The CSIC's (Spanish Research Council) Women and Science Committe
http://www.csic.es/mujer_ciencia.do
You can download there a number of international reports, amongst these:
"Women and Science. Mobilising women to enrich European research" Adopted by the European Commission on 17 February 1999
ETAN 2000 Report: Prepared by the European Technology Assessment Network on Women and Science working group, this report on women and science for the European Commission aims to "promote excellence by mainstreaming gender equality."
"Women Researchers in the CSIC" [in Spanish]: Of the initiatives carried out by the working group during the mandate of Rolf Tarrach the most noteworthy was the launch of publication of a series of reports entitled “Mujeres investigadoras del CSIC” (Women Researchers at the CSIC) on the representation and participation of women at various levels in the CSIC. These were produced by the CSIC's Human Resources Division and the first edition was based on data from June 2001.
20 December 2006
Does bias in science hold women back? by C. Cannan
The FASEB Journal - Essay - pp. 1284-
Does bias in science hold women back?
Cecily Cannan Selby1
Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, New York, New York, USA
E-mail: selbyc@aol.com
"THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM is that equal talent and accomplishment are viewed as unequal when seen through the eyes of prejudice ..." With these words, the MIT Women Faculty Committee summarized its 1999 report on obstacles faced by women in science (1) .
Gender bias and prejudice, born of conflicting beliefs about the "natures" of women and men, what they can and cannot, should and should not do, is now a well tilled field in the social sciences. Since gender bias and prejudice have been made visible, their impact is diminished. But, unequal evaluations can still be found. Are there other sources of prejudice that continue to hinder the advancement of women? I would argue that there are. Bias and prejudice born of conflicting beliefs about the "nature" of science can have a serious impact on the evaluation of scientific talent.
Since all scientists agree on what constitutes good scientific evidence, if its quality were the only criterion for judgment, there could be no bias in evaluating the talent of any individual scientist. But, other factors also influence who is chosen, and who chooses to practice science. Personal and cultural perspectives are involved in a scientist’s choice of what kind of science to do, and how to do it (2) . They can also influence the criteria used to evaluate other scientists’ choices. Einstein must have understood this when he wrote:
"... science in the making , as an end to be pursued, is as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other branch of human endeavor–so much so that the question "what is the purpose and meaning of science? "receives quite different answers at different times and from different sorts of people" (3) .
Since "different subjective and psychological conditioning" continues to describe differences between women and men, Einstein’s precise analysis has, once again, provided insight into a puzzling phenomenon: how and why beliefs about science can create obstacles for women in science. Feminist scholars have paid particular attention to this phenomenon, showing how personal and cultural values (4) , and "mythlike beliefs" (5) help to mold the flow of science. The powerful outcome is that, "What is studied—and what has been neglected—grows out of who is doing the studying, and for what ends" (6) . Who does science does, indeed, matter (7) .
Differing beliefs about the purpose and meaning of science matter. They influence opinions about what makes "good" science—and "good" scientists. Scientists’ personal visions of what is "good" in science frame their choices of problems to address, and how to address them. They also influence the criteria each uses in evaluating the talent and achievement of others. Einstein’s "different sorts of people" certainly include the public, whose perceptions of what makes science "good" frame attitudes and policies wherever society and science meet—notably, in allocation of resources for education and research. When evaluators express differing beliefs and attitudes, majority views will dominate and minority views will be filtered out. Is not the majority view then perceived as biased against those filtered out? Virginia Valian has coined the term "gender schema" to describe and explain gender bias in order to make it visible (8) . She has used her analysis to advance criteria for a fair and accurate evaluation of talent in science. Let’s see if there are "science schema" as well as "gender schema" embedded in how we size up science and scientists.
SCIENCE SCHEMA
What differing views of science are held by scientists? Do they affect the evaluation of female talent? At a memorable 1978 conference, 15 natural and social scientists could not find agreement on the power and limits of scientific inquiry (9) . Some argued that scientific knowledge represents humanity’s highest achievement, so there should be no attempts to limit it. Others evoked higher values (e.g., social stability) and therefore science should join with other modes of inquiry to support such values. Each scientist who spoke reflected a particular, personal, presumption about the nature of science. Half a century earlier, Karl Popper addressed such presumptions, suggesting three different "doctrines" that could cover the practice of science:
1) The scientist aims at finding a true theory or description of the world which shall also be an explanation of the observable facts. 2) The scientist can succeed in finally establishing the truth of such theories beyond all reasonable doubt. 3) The best, the truly scientific theories, describe the "essences" or the "essential natures" of things—the realities which lie behind experiences" (10) .
Each of Popper’s "doctrines" not only suggests a different view of what constitutes good science, but also its relation to other sorts of human inquiry. Those who limit science’s power to explaining natural phenomena likely support equal opportunity for all modes of human inquiry, and do not seek domination for science. Those who believe science can answer questions, not just about phenomena but about the "essence" of things, will likely value science’s mode of inquiry above all others and tolerate no limits to its power. They are also more likely to believe that the power and practice of science should be open only to those who belong to an intellectual "elite."
