return to homepage

(More Than You Ever Wanted to Know)

ABOUT WOMEN AND JOURNALISM EDUCATION

Ramona R. Rush, Carol E. Oukrop, Sandra W. Ernst

Department of Journalism and Mass Communications

Kansas State University

Division of Minorities and Communications

Association for Education in Journalism

Carbondale, Illinois

August, 1972

 

[Please note that this paper has been re-typed from the original presented at AEJ in Carbondale, Illinois, in August, 1972. Also, note that the formatting on the web version of this paper may not match that of the retyped version]

 

 

About Women and Journalism Education

            The various studies which follow in this paper came about for at least two reasons- curiosity and concern. Curiosity, because no one seems to know how many “qualified” women there are in the potential pool for journalism education. Concern, because if the women exist they are seldom visible at AEJ conventions, on the pages of Journalism Quarterly, in the university classrooms, or in administrative positions in schools and departments.1

            The primary purpose of the paper is identification of qualified women in journalism education. Another purpose is to find out what they are doing. The third purpose -- subtle, subjective, and sensitive -- has to do with sex discrimination in journalism education.

            The method used in the effort to identify qualified women was to check the membership rolls of the Association for Education in Journalism and faculty directories of the American Association of School and Departments of Journalism. In addition, questionnaires were sent to women in the process of obtaining or having completed Ph.D. degrees in journalism/communications.

            The faculty directory, the questionnaires, and the pages of Journalism Quarterly were employed to determine what the women are doing.

           The Questionnaire 2 alone was used to obtain opinions about sex discrimination and was directed only to female Ph.D.’s and candidates.

            The paper is organized around the following themes: Women and the National Journalism Education Association -- AEJ; Women Employed in Journalism Education; Ph.D. Women and Journalism Education; About Sex Discrimination (the doctoral program and the journalism faculty); Summary and Conclusions; and Recommendations.

Women and The National Journalism Education Association -- AEJ.

 

            In 1970-71, 131 women belonged to the Association for Education in Journalism.3 Since the membership of AEJ is about 1,200 members, 4 it can be seen that women hold an approximate11 percent membership.

          How do the women use their memberships in AEJ -- is their participation passive or active? This type of information can be gleaned in several ways: by assessing active roles of women as AEJ officers and committee members, as convention program officials and members as well as paper presenters, as holding executive and administrative responsibilities for official publications of AEJ as well as publishing articles in the publications, and so on.

            It became obvious to frequent attenders of annual meetings of AEJ that women hold few major responsibilities for program participation and planning. Their usual role is as paper presenters with a few being panel members.

            For example, in 1971 women had approximately eight papers on the program (some co-authored with men), two served as panel members, one was a panel moderator, one chaired a junior college session, and one professional newspaper woman had a prominent position as a discussant at a general session. 5 The one session where women were represented with abundance (not counted above) was a public relations session on “Women in PR -- Problems and Promise.”

            The official program of the annual meeting does not show any women on the 1971 convention program committee.

            It became apparent that women do not take a major part in convention program activities (such as presiding at lectures and paper presentations or chairing sessions.) Persons who do participate in these ways are usually appointed or relegated in formal or informal ways. Thus, women are not participants in a function which adds to the visibility and prestige of individuals.6

                                                

            The 1970-71 AEJ Directory lists officials of the AEJ Executive Committee; American Society of Journalism School Administrators -- Executive Council; American Association of Schools and Departments of Journalism -- Executive Committee, AEJ Advisory Board; AEJ Elected Standing Committees (professional freedom and responsibility, research, and teaching standards), and the American Council on Education for Journalism (professional members, educator members, and accrediting committee) -- a total of 110 male members.7

 

            The Association for Education in Journalism has had 47 presidents since 1925, all male.

            One measure of the status of women in journalism education is their impact on the major professional journals in the field. Thus one of the official publications of AEJ, Journalism Quarterly, was reviewed for an 11-year period from 1960 through 1971.

            Involvement in the major media of one’s profession is important because it represents what Flora calls “the semi-formal network” of professional socialization.8 Appearance of one’s work in the publication provides recognition and builds professional reputations. Publication encourages young educators to continue their research efforts.

            Journalism Quarterly has no stated policies which could be considered to limit the participation of women. A major aim of this particular study was to learn how much use women are making of their opportunity to publish in Journalism Quarterly.

            Participation in Journalism Quarterly’s activities can be found on two levels -- self-initiated and invited. The self-initiated category includes the submission of articles. These may be major research reports or shorter articles which are briefs of research reports or short papers on such subjects as methodology. Both major and “Research in Brief” articles rely upon the author’s initiative in submitting the material.                                  

        In the second category -- invited participation -- are such things as membership on the editorial staff or advisory board or service as book reviewers or mass communication bibliographers. This participation is a form of formal recognition by other professionals. It could, perhaps, be considered an index of reputation. The primary purpose of this investigation, then, is to examine the frequency with which women appear in self-initiated areas and in invited areas.

            The method used was basically a counting of all names and of women’s names appearing in the lists of departmental editors, members of the editorial advisory board, article authors, book reviewers, mass communication bibliographers, news notes subjects and Ph.D. Dissertations completed.9

            During the 11 years under consideration, 509 doctoral dissertations were completed. Of these, 36 or 7 percent were done by women. There was a slight rise in the percentage of dissertations being completed by women in the later years, with 6 percent of the completed dissertations during the 1960-1965 period done by women as compared to 8 percent from 1966 through 1971.

            Obviously, no direct relationship can be expected between the percentages of dissertations completed by women and the percentage of women contributing to -- or being invited to contribute to -- Journalism Quarterly. Yet, the knowledge that 7 percent of the completed dissertations during the 11 years were done by women might help put other data into perspective. So also might the fact, mentioned elsewhere in this paper, that AASDJ faculty directories indicate that in 1968-69 women represented eight percent of the total employed on journalism faculties; in 1971-72 women made up seven percent.

            In only one of the content areas reviewed did the percentage of women contributors surpass seven percent during 1960-71. During the 11 years there were 290 contributors to “Research in Brief,” 30 or 10 percent of the contributors being women. Fifteen of the 30 were single authors, six were senior authors, and nine were junior authors.

            The percentage of women contributors to this section of the publication seems to be on the rise, with six percent of the 103 contributors from 1960 through 1965 being women, as compared to 13 percent of the 187 from 1966 through 1971.

            The next highest percentage of women contributors was in major articles. Fifty-nine (seven percent) of the 886 contributors during the 11 years were women. Thirty-four were single authors, six senior authors, and 19 junior authors. The percentages of women contributors seems to be on the rise here also, from five percent in 1960-65 to eight percent in 1966-71.

            From Spring 1963, through 1970, 2,869 all-cap names appeared in "News Notes". Of these, 127, just over four percent, were women. In one case the news note concerned the wife of a journalism school dean who had been elected to the local park board.

            During the 11 years covered, there were 1,241 book reviewers listed; 127, less than two percent, were women. There was virtually no change in this percentage from 1960-65 (1.8 percent) to 1966-1971 (1.6 percent).

            From 1960 through 1971, 77 different names appeared on Journalism Quarterly’s title-page as editors and/or members of the editorial advisory board. Seven, nine percent, of these were women. The seven women included an editorial assistant, a secretary, three production editors and two assistant editors. Departmental editors, such as those in charge of book reviews and bibliographies on “Articles in Mass Communication: a Selected Annotated Bibliography,” are listed in the masthead, but Eleanor Blum, whose “Other Books and Pamphlets on Journalistic Subjects” appeared in each issue over the 11 years, is not.

            Among those listed as assisting in preparing selected annotated bibliographies of articles on mass communication in U.S. and foreign journals over the 11 years were 59 persons, one of whom was a woman. There has been no woman serving in this capacity since 1965. It is obvious from the data that women have their smallest impact in those areas in which they would contribute by virtue of invitation.

 

Women Employed in Journalism Education

 

            According to the 1968-69 and 1971-72 Faculty Directories of the American Association of Schools and Department of Journalism, 67 and 73 women, respectively, were and are employed in journalism education. These women represent eight and seven percent, respectively, of the total employed on journalism faculties in institutions of higher learning.10

            Of 55 schools and departments listed in 1968-69, 34 had at least one woman on their faculties. In 1971-72, 36 schools and departments of the listed 60 have at least one woman employed. In percentages, 62 and 60, respectively, employ at least one woman.

            The universities employing the greatest number of women on their journalism faculties in 1968-69 were: University of Missouri (9); Kansas State University (5); and Boston University (5). In 1970-71, the schools and departments employing the most women include the University of Missouri (9); Kansas State University (5); and University of Indiana (5).11 See Table 1 for the breakdown of both periods.

                                                      

TABLE 1

Schools and Departments of Journalism

Employing Women (Number of)

 

Schools/Departments of Journalism
1968-69
1971-72
U. of Missouri
9
9
Kansas State U.
5
5
U. Of Indiana
3
5
Boston U.
5
3
U. of Florida
2
3
U. of Georgia
4
3
U. of Illinois
3
3
Iowa State U.
2
3
North Texas State U.
2
3
Southern Illinois U.
1
3
U. of Kansas
1
2
Michigan State
2
2
San Jose State
2
2
South Dakota State
2
2
U. of Tennessee
1
2
U. of Washington
1
2
U. of Wisconsin
2
2
Kent State U.
1
1
U. of Kentucky
1
1
Louisiana State
1
1
U. of Minnesota
1
1
Northwestern U.
1
1
Ohio State U.
1
1
U. of Oklahoma
2
1
U. of South Carolina
1
1
Syracuse U.
1
1
U. of Texas
1
1
California State (Fullerton)
0
1
U. of Michigan
0
1
U. of New Mexico
0
1
U. of North Dakota
0
1
U. of Oregon
0
1
San Fernando Valley State Co.
0
1
Temple U.
0
1
Texas Christian U.
0
1
Texas Tech U.
0
1
Fresno State Colleg
1
0
University of Iowa
1
0
Stanford U.
1

0

Marquette U.
3
0
U. of Maryland
1
0
Penn. State
1

0

U. of Nebraska
1
0
Total
67
73

 

            Other information obtained from the directories includes current rank, birthdate (years old), highest degree earned, and university granting Ph.D.

