part because higher education has remained unattractive or inaccessible to large segments of society (Wapman et al., 2022; Davis and Fry, 2019; Morgan et al., 2022).

Over the past 50 years, U.S. higher education has made substantial gains in women’s representation at the undergraduate and PhD levels, but progress toward greater representation among tenure-track faculty has been much slower. Women have earned more than 50% of bachelor’s degrees since 1981 (De Brey et al., 2021), and now receive almost half of doctorates in the U.S. (46% in 2021) (National Center for Science and National Science Foundation Engineering Statistics, 2021). However, women comprise only 36% of all U.S. tenured and tenure-track faculty (Wapman et al., 2022), and there are significant differences in women’s representation across disciplines. For example, many fewer women earn PhDs in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields (38%), compared to PhD recipients in non-STEM fields (59%) (National Center for Science and National Science Foundation Engineering Statistics, 2021).

There are two primary ways by which women faculty representation changes: through hiring and through attrition. In our analysis of faculty demographics, faculty attrition refers to ‘all-cause attrition,’ which encompasses all the reasons that may lead someone to leave the professoriate, including retirement or being drawn to non-academic activities in the commercial sector. If the proportion of women among incoming hires is greater than the proportion of women among current faculty, then new hires will slightly increase the field’s representation of women. On the other hand, if the proportion of women among faculty who leave their field is greater than the proportion of women among current faculty, then attrition will slightly decrease the field’s representation of women. Because faculty often have very long careers, a trend in a field’s overall gender representation is a cumulative integration, over many years, of the net differences in representation caused by a mixture of hiring and attrition.

Policies targeting gender parity can focus on changes to hiring, attrition, or both, and many have been tried. Hiring-focused policies include grants for diverse faculty recruitment (Kyaw, 2022), efforts to reduce bias in the hiring processes (Carlson and Zorn, 2021), and a range of other measures intended to increase women’s representation at earlier educational and career stages. Attrition-focused policies include initiatives to reduce gender bias in the promotion and evaluation of faculty (Margaret and Rommel, 2018), efforts to diminish the gender wage gap among faculty (Samaniego et al., 2023), and diversity-focused grants for early and mid-career faculty research (National Science Foundation, 2023). Some policies simultaneously impact hiring and attrition. For example, improvements to parental leave and childcare policies may lessen the attrition of women who become parents as faculty and also encourage more prospective women faculty to consider faculty careers.

Although both types of strategy can be important, their impact alone or together on historical trends in gender diversity remain unclear. Also, we lack a clear prediction of how gender diversity may change in the future and whether current trends, and the policies that support them, may ultimately achieve gender parity. Some studies have used empirically informed models of faculty hiring, attrition, and promotion to estimate the effectiveness of certain specific policy interventions (Marschke et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2015; James and Brower, 2022; Brower and James, 2020; Lawrence and Chen, 2015; Shaw and Stanton, 2012). However, most focus on a single institution, which tends to limit their generalizability to whole fields or to other institutions. Field-wide assessments and cross-field comparisons are necessary to provide a clear understanding of the overall patterns and their variations. Such broad comparative analyses would support evidence-based approaches to policy work and would shed new light on the causes and consequences of persistent gender inequalities among faculty.

In this study, we aim to quantify the individual and relative impacts of faculty hiring and attrition on the historical, counterfactual, and future representation of women faculty across fields and institutions. Our models and analyses are guided by a census-level dataset of faculty employment records spanning nearly all U.S.-based PhD-granting institutions, including in 111 academic fields across the Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics and Computing, Education, Medicine, Health, and Business. This wide coverage allows us to quantify broad patterns and trends in both hiring and attrition, across institutions and within fields and develop model-based extrapolations under a variety of possible policy interventions.