The impact of personal and cultural values on a scientist’s work is reflected in the kind of problems he/she chooses to address. From extensive historical studies of scientific investigations, Harvard’s Gerald Holton has identified several categories (unpublished data). Some lines of investigation seek to challenge the prevailing scientific model or exemplar, or to reach principle-oriented findings. Others look for areas of basic scientific ignorance in an area of social or national interest, emphasizing the application of previously known science and engineering to technical and social problems; we now call this "translational research." Still others lines of investigation serve to synthesize previously unconnected theories and findings. Some, indeed, may entirely reject "androcentric" or "Western" science and technology and work out novel alternatives, As a result of any or all of these efforts, some scientists may seek wide dissemination of their work, peer recognition and personal reward after they have published–and some may not (11) .
Why do scientists choose to do what they do? The National Science Foundation reports that the public believes scientists are motivated by a "Search for Truth and Beauty" (12) . Other motivations show up when scientists write their autobiographies and in less subjective writing: they may say to that their aim is to help people and society; to solve challenging problems; to satisfy curiosity; to seek societal and economic recognition and rewards; to assist human development; to follow in the steps of a mentor; to leave something lasting to society and humanity; to concentrate upon a particular problem. Since a similar spectrum of motivations can be found among those choosing other professions, the motivation shared by all scientists must be to do science—to solve their problem of choice using scientific inquiry. On this all scientists agree!
HOW DOES ONE DO SCIENCE?
Choices of where to work, and what methodologies and technologies to employ, are severely constrained by the resources and the mentors available. Whatever the work, personal tastes and styles set the mold. In a remarkable review of scientific styles in German biochemistry laboratories from 1870 to 1930, Joseph Fruton identified laboratory styles that range from a "quasi-military director to a senior counselor in the independent efforts of junior associates." He came to an incisive conclusion about relations of scientific style to scientific productivity, "the scientific productivity of the laboratories led by scientists with broad views of their field, and great interest in encouraging their junior associates, was significantly greater than the output of laboratories with autocratic, dictatorial leaders who treated students as disciples rather than as independent scientists." (13) Personal style and taste matters.
Other studies of scientists’ tastes and styles categorize them as "collectors, classifiers and those that compulsively tidy," and as "poet-scientists, philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics." Some are detectives and some are explorers, some artists, and some artisans. Some seek synthesis while others seek analysis; some are "classicists" and some "romanticists." They can be compared as "rational" vs. "empirical", or, "theoretical" vs. experimental. Scientists enjoying field work, whether in the Antarctic or the Amazon, space shuttles or deep ocean submarines, tell of their particular taste for nature and its emotional and physical, as well as intellectual, challenges (14) . Reflecting on all this diversity, Peter Medawar wrote, "What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead." (15) One size does not fit all scientists.
"FEMALE" SCIENCE SCHEMA
How does discrimination against groups relate to all this individual diversity? In a research study of successful young female and male scientists, Gerald Holton reported that more men than women thought being a "good scientist" included being aggressive, combative, and self-promoting (16) . "Women were more likely to see that science is gorgeous, leaving to a lesser place the hope to make a grand career, no matter what." Their "good" was less related to influence and power. The Harvard physicist, Howard Georgi relates this phenomenon to "unconscious discrimination." When "our selection procedures tend to select not only for talents that are directly relevant to success in science, but also for assertiveness and single-mindedness. This causes problems for women (and others as well)" (17) . When evaluators’ schema for what makes science "good" filters out those not holding the same view, are they not biased against the tastes and styles, needs and interests of those filtered out? When women evaluate men’s talent in science, would their evaluation be biased against aggressive, combative styles?
Other "group" differences between female and male scientists are recognizable. In a study of female and male scientists in "elite" and lower status universities, the authors made this observation:
"The women we studied were interested and successful in places where curricular or occupational activities and the meaning of the term "science" that they inspired encouraged broader and more flexible commitments of time, space, and professional identity than the "greedy" activities and meanings of elite science. In sites of elite science, regardless of content, achieving high status required more of one’s time, tighter constraints on appropriate workplaces, and narrower identities and networks of power than in lower-status sites. We suspect that many young women (and many men) find the greedy demands of elite science simply too costly" (18) .
The workplace climates the women in this study preferred are exactly those that Fruton described above as most productive for men. For the good of science, and its practitioners, should these not be welcomed? Other differences between male and female attitudes stem from women’s cultural responsibility for children, family, and/or community. Reasons women give for choosing to leave the study and practice of science most frequently cite lack of humanistic approaches and attitudes (19) .
DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ADD VALUE
Studies of scientific practices note how senior scientists often select students and faculty congruent with their own personal and scientific perspectives. The wish to "clone" oneself is understandable, and has some merit, but may not work well for the long-term good of science. Diverse perspectives can and do add value to science. To cite one example, "it would be hard to even imagine a collection of people more different from each other in origin, education, manner, manners, appearance, style, and worldly purposes than James Watson, Francis Crick, Lawrence Bragg, Rosalind Franklin and Linus Pauling." (20) Nicholas Negroponte, founder and leader of MIT’s Media Laboratory, highlights relationships among creativity, innovation, and diversity: "The ability to make leaps of thought is a common denominator among operators of breakthrough ideas. Usual this ability resides in people with very wide backgrounds, multidisciplinary minds, and a broad spectrum of experiences." (21) As usual, Karl Popper summarizes these arguments succinctly: "Diversity makes critical arguments fruitful." (22)
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL "SCHEMA"
An open, democratic society responsive to the needs, interests, and values of its citizens needs to have these represented in its scientific enterprise. To this end, evaluation of talent for science should provide equal opportunity for a broad diversity in personal, cultural, and scientific perspective. The selection and advancement of students and scientists ought to be open to those who exhibit the wide variety of tastes and styles, needs and interests that characterize today’s productive community of science. Since one size does not fit all successful scientists, selection should not be limited to those who fit any pigeonhole, be it gender, class, or mental "schema." And if we want to bring groups currently underrepresented to the table of science, let us teach them that different tastes and styles, needs and interests, and, yes, gender are good at the banquet of science.
The author wishes to thank Professor Gerald Holton for permission to use his unpublished data.
http://www.mblwhoilibrary.org/exhibits/early_years/early_years15.html.)
REFERENCES
MIT Report of the Committee of Women Faculty, MIT Faculty News Letter 2000
Selby, C.C. (2006) What Makes It Science/ A Modern Look at Scientific Inquiry. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching (In press)
Einstein, A. (1934) The World as I See It ,290 Covici Friede, New York.
Hubbard, R. (1976) Introductory Essay. Rose, H. Rose, S. P. R. eds. The Ideology Of/In the Natural Sciences ,363 G. K. Hall Boston.
Keller, E. F. (1975) Feminism and Science. Harding, S. O’Barr, J. F. eds. Sex and Scientific Inquiry ,233-246 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Schiebinger, L. (1999) Has Feminism Changed Science? Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Selby, C.C. (2006) The Missing Person in Science: Inquiry Begins with I ,10-13 New York Academy of Sciences UpdateMay 2006
Valian, V. (1998) Why So Slow?. The Advancement of Women MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978) The Limits of Scientific Inquiry. Daedalus 103
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London.
Holton, G., Sonnert, G. (2001) Proposal: Developing and Testing a Quantitative Instrument on Normative Styles in Science and Engineering ,14 Cambridge, Massachusetts. (unpublished).
. National Science Board (2004, 2006) Science and Engineering Indicators National Science Foundation Washington, D. C..
Fruton, J. F. (1990) Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. Stewert, J. eds. Memoirs series 191,473 American Philosophical Library Philadelphia.
Gladfelter, E. (2002) Agassiz’s Legacy: Scientists’ Reflections on the Value of Field Experience ,437 Oxford University Press New York.
Medawar, P. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist Harper and Rowe New York.
Holton, G. (1999) Different Perceptions of ’Good Science’ and Their Effects on Careers. Annals, NY Acad. Sci. 869,78-86[Free Full Text]
Georgi, H. (1999) A tentative theory of discrimination against women in science. National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science National Academy Press Washington, D. C..
Eisenhart, M.A., Finkel, E. (1998) Women’s Science: Learning and Succeeding From the Margins ,281 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. M. (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave Sciecne Westview Press Boulder, Colorado.
Medawar, P. (1974) The Hope of Progress Wildwood House London.
Negroponte, N. (2003) Creating a Culture of Ideas. Technol. Rev. 106,34-35
Popper, K. (1983) Realism and the Aim of Science: Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery Rowman and Littlefield Totowa, New Jersey.
Does bias in science hold women back?
Cecily Cannan Selby1
Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, New York, New York, USA
E-mail: selbyc@aol.com
"THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM is that equal talent and accomplishment are viewed as unequal when seen through the eyes of prejudice ..." With these words, the MIT Women Faculty Committee summarized its 1999 report on obstacles faced by women in science (1) .
Gender bias and prejudice, born of conflicting beliefs about the "natures" of women and men, what they can and cannot, should and should not do, is now a well tilled field in the social sciences. Since gender bias and prejudice have been made visible, their impact is diminished. But, unequal evaluations can still be found. Are there other sources of prejudice that continue to hinder the advancement of women? I would argue that there are. Bias and prejudice born of conflicting beliefs about the "nature" of science can have a serious impact on the evaluation of scientific talent.
Since all scientists agree on what constitutes good scientific evidence, if its quality were the only criterion for judgment, there could be no bias in evaluating the talent of any individual scientist. But, other factors also influence who is chosen, and who chooses to practice science. Personal and cultural perspectives are involved in a scientist’s choice of what kind of science to do, and how to do it (2) . They can also influence the criteria used to evaluate other scientists’ choices. Einstein must have understood this when he wrote:
"... science in the making , as an end to be pursued, is as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other branch of human endeavor–so much so that the question "what is the purpose and meaning of science? "receives quite different answers at different times and from different sorts of people" (3) .
