Mehta, Kenner, & Shrier_2013_Advatages and Disadvantages of being a female graduate student

This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]
On: 21 March 2014, At: 06:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Gender and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20
Perceived Advantages and
Disadvantages of Being a Female
Graduate Student in the US and the UK
Clare Marie Mehta
a b
, Emily Keener
c
& Lydia Shrier
b
a
Department of Psychology , Emmanuel College , Boston
b
Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine , Boston Children's
Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA
c
Slippery Rock University , Slippery Rock , PA , USA
Published online: 24 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Clare Marie Mehta , Emily Keener & Lydia Shrier (2013) Perceived Advantages
and Disadvantages of Being a Female Graduate Student in the US and the UK, Gender and
Education, 25:1, 37-55, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.752794
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.752794
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Being a Female
Graduate Student in the US and the UK
Clare Marie Mehtaa,b∗
, Emily Keenerc
and Lydia Shrierb
a
Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College, Boston; b
Division of Adolescent/Young
Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;
c
Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA, USA
(Received 13 February 2012; final version received 1 November 2012)
We build on Diana Leonard’s work on gender and graduate education by
qualitatively investigating the perceived advantages and disadvantages of being a
female graduate student in the USA and the UK. We interviewed six female
students (ages 22–30) pursuing master’s degrees in psychology or social
sciences in the USA and the UK. Students from both countries reported the
advantages and disadvantages of being a woman in their graduate programmes.
Advantages included being the majority in their fields and receiving more lenient
treatment from faculty. Disadvantages included being viewed in terms of
stereotypical gender roles and receiving unwanted sexual attention. Participants
also discussed strategies for managing their gender as they pursued their
graduate education. We consider these findings in light of Leonard’s work on
gender and graduate education and from an ambivalent sexism framework.
Keywords: gender; women; graduate education; postgraduates; qualitative; sexism
Although 54.3% of bachelor’s degrees in the UK and 57% of degrees in the USA were
awarded to women in 2010 (HESA 2012a; National Center for Education Statistics
2011), women are more likely to leave their graduate programmes prior to degree com-
pletion (Council of Graduate Schools 2008; Leonard 2000, 2001). Women who com-
plete advanced degrees do not always end up in academic positions (Monroe and Chiu
2010), and in many fields male faculty still outnumber female faculty (AAUW 2004;
Krefting 2003). Wall (2008) suggests that women’s experiences in graduate school
affect their decisions to pursue faculty positions.
As Leonard notes in her book, A woman’s guide to doctoral studies, relatively little
attention is paid to the differences in men and women’s experiences of graduate edu-
cation (Leonard 2001). In addition, Leonard (2001) notes that even in her own work
there is a tendency to represent ‘the perspectives of policy makers and faculty rather
than the students themselves’ (2). Leonard’s research does not address both of these
issues simultaneously – her research examining the perspectives of students did not
account for the role of gender in students’ decisions to pursue doctoral work
(Leonard, Becker, and Coate 2005).
The limited literature on women and graduate education, including Leonard’s
(2001) book, focuses largely on practical issues such as choosing a course, mentoring,
and completing a doctorate. As such, little research has considered women’s percep-
tions of gendered advantages and disadvantages in their graduate education. In
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
∗
Corresponding author. Email: clare.mehta@childrens.harvard.edu
Gender and Education, 2013
Vol. 25, No. 1, 37–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.752794
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at06:2221March2014

addition, research is yet to provide a theoretical framework from which to view
gendered experiences of graduate education. Previous research has also tended to
include participants from only one country and has focused on doctoral students. In
the present exploratory study we expand on Leonard’s work on graduate education
by using qualitative research methods to investigate women’s gendered positive and
negative experiences of master’s level graduate education in two countries, the USA
and the UK. We consider these experiences using the theoretical framework of
ambivalent sexism.
Theoretical framework: ambivalent sexism
Historically, gender researchers have only considered one dimension of sexism – sexism
as hostility towards women. In their ambivalent sexism theory, however, Glick and Fiske
(1996, 1997, 2001) posit that sexism is multidimensional, and is composed of both hostile
and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism denotes an actively antagonistic view of women
(Glick and Fiske 2012; Sibley, Overall, and Duckitt 2007) that is explicitly negative and
restrictive towards women (Fischer 2006). Benevolent sexism refers to beliefs that
women should be cherished, adored, and protected from harm (Glick and Fiske 1996,
2001). Although benevolent sexism is explicitly positive, those who endorse benevo-
lently sexist beliefs restrict women by viewing them stereotypically and in limited,
low-status roles (Glick and Fiske 2001, 2012). Consequently, benevolent sexism can
be just as damaging to women as hostile sexism (Glick and Fiske 2012).
Glick and Fiske propose that ambivalent sexism exists because of the interdepen-
dent relationship between men and women (Glick and Fiske 1997; Lee, Fiske, and
Glick 2010). Specifically, although men may not approve of women in certain roles,
they do not want to be completely rid of them (Glick and Fiske 1997). As such, men
may express ambivalence towards women. Ambivalence is characterised as alternating
between conflicting feelings or beliefs, or endorsing two conflicting beliefs simul-
taneously. Individuals who endorse both hostile and benevolent sexism can be
viewed as ambivalent towards women (Glick and Fiske 2012). Numerous research
studies have found strong correlations between hostile and benevolent sexism support-
ing the ambivalent nature of ambivalent sexism (Glick and Fiske 2012; Lee, Fiske, and
Glick 2010).
There are three core aspects of ambivalent sexism proposed by Glick and Fiske
(1996, 1997, 2012). These are dominant paternalism/protective paternalism, gender
differentiation, and heterosexuality. Dominant paternalism is an element of hostile
sexism through which attributes believed to be suited for positions of power and struc-
tural control are assigned to men. Protective paternalism is an element of benevolent
sexism that posits women are the weaker sex and should be protected and cherished.
Competitive gender differentiation, aligned with hostile sexism, refers to the belief
that men are the only sex with the characteristics (such as ambition and agency) necess-
ary for positions of power and high status (Lee, Fiske, and Glick 2010). Complemen-
tary gender differentiation, a component of benevolent sexism, posits that women’s
positive traits compensate for traits men lack (e.g. women’s caring nature compensates
for men’s less caring nature). Finally, heterosexual hostility, associated with hostile
sexism, indicates that women use their sexuality to control men. Conversely, heterosex-
ual intimacy refers to the adoration of women as romantic partners, fostering benevo-
lent attitudes. Taken together, these three subtypes of hostile and benevolent sexism
reinforce traditional gender hierarchies. Men’s ambition and agency make men
38 C.M. Mehta et al.

