Like catching a glimpse of a rainbow refracted through glass, experiencing a glass ceiling may all depend on where you're standing.
A new study by professor Laurie Morgan of the University of Michigan, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, indicates that the glass ceiling may not be as impenetrable as has been widely reported and may be more like a glass window that's being slowly rolled down.The glass ceiling is a gender-based barrier to professional advancement. It's the problem of women getting stymied or slowly losing ground in their careers, vis-a-vis their male counterparts. Morgan examined this phenomenon by analyzing two national surveys on the relative earnings of male and female engineers.
Morgan's findings, reported in the August 1998 issue of the American Sociological Review, show that women do suffer an earnings penalty, but it's not due to a glass ceiling phenomenon. Rather, it relates to when each woman entered the profession. As the profession adjusted to women in engineering posts, successive entering classes of women experienced less discrimination across the term of their careers. For women who entered the engineering field after 1971, Morgan found that women were compensated on a par with men throughout their career. Equal pay for equal work.
You would think this kind of encouraging research would be touted by women's groups and the government as a great victory.
Not that I could tell.
Morgan's findings weren't mentioned anywhere on the Web site of the National Organization for Women. The non-profit research and women's advocacy group Catalyst, which specializes in glass-ceiling research, never heard of it. And you won't find mention of it on the Web site of the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor. The site is too busy telling women how they are being shortchanged on the job.
In a DOL pamphlet titled "Worth More Than We Earn: Fair Pay for Working Women," which reads as much like a Cosmo quiz as a government pamphlet, the reader is asked: "Has Any of These Things Ever Happened to You?"
" -- You are a data entry operator getting paid $8,000 less per year than general laborers, who are mostly men. You think your jobs have comparable levels of skill and responsibilities."
(The report never suggests the woman apply for the general laborer job.)
" -- You are a child-care provider for the county government, and you get paid less than liquor store clerks who also work for the county. You think your job requires equal or more skill, effort and responsibility than selling liquor."
(So, sell liquor.)
Morgan's research points up a flaw in this kind of statement and much of the glass ceiling research that has been done so far. You don't get a complete picture when you look only at crosssectional data.
There's no question that there aren't enough people with XX chromosomes in corporate board rooms or occupying partnership suites, but if Morgan is right, they're on their way.
Robyn Blumner is a columnist and editorial writer for the St. Petersburg Times.