We take three distinct approaches in our analysis of the relative importance of faculty hiring and faculty attrition for women’s representation among tenure-track faculty. First, we characterize the relative contributions of hiring and attrition to changes in women’s representation across a range of academic fields over 2011–2020. Second, we model a hypothetical historical scenario over this same period in which we preserve demographic trends in hiring, but we eliminate ‘gendered attrition’ by assigning equal attrition rates to men and women at each career stage. Here, gendered attrition refers only to the differences in the rates in which men and women at the same career stage leave academia. It does not refer to the absolute magnitude of the rates, which increases for both men and women in the late career as faculty approach an age where retirement is common. This counterfactual model provides data-driven estimates of what different fields’ gender diversity could have been, and hence provides a general estimate of the loss of diversity due to gendered attrition over this time. Finally, we use our hiring and attrition model to make quantitative projections of the potential impact of specific changes to faculty hiring and faculty attrition patterns on the future representation of women in academia, allowing us to assess the relative impact of practical or ambitious policy changes for achieving gender parity among faculty by field and in academia overall.

For these analyses, we use a census-level dataset of employment and education records for tenured and tenure-track faculty in 12,112 PhD-granting departments across 392 PhD-granting institutions in the U.S. from 2011 to 2020 (Academic Analytics Research Center, 2021). We organize these data into annual department-level faculty rosters. In turn, each department belongs to at least 1 of 111 academic fields (e.g. Chemistry and Sociology) and 1 of 11 high-level groupings of related fields that we call domains (e.g. Natural Sciences and Social Sciences), enabling multiple levels of analysis. This dataset was obtained under a data use agreement with the Academic Analytics Research Center (AARC), and was extensively cleaned and preprocessed to support longitudinal analyses of faculty hiring and attrition (Wapman et al., 2022) (see Methods for data cleaning details).

We added gender annotations to faculty using nomquamgender, an open source name-based gender classification package that is comparable in performance to the most reliable paid name-based gender classification services (Van Buskirk et al., 2023). Gender annotations were applied to faculty names with high cultural name-gender associations (88%) (Van Buskirk et al., 2023), resulting in a dataset of $n=268,769$ unique faculty, making up 1,768,118 person-years. The methodology we use assigns only binary (woman/man) labels to faculty, even as we recognize that gender is nonbinary. This approach is a compromise due to the technical limitations of name-based gender methodologies and is not intended to reinforce a gender binary.

We define faculty hiring and faculty attrition to include all cases in which faculty join or leave a field or domain within our dataset. For example, hires include first-time tenure-track faculty, and mid-career faculty who transition from an out-of-sample institution (e.g. from a non-U.S. or non-PhD-granting institution, or from industry). Examples of faculty attritions include faculty who leave for another job in academia to an institution outside the scope of our dataset (e.g. non-U.S. or non-PhD granting), faculty who leave the tenure-track, faculty who move to another sector, and faculty who retire. Faculty who transition from one field to another are counted as an attrition from the first field and a hire into the new field. Finally, faculty who switch institutions but remain in-sample and in the same field are not counted as hires or attritions.

Historical impacts of hiring and attrition

Our data show a clear increase in women’s representation between 2011 and 2020, increasing by an average of 4.8 percentage points (pp) across fields. Trends among new hires can drive increases in women faculty’s representation, and in many fields women’s representation among PhD graduates has been growing for many years (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). At the same time, attrition can also drive increases in women’s faculty representation if the trends run in the opposite direction, e.g., in many fields retiring faculty are more likely to be men than women (Appendix 1—figure 8; Wapman et al., 2022). However, attrition in the early- or mid-career stages may have the opposite effect if it is gendered, e.g., when women comprise a greater proportion of those leaving academia at these career stages (Pell, 1996; Spoon et al., 2023). The balance of these inflows and outflows, relative to a field’s current composition, determines whether women’s overall representation will increase, decrease, or hold steady over time.

To investigate the effects of hiring and attrition on changes in women’s representation between 2011 and 2020, we decomposed the total change in representation into separate hiring effects and attrition effects for each of our studied fields (Figure 1, Appendix 1—table 2; see Methods). A total of 106 (95%) of 111 fields saw an increase in women’s representation overall, with hiring contributing to increases in 106 of 111 fields (95%), and attrition contributing to increases in 82 of 111 fields (74%). In general, hiring was the larger cause of increases to women’s representation, with greater effects in the majority (87.4%) of academic fields.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The effects of hiring do not always increase women’s representation, nor do they always dominate the effects of attrition. For instance, hiring has contributed to negative changes in women’s representation in five fields, including the majority-women fields of Nursing and Gender Studies. Our analysis also finds that nine fields (8.1%) saw increases driven more by attrition than hiring, of which all are non-STEM fields.