            The academic ranks of instructor and assistant professor vied for honors of the women employed in journalism education in 1968-69. In raw figures and percentages, the common academic ranks are as follows: instructor (19, 28%); assistant professor (20, 30%); associate professor (10, 15%); and full professor (5, 8%). Other titles accounted for 13 women, or 19 percent.

            In 1971-72, the pile-up occurred in the assistant professor rank. The ranks by figures and percentages: instructor (13, 18%); assistant professor (22, 30%); associate professor (13, 18%); and full professor (6, 8%). Other ranks accounted for 19 women, or 26 percent. In 1971-72, women entertained titles not seen in 1968-69 -- visiting lectureship, visiting assistant professor, and visiting professor. See Table 2 for a breakdown of rank for both periods.

            The ages of the women listed in the 1968-69 directory ranged from 24 to 74, with an average age of 45 years. In 1971-72, the ages range from 26 to 68, with an average age of 44 years.

            In 1968-69, 35 (52%) of the women held a master’s degree. Nineteen had a B.A or B.S. degree (28%) and eleven had Ph.D’s (16%). One held a dual bachelor’s degree and another had an Ed.D.

            Sixty-two percent of the women (45) hold a M.A. or M.S. degree in 1971-72. Thirteen women hold a Ph.D., and 11 have a B.A. or B.S. One has a dual master’s, one has an Ed.D., and another has an "other".

 

Ph.D. Women and Journalism Education

 

            How many Ph.D. women can you identify in journalism or communications? This question was asked of some AEJ officials, of a few department heads, and of the authors. There was agreement in response--”about 10.” Generally, they are women personally known to each of the persons questioned.

           

TABLE 2

Academic Rank of Women (by number) Employed

In Schools and Departments of Journalism


Rank
1968-69
1971-72
Full Professor
5
6
Associate Professor
10
13
Assistant Professor
20
22
Instructor
19
13
Lexturer
7
8
Emeritus Professor
1
0
Ass't instructor
3
2
Ass't in Journalism
0
2
No Academic Title
2
2
Visiting Ass't Prof.
0
1
Visiting Lecturership
0
1
Visiting Professor
0
1
Teaching Associate
0
1
Part-time Instructor
0
1
Part-time Faculty
0
0
TOTAL
67
73

 

            Yet, the number seems ridiculously low given the modern times, the number of Ph.D. programs in journalism and communications and, especially, the increasing enrollments in J-school in the last few years where a funnel effect to the graduate schools might be occurring.12

            If the number of Ph.D. women is indeed low, then schools and departments of journalism can justifiably claim that there are few qualified women available for employment. There are, of course, qualified women other than those with doctoral degrees, such as those with master’s degrees and professional experience. There seems to be little likelihood, however, that many women with master’s or bachelor’s degrees and abundant professional experience will be invited to join faculties or to be administrators as are many of their male colleagues. The catch, as Time pointed out from the women’s viewpoint, is that few of the professional women are in prominent positions either as reporters or editors.13

            The decision was made to try to get some assessment, even though limited, of Ph.D. women trained in journalism/communications. It was deemed impossible for this study to try to also identify women with master’s degrees.

                                                                                    

Method

 

Personal letters were sent to chairmen of departments identified as having Ph.D. programs in journalism and/or mass communications. The letters asked for names and addresses of women working toward a Ph.D. as well as those who have completed their doctoral programs. All but one of the department chairmen or their representatives responded with the requested information. An obvious limitation to be noted, however, is that the list of names accumulated is only as good as the search of files for the names is complete.14 A total list of 101 women was compiled from the responses of the department chairmen, including 57 women in process in a doctoral program and 44 who have completed the degree.

            A xeroxed cover letter and questionnaire were sent to each woman on the total list in February, 1972. 15 The questionnaire contains 41 items and can be divided into two general content areas, demographic information and opinions on sex discrimination in journalism education. 16 The latter area is further divided as to participation in doctoral programs and on journalism faculties.    

            The questionnaire received a 73 percent response rate, or 74 completed and usable schedules of the 101 sent out. Two follow-up postcards were sent out to increase the initial response. 17

            The section of the questionnaire about sex discrimination should not be regarded as anything but the women’s opinions about their particular experiences while in doctoral programs and on faculties in journalism/communications.

            In the first place, their experiences cannot be adequately told in terms of "yes" and "no" (which were their choices on the questionnaire). In the second place, sex discrimination is difficult to document (as we told the respondents in the questionnaire). Along this same point, we assume that the particular objective training that is inherent in doctoral programs would make these women more sensitive to avoidance of emotional responses than might be the case for most groups.

            But we think more explanation can be found where the respondents were given “some room of their own” below each of the yes/no boxes--space to write in examples substantiating and/or explaining what they checked for each question.

            We believe that the respondents may have understated the existence of sex discrimination. 18 The women often checked a no-discrimination response but followed with explanatory sentences beginning “But,” “However,” or “I can’t document this but.” They would also place a check mark between the “yes” and “no” responses; these were coded as a third response.                                                      

            The bi-polar opinions and much of the scrawled marginalia are both included in the report of the results since the authors believe that the two are best interwoven for a more complete look at the women’s experiences. Our one regret is that the impact of these stories may in part be lost due to the need to withhold information that might endanger anonymity and violate our promise to keep these accounts confidential. This is certainly a danger in journalism and communications where only one woman might be in a doctoral program at a certain point in time.

 

            Demographic Information.  Of the 74 respondents, 38 are working toward the Ph.D. and 36 have completed the degree.

            The women holding the Ph.D.’s are products of doctoral programs in the 60’s and 70’s. Seven women received Ph.D.’s in the 1960-64 period, 19 from 1965 to 1969, and 10 in 1970 and 1971.        

            Those now in process in their doctoral programs began their degree work in the 60’s and 70’s: three started their respective programs in 1963 and 1964; 23 from 1965 to 1969; and 11 from 1970 to 1972. One woman did not include this information.

            Of those who have completed their degrees, nine did their doctoral work at the University of Wisconsin. The other degree-granting universities include: Syracuse University, 6; University of Missouri, University of Iowa, Michigan State, 4 each; University of Illinois, 3; University of Washington, Stanford University, Indiana University, Southern Illinois University, University of Minnesota, and Northwestern University, 1 each.

            Seven of the women now in process are attending the University of Illinois, five are at the University of Pennsylvania, four at Michigan State University, three at the University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, and Southern Illinois University, respectively. Two women each are attending Indiana University, University of Iowa, Syracuse University, Ohio University, and the University of Minnesota, while one is attending the University of Missouri, Northwestern University, and Ohio State University.

            In summarizing the women’s professional experience in terms of the longest period of time, public relations has been their prominent occupation.

            Nearly one-third (19) of the women have worked the longest in public relations, followed by newspaper work (11), magazine (8), research (6), radio-TV (5), and advertising (3). Several of the women indicated no professional experience. There is little difference between the Ph.D.’s and doctoral candidates on type of work experience.

            The number of years of professional experience ranged from one to 24 years for the Ph.D.’s, with the average being seven years. The range for the candidates is one to 22 years, with the average length of professional work experience being six years.

            Teaching at levels other than the university has been an occupation of many of the respondents. Nearly half (36) of the women have taught at the high school or elementary levels or both. Some also have taught in junior colleges and special schools.

            The range of teaching experience at levels other than the university is one to 25 years, with the average being four years.

            Full-time teaching experience at the university level is indicated by 51 women (27 Ph.D.’s, 24 candidates) with a range from one to 20 years, the average being six years. Fifty-one percent have taught for four years or less, however. The Ph.D.’s have taught at the university level from one to 20 years for an average of seven years. Those women now in process of their doctoral programs have taught for one to 14 years, with an average of five years. Two-thirds of the candidates have taught for four years or less.     

            Full-time teaching experience 19 at the university in journalism/communications is indicated by 36 women, including 14 candidates. The length of time ranges from one to 17 years, with the

average being five years.  Ph.D’s have taught in journalism/communications from one to 17 years, for an average of six years. More than two-thirds (68%) of the Ph.D.’s have taught for six years or less. The candidates have taught for one to 14 years, the average being four years. Sixty-four percent of the candidates have taught full-time for two years or less.

            Thirty-one women have taught full-time at the university level in areas other than journalism/communications. Six have taught in the social sciences from one to five years. Twenty-five have taught in non-journalism, non-social science areas at the university level for a range of one to 17 years, with an average of four years.

            Thirty-seven women have gained teaching experience at the university level through having teaching assistantships or working part-time.

            Since completing their Ph.D.’s, 29 women have taught at the university level for one to eleven years, the average being four years.

            The current status of the respondents is 22 doctoral candidates, 24 faculty members, 16 who are both doctoral candidates and faculty members, and 12 “others,” the bulk of whom are Ph.D.’s working in occupations other than University teaching, such as research. “Other” also includes two unemployed Ph.D.’s.           

            Of those Ph.D.’s who currently teach in journalism/communications and hold an academic rank (18), half (9) are assistant professors, 6 are associate professors, and 1 is a full professor. Of the six Ph.D.’s holding academic rank in areas other than journalism, one is an assistant professor and five are associate professors.

            The respondents were asked to itemize their publications in terms of those published, those submitted, and papers read at meetings, conventions, etc. The counting presented below includes all publications (books and articles) without regard for whether the articles were printed in scholarly and/or referred publications.