Since "different subjective and psychological conditioning" continues to describe differences between women and men, Einstein’s precise analysis has, once again, provided insight into a puzzling phenomenon: how and why beliefs about science can create obstacles for women in science. Feminist scholars have paid particular attention to this phenomenon, showing how personal and cultural values (4) , and "mythlike beliefs" (5) help to mold the flow of science. The powerful outcome is that, "What is studied—and what has been neglected—grows out of who is doing the studying, and for what ends" (6) . Who does science does, indeed, matter (7) .
Differing beliefs about the purpose and meaning of science matter. They influence opinions about what makes "good" science—and "good" scientists. Scientists’ personal visions of what is "good" in science frame their choices of problems to address, and how to address them. They also influence the criteria each uses in evaluating the talent and achievement of others. Einstein’s "different sorts of people" certainly include the public, whose perceptions of what makes science "good" frame attitudes and policies wherever society and science meet—notably, in allocation of resources for education and research. When evaluators express differing beliefs and attitudes, majority views will dominate and minority views will be filtered out. Is not the majority view then perceived as biased against those filtered out? Virginia Valian has coined the term "gender schema" to describe and explain gender bias in order to make it visible (8) . She has used her analysis to advance criteria for a fair and accurate evaluation of talent in science. Let’s see if there are "science schema" as well as "gender schema" embedded in how we size up science and scientists.
SCIENCE SCHEMA
What differing views of science are held by scientists? Do they affect the evaluation of female talent? At a memorable 1978 conference, 15 natural and social scientists could not find agreement on the power and limits of scientific inquiry (9) . Some argued that scientific knowledge represents humanity’s highest achievement, so there should be no attempts to limit it. Others evoked higher values (e.g., social stability) and therefore science should join with other modes of inquiry to support such values. Each scientist who spoke reflected a particular, personal, presumption about the nature of science. Half a century earlier, Karl Popper addressed such presumptions, suggesting three different "doctrines" that could cover the practice of science:
1) The scientist aims at finding a true theory or description of the world which shall also be an explanation of the observable facts. 2) The scientist can succeed in finally establishing the truth of such theories beyond all reasonable doubt. 3) The best, the truly scientific theories, describe the "essences" or the "essential natures" of things—the realities which lie behind experiences" (10) .
Each of Popper’s "doctrines" not only suggests a different view of what constitutes good science, but also its relation to other sorts of human inquiry. Those who limit science’s power to explaining natural phenomena likely support equal opportunity for all modes of human inquiry, and do not seek domination for science. Those who believe science can answer questions, not just about phenomena but about the "essence" of things, will likely value science’s mode of inquiry above all others and tolerate no limits to its power. They are also more likely to believe that the power and practice of science should be open only to those who belong to an intellectual "elite."
The impact of personal and cultural values on a scientist’s work is reflected in the kind of problems he/she chooses to address. From extensive historical studies of scientific investigations, Harvard’s Gerald Holton has identified several categories (unpublished data). Some lines of investigation seek to challenge the prevailing scientific model or exemplar, or to reach principle-oriented findings. Others look for areas of basic scientific ignorance in an area of social or national interest, emphasizing the application of previously known science and engineering to technical and social problems; we now call this "translational research." Still others lines of investigation serve to synthesize previously unconnected theories and findings. Some, indeed, may entirely reject "androcentric" or "Western" science and technology and work out novel alternatives, As a result of any or all of these efforts, some scientists may seek wide dissemination of their work, peer recognition and personal reward after they have published–and some may not (11) .
Why do scientists choose to do what they do? The National Science Foundation reports that the public believes scientists are motivated by a "Search for Truth and Beauty" (12) . Other motivations show up when scientists write their autobiographies and in less subjective writing: they may say to that their aim is to help people and society; to solve challenging problems; to satisfy curiosity; to seek societal and economic recognition and rewards; to assist human development; to follow in the steps of a mentor; to leave something lasting to society and humanity; to concentrate upon a particular problem. Since a similar spectrum of motivations can be found among those choosing other professions, the motivation shared by all scientists must be to do science—to solve their problem of choice using scientific inquiry. On this all scientists agree!
HOW DOES ONE DO SCIENCE?
Choices of where to work, and what methodologies and technologies to employ, are severely constrained by the resources and the mentors available. Whatever the work, personal tastes and styles set the mold. In a remarkable review of scientific styles in German biochemistry laboratories from 1870 to 1930, Joseph Fruton identified laboratory styles that range from a "quasi-military director to a senior counselor in the independent efforts of junior associates." He came to an incisive conclusion about relations of scientific style to scientific productivity, "the scientific productivity of the laboratories led by scientists with broad views of their field, and great interest in encouraging their junior associates, was significantly greater than the output of laboratories with autocratic, dictatorial leaders who treated students as disciples rather than as independent scientists." (13) Personal style and taste matters.