The decomposition into hiring and attrition effects also shows that attrition can decrease women’s representation, even if women’s representation increases overall. In fact, faculty attrition decreased women’s representation in 29 fields (26%) between 2011 and 2020 (Figure 1, Appendix 1—table 2). These attrition-driven changes likely reflect a failure to retain early and mid-career women, as they are unlikely to be driven by retirements: among faculty, men are more likely to be at or near retirement age than women faculty due to historical demographic trends (Appendix 1—figure 8). Indeed, of these fields, 25 (83%) of 29 are majority men, such that differential losses of women due to attrition move such fields away from parity. Nevertheless, despite net losses of women faculty to attrition, the effects of hiring were large enough to see overall increases in women’s representation in 27 (93%) of 29 of these fields.

Quantifying the impact of gendered attrition

The fact that men are systematically more likely to be at or near retirement age than women across fields (Appendix 1—figure 8; see also Wapman et al., 2022) means that it is possible for all-cause attrition to cause a net-increase in women’s representation (Figure 1), even if women leave the academy at higher rates at every career stage. Indeed, recent work has shown that this is the case (Spoon et al., 2023), a phenomenon termed gendered attrition. These findings together suggest that in some fields, women’s representation might be higher had attrition been gender neutral over the past decade.

To estimate the potential impacts of gender-neutral attrition (GNA), we created a counterfactual model in which we fixed men’s and women’s attrition risks to be equal at every career age (see Methods). By initializing the model at our 2011 faculty census data, and preserving demographic trends in hiring, we simulated $n=500$ counterfactual demographic trajectories for 2011–2020 under GNA for each field. Here, our model bears an important resemblance to the seminal Leslie matrix model used and adapted by demographers and ecologists (see, e.g., Caswell, 2001), with a few notable differences to ensure the total faculty population size and the distribution of career ages at hiring match historical data (see Methods). From these trajectories, we quantified the effect of gendered attrition as the difference in women’s representation between the real 2020 census and gender-neutral simulations, and labeled effects as significant only if 95% of simulations ended with either higher or lower representation of women. For instance, there were ${\displaystyle 1.83\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ fewer women in 2020 in Psychology due to a decade of significant gendered attrition (Figure 2A; ${\displaystyle \mathrm{p}<0.01}$), whereas we find no significant gendered attrition in Ecology (Figure 2B; ${\displaystyle \mathrm{p}=0.24}$).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

A total of 16 fields exhibited significantly gendered attrition between 2011 and 2020 (circles, Figure 2C). Of these, 15 fields, including Psychology, Philosophy, Chemistry, and Sociology, ended 2020 with fewer women than our GNA model predicted, while just one ended 2020 with fewer men (Gender Studies). Counterfactual simulations for the remaining 95 fields provided inconsistent outcomes, either toward greater or lesser representation of women faculty, for at least 5% of simulations (crosses in Figure 2C, Appendix 1—table 2). In general, simulations for smaller fields tended to exhibit more variable outcomes which were consequently less often statistically significant.

To evaluate the effects of gendered attrition at a higher level of aggregation, we also estimated the impacts of gendered attrition for all STEM and all non-STEM fields, respectively. Gendered attrition was significant in both cases, decreasing women’s representation by ${\displaystyle -1.35\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (STEM, ${\displaystyle \mathrm{p}<0.01}$) and ${\displaystyle -1.99\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (non-STEM, ${\displaystyle \mathrm{p}<0.01}$) relative to counterfactual simulations (Figure 2C). Aggregating all fields, our counterfactual model estimates that gendered attrition has caused a net loss of 1378 women faculty from the PhD-granting sector of the U.S. tenure track between 2011 and 2020. Assuming 19.2 faculty per department (the mean department size in our dataset), this is an asymmetric loss of approximately 72 entire departments.