            Nine of the 31 Ph.D. respondents to the question do not have any publications, 6 have one, 5 have two to four, 5 have five or six, and 6 have seven or more.

            Of the 33 Ph.D. respondents answering, 22 do not have an article submitted, 8 have one or two submitted, 3 have three or four submitted.

            Twelve of 32 Ph.D.’s have not read a paper at a meeting or convention, 10 have read one, and 10 have read two to four.

            The personal characteristics of the women in the study are interesting. A profile of the average woman shows that she is 38 years old, single, with 2.2. children (whoops!).

            The candidates are, surprisingly enough, both younger and older (24 to 59 years of age) than the Ph.D’s (28-54). The average age of candidates is 36 years, while the Ph.D.’s have an average age of 40.

            Nearly half (48.6% or 36) of all the women are single, 20 are married, 16 are divorced and 2 are widowed. In examing the two groups separately, most are single in both groups but more candidates are divorced than married while the opposite is true for the Ph.D.’s.

            Sixteen of the women have children, ranging in number from one to five.

 

About Sex Discrimination

 

            The Doctoral Program.   Few of the Ph.D. graduates or the doctoral candidates 20 can cite any specific instances in which a woman applying for admission to a doctoral program in journalism/communications was turned down because of sex. Only seven percent (of 73) of the women indicate they are aware of cases.

            Several, however, proceeded to discuss incidents which bothered them but which they are not willing to specifically pinpoint as examples of sex discrimination:

 

            One of my turn-downs came from a reputable university which, in a few words, said they didn’t know if I could keep up with their quality students. Don’t know if this was an academic implication, sex, or both.21

            But! It is a frequent "rumor" that females are openly discouraged at the doctoral level.

            But I know of cases, in part, where women were turned down because they did not have a “specific purpose.”

            When I applied for admission to the University doctoral program as the recipient of a ____fellowship, I was encouraged to return to ___ because they had some reservations due to my being female and black.

            I wasn’t turned down, but I was discouraged despite my record. The Dean of the Graduate School suggested I go home where I belonged since I had a man to feed me. My adviser, ___, is a prince of a man, however, and helped me weed out the obstacles. My record was never questioned (nor my ability); it was simply a matter of their inability to take me seriously because of my sex (and despite my achievements).

            Sex and age--I was turned down or politely discouraged, whichever you call it, at ___ in 1964--something like “we discourage anyone over 26...”

            The truth is that I have heard of such but have no evidence. At the time of my graduation, I was still the only woman in the program. It has been said that my application for graduate school was processed during the summer when the director of the school was absent. I   don’t think the faculty extended itself in helping me find a job as it did for many of the  men, although it gave me excellent letters of recommendation.

            The respondents were asked if their parents and/or spouses encouraged their pursuit of the Ph.D. One-fourth (of 67) said they had not been encouraged. Another eight percent said “yes/no” primarily because of the double-barrelled question--they were encouraged by parents and discouraged by spouses or vice versa. Several women who said they had been encouraged indicate that the reason was because the Ph.D. degree is an appreciated value (the parents have a background of higher education), or that the doctoral degree carries status or financial rewards, or both.

            Both my parents have several graduate degrees, as do my siblings--education has been  highly regarded in my family for several generations.

            My spouse encouraged it because he finds it financially attractive. My parents felt I should devote all time and energy to my marriage and have a career only as a sideline.

            My mother had a fit. Women should not have so much education; it discourages  prospective husbands.

            It was only subtle discouragement--they (parents) couldn’t understand why I needed more education since I’d spent most of my life going to school.

            They thought I was out of my mind to put myself through such an experience.

            They were not consulted but were usually achievement-oriented. Their awareness of what  discrete careers or academic programs were available was quite limited.

            Father, quote: I think you need to get married. I don’t think you need to go to school.

            Parents were traditional. Didn’t feel a Ph.D. was necessary for a girl.

            My husband, yes. My mother seems offended by my pursuit of a Ph.D. My dad has never expressed himself on the subject to my knowledge.

            My parents very subtly ignored the idea. Brought up the age-old subject that finding a husband would be more difficult with a Ph.D. “behind my name.”         

            Mother, to the extent that she comprehended communications. The Ph.D. looked prestigeful.

            Husband: Wants me to be what I want to be. Says if he needs another household pet, he’ll go to the humane society. His basic attitude, as reflected here, does not protect him from all of the barbs of his associates. Many men really don’t or can’t experience their masculinity             unless they define their lifestyle in terms of the “little woman who waits on me.” And we  mustn’s [sic] forget that many of such men can be found in academic and professional circles.          

            My husband was in ___and I continued my studies in [another city]. Without his active support, I couldn’t have finished my degree.          

            My husband gave “lip service” to his wish to see me earn the Ph.D. but created all sorts of weird social and financial frustrations whenever I talked of taking the time away from home to fulfill residence requirements.

            My family and acquaintances are all against the idea. They feel that since I can make a comfortable living for myself and my son as a ___, I am foolish to undertake so strenuous an enterprise.

            Particularly my husband who believes (1) I should have the same professional opportunities as he and (2) because I should realize my potential to the fullest and (3) a Ph.D. is the best life insurance policy he could provide. When we married we both had our M.S. and we each agreed to support ourselves through graduate school. If one of us lost support, that person would have to drop out until he or she could earn enough to continue but the education of the other would not be interrupted.

            Yes; my father and mother and other relatives believe in education. None has an attitude that women should not be educated, etc.

            The question was asked, “Were you ever discouraged from pursuing your Ph.D. studies by a professor, faculty advisor, or counselor at any point in your educational process because of your sex?” Seventeen percent (of 72) say they have been discouraged, while an additional three percent say “yes and no.”

            Applied to ___ Department of ___ for doctoral studies in ‘67. Grades were on a par with men being admitted but I was told I would probably drop out and get married.

            I was not encouraged by some faculty members. It was more or less assumed that I would stop with an M.A.

            The major professor for my master’s degree advised me not to go on to such a painful  process.

            However, that there is de facto discrimination was explicitly pointed out to me early in grad  program. 

            Dr. ___ said, “Quit, you have a woman’s mind; Dr.__ said, “Quit and get married.”

            I was not actually discouraged from getting a Ph.D.; I was told that I might be “better off” in a department in which quantitation ability ( described as a “masculine” ability) was less important.

            Chairman in ___ said my duty was to put my husband through school (he had never met my husband).

            Can’t claim entire reason was due to sex -- but the argument was mentioned that women don’t need Ph.D.’s by chairman of department where I was in graduate school.

            However, persons in the newspaper field advised me not to go on for a master’s degree.            

            After I received it, I heard several newspapermen criticize it. With a Ph.D., I feel persons in the field don’t even consider you seriously when applying for non-academic job.

            Not directly. But my adviser sometimes asked me about my marriage plans!

 

            When asked, do you know of any instances in which a woman (including yourself) did not receive a fellowship or assistantship because of her sex?, 14 percent (of 71) of the women said “yes.” Six percent responded with a “yes/no” to the question. Those who have received fellowships or assistantships during their doctoral programs were quick to note it in their comments. Those who have had problems or have noted problems about financial aid, write:

            Difficult to say definitely, although consensus among males and females in this program is that women are particularly unlikely to receive teaching assistantships.

            At University of ___, half the communications grads were women. Only one had an assistantship. There were no women assistantships until a man resigned.

            But a classmate (female) tells me she was told “not to bother to apply.” Whether this was sex discrimination is impossible to determine. Other females have been funded.

            I was ignored when I requested to be considered for an ___fellowship program but admit that I did not pursue it to a formal application--treated as a joke.           

            I had a scholarship which was taken away because it was felt I could not do full-time housework, part-time teaching and full-time study. In order to get residence status, I had to declare myself a full-time housewife only and am allowed to take only 3 credit hours per term on that basis.

            I’m sure, if confronted, the reason the head of the doctoral program would give would not be sex. But the fact is that there are a very limited number of teaching positions available to Ph.D. students and strange as it may seem, only men have filled them, currently and for at least the past three years.

            Many graduate fellowships discriminate against older women who go back to school after raising children, simply because of their age limitations. An exception is the American Association of University Women who do not require that you be under 35 to apply.

            My own support was cut off with the argument that “a man with children needs the $ more.”           

            I can’t be sure, but a fellowship was given to a male candidate to help raise his salary to encourage him to stay. He was given release time for research and the whole bit, but did not finish.

            It is not infrequent for women to be turned down because family responsibilities prohibit them from full-time academic loads. In general, it appears male students are given precedence except in the cases of outstanding women students.         

            Both departmental and grad school thesis support has been declined or reduced to a minimum because I am a married woman. This has not been done to married men. My adviser indicates that they feel that any man foolish enough to marry a grad student who is female deserves what he gets. Given the fact that my spouse is a grad student, I believe there is and was bias. I know what systemic and systematic discouragement is. It became obvious that I would not receive an assistantship for ___ because my husband would be living elsewhere.

            However, it is interesting to note that there were no women working on fellowships or assistantships in the University of ___during the past three years.

 

            Eighty-seven percent of the women (of 71) said they could not find a woman faculty member to model after or to relate to during their doctoral programs. Several of the respondents mentioned women being on the faculty but not in the graduate school or in their particular research emphasis, some mentioned women faculty members in other departments, some had women present but wouldn’t especially want to model after them.

            No women in the ___ journalism faculty (except me) since the late 1950’s-- and she didn’t work with graduate level courses.           

            Strange, I hadn’t thought of it, but I had no women faculty members during my entire graduate program. Very few are members of the graduate faculty on this campus.

            There was only one, and she was neither theory nor research methodology-oriented. The only woman faculty member in the department in which I studied had only a M.S. degree  and taught undergraduate and practice courses.