Other studies of scientists’ tastes and styles categorize them as "collectors, classifiers and those that compulsively tidy," and as "poet-scientists, philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics." Some are detectives and some are explorers, some artists, and some artisans. Some seek synthesis while others seek analysis; some are "classicists" and some "romanticists." They can be compared as "rational" vs. "empirical", or, "theoretical" vs. experimental. Scientists enjoying field work, whether in the Antarctic or the Amazon, space shuttles or deep ocean submarines, tell of their particular taste for nature and its emotional and physical, as well as intellectual, challenges (14) . Reflecting on all this diversity, Peter Medawar wrote, "What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead." (15) One size does not fit all scientists.
"FEMALE" SCIENCE SCHEMA
How does discrimination against groups relate to all this individual diversity? In a research study of successful young female and male scientists, Gerald Holton reported that more men than women thought being a "good scientist" included being aggressive, combative, and self-promoting (16) . "Women were more likely to see that science is gorgeous, leaving to a lesser place the hope to make a grand career, no matter what." Their "good" was less related to influence and power. The Harvard physicist, Howard Georgi relates this phenomenon to "unconscious discrimination." When "our selection procedures tend to select not only for talents that are directly relevant to success in science, but also for assertiveness and single-mindedness. This causes problems for women (and others as well)" (17) . When evaluators’ schema for what makes science "good" filters out those not holding the same view, are they not biased against the tastes and styles, needs and interests of those filtered out? When women evaluate men’s talent in science, would their evaluation be biased against aggressive, combative styles?
Other "group" differences between female and male scientists are recognizable. In a study of female and male scientists in "elite" and lower status universities, the authors made this observation:
"The women we studied were interested and successful in places where curricular or occupational activities and the meaning of the term "science" that they inspired encouraged broader and more flexible commitments of time, space, and professional identity than the "greedy" activities and meanings of elite science. In sites of elite science, regardless of content, achieving high status required more of one’s time, tighter constraints on appropriate workplaces, and narrower identities and networks of power than in lower-status sites. We suspect that many young women (and many men) find the greedy demands of elite science simply too costly" (18) .
The workplace climates the women in this study preferred are exactly those that Fruton described above as most productive for men. For the good of science, and its practitioners, should these not be welcomed? Other differences between male and female attitudes stem from women’s cultural responsibility for children, family, and/or community. Reasons women give for choosing to leave the study and practice of science most frequently cite lack of humanistic approaches and attitudes (19) .
DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ADD VALUE
Studies of scientific practices note how senior scientists often select students and faculty congruent with their own personal and scientific perspectives. The wish to "clone" oneself is understandable, and has some merit, but may not work well for the long-term good of science. Diverse perspectives can and do add value to science. To cite one example, "it would be hard to even imagine a collection of people more different from each other in origin, education, manner, manners, appearance, style, and worldly purposes than James Watson, Francis Crick, Lawrence Bragg, Rosalind Franklin and Linus Pauling." (20) Nicholas Negroponte, founder and leader of MIT’s Media Laboratory, highlights relationships among creativity, innovation, and diversity: "The ability to make leaps of thought is a common denominator among operators of breakthrough ideas. Usual this ability resides in people with very wide backgrounds, multidisciplinary minds, and a broad spectrum of experiences." (21) As usual, Karl Popper summarizes these arguments succinctly: "Diversity makes critical arguments fruitful." (22)
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL "SCHEMA"
An open, democratic society responsive to the needs, interests, and values of its citizens needs to have these represented in its scientific enterprise. To this end, evaluation of talent for science should provide equal opportunity for a broad diversity in personal, cultural, and scientific perspective. The selection and advancement of students and scientists ought to be open to those who exhibit the wide variety of tastes and styles, needs and interests that characterize today’s productive community of science. Since one size does not fit all successful scientists, selection should not be limited to those who fit any pigeonhole, be it gender, class, or mental "schema." And if we want to bring groups currently underrepresented to the table of science, let us teach them that different tastes and styles, needs and interests, and, yes, gender are good at the banquet of science.
The author wishes to thank Professor Gerald Holton for permission to use his unpublished data.
http://www.mblwhoilibrary.org/exhibits/early_years/early_years15.html.)
REFERENCES
MIT Report of the Committee of Women Faculty, MIT Faculty News Letter 2000
Selby, C.C. (2006) What Makes It Science/ A Modern Look at Scientific Inquiry. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching (In press)
Einstein, A. (1934) The World as I See It ,290 Covici Friede, New York.
Hubbard, R. (1976) Introductory Essay. Rose, H. Rose, S. P. R. eds. The Ideology Of/In the Natural Sciences ,363 G. K. Hall Boston.
Keller, E. F. (1975) Feminism and Science. Harding, S. O’Barr, J. F. eds. Sex and Scientific Inquiry ,233-246 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Schiebinger, L. (1999) Has Feminism Changed Science? Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Selby, C.C. (2006) The Missing Person in Science: Inquiry Begins with I ,10-13 New York Academy of Sciences UpdateMay 2006
Valian, V. (1998) Why So Slow?. The Advancement of Women MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978) The Limits of Scientific Inquiry. Daedalus 103
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London.