suited to dominating institutions and justifies disputing women’s ability to assume
male-dominated positions. Women’s caring and sensitivity suit them for caretaking
roles emphasising positive traits (e.g. caring) that happen to align with restrictive and
subordinate roles (e.g. homemaker; Glick and Fiske 1997; Lee, Fiske, and Glick 2010).
Literature review
Ambivalent sexism and the gendered culture of academia
Gender differentiation, an aspect of ambivalent sexism described above, posits that
men’s ambition and agency make them suited to dominating institutions and justifies
disputing women’s ability to assume male-dominated positions (Lee, Fiske, and
Glick 2010). Gender differentiation may explain why, in spite of the dedication to
the ideals of meritocracy within academia (Krefting 2003), sexism has been described
as an everyday feature of the academy (Myers and Dugan 1996). Gender is still a
hugely influential organising factor in higher education (Katila and Merilaïnen 1999;
Knights and Richards 2003; Wall 2008). Consequently, sexism is inherent in the
epistemologies, research processes, and the general organisation of academia favouring
masculinity in a way that often makes it more difficult for women than men to
advance and to succeed (Acker 1984; Barata, Hunjan, and Leggatt 2005; Denker
2009; Goode and Bagilhole 1998; Haake 2011; Morley and Rassool 2000; Morley
and Walsh 1995; Pritchard 2010). Specifically, stereotypical masculine qualities, such
as calculated risk-taking, independence, and intense competition are prized at all levels
in academic institutions (Bagilhole 2002; van den Brink and Benschop 2012; Haake
2011; Leonard 2001; Price and Priest 1996; Wilson 2003). The prizing of these traits
can be viewed as dominant paternalism, a form of hostile sexism.
Research considering traditional or hostile sexism in graduate education found that
45% of graduate students surveyed believed that men were called on more than women
in their classrooms (Myers and Dugan 1996). There is, however, little research consid-
ering the role of benevolent sexism in graduate education. It could be that benevolent
sexism takes on the form of differential (and occasionally preferential) treatment given
to female graduate students. For example, in a qualitative study investigating intersec-
tions of age, gender, and power in graduate education, a male participant talked of how
a female colleague he respected and admired was able to commit transgressions he
could not commit as a male (Søndergaard 2005). Although he saw this as an advantage
for his female colleague, this differential treatment suggests the complexity of sexism.
Specifically, benevolent sexism may be viewed positively by the perpetrator and non-
targets as it suggests protectiveness and affection towards women (Glick and Fiske
1997). However, for the recipient of benevolent sexism, special treatment or unsolicited
help from a man reflects an assumption that he is more competent than she is (Glick and
Fiske 1997).
Ambivalent sexism and ‘doing gender’ in graduate school
Glick and Fiske (1997) suggest that feelings of benevolence and hostility are directed
towards women based on their ‘subtype’. Specifically, women who accept the domi-
nant ideology that women should be feminine and who exhibit stereotyped gender
traits, such as passivity and dependence, are more likely to be liked and ‘rewarded’
with benevolence (Fiske 2012; Krefting 2003; Lee, Fiske, and Glick 2010). In contrast,
women who are at odds with dominant ideology and who violate stereotyped gender
Gender and Education 39

roles by displaying masculine traits such as assertiveness and dominance are more
likely to be disliked and ‘punished’ with hostility (Fiske 2012; Krefting 2003; Lee,
Fiske, and Glick 2010). Thus we are left with women who exhibit traditionally feminine
traits tend to be warm and ‘likeable’, but may be viewed as less competent (Fiske 2012).
Conversely, women who exhibit traditionally masculine traits tend to be viewed as
competent, but cold and less likeable (Fiske 2012; Jost and Kay 2005; Krefting
2003; Wilson 2003). In this way, women are rewarded with benevolence for conform-
ing to stereotypical gender roles, and are punished with hostility when they challenge
stereotypical gender roles and threaten male power (Lee, Fiske, and Glick 2010).
Negotiating competence and likeability may have direct consequences for female
graduate students. Female graduate students who conform to stereotypical feminine
gender roles may be liked by peers and faculty members, but may be perceived as
less successful, or may be taken less seriously in their graduate careers. Female gradu-
ate students who strive to be viewed as competent may find that although they are
viewed as successful and are taken seriously academically by peers and faculty, they
are liked less than their more ‘feminine’ peers.
Evidence suggests that there is an inverse relation between femininity and compe-
tence. For example, an early qualitative study of graduate students found that female
students who expressed their femininity felt that they were disadvantaged by being
more emotional and less mentally aggressive in their work (Taylorson 1994).
Another qualitative study investigating feminists’ experiences of graduate education
found that feminist graduate students felt devalued and ashamed when they expressed
emotions in front of faculty members. These women equated showing femininity with
showing weakness, which they believed undermined their credibility as graduate stu-
dents (Barata, Hunjan, and Leggatt 2005).
When negotiating femininity and competence, female graduate students often
believe that women further along in their careers have had to assume masculine
traits to succeed (Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, and U¨ lku¨-Steiner 2006). As such, female
graduate students may find that they have to carefully monitor their behaviour to
ensure that they are engaging in the ‘masculine-type’ behaviours (e.g. assertiveness,
risk-taking, self-promotion, and competition) required to succeed in an academic
setting (Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, and U¨ lku¨-Steiner 2006; Leonard 2001). However,
women who engage in masculine-type behaviours risk being punished for violating
stereotypical gender roles (Wilson 2003). Such punishment may come in the form of
hostile sexism, including decreased likeability and influence (Carli and Eagly 1999;
Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky 1992; Rudman 1998). Thus, female graduate students
may find themselves wondering whether they can be both feminine and intellectually
competent, and if they are intellectually competent, whether their femininity will be
doubted (Wilson 2003).
As women (and men) negotiate likeability and competence, it is important to note
that they may not always fit into just one ‘subtype’ (e.g. likeable but less intellectually
competent, or intellectually competent but less likeable). Glick and Fiske (2012) posit
that men may place women into different subtypes either consecutively or concur-
rently. For example, a man may direct hostility towards a woman who is competing
with him for a research grant, but direct benevolence towards her in social situations.
This highlights the complexity of sexism in everyday life. Sexism is likely to be influ-
enced by a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, age, race, socioeco-
nomic status, stage of career (Søndergaard 2005), sexual orientation, and, as noted
here, the social context.