            ___is wife of my doctoral adviser. Don’t consider her a model but she has an enviable reputation.

            There are only three women faculty members in our department and none of their  areas/research interests coincide with mine. I had very little contact with one of them, none     at all with the other two.

            The only woman I have worked with at all is primarily in sociology and I would not  “model” myself after her!

            Dr._____(in another department)-- after meeting her I feel I can continue in this program.

            In three years at ___, I’ve never had a female prof. Given the fact that I come from a blue- collar background, it has made a difference. Why? Mostly because male professors relate to you first as a skirt and find it difficult to cope with you as a person who happens to be        female.

            There are none now in journalism. There was one in 1950 or so when I was an undergraduate; Heaven help me if I should ever turn out as boring as she was.

            There was one woman on the faculty of my graduate school when I was there but she was part-time and limited to one particular program of study.

            She was my undergraduate advisor and a member of both my M.S. and Ph.D. graduate committees; she’s innovative and creative--a mover in our specialty. As much a friend as a colleague.

            The women were asked about role conflicts (women in a social norm sense vs. professional) in three different settings; the classroom, social gatherings, and research studies or special projects. It is interesting to note here that the doctoral candidates more frequently answered “yes” to problems of role conflicts than did the Ph.D.’s. There are at least three interpretations for this occurrence: (1) more bothersome role conflicts are occurring, (2) the memory of those who have been out of school has dimmed somewhat, and/or (3) the candidates are more aware of such instances because of the attention given nationally to the women’s movement.

            Eight-one percent (of 69) answered “no” to the question of being bothered by role conflicts in the classroom situation. In the affirmative, 14 percent (5) of the Ph.D.’s and 23 percent (5) of the candidates note conflicts. Although the classroom situation appears to have fewer role conflicts than the other two situations, many of the women express concern about not being taken seriously:

            In team projects, as a female, I was expected to be “secretary”--i.e., do the compiling and typing.

            It wasn’t quite as easy to find someone to study with me as the males had it; often this was due to the touchiness of their wives which was no fantasy--they said as much (jokingly, of  course.)          

            Often I am the only woman in the class and am conscious of the “ladies-first” order of recitation, or the elaborate use of “his” or “her.”           

            Professors said “you sound like my wife--grandmother, etc.” They relate me to females and their private life, not as another “real” student.

            Although I was an older woman, my student peers were great. I perhaps bugged the profs at first until they realized I was playing the student role completely and was no threat.

            I have no specific examples---I think there is simply a continuing role conflict in these situations.

            I have found that because of my age and my sex that I’m classified as something of a “bitch” if I set up standards that are more easily accepted from my male colleagues. If anything, that’s probably made me a stricter disciplinarian that I might normally be.

            Little opportunity for social contact with my (male) colleagues, who rarely included me in their beer-and-bull sessions.

            Remarks such as the usual dumb ones: You inhibit the seminar because we can’t use the language we are used to, but I suppose we’ll get along. I had a prelim committee member who objected in his evaluation because I had discussed current literature which he hadn’t assigned--or read. In the post-prelim oral evaluation, he objected to my feminine characteristics--really. Thank God someone sneered (that is, some man sneered) and said that although such characteristics were of interest (chuckle-chuckle), passing into candidacy was to be based on more relevant criteria.

            I always felt that I had to be more professional and scholarly than men to overcome the fact that I was a woman.

            In a couple of classes the male professors attempted to embarrass me and cause discomfiture in predominantly or all-male classes.

            Ostensible politeness, “ladies first!”; always in a classroom led by male teachers and containing a majority of male students.

            Students unadjusted to a female social scientist/journalist. Attempts at flirting.

 

            Of the three situations, social gatherings seem to present problems of role conflict to the woman more often than the others. Again, the doctoral candidates more frequently found role conflicts than did the Ph.D. graduates.        

            More than one-third (36% of 69) of all of the women gave the nod to this question as a problem area (an additional three percent indicate “yes/no”). Forty-five percent (15) of the Ph.D. candidates saw it as a problem while 29 percent (10) of the Ph.D.’s designated social gatherings as such.

            The most prominent problem for women with social gatherings is the decision about which camp to join--male colleagues or wives:

            The faculty males and Ph.D. candidates (male) would gather in a group to talk shop and the wives would be in another talking about family and children. Where does one go in  such a situation? And with what results?

            Sometimes (infrequently) it’s a bit awkward being a single woman in a couple-oriented community.

            In new situations there is always the assumption that you’re someone’s wife or date rather than a fellow.          

            In a few social situations, women seem to be expected to stay together and talk “woman- talk.” When men are around, I sometimes feel I am being deliberately ignored in the conversation because a woman never has anything important, significant, or intelligent to say.

            I was seen as a sex object by ___, the famous___ theorist. He was shocked when I told him he was off-base.

            A single women at any social function generally is made to feel out of place.

            While the male students I work with in the program are very accepting, I find myself reacting to the potentially sensitive feelings of their wives. In some cases, I’m sure the fact that their husbands consult me when they have some problems may hurt them.

            A minor problem, but one prof (married) wanted more than a professional relationship; embarrassing, but he didn’t flunk me in comps or anything like that for my lack of cooperation.

            [Yes] when dating a professor -- but that was easily stopped!

            My husband’s fellow grad classmates have told him in my presence that only a really sick woman goes to grad school. Weak-minded humor about castrating females. In addition, I have found several ( not many) instances where a refusal to be sexually intimate in public situations with profs has resulted in their being somewhat nasty in more typical situations.

            Although no women were in the "grad clique"”

            It’s sometimes awkward when one is the only female.           

            Yes and no. Whenever there is a drunk around, and some professors so imbibe, there is always the problem of keeping one’s distance. I find that as a single woman one must be particularly careful to cultivate the wives and make it apparent I’m no threat to them--that I   am interested in their husbands only professionally. Inevitably, I must spend some time at a  party listening to the problems of raising a family when I’d rather be talking with the men about professional matters.

            I was a little bothered by the attitudes of the wives of my colleagues at department’s social gathering. They seemed to accept their wifely roles and were perturbed to find a woman   Ph.D. candidate among them. They couldn’t relate to me.

            Everyone asks, "what does your husband do, dear?"

            Just the usual astonishment that a woman would be in a doctoral program.

            It still seems "socially desirable" to act dumber than you are in such situations.

            One-fourth (of 69) of the women in the study note role conflicts in pursuing research studies or special projects (an additional four percent say “maybe”). The Ph.D. candidates, however, brought the percentage up when 31 percent (11) answered "yes" while only 9 percent (3) of the Ph.D.’s consider this a problem.

            The anecdotes about problems on research studies and special projects appear to have no particular theme:

 

            "Mr. ___ will show you how to do this." There was no instruction given to males present in the same state of the research process.

            I vaguely felt that both professors and persons I asked for help during my research were   less than enthusiastic, perhaps skeptical, about a woman doing such a proposal (technically and intellectually complex.)

            The male Ph.D. candidates tended to have bull sessions together, discussed research  studies among themselves rather than shared their information with their women colleagues.

            Any woman with an interest in the international aspects of her research was never considered by the department for foreign research experience even when interest was expressed. But men graduate students were encouraged, verbally plus financial support plus professional guidance--to operationalize their problems in other countries--even when    their primary focus was domestic.

            Reluctance to give leadership to competent women.

            Generally not, because there is an investigation to do and that is what dictates your role.   Here it became more of a married vs. single (which I am ) problem since we would have to  work around the "home schedule" to a great extent.

            Research not taken seriously until it was fully constructed, i.e., maybe I couldn’t do it.  Ditto big___ grant -- they thought I wouldn’t get it.

            When I was working with the research center, I had difficulty with statistics and the empirical design because of an emotional reaction based partly on the feeling that women are not good at math and scientific reasoning.

 

            Fifty-seven percent (of 72) think they have had to "do more" to earn the respect of their professors and male counterparts in the doctoral program. An additional seven percent indicate "yes" in some aspects and "no" in others. If this question can be considered a general overview of their experience in a doctoral program, as opposed to the specific items about sex discrimination which preceded, then it points out some feelings which can’t be documented by the women but are present:

            Since I am a year or so younger than many counterparts, I sometimes feel that professors are indulgent, at least in interpersonal attitudes -- perhaps as much my fault as theirs-but I sometimes feel that they are more comfortable in dealing with me as a cute, bright young thing. With some professors, however, I am entirely successful in playing it straight.

            I feel that I am assumed to be dumb (because I’m female and look young) and must prove myself to be competent. Men, on the other hand, are automatically assumed to be competent unless proven stupid.

            My major professor once commented that I was the first female Ph.D. candidate he had worked with, which at once gives you the idea that you are something “different” and had better fit the expected mold.

            Both professionally and personally, women are suspect. It seems we must be better  students than men and more womanly than non-student females.

            The opposite with male counterparts. I was a threat to them and they preferred me to “do less”--but I didn’t.

            Definitely. Every step of the way, in every course, every interaction with a professor. I feel I must continually “prove” myself. It becomes wearing.

            If I cared very much about having their respect I would have to do more; I have about    decided that I don’t need their respect to get the degree and that’s what I’m after. (Granted enough respect is needed to qualify you to pass the prelim and orals.)

            I returned to graduate school as a 40-year-old adult and had to show evidence I was a serious professional with intentions of working in the field and not merely a bored  housewife. My employment record prior to grad school helped give evidence of this. Once convinced, faculty members were very supportive.           

            The female gender always work harder and have to be better.

            More was expected in course work requirements and dissertations. This was always subtle.

            I had a great work experience as a grad student [master’s work at another university.] But I   was single then. And once I married, it all seemed to change. No lie.