Holton, G., Sonnert, G. (2001) Proposal: Developing and Testing a Quantitative Instrument on Normative Styles in Science and Engineering ,14 Cambridge, Massachusetts. (unpublished).
. National Science Board (2004, 2006) Science and Engineering Indicators National Science Foundation Washington, D. C..
Fruton, J. F. (1990) Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. Stewert, J. eds. Memoirs series 191,473 American Philosophical Library Philadelphia.
Gladfelter, E. (2002) Agassiz’s Legacy: Scientists’ Reflections on the Value of Field Experience ,437 Oxford University Press New York.
Medawar, P. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist Harper and Rowe New York.
Holton, G. (1999) Different Perceptions of ’Good Science’ and Their Effects on Careers. Annals, NY Acad. Sci. 869,78-86[Free Full Text]
Georgi, H. (1999) A tentative theory of discrimination against women in science. National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science National Academy Press Washington, D. C..
Eisenhart, M.A., Finkel, E. (1998) Women’s Science: Learning and Succeeding From the Margins ,281 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. M. (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave Sciecne Westview Press Boulder, Colorado.
Medawar, P. (1974) The Hope of Progress Wildwood House London.
Negroponte, N. (2003) Creating a Culture of Ideas. Technol. Rev. 106,34-35
Popper, K. (1983) Realism and the Aim of Science: Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery Rowman and Littlefield Totowa, New Jersey.
Book recommended: Out of the Shadows: Contribuions of XX century women to Phisycs
Nature 444, 548 - 548 (30 Nov 2006) www.nature.com
Women or just good scientists? by Patricia Fara, a review of:
Out of the Shadows: Contributions of Twentieth-Century Women to Physics
edited by Nina Byers & Gary Williams
Cambridge University Press: 2006. 498 pp. £30 $35
I do not agree with sex being brought into science at all. The idea of 'woman and science' is completely irrelevant. Either a woman is a good scientist, or she is not." Not the provocative statement of a modern feminist, but a plea for equality voiced a century ago by Hertha Ayrton, the electrical experimenter who, in 1904, became the first woman allowed to present her own paper at the Royal Society in London. Ayrton would presumably be furious to find herself the opening entry in Out of the Shadows, a chronologically arranged set of essays on female physicists.
Like Ayrton, most eminent women prefer to be remembered for their achievements, rather than their X chromosomes, but US physicists Nina Byers and Gary Williams have made womanhood an essential criterion for inclusion in this edited collection. Perhaps to fend off accusations of transgressing political correctness, they whittled down their long list of potential entries by choosing the 40 candidates who had made the most notable contributions to scientific progress. As a result, several over-familiar icons, such as Marie Curie, Emmy Noether and Dorothy Hodgkin (hardly a physicist), make yet another appearance, even though the sole factor that unites them the gender that made it so hard for them to succeed is deliberately scarcely mentioned.
The contributors were asked to submit short accounts divided into two sections: 'important contributions' and 'biography'. Many of the brisk summaries of scientific discoveries seem oddly redundant anyone who can follow the boxed discussions of Ricci tensors, 4S or string theory does not need to read them. The editors' prescriptive format has resulted in a book packed with facts, occasionally relieved by a brief anecdote ideal for diligent students preparing accurate but unreflective assignments.
Nevertheless, the index provides clues to more interesting stories about this book's subjects. The long list of 'firsts' reveals that it was not until 1962 that the French Academy of Science admitted a woman, Marguerite Perey, and that the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate from Princeton University was the physicist Chien-Shiung Wu in 1958. The entries under 'Nobel prize' are dominated by women said to have been unjustly passed over, including astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell, nuclear physicist Lise Meitner and chemist Agnes Pockels (strangely, Rosalind Franklin is absent, despite the presence of another X-ray crystallographer, Kathleen Lonsdale, one of the first two women elected to the Royal Society in 1945). The heading 'Nazis' referring to the plight of Myriam Sarachik, Marietta Blau, Hertha Sponer and others demonstrates that, contradicting the editors' desires, biographical accounts often demand discussions of discrimination.
As Byers' introduction points out, most of the contributors are practising scientists who are unused to writing history. Although they each provide a short bibliography, they have mostly omitted the many excellent books and articles written by professional historians of science. This collection would have been of more value for aspiring young women if it had provided a more nuanced appreciation of how individual scientists have been converted into exaggerated stereotypes. Curie, for instance, is often depicted as the laboratory equivalent of a domestic drudge, a selfless heroine who neglected her health and her appearance while she systematically processed tonnes of dirty pitchblende to isolate radium. Such presentations reinforce the view that female scientists are a substandard breed, neither normal women nor stellar intellects. In his foreword, Freeman Dyson perceptively criticizes the editors for not including younger physicists, who would have provided more relevant role models. He also pinpoints what remains, unfortunately, excellent advice for any ambitious woman: marry the right man.