Sexual harassment and ambivalent sexism
Leonard (2000) suggests that the ‘chilly climate’ that women often report experiencing
in academia sometimes crosses the line into sexual harassment. Theorists suggest that
sexual harassment may be an expression of hostility towards women, and research
suggests that those who endorse both hostile and benevolent sexism have a higher
tolerance of sexual harassment (Russell and Trigg 2004).
There is little research on the sexual harassment of graduate students, and research
that does exist is somewhat dated. Such studies, however, suggest that being sexually har-
assed can alter female graduate students’ beliefs about their academic competence, and
those who are sexually harassed tend to view their graduate institution unfavourably
(Cortina et al. 1998). As such, sexual harassment has implications for female graduate
students’ ability to succeed in graduate programmes. Although current statistics concern-
ing sexual harassment rates in graduate programmes are scarce, there is some evidence to
suggest that issues of sexual harassment are pertinent in a discussion of the barriers
women face when pursuing graduate degrees (Cairns and Hatt 1995). Sexual harassment
towards both women and men has been documented in graduate programmes with behav-
iour ranging from the uncomfortable use of flattery to rape (Conrad 1994; Leonard 2001).
Women are far more likely to report being targets of sexual harassment in graduate school
than are men (Schneider, Baker, and Stermac 2002). This could, however, represent a
reporting bias, as men may be less likely to report incidences of sexual harassment
(Street, Gradus, and Stafford 2007). A study conducted at Valdosta State University in
the USA found that 20% of both undergraduate and graduate student participants experi-
enced sexual harassment in an academic setting; 90% of those who reported being har-
assed were female (Whatley and Wasieleski 2001). A study of sexual harassment among
graduate students in psychology departments found that 94% of female respondents had
experienced some kind of sexual harassment (Rubin, Hampton, and McManus 1997),
while another study of all graduate departments in a large university found that 53%
of female graduate students had experienced sexual harassment (Cortina et al. 1998).
A study of graduate students in the UK found that 27% of students and 22% of their tea-
chers reported awareness of incidents of sexual harassment (Nicolson and Welsh 1993).
Goals of the present study
Although the amount of research being directed towards both males’ and females’
experiences of graduate school is increasing, little is known explicitly about the per-
ceived advantages and disadvantages women face as graduate students – a deficit
noted by Leonard (2001). Moreover, even in countries that are culturally similar,
there are structural differences in graduate education that may influence women’s
experiences. The goals of the present exploratory study were to build on Leonard’s
(2000, 2001) work by investigating women’s experiences of graduate education in
two countries, the USA and the UK, placing specific emphasis on women’s perceptions
of the advantages and disadvantages of being a female graduate student.
Method
Participants
Participants were six white, middle-class women finishing their first year of a master’s
degree programme in either the USA or UK.1
All US participants were citizens of the
USA and all UK participants were citizens of the UK.

US participants (aged 22–24) were students in the psychology department at a large
southeastern state university. One participant was enrolled in a clinical psychology
programme and two participants were enrolled in a developmental psychology
programme. All US participants were pursuing master’s degrees en route to a doctoral
degree in psychology and were fully funded by teaching assistantships. In return for
teaching, students received a course fee waiver and a small stipend for living expenses.
Participants in the USA worked closely with their faculty supervisors.
UK participants (aged 23–30) were students in a social science department at a mid-
sized university in the southwest of England. All UK participants were pursuing a
Master of Research degree and were funded via competitive studentships. UK partici-
pants worked independently for the most part, but had access to, and were guided by, a
faculty supervisor.2
Interviewing procedures
Convenience and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants. The principal
investigator (C.M.M.) attended both programmes in the USA and the UK and asked
classmates to participate. Classmates of the principal investigator also referred other
students.
Participants chose the location of the interview, which was held at various places on
campus. Interviews lasted approximately 1 h. Individual, semi-structured interviews
were conducted and tape-recorded with participants’ permission. Participants were
encouraged to talk freely about their experiences in response to two main questions.
First, they were asked whether they had experienced any advantages that they perceived
to be a result of their gender, and whether they expected to encounter any advantages in
the future. Second, participants were asked whether they had experienced any barriers
that they perceived to be a result of their gender, and whether they expected to encoun-
ter any barriers in the future.
The audiotapes of each of the interviews were later transcribed by a research
assistant and then checked for accuracy by the principal investigator.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). IPA is a
method of data analysis that elicits themes from interview data through rigorous and
disciplined engagement with the text (Alexander and Clare 2004; Brocki and
Wearden 2006). IPA has a distinct theoretical background and a clear procedural
guide and, as such, is appealing to social science researchers (Brocki and Wearden).
We selected IPA for the current investigation as it is a useful approach for learning
about how people perceive particular situations (Smith 2004).
There are four stages to IPA. First, the investigator reads and re-reads the transcript,
so as to become familiar with the text. Second, the investigator records the themes that
emerge from the text. Third, the investigator groups similar themes into clusters.
Finally, the investigator synthesises his or her results and presents the ﬁndings.
Results
Advantages of being a female graduate student
Leonard suggested that although women are better represented in graduate programmes
than they were historically, difﬁculties for women students still exist (Leonard 2000).

Although the work of Leonard and others suggests that women would perceive them-
selves as being disadvantaged by their gender as a graduate student, we found that all of
the women interviewed identified some advantages of being a female graduate student.
One aspect of graduate training that women perceived to be advantageous was that the
majority of students in their programmes were female. Becky3
from the UK stated, ‘All
the postgraduates apart from one are female . . . we have been accepted so much into the
field of academia.’
That the graduate students interviewed felt as though their gender was well rep-
resented in their graduate programmes likely reflects participants’ level and area of
study. The National Science Foundation reports that in the USA in the 2008/2009 aca-
demic year, 60% of master’s degrees awarded (in all subject areas) were awarded to
women. They also report that in 2010, 57% of doctoral degrees in the social sciences
(including psychology) were awarded to women (NSF 2012). Although gender differ-
ences in specific subfields (e.g. economics, sociology) may be obscured by considering
all of the social sciences together, that women are receiving over half of all the social
science PhDs awarded suggests progress in terms of gender equity in these fields. In
comparison, only 29% of PhD recipients are female in the physical sciences (NSF
2012). Because of the increasing number of women pursuing doctoral degrees in the
social sciences, researchers suggest that these fields are becoming ‘feminised’
(England et al. 2007). Males’ withdrawal from a field is believed to be related to
their concerns of stigmatisation from being in a predominantly female field (England
et al. 2007). It is important to note that although the women in our study felt that
they outnumbered males in their fields, this may not be the same for women undertak-
ing graduate education in other fields. For example, in mechanical engineering, only
12.9% of doctoral recipients were women (NSF 2012).
Although women are becoming better represented in the social sciences, histori-
cally, the social sciences, like many other fields, were dominated by males. In psycho-
logy in the USA, the percentage of female doctoral recipients went from 24% in
1971 to 64% in 2002 (England et al. 2007). In sociology, the percentage of female
doctoral recipients went from 21% to 61% (England et al. 2007). In the UK the
percentage of female doctoral recipients in social, political, and economic sciences
increased from 40% in 1997 to 54% in 2010 (HESA 2012a).4
The increase of
women in doctoral programmes was noted by Lisa from the USA who said: ‘It used
to be all bearded white men in psychology. Now it’s women so the pendulum is swing-
ing in our favour.’
In addition to feeling that being in the majority was an advantage, female graduate
students also felt that, in general, their gender could help them. Becky from the UK
stated: ‘My gender is a good thing; it is a positive thing and will work to my advantage.’
Jen from the USA described how gender might work to her advantage. When
talking about a male faculty member she would be working with in the upcoming
year she said:
I’ll admit that he might be willing to let me just pretty much do what I want because of
being a woman or whatever and I have already heard that he might be more lenient with
things like if you need a day off or something with a female than with a male so it could
work to my advantage. Even though I might not want it to work to my advantage but it
could end up being that way.
Although participants discussed receiving special treatment because of their gender,
they did not talk about the underlying reasons for receiving this treatment. Female