            Right now I am so discouraged I don’t feel like discussing it. This is the third proposal I have prepared. I’ve asked three men to chair my committee, had to switch areas from empirical to historical, take a bunch more courses, etc, etc.

            Any woman has to out perform men peers if she is to have any respect.

            Think I tried so hard on all my work because I was a female in a male environment.

            Definitely. I had to have an A+ paper -- perform twice as hard to get their respect. My major professor, however, treated me with great respect and equally as if I were a man.

            I have this feeling partly because of age (42). Not much of this feeling (perhaps none) had to do with sex.

            Professors do seem less secure with us. Less willing to act naturally with us. Contact between male faculty and male grad student is of different kind than with us. Role  relationship appears to bother faculty more than it bothers us. Role relationship appears to bother faculty more than it bothers us. e.g., we’d like to join group for occasional drink.

            I feel that in my case I had a great advantage because of my 23 years of newspaper experience I had in back of me. In most cases, I had had far more practical experience than had my professors.

            No doubt. The burden we carry is a bothersome one. If you do a bad job, men tend to blame it on your sex; if you do a good job--they resent it, especially the lazy ones.

            I am now beginning to be taken seriously, after having won a scholarship and finished a term of straight “A’s.” However, I think part of this reflects the general pejorative attitude of our society toward the single middle-aged woman. Age is as much a factor as sex.

            In some measure, because I am a Sister, I was respected on sight, without proving myself; this is a “reverse” prejudice we encounter just as we encounter, the opposite reaction.

            I’ve made steady progress in my professional career, and have no concrete examples of discrimination. There are times when one wonders, however.

 

            The Journalism Faculty.  A separate section was included for those currently teaching in college-level journalism. The question concerned the women’s experiences as members of faculties and was intended to ascertain if the women know of any problems related to sex discrimination.

            Respondents who are in journalism-related fields such as speech, advertising, radio-TV, were included in the results as appropriate interviews. Teaching assistants were also included. The striking tendency here was for women from many fields other than journalism to fill out the section although it was plainly marked to exclude them. Some even went to the trouble to mark out the word “journalism” and write in their own discipline; others wrote in the margin that they were answering the questions for their own areas; others had to be checked against their demographic information and then their responses were eliminated. The authors regret losing information but will have to leave it to other disciplines to assess their own.

            We asked the women, “If there is a problem of sex discrimination in journalism education in institutions of higher education, in which areas do you think it occurs?” The forced responses include salary, promotion in rank, tenure, committee assignments, departmental decision-making, travel opportunities and/or appointment to leadership positions (such as deans, directors, chairmen). There was an open-ended “other” response included as well as a blank to check if the women think there is “no problem of sex discrimination.”

            It is apparent in Table 3 that promotion is the primary area which the Ph.D. graduates believe to be influenced by sex discrimination. Appointment to leadership positions is also a discriminatory area. The Ph.D’s split on salary, with half indicating that salary levels are influenced by sex discrimination while the other half did not.

            It is interesting to note the difference between the women with completed Ph.D’s and those still in process. Only two areas (promotion and appointment to leadership positions) mustered even half of the candidates’ votes as possible areas of sex discrimination. Also, it is apparent that priorities are different for some areas between the Ph.D’s and candidates--the candidates place tenure at the bottom of the list of sex discrimination areas but give travel opportunities higher marks than do the Ph.D’s.

            As might be remembered in the section about the doctoral program, Ph.D. candidates more often than the Ph.D.’s cited problems of sex discrimination. Here, the opposite seems to emerge. The explanation could be as simple as persons being most concerned or knowledgeable about situations which affect them most directly and immediately. Also, most Ph.D. candidates are not carrying the same teaching responsibilities which the other women are, and therefore may not be as aware of or as concerned about sex discrimination.

            When asked in an open-ended question which area or areas of discrimination the women thought we should be primarily concerned about, promotion and salary were the most frequent for the Ph.D.’s. Five out of 10 of the candidates, however, placed (in frequency of response) the “other” category before promotion and salary. Their written-in responses reflect their immediate concerns and can be summarized under one term -- hiring practices.

 

Table 3

Areas of Sex Discrimination in Journalism

Education (percentage and figures of

women indicating a “yes” answer)

 

Ph.D. Graduates
Area Percentage of "yes" Number of "yes" Total Number
Promotion of rank 65% (11) (17)
Leadership Positions 59% (10) (17)
Salary 50% (9) (18)
Departmental decision-making 35% (6) (17)
Tenure 35% (6) (17)
Committee Assignments 29% (5) (17)
Travel Opportunities 12% (2) (17)
Other 6% (1) (17)

 

Ph.D. Candidates
Area Percentage of "yes" Number of "yes" Total Number
Promotion of rank 50% (6) (12)
Leadership Positions 50% (6) (12)
Salary 42% (5) (12)
Departmental decision-making 33% (4) (12)
Tenure 8% (1) (12)
Committee Assignments 7% (2) (12)
Travel Opportunities 33% (4) (12)
Other 17% (2) (12)

 

 

            Only one-fourth (7 of 29) of the women believe there are no problems of sex discrimination in journalism education. Two of the women added these comments:

            I have personally encountered none. I recall only one occasion when sex entered; that  was when a department chairman entertained a visiting communicator and made it stag (to rule out wives). This ruled me -- the only woman -- out also.

            No concrete evidence. Just general picture of a “newspaper man” is male--and a newspaper woman is a “mannish tough type.”

            The women were asked if their salary is equal to that of male staff members with similar training and experience. Forty-four percent (of 16) of the Ph.D.’s said “no” and seven of the candidates said it wasn’t. One woman noted: “Men have a nice appreciation of what they can demand and get. Women are too eager to be hired.” 

            Eight of ten of the Ph.D.’s and seven of nine of the candidates indicate that most of the women faculty members in their respective departments are clustered in lower academic ranks (the women were asked to cite figures if possible in order to prevent guesses as often as possible.)

 

            When asked if women faculty members in their respective departments carry heavier teaching loads than men with similar training and rank, the usual response is “no”. Where the women answering “yes” (3 of 12, Ph.D.’s; 1 of 8, candidates) supplied an example, it most often has to do with release time for research for the men:

            The men engage in research to a much greater extent than women; several of the men teach as few as one course per semester.

One of my male instructor counterparts teaches only 9 hours; is released 3 hrs. for "research"” The women instructors all carry 12 hr. teaching loads.

            One-third of the Ph.D.’s (5 of 15) think they do not have an equal chance for promotion in rank as their male colleagues with similar qualification.

 

            Few of the women (2 of 15 Ph.D.’s; 3 of 12 candidates) ever considered "giving up" their careers because of role conflicts. They note:

            Yes, when I was advised to declare myself a full-time housewife and was told that on that basis I would take no more than 3 credit hours per term at residence  rates.

            Remember, I was in newspaper work for 23 years and so this sex battle is nothing new to me. In the newspaper business early in my career I was discriminated against because of sex -- very much so.

            No, but I do consider giving up leadership roles within a department.

            I’ve always believed it is the male who has the conflict, not me.

            My major role conflict is between being a good mother and trying to develop my own potential. I often feel as though I am doing neither.

            Since the age of 22, I’ve worked in traditionally male professional areas. Whatever “role conflict” I might have since had was resolved many years ago.

 

            About one-third (6 of 16) of the Ph.D.’s and one-fourth of the candidates (3 of 11) have had problems with other women on the staff (including secretaries) because of being female. The reasons become apparent in the experiences the women recount:

            At a small college women staff are (or can be) openly hostile--secretaries assume a woman should do her own typing, etc.

            There was a time when secretaries with seniority assumed I should help in the secretarial  duties although I was not hired as a secretary.

            No, but then I don’t ask for much, I can type better and faster than our stenographic help.

            They prefer males and generally resent female administrators.

            Some secretaries resent taking orders from another woman.

            Those with master’s degrees are the ones who are most hostile.

            The known “bitch” making remarks to students, faculty and administration.

            No real problem although they may expect me to do more of my own typing--at times an unconscious metacommunication. Chairmen often will utilize women as secretaries (faculty meetings--planning schedules, etc.)

            I think women are partly to blame for female discrimination because they participate in it deeply. You can see the jealousy and contempt, even in professional women’s organizations.

            I must say, however, that the staff (not in our office) assume when I call and identify myself only by name that I am a secretary. In this manner, I’ve learned how some secretaries are treated and also treat each other. I’ve had to make it clear a number of times that I wanted action just like a male professor. Furthermore, they will call me by my first name when they would not think of doing so with a male professor.

            Some difficulties with secretaries in early days of appointment--not lately since seniority was achieved.

 

            Ten of twelve of the Ph.D.’s say that women candidates are considered when job vacancies arise  in their departments. The stickler on this question is that the respondents are examples in themselves, so  the percentage may be inflated.

            Presumably so. We’ve never brought a woman candidate in. Doubt if men in so small a department would like to have another woman.

            We’ve considered none since I’ve been here. On the other hand, two of us were hired in 1969.

            Women were obviously considered when the four of us were hired, but we are currently searching for a department head and women aren’t being suggested or invited to apply.

            But with less vigor--they have to “have more.”

            But I don’t think they’re seriously considered these days with the job situation as tight as it is. The man, married, etc., usually gets first call.

            Recently, qualified job candidates who are women have been noted with pleasure by the faculty, as helping even its ranks with respect to women faculty.

            For the simple reason that we never have found any who are qualified. We did try to get one--a local reporter--but she would not quit newspaper work. Can’t say I blame her.

            I know definitely that our new director is considering women.

            I was--and am--the first woman on the j-faculty here.

            Can’t answer. I think they would be or are considered. Problem is scarcity of candidates with experience, education, etc.

            At ____, women were not given any more than a passing consideration when job openings occurred.

