For a considerable duration, the representation of female teachers in Japanese higher education has lingered at the lower end among OECD member states. Notably, since the enactment of the Act on Promotion of Women’s Advancement in 2015, there are signs indicating that universities are taking proactive measures toward enhancing the participation of women in the workforce. The law mandates universities to disclose diversity-related metrics, such as the ratio of women teachers, which climbed to 26.7% in 2022. However, it is not clear whether the increased presence of female faculty members will improve research productivity as a whole and foster innovation.
Studies examining the factors influencing research productivity and tenure attainment reveal sporadic findings, indicating that it is not only meritocratic factors at play but also ascription factors such as gender and age. Based on a nation-wide survey of Japanese university faculty members, we investigate how time allocation, meritocratic factors, and non-meritocratic factors influence these three points (i) academic productivity (peer-reviewed papers published in last 3 years), (ii) likelihood of advancing to a professorship and (iii) challenges with continuing research.
Our findings show that after controlling for other variables, the female dummy variable continues to exert a negative influence on journal publications, prospects for promotion to a professorship, and research sustainability, with the exception of the humanities and social sciences. Therefore, policies aimed at implementing positive action, which is theoretically supported by John Rowles’ difference principle to regulate the academic market without considering the meritocratic factors, could potentially bring down academic productivity.
Apart from these findings and implications, when viewed from the perspective of new institutional sociology, we must recognize that universities do not exist in isolation but are embedded within an institutional environment. This encompasses universal cultural values and human rights such as diversity and inclusion. So, whether one favors this perspective or not, universities which adapt to their institutional environment must effectively demonstrate both internally and externally how they align with the principles necessary for survival. Of course, as formal rules like positive action permeate many universities, there exists a de-coupling or inconsistency between the formal intentions and informal practices observed in the field.
View full abstract