graduate students may receive differential treatment from male faculty members
because male faculty view their female students as potential lovers. Alternatively,
male faculty may not believe that female students should be held to the same rigorous
standards to which they hold male students. In both cases, receiving special favours
based on gender exemplifies benevolent sexism. None of the women, however,
noted this. Perhaps viewing special treatment as a benefit rather than as a form of
sexism reflects the socially acceptable nature of benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske
2001, 2012). Receiving favours based on gender may not only disadvantage female
graduate students by differentiating them from male graduate students, but it may
also limit their professional development by holding them to less rigorous standards.
In addition, this preferential treatment may result in hostile sexism from male peers
who may be angered by female graduate students’ receipt of ‘favours’. Research inves-
tigating sexism in graduate education has found that males reported feeling resentful
about ‘reverse discrimination’, and felt that female graduate students were favoured
for funding or research positions (Cairns and Hatt 1995).
Disadvantages of being female
Although all of the female graduate students identified advantages associated with their
gender, they also identified disadvantages. The women interviewed noted that the stu-
dents in their graduate programmes were mostly women. However, they did not see this
gender advantage mirrored in the faculty in their departments. Specifically, Kate, a
graduate student from the UK, reported that ‘All the senior staff are male.’
Feminist researchers have suggested that there is a ‘leaky pipeline’ in academia,
where despite increases in female graduate students and junior faculty, males still
occupy many of the senior positions and are awarded higher status (Denker 2009;
Krefting 2001; Pritchard 2010). The American Association of University Professors
found that in 2011/2012 42% of US faculty were women. Of this 42%, 9% were full
professors, 12% were associate professors, 13% were assistant professors, 4% were
instructors, 4% were lecturers, and 1% were unranked (AAUP 2012). In 2010/2011
in the UK, 44% of all academic staff were female. However only 19% had the rank
of professor (HESA 2012b).
In addition to noting that there were more male than female faculty in senior aca-
demic positions in their universities, participants from both the USA and the UK
acknowledged that there may be a ‘prestige gap’ between male and female faculty,
with men producing better known research and having higher status and better paid
jobs. Tatum from the UK noted that in her department: ‘I’m sure that if you look at
the number of women and men in academia in what, and who’s got a higher paid or
higher status job, I’m sure you’ll see differences there.’
Jen from the USA, who was in a clinical psychology programme, noted that: ‘In our
area, all the professors are male . . . there are a lot of males producing the really well
known research’.
Another disadvantage of being a female graduate student identified by participants
was being viewed in terms of traditional gender roles or gender stereotypes. For
example, Kate from the UK stated that even in an academic setting where feminism
was accepted, she felt as though she and the other women in her department were
treated as though ‘We are little girls.’
Becky from the UK noted that women suffered in graduate school because of
people’s beliefs in gender-typed traits and personality characteristics. She stated that

it was hard to adopt an identity as a serious researcher because: ‘Women have always
been seen as carers and the unpaid labour force.’
Similarly, Megan, a US graduate student, believed that gender stereotypes often
lead women to be accused of being overly emotional when they were angry or upset.
She recounted an incident where she confronted two male colleagues who had been
talking about her behind her back:
I feel like my reaction was looked upon as overly emotional. I hate when men will tell
women, ‘Chill out, God like chill, hold on man’ like women are crazy and flying off
the handle. I had every right to be pissed . . . yeah my reaction was very emotional if
that is what you want to call it, but I feel like it didn’t need to [be] made into ‘wow
[she] is crazy’. I hate when women are painted like because we are more expressive as
crazy . . . I was perfectly normal in how I reacted.
Gender stereotypes positing that women are more emotional than men are widely
held in our society. Meta-analyses conducted on studies of gender differences in emo-
tionality have found, however, that these differences are negligible (Hyde 2005). The
fact that people still perceive women as the emotional sex is a testament to the
power of gender stereotyped beliefs (Kite, Deaux, and Haines 2008).
Another disadvantage noted by students was that their gender could prevent them
from being successful in their research. Kate, who wished to do research abroad, noted
how her gender may serve as a barrier when collecting data in more traditional cultures:
Working in developing countries there are immediate issues with being a woman, um,
about again, your personal safety and how you will be reacted to and received by the com-
munities when you go and do your research so it’s a problem . . . it will probably mean that
for the majority of data collection I will have to work with a man and they’ll have to get
some bloke to talk to the men for me because . . . heads of households, they won’t speak to
me in a lot of countries I’m interested in so it’s a difficulty already.
The issue of accessing participants, however, was not only seen as an issue when
conducting research abroad. Becky had to change her chosen dissertation topic
because her gender made it difficult for her to conduct research in her area of interest:
I wanted to do male rape in prison and my supervisor and the other woman laughed at me
‘cause they said ‘it’ll be 10 times harder for you ‘cause they’re not going to let a woman
into a male prison and they won’t talk to you about it’.
The literature on how gender may be a barrier for female graduate students conduct-
ing research is sparse. Leonard suggests that safety may be an issue for female graduate
students conducting research but notes that there is little documentation in the literature.
Instead, stories are passed down through word of mouth (see, for example, Leonard
2001).
Although there has been little recent research on how gender may impact a student’s
ability to collect data, classic anthropological work has addressed this issue. Bohannan
(1954; writing as Smith Bowen) discussed how initially while doing fieldwork in
Africa, she had full access to women and children but was unable to access the male
domain of politics and law, areas of specific interest to her. In another classic work,
Wax (1979) notes that gender impacts men as well as women doing fieldwork. Specifi-
cally, she notes the difficulties that arise when men try to collect data from women in
sex segregated cultures.