            In this, I must say our faculty has been decent. When it decided the woman applying for the instructor’s job was the best qualified, it had to send a committee to the dean (since replaced by another man) to override his objections.

 

            The assertion was put to the women -- "There are few or no women administrators (e.g., directors or chairmen) in journalism departments. Do you believe that this is primarily due to sex discrimination?"

            Nearly half (14 of 29) attribute the lack of female leadership to sex discrimination. Four additional women said "yes/no". (Two respondents to the questionnaire are administrators in their departments--one heads up the research center and the other is a department chairman at a smaller university.) Usually, the women note a scarcity of women (they guess) and/or a lack of interest on the part of women:

            In eight years in J-schools I’ve seen a lot of requests for applicants for such positions. I’ve seen only one that read, “The man or woman...” The other mention male applicants only. No one we contacted for suggestions for our directorships suggested a female candidate, nor have we invited a woman to apply.

            Undoubtedly, the last stronghold of male domination. First, we have to get a representative share of the faculty positions.

            And scarcity of qualified women in the field.

            Partly, also women in my experience haven’t been that gung-ho.

            The communications department at the U. of ___ has no female director or chairman although there are qualified women. One went on to become head of the department of sociology instead. Another woman has never been offered a research job although she is well-qualified. Nor have I been offered a job in my own graduate department in spite of the fact that many of the male members were recruited from inside.

            There are women editors on papers or general interest mags. The male “green eye shades” become the J -- school administrators. It’s a tight little club.

            If women are not promoted, etc., how can they ever be considered for administrative ranks?

            Indirectly, for discrimination against women at a lower level, at hiring, etc., means that no women are “allowed” to qualify for decision-making administrative positions.

            A number of women don’t feel they want to subject themselves to the problems of getting the degree and giving up a great deal to do it. At times I don’t blame them. So maybe it’s self-discrimination at times.

            U. of ____ is hiring a new head of ___ in journalism. They have had my data sheet for two years. I was not considered but an ex-colleague who got his degree a year after I did is.

            I doubt very much that women Ph.D.’s in journalism have taught long enough (or that there is even one in every department) to be considered for same. Give us ten years!

            It is not so much sex discrimination as the fact that the women, themselves, are so scarce in this business.

            Of course, there are few women in our state college and university departments.

            I believe it is due more to shortage of potential candidates. Women may not set sights for these positions. They may relax into teaching roles which are perceived as compatible with sex; avoids accusations of masculinization and also avoids threats from other women (even women appear to prefer men as chairmen.)

            Not primarily. There probably aren’t that many women in positions to take over chairmanships. However, I believe there probably are a few that could and we should support their moves to become deans.

            Men are actively sought for administrative positions.

            It may be owing to sex discrimination in the sense that journalism as a profession has historically discriminated against women; therefore, fewer women have taken preliminary steps (professional and academic) that would lead them toward administration in journalism education.

 

            As was the case in the doctoral programs, most women on journalism faculties think they have to put forth more effort than their male counterparts to earn the respect of faculty members and administrators. Three-fourths (12 of 16) of the Ph.D.’s and two-thirds (8 of 12) of the candidates said “yes” to the question. While the first woman to comment below lays it on the line, the others get into specifics:

            Let’s not kid ourselves gals--you have to work harder, live cleaner, and be smarter if you want to make the grade.

            I have my present position because the administration could not find a man as well qualified as I am.

            I know that the head of a department in which I was employed went to each faculty member individually to ask if the other members would object to his hiring me. Usually such decisions were made by general faculty vote.

            Not once position and responsibility has been made evident. First visibility is always the assumption that you don’t “belong.” Identification of position takes care of that.

            This is an informal matter. You are not taken out to lunch by male colleagues as naturally as another male. At conventions it is much more difficult to get a male to listen to your research interests rather than talk about his own.

            I had to fight to get appointed director instead of “acting director” of one of our writing programs when the director took a leave of absence. In other words, I was fine for assuming the responsibility but not the title. Additional salary for additional responsibility did not win out--win a few, lose a lot.

            I am in a minority role at every meeting or group. One must acquire a non-threatening reputation first; then grudgingly may come respect.

            One administrator admitted candidly that he considered me a competent teacher, but did not consider me equal to him as a colleague (solely because I am a woman.)

            But in my case my efforts were put forth before I got into college teaching. My colleagues respect my  many years of varied experience. If I did not have these it would be a different story, I feel sure.

 

            Eighteen women of the 36 who have their Ph.D.’s are working outside the field of journalism education. The important question is whether they are there from choice or of necessity. We asked these women why they didn’t pursue a career in the journalism field.22 Some of the responses tell the reasons clearly:

            No reason--looked for a job teaching and there was an opening on the ___ faculty at ___.

            In spite of the fact that I was one of their seven best graduates in terms of the dissertation I wrote, I was never offered a job. Ostensibly the reason was that they like to recruit faculty from outside. However, in fact they have often kept their best men and hired them for assistant professorships.

            Better chances for better jobs in School of ___. Surprisingly enough, less discrimination.

            I came to ___ from the Midwest as my husband was coming to ___. I found no openings either in teaching in universities or in working as an editor or writer on any of the newspapers and magazines in this area. Most employers wondered why a woman with two children should want any occupation outside the home.

            Opportunity not available. (1)___ universities I contacted indicated no vacancies or (2) did not contact me--even though I was living in the community--when a vacancy occurred or (3) when contacted (by a   woman), she dropped me like a hot potato when she learned I was married.

            My degree is as communications researcher-social scientist. Would go into J-school with this emphasis if opportunity presents itself.

            I felt I could contribute more professionally in an interdisciplinary setting. Realistically, chances for advancement in the journalism field for women do seem minimal. However, advancement is difficult in my present academic setting as well.           

           My master’s work was in library science. My intention is to apply the principles of research and communications to the field of library science. I consider libraries as a component of mass communications.

            I am in public relations, and this job in directing the information center ( I organized it) is one of choice. I would make one comment: at different times when I investigated the chance of working on a newspaper I was discouraged, told that women are poor risks (having babies) and that men cover the real news.

            We found two unemployed Ph.D.’s in our sample. One says that the reason why she isn’t in the journalism field is because most journalism departments wouldn’t accept a person with her background--foreign, no teaching nor media experience.

 

             The women were provided space at the end of the questionnaire for other comments, and many used the space plus more. Several wrote lengthy cover letters speaking to points they did not feel were covered in the questionnaire. Some of these have been included here because if the women thought the additional points were important enough to further extend themselves after the rather lengthy questionnaire, we can certainly provide the extra paper. We would especially point out the last comment from a woman who could not fill out a questionnaire because she did not “qualify” for it because of her special circumstances--she tells a story in her letter which does qualify for the purposes of this section.

            I didn’t find any place above to air a minor but deep-seated gripe. For more than four years, as the only woman on a 25-man faculty, I was literally forced into serving as secretary. At first this was due to my  position but in later years, I was a full-time faculty member. Attempts to resign as "secretary" and/or to tape record meetings failed. I was the woman, and I was the secretary.

            I think that those women who have “made it” in a man’s world are going to have to take special care not to guard their privileged positions, thereby putting down other women. We’re going to have to have a spirit of helping others as we go.

            I have the good fortune to be affiliated with a department headed by a far-thinking, passionately fair man. He is a member of the University’s committee on the status of women.

            Can think of only one instance when I really ran into discrimination (in applying for a teaching position at the University level), but I’m sure it’s a very real problem for many.

            I believe this information should be made available to the female undergraduates in our department in our department. We owe them this. (For instance, the female secretary at ____ who handles job flyers for the undergraduates will not tell the girls about professional openings. She feels they have no right to apply.)

            As you say, examples of blatant discrimination are hard to find. At the time I was actively seeking a teaching position, I got only one offer, and felt that a man with my experience would have received other offers. No way to know this though.

            I feel, as I have indicated, that in my case I have not been discriminated against in university teaching or  when I was working on my degrees because I had such a long and varied newspaper career before I got into journalism education. As I said, I think had I been a man, I would not have come to the University of ___ as an assistant professor well down on the pay scale but I wanted to come to ___ and got promoted after a fairly short time. However, as I also indicated, the discrimination against women in journalism education is merely a reflection of the discrimination against women in newspaper work. I had plenty of that when I was young and just starting my career. As I got experience and some accomplishments under my belt, the going got easier. I can recall in my earlier newspaper days seeing a man many times given an assignment or a job I wanted for the mere fact he was a man. I decided kicking and screaming “UNFAIR” was not the right route. I decided surpassing men in news experience and in news knowledge as well as in news accomplishments was the only way and so I set my course on that star: “Be better than a man.” There are some unbeatables working against women. When I was a city editor, I found myself hesitating in sending pretty young girls out at night to cover bloody murders in a lousy part of town. I had difficulty in getting wire service to send me out as a war correspondent but, once there, was informed that I was to work and be treated as a man. I was. Only one assignment was snatched from me because I was a woman and that was merely because the other wire associations thought a woman as a “pool” representative as giving too much of an edge to ___. As to why we don’t have a woman (in addition to me ) on our U. of ___ staff--where are they?

            Very glad to see a survey like this underway. Never felt any sex discrimination during my student days. That position was totally reversed when I entered the job market. Feel frustrated and alarmed.

            It is in the area of fringe benefits that you will find a good deal of discrimination. Our life insurance and income protection plans, for example, vary from those of men and are much weaker in general.

            It has been my own experience that women are treated, on the whole, with more fairness and equality within an academic setting than outside it. During my professional experience, I have sometimes been treated very well and at other times have encountered open discrimination entirely because of my sex. In either case, the situations seemed to stem from individual attitudes, rather than company policies.