Women or just good scientists? by Patricia Fara, a review of:
Out of the Shadows: Contributions of Twentieth-Century Women to Physics
edited by Nina Byers & Gary Williams
Cambridge University Press: 2006. 498 pp. £30 $35
I do not agree with sex being brought into science at all. The idea of 'woman and science' is completely irrelevant. Either a woman is a good scientist, or she is not." Not the provocative statement of a modern feminist, but a plea for equality voiced a century ago by Hertha Ayrton, the electrical experimenter who, in 1904, became the first woman allowed to present her own paper at the Royal Society in London. Ayrton would presumably be furious to find herself the opening entry in Out of the Shadows, a chronologically arranged set of essays on female physicists.
Like Ayrton, most eminent women prefer to be remembered for their achievements, rather than their X chromosomes, but US physicists Nina Byers and Gary Williams have made womanhood an essential criterion for inclusion in this edited collection. Perhaps to fend off accusations of transgressing political correctness, they whittled down their long list of potential entries by choosing the 40 candidates who had made the most notable contributions to scientific progress. As a result, several over-familiar icons, such as Marie Curie, Emmy Noether and Dorothy Hodgkin (hardly a physicist), make yet another appearance, even though the sole factor that unites them the gender that made it so hard for them to succeed is deliberately scarcely mentioned.
The contributors were asked to submit short accounts divided into two sections: 'important contributions' and 'biography'. Many of the brisk summaries of scientific discoveries seem oddly redundant anyone who can follow the boxed discussions of Ricci tensors, 4S or string theory does not need to read them. The editors' prescriptive format has resulted in a book packed with facts, occasionally relieved by a brief anecdote ideal for diligent students preparing accurate but unreflective assignments.
Nevertheless, the index provides clues to more interesting stories about this book's subjects. The long list of 'firsts' reveals that it was not until 1962 that the French Academy of Science admitted a woman, Marguerite Perey, and that the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate from Princeton University was the physicist Chien-Shiung Wu in 1958. The entries under 'Nobel prize' are dominated by women said to have been unjustly passed over, including astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell, nuclear physicist Lise Meitner and chemist Agnes Pockels (strangely, Rosalind Franklin is absent, despite the presence of another X-ray crystallographer, Kathleen Lonsdale, one of the first two women elected to the Royal Society in 1945). The heading 'Nazis' referring to the plight of Myriam Sarachik, Marietta Blau, Hertha Sponer and others demonstrates that, contradicting the editors' desires, biographical accounts often demand discussions of discrimination.
As Byers' introduction points out, most of the contributors are practising scientists who are unused to writing history. Although they each provide a short bibliography, they have mostly omitted the many excellent books and articles written by professional historians of science. This collection would have been of more value for aspiring young women if it had provided a more nuanced appreciation of how individual scientists have been converted into exaggerated stereotypes. Curie, for instance, is often depicted as the laboratory equivalent of a domestic drudge, a selfless heroine who neglected her health and her appearance while she systematically processed tonnes of dirty pitchblende to isolate radium. Such presentations reinforce the view that female scientists are a substandard breed, neither normal women nor stellar intellects. In his foreword, Freeman Dyson perceptively criticizes the editors for not including younger physicists, who would have provided more relevant role models. He also pinpoints what remains, unfortunately, excellent advice for any ambitious woman: marry the right man.
Gender in Science, Science 2006
Science vol. 314 (5799) 27 Oc t. 2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol314/issue5799/index.dtl?etoc
On the Lack of Women in Academic Science by Mielczarek et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5799/592c?etoc
Gender Similarities in Mathematics and Science by Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5799/599?etoc
Boys and girls have similar psychological traits and cognitive abilities; thus, a focus on factors other than gender is needed to help girls persist in mathematical and scientific career tracks.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol314/issue5799/index.dtl?etoc
On the Lack of Women in Academic Science by Mielczarek et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5799/592c?etoc
Gender Similarities in Mathematics and Science by Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5799/599?etoc
Boys and girls have similar psychological traits and cognitive abilities; thus, a focus on factors other than gender is needed to help girls persist in mathematical and scientific career tracks.
Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women's Math Performance
Science magazine, 2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5798/435?etoc
Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women's Math Performance
Ilan Dar-Nimrod and Steven J. Heine
Abstract
Stereotype threat occurs when stereotyped groups perform worse as their group membership is highlighted. We investigated whether stereotype threat is affected by accounts for the origins of stereotypes. In two studies, women who read of genetic causes of sex differences performed worse on math tests than those who read of experiential causes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5798/435?etoc
Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women's Math Performance
Ilan Dar-Nimrod and Steven J. Heine
Abstract
Stereotype threat occurs when stereotyped groups perform worse as their group membership is highlighted. We investigated whether stereotype threat is affected by accounts for the origins of stereotypes. In two studies, women who read of genetic causes of sex differences performed worse on math tests than those who read of experiential causes.
Blog recommended: Does Gender Matter? in nature.com
Nature.com recommended Blog: Does Gender Matter?
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/does_gender_matter.html
The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/does_gender_matter.html
The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis.