Although gender may impact both men and women’s ability to collect data, there
are still gender differences in graduate students’ research productivity. A study by
the National Academies of Science (2007) in the USA found that even when back-
ground factors and experience were accounted for, male graduate students in science
and engineering had more paper presentations, published articles, and general research
productivity than female graduate students. As research is a large component of gradu-
ate education in the social sciences, there is a need for further investigation into the
inﬂuence of gender on the research experiences and throughput of graduate students
in the social sciences.
In her work, Leonard noted that the chilly climate women may experience in the
classroom often veers into sexual harassment (Leonard 2000). Probably one of the
most worrying gendered aspects of graduate education for women in both the UK
and the USA was the receipt of unwanted sexual attention. In both countries, women
who had received unwanted sexual attention told similar stories of enduring comments
about their appearance from male faculty members. In the UK, Tatum talked about
comments made by her head of the department in a seminar:
There was one seminar that I was in with a male seminar teacher who was also head of
department and then, it was really bad actually, I’d just got back from holiday so I had
a tan and um he just said something really inappropriate in the seminar room about,
oh, I don’t know, how I looked amazing or something completely inappropriate which
I really don’t think he would have said to a guy.
In the USA, Jen talked about a senior faculty member who had a reputation for
making comments about women’s appearances:
This faculty member, it is just basically known that he will sometimes make comments to
females, you know about what they are wearing or about their body or something and kind
of in this joking way that you could brush it off and just think nothing of it but you kind of
think about it or kind of like that is inappropriate or just in my situation making the kind of
comments that are overarching that are about dress and hair, but are still kind of like,
‘what are you trying to say?’ I think people tend to say that is just how he is, he is not
that bad, he is just joking but then well it still makes me uncomfortable so even if he
were joking I wish he wouldn’t say that. It would be a lot more professional.
Such comments directed towards female graduate students are common and often
are not recognised or considered to be harassing behaviours (Cairns and Hatt 1995;
Cortina et al. 1998). In her study of sexual harassment by PhD supervisors in the
UK, Lee (1998) notes that it cannot always be assumed that faculty will be professional,
and that there should be widespread compulsory training for both faculty and students
around this issue. Sexual harassment in all of its forms has a deleterious effect on
women’s experiences in graduate education (Cortina et al. 1998). Speciﬁcally,
women who experience sexual harassment are more likely to perceive faculty nega-
tively, to question the competence of the professor, to feel less respected and fairly
treated on campus, and to drop out of their graduate programmes (Cortina et al.
1998; Myers and Dugan 1996).
Sexual harassment may be a component of ambivalent sexism that feeds into both
hostile and benevolent sexism. Men and women who endorse hostile sexism are more
likely to tolerate sexual harassment (Russell and Trigg 2004). Benevolent sexism posits
that women should be treasured and adored. As such, complimenting female graduate
students on their appearance expresses benevolent sexism.

Becky, in the UK, noticed how her gender made her ‘different’.
We see things completely differently. And I’ve noticed it more as I grow up, you know, it
was always this thing that you knew about and that you know we have a lot more trouble
in areas of life than men do.
In the USA, Megan reported feeling as though she was excluded from what she
called ‘the good old boys club’.
I think they think it’s the good old boys club. I think that most of the women in the class
are smarter than the guys . . . but they don’t think so, they think they’re the smartest people
in the world . . . and I just feel like it’s not like the girls don’t have a connection and the
guys do like, we have one, but we don’t parade it around like it is a club, and girls are all
inclusive and the guys definitely need their time to assert their masculinity.
Informal networking groups can enrich the graduate school experience intellectually,
socially, and emotionally, providing students with a context in which to share anxieties
and information (Weidman, Twale, and Stein 2001). In 1984, Taylorson reported that
female graduate students reported feeling excluded from males’ informal networking
groups, and in the 1990s researchers theorised that women had less access than men to
these networks and were at risk of social and intellectual isolation (Conrad and Phillips
1995; Wiklund 1999). That Megan, interviewed in the first decade of the twenty-first
century, reported feeling left out of males’ social networks suggests that although
women are represented to a greater extent in graduate programmes than in the past,
access to informal networking groups is still a problem for some female graduate students.
Leonard (2001) suggests that social networks are an integral part of men’s career trajec-
tories, and that male academics use social networks to learn more about their field and
to increase their own visibility as academics. If women are not part of these networks,
they may miss out on an important part of the informal support in graduate school. As
such, being excluded from social and academic peer networks may not only be an
example of hostile sexism, but may also put female graduate students at a disadvantage
in terms of their professional development (Conrad and Phillips 1995; Wiklund 1999).
Managing gender in graduate school
Participants from both the USA and the UK came up with strategies to ‘manage’ their
gender when they were in settings where their gender could potentially be an issue. One
such strategy employed by Kate from the UK was presenting oneself in an ‘asexual’ way:
I’m not a girly girl, and so I present myself in a sort of asexual kind of way and so you
can’t really have much quarrel with me in an academic setting because I don’t come across
as anything in particular. I haven’t really thought about it being a problem, but of course
sometimes it is a problem to me because sometimes I kind of think, well should I have to
present myself in this way, do I have to, should I have to?
Jen in the USA described her strategy for managing her gender when she was an
undergraduate student. Her strategy was to distance herself from gender stereotypes
that view women as caregivers, while letting others know that she was serious about
being a scientist:
I was in a human development programme so a lot of girls in the programme wanted to
open a daycare or just really liked kids or something, so I felt like one of the advantages I

had was kind of like being a female who had an actual plan, who knows how to do
research or something. I was not being wishy washy about like ‘I kind of like kids and
I want to be a mom’ so I felt like there was an advantage to being a female that was
scientifically minded.
Leonard suggests that women may find that they are given less attention as students
and that they are viewed as having less potential than males (Leonard 2001). This par-
ticipant found that by presenting herself as ‘scientifically minded’ she was given more
attention by her professors, perhaps because she came across as more masculinised.
Female graduate students in both the USA and the UK had witnessed how women
further along in their professional lives had managed their gender in academic settings.
They noted that women in these settings tended to be masculinised, and that they
themselves were less sympathetic towards women. Kate, from the UK, said
Most of the psychiatrists I had to liaise with were males or if they were female they were
the most masculine women you’d ever meet in your whole life and that seemed to be the
way they succeeded in their jobs but that made it very difficult for me to communicate
because I wasn’t used to that sort of strangeness. You know the strange way of, that
they, the women would present themselves. And the men could be quite difficult to be
taken seriously by.
Jen, in the USA, said:
I have noticed a tendency for women to be down on women . . . I think there are definitely
women who feel like they have busted their ass to get to where they are as equivalent to
males so they feel the need to knock down women.
Women are sometimes accused of harming the careers of other women (Derks et al.
2011). The phenomenon of successful women being unsympathetic to other women
working their way up an organisational ladder has been coined in the literature as
the ‘queen bee syndrome’. The queen bee syndrome suggests that women who are at
higher levels of an organisation exhibit gender biases and rate women more negatively
than men (Ellemers et al. 2004; Mathison 1986). If queen bee syndrome does exist, it
has implications in terms of providing female graduate students with role models.
Although research has suggested that having access to a role model who is further
along and successful in her professional career is hugely beneficial for female graduate
students (Kurtz-Costes, Helmke, and U¨ lku¨-Steiner 2006), little is known about the
effect of having role models who have negative views of other women.
Although the queen bee syndrome has received attention in the literature and
popular media, it is important to consider the number of ways in which it is problematic.
First, the queen bee syndrome ignores the fact that here are many successful women
who seek to improve other women’s career opportunities and serve as role models
(Derks et al. 2011). Second, it is a sexist construct. There are no similar terms used
to label successful men in positions of power (Mavin 2008). Third, the perpetuation
of the queen bee syndrome reproduces stereotypical gender roles by constructing suc-
cessful senior women as ‘bad’, and unnatural (Mavin 2008). Finally, proponents of the
queen bee phenomenon place the blame for gender discrimination on the shoulders of
women, rather than organisational structures that may make it difficult for women to
succeed (Derks et al. 2011). Mavin (2008) suggests that rather than blaming women
hindering other women in the workplace, we should examine and seek to change
gendered organisational structures and systems that may impede women’s success.