Projecting future gender representation

Proposed strategies to increase faculty gender diversity often emphasize changes to hiring or retention. However, administrators and policymakers typically lack any ability to quantitatively evaluate a policy’s long-term impact or to compare its outcomes against alternatives. In our third analysis, we therefore turn our counterfactual model, previously used to investigate the past, to investigate five projections capturing future hiring and attrition scenarios. These scenarios are not intended to predict or forecast precisely what will occur in the future, but instead serve to illustrate what could happen if a set of specific assumptions were held fixed. We operationalize a particular policy intervention by altering two parameters: faculty attrition risks, which can be gendered or gender-neutral, and the fraction of women among new hires, which can be maintained at 2011–2020 levels or increased over time. These scenarios are described in detail in Methods section, Parameters for projection model of 2020–2060. Across all scenarios, we hold the sizes of academic domains fixed at their 2020 values, initialize projections at empirical 2020 values, and project women’s representation through 2060.

Even in the absence of interventions, our baseline projection using current hiring patterns and observed attrition (OA) shows a mean increase in women’s representation of ${\displaystyle 2.8\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (Figure 3). Although the fraction of women among new hires has been increasing over time in some academic domains (Appendix 1 section, Gender diversity of hires over time), here we do not extrapolate that trend into the future. Thus, this projection reflects demographic inertia, where it takes roughly a full career-length of time for the most recent, more gender diverse cohorts of newly hired faculty to fully replace all the older and less gender diverse faculty cohorts (Marschke et al., 2007; Hargens and Long, 2002).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The GNA scenario maintains the same assumption about hiring as the OA scenario, but alters the attrition risks to be equal for men and women at each career stage. This scenario therefore represents a set of policy interventions that entirely close the retention gap between women and men faculty. The resulting projected fraction of women faculty in the Natural Sciences domain in 2060 is 34.4%, representing a ${\displaystyle 6.4\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ increase from 2020 (Figure 3A). Across all domains, the mean increase in women’s representation relative to 2020 is ${\displaystyle 4.5\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (Figure 3B), exceeding the mean increase in the OA scenario by ${\displaystyle 1.7\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$. Nevertheless, in this scenario women are projected to remain underrepresented in most academic domains in 2060.

The increased representation (IR) scenarios alter new faculty hiring such that women’s representation among new hires grows by ${\displaystyle +0.5\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ each year. This rate of growth ultimately increases women’s representation among new hires by +20 pp by 2060, and is close to the median observed change 2011–2020 (${\displaystyle +0.58\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$; Appendix 1—table 1). Thus, for some domains, this scenario may not represent new action, but rather continued effects of current policies.

When increased representation among new hires is combined with observed attrition (OA+IR), the projected mean increase in women’s overall representation is ${\displaystyle 16.7\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (Figure 3). The magnitude of this increase is the largest among these first three scenarios, exceeding the OA scenario’s mean increase by ${\displaystyle 12.2\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$. We note, however, that these increases would grow women’s representation beyond gender parity in Medicine, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Public Administration and Policy, and would maintain representation above parity in Health and Education (Figure 3).

When increased representation among new hires is instead combined with gender-neutral attrition (GNA+IR), the projected mean increase in women’s overall representation is ${\displaystyle 18.4\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (Figure 3), exceeding the OA+IR scenario by only ${\displaystyle 1.7\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$. These additional modest increases do not push any additional academic domains beyond gender parity (Figure 3).

Finally, we consider a more radical intervention in which universities immediately and henceforth hire men and women faculty at equal rates (ER) but do not change attrition patterns (OA+ER). Overall, the projected mean increase in women’s representation between 2020 and 2060 is ${\displaystyle 9.9\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}$ (Figure 3), a result of all domains moving markedly toward parity. However, none of the academic domains is projected to achieve stable gender parity under this scenario because attrition remains gendered. In domains that are particularly male-dominated, such as Natural Sciences, this gender-parity hiring scenario causes the most rapid progress toward greater representation of women faculty of any of the scenarios (Figure 3A).

Intentionally omitted is the scenario of equal rate hiring and gender-neutral attrition (ER+GNA), for which conclusions can be drawn without simulation. Any academic domain with hiring at parity and equal retention rates between women and men is guaranteed to achieve stable parity, modulo stochastic effects, after one complete academic generation.

The five projection scenarios show that changes to hiring drive larger increases in the long-term representation of women faculty of a field. Most fields, and particularly those with the least gender diversity, cannot achieve equal representation by changing attrition patterns alone. In fact, our results suggest that even relatively modest annual changes in hiring tend to accumulate to substantial field-level changes over time. In contrast, eliminating gendered attrition leads to only modest changes in women’s projected representation (Figure 3).