            Throughout my career, I have worked in an area normally filled by men. I have, however, never been aware of discrimination against me because I was a woman. Once I had demonstrated my competence to do the job at hand, I was given opportunity to do so, at a salary comparable to those of my male counterparts. I feel that the door is open to women in any field of journalism if they have an adequate background, are well-qualified (demonstrably so), and have the proper attitude. Loud cries of “discrimination” cannot camouflage incompetence, juvenile attitudes, and unwillingness to perform at a high level. And, a Ph.D. does not automatically assume that the job candidate is possessed of the ideal qualifications for the job performance. 

            Congratulations on the study--journalism (in its broadest sense) is one of the strongest bastions of male chauvinism, despite the occasional woman who has secured a good professional role.

            May I add some comments: I can believe that discrimination might exist at other institutions. However, I have always experienced at ___ equality of treatment from (1) all my superiors, department head, associate dean and dean, (2) most of my peers --though not all. Although I am the only full-time female faculty member, I think this is a matter of happenstance--there have been in the past few women who wanted to teach or could finance a Ph.D. program. I believe the bottleneck is at the point of entry -- into a Ph.D. program or into the first teaching job. Once that barrier is passed, there should be no real problem if the woman has had something to contribute.

            There is discrimination -- let’s face it! I hope this project locates it.

            As an associate instructor, I have had quite a bit of contact with undergraduates in introductory courses. It appears that there is discrimination against women at that level, and it concerns me, for it is one factor in preventing women from advancing both in journalism and journalism education. The number of young women who become interested in the field of journalism is well-known. Editors of school newspapers and yearbooks are often girls, and it is likely that many of these plan to pursue their journalist interests. At the college level, however, men seem to take over: there are proportionately fewer women working on college papers, and the female editor is unusual.

            I can contribute some thoughts I’ve had as a woman in the field of general communication at the doctorate level. Discrimination is subtle--and it probably is ever-present. Furthermore, the term becomes a nice “out” for any occasion in which we as women don’t get jobs that we are competing for with men. I’m sure every minority group member--or, as in our case, minority only among the Ph.D.’s--finds it tempting to attribute his or her own failure (whenever it occurs) to discrimination. It makes it difficult to obtain accurate feedback about characteristics which may be the ones being used in discrimination. These characteristics may involve “more publications,” personality conflicts--concern that in a department others may “better accept a man” as chairman or whatever. As long as the concern is strong that we are “some different and likely to produce less advantageous effects than placing a man in that same position”, a way will be found to select the man--whether or not women are up in arms yelling “don’t discriminate against women.” It seems to me that the thing we must focus on is the overall set of beliefs--some unconscious--which allow anyone to make the assumption that our presence would be selecting “second best, perhaps only as window dressing to reduce pressure from some pressure group.” Our presence in graduate school--side by side with men--can at least help those in school with us to assess our potential contributions on the same faculty with them. Simultaneously we can sometimes demonstrate to faculty “at first uncomfortable with women graduate students” our competence. Of course, we can pressure for positions even as window dressing--and from that position try to “show them”--though I suspect for myself the resultant pressure on me would not be worth it. My professional performance will be self-motivated, not to-show-others motivated. Salary difference can be removed--to be replaced only when operational criteria of differences in professional contributions are created. By that time, men may actually be able to look at our contributions in making assessments, not merely consult the intentional system in which, “Well, we all know women provide a small contribution.”

            I received the second notice on the completion of your questionnaire yesterday. Since I am in sympathy with your project and can appreciate the need for an adequate response, I feel compelled to explain why I have not returned your questionnaire: I quit school. It is as simple as that. Due to the failure of the ___ legislature to enact legislation for higher education last summer, a number of graduate students who had been promised aid were cut off without any. My husband and I were among them. I did received a $200 scholarship, but to receive it, I had to register for summer school and turn around and pay $100 of it  in tuition!! Since I was expecting my first child, it made job hunting paranoia about pregnant women, regardless of their intentions. Anyway, we ran out of money. My husband was much closer to his  degree than I, and I had already determined that for what I really wanted to do, a Ph.D. would be superfluous, I quit so that he could finish. An interesting sidelight that you may or may not appreciate is that, during spring semester, when I announced my pregnancy, my male colleagues immediately began asking when I intended to quit school, and there was a terrific delay and hassle over whether they were going to reappoint me to my teaching assistantship for this year since they were automatically convinced that I would quit when the baby arrived. I had a terrible time convincing them that I intended to continue. I got it back, but when I had to drop out after the semester began, they all believed it was  because of the baby and not money. Interesting.

 

            We wanted to determine if many of the respondents are active in the women’s movement so we asked it they were affiliated with any of the organizations of the women’s movement. Only 11 percent (8 of 74) are affiliated. As one woman put it, “Oh, heavens no!”

            Their position reversed, however, when asked if, in general, they think the women’s movement has advanced the cause of sex equality. Eighty-seven percent (62 of 71) say “yes” with two additional women indicating “yes and no.” Nearly every respondent had an opinion about the women’s movement and it is impossible to include them all here.           

            In summary, however, the women believe that some of the “means” to the end aren’t acceptable and are hurting the movement, creating an atmosphere of “awareness” of special problems facing women has been beneficial, pressure from federal agencies and federal and state laws have put some “bite into the bark.”

            As one woman put it: “women’s rights groups, yes; women’s lib groups, no.” Another comments: “While I don’t consider myself as having been discriminated against, I don’t deny discrimination exists--and much of it in fields where most employees are women. Last year I spoke before an association of 300 school superintendents in a midwestern state--I was the only woman in the room!”

            And finally, one woman says: “Despite a few absurdities and the few abuses, I really believe the movement has done much for all women, and indeed for men, because it is freeing us from many ridiculous practices and stressing the value of being human. Example: I grew up as a “tom boy” because this is the way I was--enjoyed a hammer more than a doll--and I think the movement is making this kind of development of the person more possible now. It is good!”

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

            This study can only speak to those women who are presently in the potential pool of qualified women in journalism education, what they are doing, and what they are feeling. We can contribute the information, from a specified number of doctoral programs, that 57 women are in process of obtaining their Ph.D.’s and could possibly be added to the 73 women we have counted as being in journalism education. Our prediction, however, based on what Ph.D. graduates in our study have done, would be that only half of those women now in process of doctoral programs in journalism/communications will end up in journalism education.

            Most of the women currently in journalism education at the university level hold master’s degrees. The academic ranks of these women are clustered at the lower end, instructors and assistant professors, although currently more hold the rank of assistant professor. It has been about thirteen years, on the average, since the women received their master’s degrees (professional experience could not be tabulated in this study.) More than 40 percent of the schools and departments of journalism across the United States do not have even one woman employed on their faculties. There are, however, 18 Ph.D.’s identified by this study currently working outside the field of journalism education. Some of them have expressed a desire to be working in journalism education.

            Women, by any stretch of the imagination or by any of the simple counting methods done in this paper, cannot said to be greatly visible in journalism education. Certainly, this can be attributed to the relatively minute number belonging to AEJ, publishing in a reputable journal in the discipline, having active roles at annual meetings of journalism educators at the university level, and being employed as faculty members and administrators in journalism education. However, these women simply do not seem to be showing up in numbers sufficient to represent their journalistic interests at the high school level, at the undergraduate degree level, and at the master’s degree level. It would appear that either a self-selection or self-perception function on the part of women is in effect in journalism education.

            It is difficult to summarize and perhaps even more difficult to draw conclusions from this study. As one male journalism professor said, upon learning about the Questionnaire, “It is a biased study by biased people...do you have comparative information--maybe the males have similar feelings.” We accept those charges with full responsibility; the limitations to this study are about as numerous as the simple counting procedures we employed.

            However, admitting our biases, as we know of them, and admitting biases of others, as we think we know of them, there are still questions we must pose.

            Females seem interested in journalism early in their academic careers. Are not fewer of them ending up in journalism education than their earlier proportionate numbers would indicate? Why are so few women in doctoral programs in journalism/communications? And then, why are so few on faculties of schools an departments of journalism?

            Why do the Ph.D.’s and Ph.D. candidates alike feel that they have to “do more” to win the respect of the males around them?

            Why do Ph.D.’s believe that promotion and salary are primary areas of sex discrimination?

            Why are secretaries treated like females and females treated like secretaries?

            Why are most women on journalism faculties in higher education clustered in the lower academic ranks?

            Why do older women point to age as deterrent factors in their doctoral programs, and married women point to marriage as a problem?

            Where are the bottlenecks for the entry of women in undergraduate journalism programs, in the master’s degree programs, in doctoral programs, in employment after the Ph.D., in promotion and salary attainment, in appointment to administrative positions, or in some of them, or in all of them?

            And finally, what are those in power -- and they are not females -- going to do about these questions? Have AEJ officials, or officials of the American Society of Journalism School Administrators, or the American Association of Schools and Departments of Journalism, or the American Council on Education for Journalism made any formal, or even informal, statements of purposes about sex equality?

            The authors will end this section of the paper with two statements of concern. One is wrapped in the anecdote of a respondent to the Questionnaire. The other is a commitment of good faith by 65 of the 74 respondents to the Questionnaire to allow their names to be circulated among those who might be interested in furthering the respondents’ careers in journalism/communications. This listing will be provided separately and at a later date to the interested parties from the authors of this report.

             During the AEJ meeting at Berkeley a number of years ago, a minority report was presented on the sad state of recruitment of blacks into journalism study and into the journalism faculty of universities. Now don’t misunderstand me, I agreed with the report. However, many of my colleagues rose to speak out in scandalized tone about this inequity. As they spoke, I looked around the auditorium at the membership in attendance, some 300-400... and could find only eight women other than myself.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

            It is apparent that studies should be done which can properly assess the extent of sex discrimination in journalism education in institutions of higher education. Our study of Ph.D. women leads us to believe that it does exist, especially in the areas of salary and promotion. This is an assertion, however; only hard data can establish its existence.