Finally, participants talked about a kind of silencing that takes place in academic
settings. Becky, from the UK, said, ‘I think if you listen in the meetings it’s dominated
by male discussion and I know for certain amongst the postgraduates a lot of us have
something to say, but we don’t want to say it.’
Kate from the UK said of research meetings, ‘I don’t contribute to them really. I just
find them really scary. And to a certain extent the same in seminars and lectures.’
Jen from the USA, talking about the male faculty in her area of study said, ‘If I’m
around someone I feel intimidated by, like a faculty member that I don’t know that well,
I tend to be nice about everything like “OK I’ll do that.”’
These students are engaging in a process that Jack and Dill (1992) coined as ‘silen-
cing the self’. Classic theoretical work by Horney (1936) suggests that women tend to
self-silence when they are in a hierarchical male dominated structure and fear rejection.
That women remain silent when they perceive the threat of being rejected has been sup-
ported by more recent research (London et al. 2012; Moss-Racusin and Rudman 2010).
However, little research has investigated academic self-silencing in graduate school
(see London et al. 2012 for an exception). Our study suggests that graduate school
may be an environment that reinforces self-silencing in women.
Discussion and conclusion
Although participants were in training programmes in two different countries, their per-
ceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of their gender as it related to their edu-
cational experiences were similar. Participants identified being a majority in their fields
and receiving more lenient treatment from faculty members as advantages of being
female. However, they felt that being female disadvantaged them because of beliefs
that males were in higher status positions, being viewed in terms of stereotypical
gender roles, and receiving unwanted sexual attention. Female graduate students also
discussed strategies for managing their gender in graduate school, including coming
across as asexual and appearing serious about their career. Our findings can be inter-
preted using the framework of ambivalent sexism. Specifically, the perceived advan-
tage of receiving more lenient treatment from faculty, and being expected to fulfil
caring gender roles illustrates benevolent sexism, while beliefs that men occupied
higher status positions, and receiving unwanted sexual attention illustrates hostile
sexism. This finding suggests that ambivalent sexism may be a useful framework
from which to examine women’s gendered experiences of graduate school.
In our paper we have reviewed the literature covering a large span of time. Although
there have been many changes in academia across the decades, themes relating to gen-
dered experiences seem to remain relatively constant. For example, our findings are
similar to findings from Taylorson’s (1994) research from almost three decades ago
that found that female graduate students experienced sexual harassment and felt
excluded from social networks.
There is a general perception that universities are bastions of liberalism; however,
Leonard suggests that sexist micro-politics exist in universities to the same extent that
they exist in other institutions (Leonard 2001). Both the advantages and disadvantages
identified by students fit within a framework of ambivalent sexism. That the advantage
of being given special treatment by male faculty members suggests female graduate stu-
dents are the recipients of benevolent sexism. None of the students interviewed
however, felt that this was a disadvantage. Rather they saw this as a way in which
their gender served them. Hostile sexism was evident in the women’s experiences of

unwanted sexual attention. It could also be seen in the gender-stereotyping of the par-
ticipants, for example in the participant who was accused of being ‘overly emotional’
when confronting colleagues who had been talking about her.
Leonard (2000) stated that research on graduate education should acknowledge
women’s marginalisation. She also stated that researchers should investigate how stu-
dents themselves experience graduate education, and should focus on how gender influ-
ences the experiences of graduate education and career paths pursued post-doctorate
(Leonard, Becker, and Coate 2004). Our study addresses some of these issues. Specifi-
cally, we attend to how gender shapes women’s experiences of master’s level graduate
education and examine the perspectives of students themselves. In keeping with Leo-
nard’s feminist legacy, it is important to continue investigating women’s experiences
of graduate school not only to improve their graduate education, but also to ensure
that their experiences as graduate students do not negatively affect decisions to
pursue further education, in the case of master’s level students, or faculty positions,
in the case of PhD students, upon graduation.
The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of a number of
limitations. First, as the data come from just six participants it should be considered
an exploratory study, and not necessarily representative of all female graduate students’
experiences. As the sample was a convenience sample taken from two graduate pro-
grammes in which the first author was enrolled, extra caution should be taken when
considering the representativeness of our findings. However, our study has value as
it suggests further avenues for qualitative and quantitative investigation on the
female graduate experience. It is also one of the first to consider gendered experiences
of master’s level graduate education. Second, participants were students in different
programmes (i.e. social sciences and psychology). This made comparisons difficult.
Third, our sample lacked diversity. All participants were white and came from
middle-class families. When considering advantages and disadvantages faced by
female graduate students, it is important to consider race, age, social class and sexual
orientation as these factors may intersect with gender to create either more privileged
or more marginalised experiences. Fourth, although we evaluated female graduate stu-
dents’ experiences from an ambivalent sexism perspective, we did not specifically ask
questions about sexism. Fifth, although it did not come up in our study, it is important to
consider how family may impact graduate students’ experience of graduate education.
For example, students’ experience and ultimate success may be influenced by the
resources available from a graduate student’s family of origin, such as financial or
emotional support. None of the participants in the present study had long-term romantic
partners or children; however, if they did, it is likely that their experiences of graduate
education would be affected as they negotiate their education alongside childcare,
income, and cultural scripts of motherhood (Lynch 2008).
Although the present study was an investigation of women’s experiences of gradu-
ate education, future research should include a sample of men to compare experiences.
By including men, it would be possible to assess whether some experiences are univer-
sal to being a graduate student, or whether some experiences are specific to one gender
(e.g. sexual harassment). In addition, further research is needed to investigate perceived
advantages associated with being female to assess whether these advantages are sources
of support for female graduate students or are examples of benevolent sexism that may
hinder women in graduate programmes. Further longitudinal research should be con-
ducted on women’s experiences of graduate education and their subsequent career
paths, to more directly assess the idea of a ‘leaky pipeline’ in academia.

