Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Women in PhilosophyWhat Needs to Change?$

Katrina Hutchison and Fiona Jenkins

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199325603

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325603.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 27 February 2017

(p.253) Appendix 2 Statistical Analyses

(p.253) Appendix 2 Statistical Analyses

Source:
Women in Philosophy
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Figure 1 Analysis of number of philosophy staff at selected Australian universities by sex and year, indicating that there is no signifi cant relationship between numbers of females and year and that number of males reduces by 7.1 on average each year. Analysis performed in GenStat.

Regression analysis

Response variate:

Number

Fitted terms:

Sex + (Year-2000).Sex

Summary of analysis

Source

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

F pr.

Regression

3

23258.

7752.8

1140

<.001

Residual

10

68.

6.8

Total

13

23326.

1794.3

Percentage variance accounted for 99.6

Standard error of observations is estimated to be 2.61.

Estimates of parameters

Parameter

estimate

s.e.

t(10)

t pr.

Sex F

36.86

3.12

11.83

<.001

Sex M

159.36

3.12

51.14

<.001

(Year-2000).Sex F

0.143

0.493

0.29

0.778

(Year-2000).Sex M

-7.107

0.493

-14.43

<.001

(p.254)

Figure 2 Analysis of Australian philosophy doctoral student load, indicating a significant linear relationship between load and year for males but not for females. Female load is best represented by the mean 73.58 while male load is best represented by a value 113 in the 2001 with an average increase of 7.37 effective full-time students per year thereafter. Analysis performed in GenStat.

Regression analysis

Adjust Year so that 2001 = Year 0

Response variate: Load

Fitted terms: Gender + Year.Gender

Summary of analysis

Source

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

F pr.

Regression

3

19955.

6651.6

29.32

<.001

Residual

12

2723.

226.9

Total

15

22678.

1511.8

Percentage variance accounted for 85.0

Standard error of observations is estimated to be 15.1.

Estimates of parameters

Parameter

estimate

s.e.

t(12)

t pr.

Gender Female

73.58

9.72

7.57

<.001

Gender Male

112.97

9.72

11.62

<.001

(Year-2001). Female

-0.37

2.32

-0.16

0.877

(Year-2001). Male

7.37

2.32

3.17

0.008

(p.255)

Figure 3 Analysis of Australian philosophy bachelor degree completions showing that there is no trend over time for either females or males and that on average male completions exceed female completions by 51.88 each year. Analysis performed in GenStat.

Regression analysis

Response variate:

Completions

Fitted terms:

Gender + Year.Gender

Summary of analysis

Source

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

F pr.

Regression

3

11759

3919.5

5.61

0.012

Residual

12

8387

698.9

Total

15

20145

1343.0

Percentage variance accounted for 48.0

Standard error of observations is estimated to be 26.4

Estimates of parameters

Parameter

estimate

s.e.

t(12)

t pr.

Gender Female

207.2

17.1

12.14

<.001

Gender Male

238.4

17.1

13.97

<.001

(Year-2001). Female

-1.71

4.08

-0.42

0.682

(Year-2001). Male

4.27

4.08

1.05

0.315

Test of Means

Sample

Size

Mean

Variance

Standard deviation

Standard error of mean

Male-Female

8

51.88

1562

39.53

13.98

95% confidence interval for mean: (18.83, 84.92)

Test statistict = -3.71 on d.f.

Probability = 0.008

(p.256)

Figure 4 Analysis of Australian philosophy bachelor degree load showing that the trend over time for males and females is parallel with an increase in each of 73.74 per year, with females starting in 2001 at an estimated higher level of 1,332 than the 1,096 males.

Regression Analysis

Response variate:

Load

Fitted terms:

Constant + Year + Gender + Year.Gender

Estimates of parameters

Parameter

estimate

s.e.

t(12)

t pr.

Constant

1298.0

52.9

24.52

<.001

Year

83.6

12.7

6.60

<.001

Gender Male

-167.0

74.9

-2.23

0.046

Year.Gender Male

-19.6

17.9

-1.10

0.294

Parameters for factors are differences compared with the reference level:

Factor Reference level

Gender Female

Response variate: Load

Fitted terms: Adj Year + Gender

Summary of analysis

Source

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

F pr.

Regression

2

679159

339579

49.71

<.001

Residual

13

88806

6831

Total

15

767964

51198

Change

-1

-222359

222359

32.55

<.001

Percentage variance accounted for 86.7

Standard error of observations is estimated to be 82.7

Estimates of parameters

Parameter

estimate

s.e.

t(13)

t pr.

(Year-2001)

73.74

9.02

8.18

<.001

Gender Female

1332.4

43.0

30.98

<.001

Gender Male

1096.6

43.0

25.49

<.001

(p.257)

Figure 5 Analysis of Canadian doctorate applications showing that rates of offers and rates of entry are not signifi cantly different for males and females in 2008. However, the number of offers to males is increasing by an average of 13.2 per year. Analysis performed in SPSS.

Rate of Entry

2008

Males

Females

Total

Offers

95

37

132

Entries

40

21

61

Total

135

58

193

H0: Rates of entry are the same for the two genders

P-value 0.367

Rate of offer

2008

Males

Females

Total

Applications

328

140

468

Offers

95

37

132

Total

423

177

600

H0: Rates of offer the same for the two genders

P-value 0.675

Changes over Time: Male Offers

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. Error

1 (Constant)

-26348.500

3216.492

-8.192

.015

Year

13.200

1.606

8.218

.014

(p.258)

Table 1 Analysis of UK Staff Numbers

Analysis performed in Excel 2010 [3]

Observed

Expected under H0

Contribution to result

Males

Females

Total

Males

Females

Males

Females

Professor

91

16

107

79.8

27.2

1.56

4.59

Reader

25

8

33

24.6

8.4

0.01

0.02

Senior Lecturer

56

21

77

57.5

19.5

0.04

0.11

Lecturer

92

28

120

89.5

30.5

0.07

0.20

Temporary Research

35

12

47

35.1

11.9

0.00

0.00

Temp. Lecturer

40

21

61

45.5

15.5

0.67

1.96

Casual Teaching

193

75

268

200.0

68.0

0.24

0.71

All

532

181

713

H0: males and females distributed the same at all levels

χ 2 = 10.17, 6 degrees of freedom P-value = 0.118

Permanent non-professorial staff make very little contribution to this result and can be combined

Table 2 Analysis of UK Staff Numbers with broader categories

Observed

Expected under H0

Contribution to result

Males

Females

Total

Males

Females

Males

Females

Professor

91

16

107

79.8

27.2

1.56

4.59

Permanent Staff

173

57

33

171.6

58.4

0.01

0.03

Temporary/ Casual Staff

268

108

47

280.5

95.5

0.56

1.65

All

532

181

713

H0: males and females distributed the same at all levels, where reader, senior lecturer, and lecturer have been combined to permanent staff, and temporary research, temporary lecturer and casual teaching have been combined.

χ 2 = 8.40, 3 degrees of freedom P-value = 0.015

Conclusion: There are differences in proportions of males and females in various categories with females underrepresented at professor level and overrepresented among temporary/casual staff.