In this study, we used a decade of census-level employment data on U.S. tenured and tenure-track faculty at PhD-granting institutions to investigate the relative impacts of faculty hiring versus all-cause faculty attrition on women’s representation across academia. Toward this end, we answer three broad questions: (i) How have these two processes shaped gender representation across the academy over the decade 2011–2020? (ii) How might women’s representation today have been different if gendered attrition among faculty were eliminated in 2011? (iii) And, how might we expect gender diversity among faculty to change over time under different future hiring and attrition scenarios?

The effects of hiring were stronger than the effects of attrition in changing women’s representation among faculty over the decade 2011–2020. By separating hiring and attrition effects, we found that hiring served to increase women’s representation in 96% of fields, while attrition (including retirement) served to increase women’s representation in 74% of fields. However, these effects were not always synergistic, such that 26% of fields saw increases due to hiring amidst decreases due to attrition, while 5% of fields saw decreases due to hiring and increases due to attrition. In total, hiring effects dominated attrition effects in 90% of fields, 97% of which saw net increases in women’s representation (Figure 1). In contrast, attrition effects were stronger than hiring effects in just 10% of fields, yet 9 of these 11 nevertheless saw net increases in women’s representation, including Linguistics, Theological Studies, and Art History. Only 5 (4.5%) fields saw decreased women’s representation over same period, including Nursing and Gender Studies, both fields where women are overrepresented (Figure 1).

Our counterfactual analyses of the past decade’s gender diversity trends, in which we preserved historical hiring trends but eliminated the effects of gendered attrition, indicate that U.S. academia as a whole has lost approximately 1378 women faculty because of gendered attrition. This number is both a small portion of academia (0.67% of the professoriate) and a staggering number of individual careers, enough to fully staff 72 nineteen-person departments. Because women are more likely to say they felt ‘pushed’ out of academic jobs when they leave (Spoon et al., 2023), each of these careers likely represents an unnecessary loss, both to the individual and to society, in the form of lost discoveries (Hofstra et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Koning et al., 2021; Kozlowski et al., 2022), missing mentorship (Lockwood, 2006; Stout et al., 2011), and many other contributions that scholars make. Moreover, although our study focuses narrowly on gender, past studies of faculty attrition (Griffin et al., 2011; Jayakumar et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2019) lead us to expect that a disproportionate share of these lost careers would be women of color.

The two findings above—that all-cause attrition served to increase women’s representation in 74% of fields, while gendered attrition led to the net loss of an estimated 1378 women from the academy—seem at first glance to be at odds. However, the former reflects primarily the turnover and retirement of a previous generation of faculty (Wapman et al., 2022), while the latter stems from observations that in most areas of the academy, women are at higher risk of leaving their faculty jobs than men of the same career age, i.e., gendered attrition (Spoon et al., 2023). Reconciling and quantifying these separate effects through models, parameterized by gender and career-age stratified empirical data, is therefore a key contribution of this work.

We find large and statistically significant effect sizes for gendered attrition at high levels of aggregation in our data, (e.g. all of academia, among all STEM or all non-STEM fields, and within domains), yet we often find smaller effects that are not statistically significant in constituent individual fields (Figure 2; see also Spoon et al., 2023). This pattern implies that there must be gendered effects within at least some of the constituent fields which may statistically indistinguishable from noise due to smaller population sizes and greater relative fluctuations in hiring. This perspective may therefore explain why field-specific studies of gendered faculty attrition sometimes reach conflicting conclusions (Lawrence and Chen, 2015; Spoon et al., 2023; Kaminski and Geisler, 2012; Gumpertz et al., 2017; Carr et al., 2018), and suggests that future studies should seek larger samples sizes whenever possible.

While this study cannot identify specific causal mechanisms that drive gendered attrition, the literature points to a number of possibilities, including disparities in the levels of support and value attributed to women and the scholarly work that women produce (Macaluso et al., 2016; Ni et al., 2021), sexual harassment (National Academies of Sciences, 2018), workplace culture (Spoon et al., 2023), work-life balance (Deutsch and Yao, 2014; Martinez et al., 2017), and the unequal impacts of parenthood (Cech and Blair-Loy, 2019; Morgan et al., 2021). Even in fields where we found no significant evidence that women and men leave academia at different rates, the reasons women and men leave may nevertheless be strongly gendered. For instance, past work has shown that men are more likely to leave faculty jobs due to attractive alternate opportunities (‘pulls’), while women are more likely to leave due to negative workplace culture or work-life balance factors (‘pushes’) (Spoon et al., 2023).