Overall, our study suggests that gender influences the experiences of women
enrolled in master’s level graduate education. Gendered experiences of graduate edu-
cation may be such a part of the system that inequalities in educational experience are
difficult to overcome without widespread structural change. While such structural
change may be slow coming, in the meantime there are several ways to address the
inequities that women may face while pursuing graduate education. First, a
common solution, already employed by many female graduate students, is to seek
out female graduate advisor/supervisors. Leonard (2001) notes that there may be
issues associated with this approach. She suggests that there may be fewer female
advisors/supervisors available, and that even if a student finds a female advisor/
supervisor in her field of study, not all women will have empathy towards female
students, and may treat them with hostility. Leonard also suggests that men may be
useful as advisors/supervisors because of the networks that they may be plugged
into. Additionally, mentoring students is work that is often undervalued by tenure
and promotion committees and places a burden on female academics, who tend
to receive more requests for mentorship than their male colleagues (Acker and
Feuerverger 1996). Taking this into consideration, we suggest that women not rely
on one academic advisor/supervisor in graduate school, but rather seek out multiple
mentors of both sexes who can provide them with different opportunities for social
and professional development.
Second, as previously noted, women may have limited access to social and pro-
fessional networks in graduate school. Female graduate students should actively seek
out networking opportunities. If female graduate students find themselves excluded
from traditional professional networks, they should seek out networks that have been
developed primarily for women (e.g. the Association for Women in Psychology).
Third, female graduate students are often reluctant to label unwanted sexual atten-
tion as sexual harassment (Leonard 2001). Female graduate students should be aware of
equal opportunity and sexual harassment policies at their college or university, and
should identify faculty or staff who they can talk to, should issues arise.
Although the number of female master’s and doctoral recipients in the social
sciences and psychology is increasing, women are still not equally represented in
faculty positions within these fields. This ‘leaky pipeline’ in academia may be associ-
ated with women’s experiences of graduate school – negative experiences in graduate
school, such as experiencing sexism, may make women less likely to pursue careers in
academia (Morley, Leonard, and David 2002). As such, it is important to further inves-
tigate women’s experiences of graduate school, not only to improve their experiences
while they are graduate students, but also to increase the number of female faculty
members in academic departments.
Notes
1. Data were analysed for three participants in the USA and three participants in the UK. A
total of five UK students participated in the interview, but technical problems prevented
one interview from being used and another interview was not tape-recorded at the partici-
pant’s request, and did not include sufficient data for analysis.
2. There are differences in terminology used in master’s programmes in the USA and the UK.
In the USA students in master’s programmes are referred to as graduate students. In the UK
students enrolled in master’s programmes are referred to as postgraduate students. The
faculty who oversee master’s students are referred to as advisors or mentors in the USA,
and supervisors in the UK.
3. All names used are pseudonyms to protect participants’ identities.

4. It is important to note that the inclusion of political and economic sciences with the social
sciences may mask gender differences in these subfields.
References
Acker, Sandra. 1984. Women in higher education: What is the problem? In Is higher education
fair to women? ed. S. Acker and D. Warren Piper, 25–48. Surrey: SRHE and NFER-Nelson.
Acker, Sandra, and Grace Feuerverger. 1996. Doing good and feeling bad: The work of women
university teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education 26, no. 3: 401–22.
Alexander, Natasha, and Linda Clare. 2004. You still feel different: The experience and meaning
of women’s self-injury in the context of a lesbian or bisexual identity. Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology 14, no. 2: 70–84.
American Association of University Women (AAUW). 2004. Tenure denied, cases of sex
discrimination in academia. Washington, DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation and American Association of University Women Legal
Advocacy Fund.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 2012. Report on the economic status of
the profession. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
Bagilhole, Barbara. 2002. Academia and the reproduction of unequal opportunities for women.
Science Studies 15, no. 1: 46–60.
Barata, Paula, Sandeep Hunjan, and Jillian Leggatt. 2005. Ivory tower? Feminist women’s
experiences of graduate school. Women’s Studies International Forum 28, no. 2/3: 232–46.
Bowen, Elenor Smith. 1954. Return to laughter. New York: Harper and Brothers.
van den Brink, Marieke, and Yvonne Benschop. 2012. Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The
quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization 19, no. 1: 71–92.
Brocki, Joanna M., and Alison J. Wearden. 2006. A critical evaluation of the use of interpret-
ative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology & Health 21,
no. 1: 87–108.
Cairns, Kathleen V., and Doyle G. Hatt. 1995. Discrimination and sexual harassment in a
graduate student sample. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 4, no. 3: 169–76.
Carli, Linda L., and Alice H. Eagly. 1999. Gender effects on social influence and emergent
leadership. In Handbook of gender and work. ed. G.N. Powell, 203–222. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conrad, L. 1994. Gender and postgraduate supervision. In Quality in postgraduate education,
ed. O. Zuber-Skerritt and Y. Ryan, 51–8. London: Kogan Page.
Conrad, Linda, and Estelle M. Phillips. 1995. From isolation to collaboration: A positive change
for postgraduate women? Higher Education 30, no. 3: 313–22.
Cortina, Lilia M., Suzanne Swan, Louise F. Fitzgerald, and Craig Waldo. 1998. Sexual harass-
ment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women
Quarterly 22, no. 3: 419–41.
Council of Graduate Schools. 2008. PhD completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demo-
graphic data from the PhD completion project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate
Schools.
Denker, Katherine J. 2009. Doing gender in the academy: The challenges for women in the
academic organization. Women & Language 32, no. 1: 103–12.
Derks, Belle, Naomi Ellemers, Colette van Laar, and Kim de Groot. 2011. Do sexist organiz-
ational cultures create the queen bee? British Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 3:
519–35.
Eagly, A.H., M.G. Makhijani, and B.G. Klonsky. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111, no. 1: 3–22.
Ellemers, Naomi, Henriette Van Den Heuvel, Dick De Gilder, Anne Maass, and Alessandra
Bonvini. 2004. The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or
the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology 43, no. 3: 315–38.
England, Paula, Paul Allison, Su Li, Noah Mark, Jennifer Thompson, Michelle J. Budig, and
Han Sun. 2007. Why are some academic fields tipping toward female? The sex compo-
sition of U.S. fields of doctoral degree receipt, 1971–2002. Sociology of Education 80,
no. 1: 23–42.
Fischer, Ann R. 2006. Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of
Women Quarterly 30, no. 4: 410–16.