            If there is a scarcity of qualified women for journalism education, then that too needs to be established. The word “qualified” needs to be defined since it is thought by the authors that the potential pool could be immensely increased if the same standards were applied to women as are applied to men, i.e., the practice of hiring editors and/or publishers to bring professional experience into the classrooms.

            Recruitment procedures need to be strengthened, both to bring women into doctoral programs and to keep the Ph.D. graduates in the field. The authors with the Ph.D.’s have noticed an increased interest in the hiring of women in journalism education in the last two years. Often, the explanation is as simple as,” the dean told us to hire a woman, black, or Chicano.” Pressure from the federal agencies is indeed reaching journalism schools and departments.

            There are two dangers to be watched for in the hiring-under-pressure procedures, however. One is that the interview process could possibly be used as a terminal screening device, i.e., bringing a woman in for an interview is considered an act of good faith on the part of the department or school in that it tried to hire a woman but her qualifications did not “match” the particular needs of the position. The other danger can best be described as a “minority mentality,” i.e., the woman (or black or Chicano) is hired as an act of accommodation and, therefore, might be subjected to psychological problems not usually found in employment situations. One way this can be expressed is by having the persons assume courses which may be outside of his or her interest areas but would free other faculty members from those courses so they can better pursue their interest areas.

            Attention should be given to what seems to be a special problem for women--marriage, children, age, and associated obligations.

            "Marriage and children, which support the male student’s bid for being taken seriously, jeopardize a woman’s future... The women’s personal life--whether she is married, divorced, separated or has children--is considered a relevant factor in her application, although clearly it is not relevant in the consideration of male applicants"”23

            Age is a characteristic shared by males and females alike. One author knows of a graduate chairman’s feeling that no one should begin a doctoral program at a later age. Yet, it can be wondered if women and men are indeed viewed alike on the age characteristic. One can see and appreciate the respect currently given to the Chilton Bushes, the Ralph Nafzigers, the DeWitt Reddicks. These men are rightfully kept in the field at an older age in administrative positions, with visiting professorships, in chair awards. But where are the older women who also contributed to journalism education?

            Women, who have given the most to public education, have also been betrayed by it. This too often is reflected in the comments from the Ph.D.’s and candidates that they are assumed not to be quantitatively-oriented, and probably justifiably so in some cases. The mathematical male and the fine arts female syndrome had its beginnings long ago and, it continues. However, to discourage females from doctoral programs on the basis of this rationalization only insults their native intelligence. Certainly, the females should be given the same consideration for playing “catch up”  in deprived academic areas as are other minority members.

            Given the points above, then: the authors recommend that the Association for Education in Journalism appoint a Committee on the Status of Women in Journalism (to be concerned with both professional and educational journalism). It is envisioned that the Committee in its early work would serve primarily an investigatory function--determining where, when, and if sex inequities exist. Later, it could be more concerned with recruitment and placement functions.

            We consider the establishment of the Committee to be necessary for the furtherment and improvement of the roles of women in journalism. We suggest that AEJ members read the report of the Commission ont he Status of Women of the American Studies Association to see the similarities of experiences recounted by the women in journalism represented in this paper with those women in American Students, American History, American Literature, Social Sciences, and Current Issues.24

 

 

Footnotes

 

1. It would be somewhat less than honest of the authors not to admit that their curiosity and concern have been whetted by HEW violations and guidelines, Executive Orders 11246 and 11375, university-level commissions on the status of women, and the efforts of organizations bearing such initials as WEAL, NOW, WLM, and AAUP’s Committee W.  

 

2. Betty E. Chmaj, Chairman of the commission on the Status of Women, American Studies Association, comments on the Questionnaire (in American Women and American Studies, Pittsburgh, Pa.: Know, Inc., 1971, pp.vii and viii): “Nothing in the history of the New Feminism had focussed the energies of these academic women as effectively as the investigations of universities during the year 1971 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, beginning with the dramatic precedent at the University of Michigan late in 1970. Pressured by “women’s caucuses,” university administrators and professional associations appointed official “commissions on the status of women” to prove or disprove that the kind of discrimination HEW was investigating existed, as well as to explore the broad range of university policies affecting women at individual universities and within the individual professions. To obtain the information they needed, these commissions and other groups came to rely on the Questionnaire. Questionnaires came in several varieties: there were questionnaires to women faculty to determine facts about their status; questionnaires to students, male and female, to examine their “role outlooks” or measure the effect upon them of the miseducation by their elders; “consciousness-raising” questionnaires to male faculty aimed at ferreting out their stereotypes; questionnaires to department chairmen (an endless stream) to get hard data on the credentials, salaries, promotions and duties of the women in the department.”

        

3. The list of female AEJ members was obtained from Prof. Harold W. Wilson, AEJ Treasure, School of Journalism, University of Minnesota. In this counting, as well as others where females and males are identified on the basis of their names alone, there may be a few errors.

        

4. The AEJ Financial Report for the period of October 1, 1969, to September 20, 1970, lists 1,003 regular and associate dues-paying members for 1970, with 208 student members. See Journalism Quarterly, 48:39 ( Summer 1971). Information on 1971-72 AEJ membership had not been received by the authors at the time the paper was written.

5. See the official program for the Fifty-fourth Annual Convention, Association for Education in Journalism, August 21-25, 1971, University of South Carolina.

        

6. It should be noted that a woman is in charge of receiving papers for a division of AEJ for the 1972 convention.


7. Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 48:400 ( Summer 1971).

        

8. Cornelia B. Flora, “Women in Rural Sociology,” to be published in Rural Sociology, September, 1972.

9. Editorial board members. All editors, advisory board members, and JQ staff members such as associates and production editors were included.

Articles. For both major articles and “Research in Brief,” female authors were identified as single, junior, or senior authors. In the case of multiple authors, the distinction between junior and senior rank was that the first person listed is considered senior author.

New Notes. The counting of this section includes only that period of time when names appear in capitalized form, Spring, 1963, through 1970 (after which the section was moved to Journalism Educator).


10. All women and men were counted, no matter what their rank, joint appointments, emeritus status, etc. The 1968-69 publication was used since it is the first AASDJ Directory.

        

11. It should be noted that the important figures here would be the ratio of women-to-men in each school and department which was not tabulated for this report.

 

12. For instance, graduate students as a general category were up 424 in journalism schools in 1970, although down 179 in 1971. See Paul V. Peterson, “Journalism Growth Continues at Hefty 10.8 Percent Rate,” Journalism Educator, vol. 26, no. 4 (January 1972), 4-5.

           

13. “The Press Section,” Time, March 20, 1972, p. 53, Vol. 99, No. 12.

 

14. The list was compiled from various sources: personal contacts, an AEJ leaflet containing information about graduate programs, a personal letter to the executive secretary of AEJ; the list then does not include all possible women in communication. The list of respondents included the following universities: Missouri, North Carolina, Southern Illinois, Stanford, Syracuse, Ohio, Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Temple, Washington, Wisconsin (Madison), Illinois (Urbana), Iowa, and Michigan State. Kentucky and Michigan were not included as their Ph.D. Programs had not been approved at the time of the study.

           

15. The questionnaire was pretested with Ph.D. university women outside of the journalism and communications field, with members of the Seminar on Women in Journalism at the University of Michigan (Lecturer, Dr. Marion Marzolf), and with male journalism professors at the university level. A special note of thanks goes out to Dr. Cornelia Flora, assistant professor of sociology, Kansas State University, who provided valuable suggestions for the schedule based on her study, “Women in Rural; Sociology,” to be printed in Rural Sociology, September, 1972. Special thanks for their editorial assistance and valuable comments also go to Professors Roberta Applegate and Robert Bontrager, and Ms. Jeanne Stuart; and Professor Naomi Lynn, Political Science Department--all at Kansas State University.

        

16. The items on the questionnaire did not come from any one source but were suggested by or modifications of several, such as that of the American Studies Association Commission on the Status of Women questionnaire. See Betty E. Chmaj, American Women and American Studies (Pittsburg: Know, Inc., 1971).

 

17. While the response to the questionnaire is considered excellent, it is impossible to know how many were not returned because of incorrect addresses, changes in marital status, the use of forwarding through departments and schools, etc. Several women now reside in foreign countries and the mail process there has special considerations, such as not being able to include a prior-stamped return envelope. Also, one questionnaire was received too late to be included in the tabulation of results, two were returned with comments that they had quit school, and one was returned without any comments.

        

18. The responses may also be understated since each woman was asked, at the end of the questionnaire, if she would object to having her name, the institution awarding her doctorate, and the stage of completion of her Ph.D. included in a listing at the end of the report of the results. Even though confidentiality of individual responses was assured, the identification on the questionnaire may have subdued or affected some of the responses.

        

19. “Full-time” is defined in two ways: (1) excluding teaching assistantships and part-time work (unless constituting more than one-half year) but (2) counting a women of “instructor” rank and above as full-time work (i.e., responsibility) even though she might be a Ph.D. candidate.

 

20. To simplify the distinction between women who have completed their Ph.D’s and those who are in process in their doctoral programs, we will often refer to the latter group as “doctoral candidates” although it is acknowledged that there are formal procedures in Ph.D. programs for acceptance into this stage of progress.

        

21. Because of space imitations, not all comments or anecdotes from respondents can be included for each question.

 

22. This particular question was badly written since we actually wanted to know why they didn’t go into university journalism education. Those working with the media or in research were quick to note they considered themselves in the journalism field. Many responses were probably lost because of the question and some were distorted.

 

23. Betty E. Chmaj, American Women and American Studies, p. 3.

                                                         

24. Betty E. Chmaj, American Women and American Studies.

        

return to top of page

return to homepage