The relative importance of hiring vs attrition is also borne out in our projection scenarios. Indeed, we find that eliminating the gendered attrition gap, in isolation, would not substantially increase representation of women faculty in academia. Rather, progress toward gender parity depends far more heavily on increasing women’s representation among new faculty hires, with the greatest change occurring if hiring is close to gender parity (Figure 3).

A limitation to this study is that it only considers tenured and tenure-track faculty at PhD-granting institutions in the U.S. Non-tenure-track faculty, including instructors, adjuncts, and research faculty, are an increasing portion of the professoriate (Finley, 2009; McNaughtan et al., 2017), and they may experience different trends in hiring and attrition, as may faculty outside the U.S. and faculty at institutions that do not grant PhDs. The results presented in this work will only generalize to these other populations to the extent that they share similar attrition rates, similar hiring rates, and similar current demographics. Notably, understanding how faculty hiring, faculty attrition, and faculty promotion (Danell and Hjerm, 2013) are shaping the gender composition of these populations is an important direction for future work.

Another important limitation of this work is that we focused our analysis at the level of entire fields and academic domains. However, hiring and attrition may play different roles in specific departments or in specific types of departments. These differences may be elucidated by future analyses of mid-career moves, in which faculty change institutions but stay in the same fields.

Faculty who belong to multiple marginalized groups (e.g. women of color) are particularly underrepresented and face unique challenges in academia (Crenshaw, 2013). The majority of women faculty in the U.S. are white (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022), meaning the patterns in women’s hiring and retention observed in this study are predominantly driven by this demographic. While attrition may not be the primary challenge for women’s representation overall, it could still be a significant barrier for women of color and those from less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Additional data are needed to study trends in faculty hiring and faculty attrition across racial and socioeconomic groups.

More broadly, while this study has focused on a quantitative view of men’s and women’s relative representations, we note that equal representation is not equivalent to equal or fair treatment (Tienda, 2013; Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). Pursuing more diverse faculty hiring without also mitigating the causes that sustain existing inequities can act like a kind of ‘bait and switch,’ where new faculty are hired into environments that do not support their success, a dynamic that is believed to contribute to higher turnover rates for women faculty (Slay et al., 2019).

Our study’s detailed and cross-disciplinary view of hiring and attrition, and their relative impacts on faculty gender diversity, highlights the importance of sustained and multifaceted efforts to increase diversity in academia. Achieving these goals will require a deeper understanding of factors that shape the demographic landscape of academia.

The dataset used for these analyses were obtained under a data use agreement with the Academic Analytics Research Center (AARC). According to this data use agreement, we cannot publicly disseminate this dataset. Interested researchers may apply directly to the Academic Analytics Research center for data access on AARC's website, here: https://aarcresearch.com/access-our-data. Although our data use agreement forbids us from sharing the microdata used to produce these analyses, we have shared the processed data that were used to produce Figure 1 and Figure 2 in Appendix 1—table 2, and we provide additional aggregate data in Appendix 1—table 3.

1. Website

   1. Academic Analytics Research Center

   (2021) Academic analytics research center list of available data elements

   Accessed July 9, 2024.

   https://aarcresearch.com/available-data-elements.pdf
2. 1. Brower A
   2. James A

   (2020) Research performance and age explain less than half of the gender pay gap in New Zealand universities

   PLOS ONE 15:e0226392.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226392

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Carlson E
   2. Zorn C

   (2021) Toward better hiring practices

   Political Science and Politics 54:517–520.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096521000196

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Carr PL
   2. Raj A
   3. Kaplan SE
   4. Terrin N
   5. Breeze JL
   6. Freund KM

   (2018) Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the national faculty survey

   Academic Medicine 93:1694–1699.

   https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002146

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Book

   1. Caswell H

   (2001)

   Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation

   Sinauer Associates, Inc.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Cech EA
   2. Blair-Loy M

   (2019) The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM

   PNAS 116:4182–4187.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810862116

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Crenshaw K

   (2013)

   Feminist Legal Theories

   Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of Antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and Antiracist politics, Feminist Legal Theories, Routledge.