Fiske, Susan T. 2012. Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb
stereotypes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639, no. 1:
33–48.
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating
hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 3:
491–512.
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1997. Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent
sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21, no. 1: 119–35.
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 2001. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism
as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist 56, no. 2:
109–18.
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 2012. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism
as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In Beyond prejudice: Extending the
social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change, ed. J. Dixon and M. Levine,
70–89. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goode, Jackie, and Barbara Bagilhole. 1998. Gendering the management of change in higher
education: A case study. Gender, Work & Organization 5, no. 3: 148–64.
Haake, Ulrika. 2011. Contradictory values in doctoral education: A study of gender composition
in disciplines in Swedish academia. Higher Education 62, no. 1: 113–27.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). 2012a. Students in higher education institutions.
Cheltenham: Higher Education Statistics Agency.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). 2012b. Staff in higher education institutions.
Cheltenham: Higher Education Statistics Agency.
Horney, Karen. 1936. Culture and neurosis. American Sociological Review 1, no. 2: 221–30.
Hyde, Janet Shibley. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60, no. 6:
581–92.
Jack, Dana Crowley, and Diana Dill. 1992. Silencing the self scale: Schemas of intimacy associ-
ated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 16, no. 1: 97–106.
Jost, John T., and Aaron C. Kay. 2005. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary
gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 88, no. 3: 498–509.
Katila, Saija, and Susan Merilaïnen. 1999. A serious researcher or just another nice girl?: Doing
gender in a male-dominated scientific community. Gender, Work & Organization 6, no. 3:
163–73.
Kite, Mary E., Kay Deaux, and Elizabeth L. Haines. 2008. Gender stereotypes. In Psychology of
women: A handbook of issues and theories. 2nd ed., ed. F.L. Denmark and M.A. Paludi,
205–237. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Knights, David, and Wendy Richards. 2003. Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work
& Organization 10, no. 2: 213–38.
Krefting, Linda A. 2003. Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: Evidence from academic
employment in the USA. Gender, Work & Organization 10, no. 2: 260–78.
Kurtz-Costes, Beth, Laura Andrews Helmke, and Beril U¨ lku¨-Steiner. 2006. Gender and doctoral
studies: The perceptions of Ph.D. students in an American university. Gender & Education
18, no. 2: 137–55.
Lee, Deborah. 1998. Sexual harassment in PhD supervision. Gender & Education 10, no. 3:
299–312.
Lee, Tiane, Susan Fiske, and Peter Glick. 2010. Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging
correlates, causality in context, and converse causality, an introduction to the special issue.
Sex Roles 62, no. 7/8: 395–404.
Leonard, Diana. 2000. Transforming doctoral studies: Competencies and artistry. Higher
Education in Europe 25, no. 2: 181–92.
Leonard, Diana. 2001. A woman’s guide to doctoral studies. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Leonard, Diana, Rosamunde Becker, and Kelly Coate. 2004. Continuing professional and career
development: The doctoral experience of education alumni at a UK university. Studies in
Continuing Education 26, no. 3: 369–85.
Leonard, Diana, Rosamunde Becker, and Kelly Coate. 2005. To prove myself at the highest
level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development 24, no.
2: 135–49.

London, Bonita, Geraldine Downey, Rainer Romero-Canyas, Aneeta Rattan, and Diana Tyson.
2012. Gender-based rejection sensitivity and academic self-silencing in women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 102, no. 5: 961–79.
Lynch, Karen Danna. 2008. Gender roles and the American academe: A case study of graduate
student mothers. Gender & Education 20, no. 6: 585–605.
Mathison, David L. 1986. Sex differences in the perception of assertiveness among female
managers. The Journal of Social Psychology 126, no. 5: 599–606.
Mavin, Sharon. 2008. Queen bees, wannabees, and afraid to bees: No more ‘best enemies’ for
women in management? British Journal of Management 19(Suppl. 1): S75–84.
Monroe, Kristen Renwick, and William F. Chiu. 2010. Gender equality in the academy: The
pipeline problem. PS: Political Science and Politics 43, no. 2: 303–8.
Morley, Louise, Diana Leonard, and Miriam David. 2002. Variations in Vivas: Quality and
equality in British PhD assessments. Studies in Higher Education 27, no. 3: 263–73.
Morley, Louise, and Naz Rassool. 2000. School effectiveness: New managerialism, quality and
the Japanization of education. Journal of Education Policy 15, no. 2: 169–83.
Morley, Louise, and Val Walsh. 1995. Feminist academics: Creative agents for change.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., and Laurie A. Rudman. 2010. Disruptions in women’s self-promotion:
The backlash avoidance model. Psychology of Women Quarterly 34, no. 2: 186–202.
Myers, Daniel J., and Kimberly B. Dugan. 1996. Sexism in graduate school classrooms. Gender
& Society 10, no. 3: 330–50.
National Academies of Sciences. 2007. Beyond bias and barriers, fulfilling the potential of
women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2011. The condition of education 2011. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 2012. Doctorate recipients from US universities: 2010.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nicolson, Paula, and Christopher L. Welsh. 1993. Sexual harassment, male dominated organiz-
ations and the role of counselling psychology: The case. Counselling Psychology Quarterly
6, no. 4: 291–301.
Price, L., and J. Priest. 1996. Activists as change agents: Achievements and limitations. In
Breaking boundaries: Women in higher education, ed. L. Morley and V. Walsh, 37–52.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Pritchard, Rosalind M.O. 2010. Attitudes to gender equality issues in British and German
academia. Higher Education Management and Policy 22, no. 2: 1–24.
Rubin, Linda J., Bethany R. Hampton, and Pamela W. McManus. 1997. Sexual harassment of
students by professional psychology educators: A national survey. Sex Roles 37, no. 9–10:
753–71.
Rudman, Laurie A. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of
counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
74, no. 3: 629–45.
Russell, Brenda L., and Kristin Y. Trigg. 2004. Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination
of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 50,
no. 7/8: 565–73.
Schneider, Margaret, Sarah Baker, and Lana Stermac. 2002. Sexual harassment experiences of
psychologists and psychological associates during their graduate school training. Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality 11, no. 3–4: 159–70.
Sibley, Chris G., Nickola C. Overall, and John Duckitt. 2007. When women become more
hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism.
Sex Roles 57, no. 9/10: 743–54.
Smith, Jonathan A. 2004. Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological
analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology 1, no. 1: 39–54.
Søndergaard, Dorte Marie. 2005. Making sense of gender, age, power and disciplinary position:
Intersecting discourses in the academy. Feminism & Psychology 15, no. 2: 189–208.
Street, Amy E., Jaimie L. Gradus, Jane Stafford, and Kacie Kelly. 2007. Gender differences in
experiences of sexual harassment: Data from a male-dominated environment. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75, no. 3: 464–74.

Taylorson, D. 1994. The professional socialization, integration and identity of women PhD
candidates. In Is higher education fair to women?, ed. S. Acker and D. Warren Piper,
141–62. Surrey: SRHE and NFER-Nelson.
Wall, Sarah. 2008. Of heads and hearts: Women in doctoral education at a Canadian university.
Women’s Studies International Forum 31, no. 3: 219–28.
Wax, Rosalie H. 1979. Gender and age in ﬁeldwork and ﬁeldwork education: No good thing is
done by any man alone. Social Problems 26, no. 5: 509–522.
Weidman, John C., Darla J. Twale, and Stein Elizabeth Leahy. 2001. Socialization of graduate
and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, vol. 28, no. 3. Washington, DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Whatley, Mark A., and David T. Wasieleski. 2001. The incidence of sexual harassment in aca-
demia: A pilot study. Radical Pedagogy 3, no. 1, http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/
issue3_1/03Whatley.html (accessed September 18, 2012).
Wiklund, Gunilla. 1999. Information as social and intellectual capital in the research career: A
gender perspective. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 4, no. 2,
http://informationr.net/ir/4-2/isic/wiklund.html (accessed September 18, 2012).
Wilson, Fiona M. 2003. Organizational behaviour and gender. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Mehta, Kenner, & Shrier_2013_Advatages and Disadvantages of being a female graduate student

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Mehta, Kenner, & Shrier_2013_Advatages and Disadvantages of being a female graduate student

Similar to Mehta, Kenner, & Shrier_2013_Advatages and Disadvantages of being a female graduate student (20)

More from Clare Mehta

More from Clare Mehta (8)

Mehta, Kenner, & Shrier_2013_Advatages and Disadvantages of being a female graduate student