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Danell R
   2. Hjerm M

   (2013) Career prospects for female university researchers have not improved

   Scientometrics 94:999–1006.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0840-4

   • Google Scholar
9. Book

   1. Davis L
   2. Fry R

   (2019)

   College faculty have become more racially and ethnically diverse, but remain far less so than students

   Pew Research Center.

   • Google Scholar
10. Book

    1. De Brey C
    2. Snyder TD
    3. Zhang A
    4. Dillow SA

    (2021)

    Digest of education statistics

    National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Deutsch FM
    2. Yao B

    (2014) Gender differences in faculty attrition in the USA

    Community, Work & Family 17:392–408.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2014.885880

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Finley A

    (2009)

    Women as contingent faculty: the glass wall

    On Campus with Women 37:1.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Griffin KA
    2. Pifer MJ
    3. Humphrey JR
    4. Hazelwood AM

    (2011) (Re)defining departure: exploring black professors’ experiences with and responses to racism and racial climate

    American Journal of Education 117:495–526.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/660756

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Gumpertz M
    2. Durodoye R
    3. Griffith E
    4. Wilson A

    (2017) Retention and promotion of women and underrepresented minority faculty in science and engineering at four large land grant institutions

    PLOS ONE 12:e0187285.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187285

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Hargens LL
    2. Long JS

    (2002) Demographic inertia and women’s representation among faculty in higher education

    The Journal of Higher Education 73:494–517.

    https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0037

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Hofstra B
    2. Kulkarni VV
    3. Munoz-Najar Galvez S
    4. He B
    5. Jurafsky D
    6. McFarland DA

    (2020) The diversity-innovation paradox in science

    PNAS 117:9284–9291.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. James A
    2. Brower A

    (2022) Levers of change: using mathematical models to compare gender equity interventions in universities

    Royal Society Open Science 9:220785.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220785

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Jayakumar UM
    2. Howard TC
    3. Allen WR
    4. Han JC

    (2009) Racial privilege in the professoriate: an exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction

    The Journal of Higher Education 80:538–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779031

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Kaminski D
    2. Geisler C

    (2012) Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender

    Science 335:864–866.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214844

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Koning R
    2. Samila S
    3. Ferguson JP

    (2021) Who do we invent for? patents by women focus more on women’s health, but few women get to invent

    Science 372:1345–1348.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6990

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Kozlowski D
    2. Larivière V
    3. Sugimoto CR
    4. Thema Monroe-White

    (2022) Intersectional inequalities in science

    PNAS 119:2113067119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119

    • Google Scholar
22. Book

    1. Kyaw A

    (2022)

    NIH Awards $16 Million Grants for Diverse Faculty Recruitment to Northwestern and UC San Diego

    Diverse Issues in Higher Education.

    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Lawrence B
    2. Chen X

    (2015)

    The Effect of Demographic Inertia on Increasing the Percent of Women on University Faculty

    UCLA CCPR Population Working Papers.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Liu SNC
    2. Brown SEV
    3. Sabat IE

    (2019) Patching the “leaky pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia

    Archives of Scientific Psychology 7:32–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Lockwood P

    (2006) “Someone Like Me can be Successful”: do college students need same-gender role models?

    Psychology of Women Quarterly 30:36–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Macaluso B
    2. Larivière V
    3. Sugimoto T
    4. Sugimoto CR

    (2016) Is science built on the shoulders of women? a study of gender differences in contributorship

    Academic Medicine 91:1136–1142.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001261

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. Book

    1. Margaret B
    2. Rommel S

    (2018)

    Recommendations for Reducing Unconscious Bias in Promotion and Tenure Review Processes

    Rochester Institute of Technology Office of the Provost.

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Marschke R
    2. Laursen S
    3. Nielsen JM
    4. Rankin P

    (2007) Demographic inertia revisited: an immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education

    The Journal of Higher Education 78:1–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11778961

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Martinez LR
    2. O’Brien KR
    3. Hebl MR

    (2017) Fleeing the ivory tower: gender differences in the turnover experiences of women faculty

    Journal of Women’s Health 26:580–586.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. McNaughtan J
    2. García HA
    3. Nehls K

    (2017) Understanding the growth of contingent faculty

    New Directions for Institutional Research 2017:9–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20241

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Morgan AC
    2. Way SF
    3. Hoefer MJD
    4. Larremore DB
    5. Galesic M
    6. Clauset A

    (2021) The unequal impact of parenthood in academia

    Science Advances 7:eabd1996.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1996

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Morgan AC
    2. LaBerge N
    3. Larremore DB
    4. Galesic M
    5. Brand JE
    6. Clauset A

    (2022) Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty

    Nature Human Behaviour 6:1625–1633.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Book

    1. National Academies of Sciences

    (2018) Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

    National Academies Press.

    https://doi.org/10.17226/24994

    • Google Scholar
34. Book

    1. National Center for Education Statistics

    (2022)

    Fast facts: race/Ethnicity of college faculty

    University of Washington.

    • Google Scholar
35. Book

    1. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

    (2021)

    Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering

    U.S. National Science Foundation.

    • Google Scholar
36. Book

    1. National Center for Science and National Science Foundation Engineering Statistics

    (2021)

    Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities

    NCSES.

    • Google Scholar
37. Book

    1. National Science Foundation

    (2023)

    Launching Early-Career Academic Pathways in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences

    U.S. National Science Foundation.

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Ni C
    2. Smith E
    3. Yuan H
    4. Larivière V
    5. Sugimoto CR

    (2021) The gendered nature of authorship

    Science Advances 7:eabe4639.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe4639

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. Book

    1. Page SE

    (2008) The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies

    Princeton University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830282

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Pell AN

    (1996) Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia

    Journal of Animal Science 74:2843.

    https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Samaniego C
    2. Lindner P
    3. Kazmi MA
    4. Dirr BA

    (2023) Dejun Tony Kong, Evonzia Jeff-Eke, and Christiane Spitzmueller: higher research productivity = more pay? Gender pay-for-productivity inequity across disciplines

    Scientometrics 01:04513-4.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04513-4

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Shaw AK
    2. Stanton DE

    (2012) Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 279:3736–3741.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0822

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Slay KE
    2. Reyes KA
    3. Posselt JR

    (2019) Bait and switch: representation, climate, and tensions of diversity work in graduate education

    The Review of Higher Education 42:255–286.

    https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0052

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Smith-Doerr L
    2. Alegria SN
    3. Sacco T

    (2017) How diversity matters in the us science and engineering workforce: a critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts

    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3:139.

    https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.142

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Spoon K
    2. LaBerge N
    3. Wapman KH
    4. Zhang S
    5. Morgan AC
    6. Galesic M
    7. Fosdick BK
    8. Larremore DB
    9. Clauset A

    (2023) Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty

    Science Advances 9:eadi2205.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Stout JG
    2. Dasgupta N
    3. Hunsinger M
    4. McManus MA

    (2011) STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:255–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Thomas NR
    2. Poole DJ
    3. Herbers JM

    (2015) Gender in science and engineering faculties: demographic inertia revisited

    PLOS ONE 10:e0139767.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139767

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Tienda M

    (2013) Diversity ≠ Inclusion: promoting integration in higher education

    Educational Researcher 42:467–475.

    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13516164

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. Conference

    1. Van Buskirk I
    2. Clauset A
    3. Larremore DB

    (2023) An open-source cultural consensus approach to name-based gender classification

    Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. pp. 866–877.

    https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22195

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Wapman KH
    2. Zhang S
    3. Clauset A
    4. Larremore DB

    (2022) Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention

    Nature 610:120–127.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Yang Y
    2. Tian TY
    3. Woodruff TK
    4. Jones BF
    5. Uzzi B

    (2022) Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas

    PNAS 119:e2200841119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Nicholas LaBerge

   Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   nila1617@colorado.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4922-3358

2. Kenneth Hunter Wapman

   Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Aaron Clauset

   1. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
   2. BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
   3. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3529-8746

4. Daniel B Larremore

   1. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
   2. BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
   3. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   daniel.larremore@colorado.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5273-5234

• 1,294

  views

• 71

  downloads

• 2

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.