Gender: missing the prizes that can inspire a career
Nature 442, 868(24 August 2006)Published online 23 August 2006
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7105/full/442868a.html
Gender: missing the prizes that can inspire a career
Annette C. Dolphin1
Sir:
I congratulate Ben A. Barres on his excellent Commentary "Does gender matter?" (Nature 442, 133–136; 2006). I was struck by the paucity of female plenary lecturers at the Bioscience 2006 meeting of the UK Biochemical Society. Spurred on by Barres's comment that too few women academics speak out against prejudice, I decided to do a little research on the matter.
There have been three meetings of the Biochemical Society in the new annual meeting format (Biosciences 2004, 2005 and 2006) and at these 1 of 10, 0 of 10 and 0 of 7, respectively, of the plenary lectures were given by a woman. Some of these plenary lecturers were recipients of prizes and medals, and I was so shocked by these statistics that I made a rough count of the proportion of women who have received these prizes over the years, as published on the society's website at http://www.biochemsoc.org.uk. Recipients' initials, rather than first names, are given, so I may conceivably have misattributed the male gender to some of the earlier names.
The prizes include the annual Colworth medal, given to a promising scientist under 35: only one has been awarded to a woman, out of 44 recipients, between 1963 and 2007. The statistics for the other prizes, up to 2007, are the Novartis medal, 2 of 39; Jubilee lecture, 1 of 23; Wellcome Trust award for research in biochemistry related to medicine, 1 of 11; AstraZeneca prize, 1 of 5; Frederick Gowland Hopkins memorial lecture, 0 of 24; Keilin memorial lecture, 0 of 21; Morton lecture, 0 of 14; Biochemical Society medal, 0 of 3; and GlaxoSmithKline medal, 0 of 2. This translates into 3.2% of the prizes being given to women, a truly lamentable record.
Furthermore, the statistics have not improved. In the past ten years, none of the Colworth medals has been awarded to women — and it is prizes such as these, given to scientists early in their career, that influence their future success. The results speak for themselves: that people will always give prizes to others in their own image, unless forced to take sexual and racial bias into account. I wonder if the record of other scientific societies is much better in this regard.
I should also point out that UK Biochemical Society meetings are supported by funds from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and by the European Molecular Biology Organization. Why do research funding bodies not assert leverage on this matter, by insisting that sexual and racial bias in speaker selection must be addressed at any meeting for which their financial support is given?
See Nature 442, 510 (2006) for other letters on this topic. Readers are encouraged to add their comments on the Nature News Blog at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/
does_gender_matter.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7105/full/442868a.html
Gender: missing the prizes that can inspire a career
Annette C. Dolphin1
Sir:
I congratulate Ben A. Barres on his excellent Commentary "Does gender matter?" (Nature 442, 133–136; 2006). I was struck by the paucity of female plenary lecturers at the Bioscience 2006 meeting of the UK Biochemical Society. Spurred on by Barres's comment that too few women academics speak out against prejudice, I decided to do a little research on the matter.
There have been three meetings of the Biochemical Society in the new annual meeting format (Biosciences 2004, 2005 and 2006) and at these 1 of 10, 0 of 10 and 0 of 7, respectively, of the plenary lectures were given by a woman. Some of these plenary lecturers were recipients of prizes and medals, and I was so shocked by these statistics that I made a rough count of the proportion of women who have received these prizes over the years, as published on the society's website at http://www.biochemsoc.org.uk. Recipients' initials, rather than first names, are given, so I may conceivably have misattributed the male gender to some of the earlier names.
The prizes include the annual Colworth medal, given to a promising scientist under 35: only one has been awarded to a woman, out of 44 recipients, between 1963 and 2007. The statistics for the other prizes, up to 2007, are the Novartis medal, 2 of 39; Jubilee lecture, 1 of 23; Wellcome Trust award for research in biochemistry related to medicine, 1 of 11; AstraZeneca prize, 1 of 5; Frederick Gowland Hopkins memorial lecture, 0 of 24; Keilin memorial lecture, 0 of 21; Morton lecture, 0 of 14; Biochemical Society medal, 0 of 3; and GlaxoSmithKline medal, 0 of 2. This translates into 3.2% of the prizes being given to women, a truly lamentable record.
Furthermore, the statistics have not improved. In the past ten years, none of the Colworth medals has been awarded to women — and it is prizes such as these, given to scientists early in their career, that influence their future success. The results speak for themselves: that people will always give prizes to others in their own image, unless forced to take sexual and racial bias into account. I wonder if the record of other scientific societies is much better in this regard.
I should also point out that UK Biochemical Society meetings are supported by funds from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and by the European Molecular Biology Organization. Why do research funding bodies not assert leverage on this matter, by insisting that sexual and racial bias in speaker selection must be addressed at any meeting for which their financial support is given?
See Nature 442, 510 (2006) for other letters on this topic. Readers are encouraged to add their comments on the Nature News Blog at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/
does_gender_matter.html
Benefits of Women in Science. Science, 2005
Science magazine, Vol. 308 (5722) 29 April 2005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601
Editorial
Benefits of Women in Science by Julia King
Recent comments from Harvard President Lawrence Summers have sparked heated discussion in the United States and abroad about possible inherent (that is, genetic) differences between women and men. The debate concerns whether these differences might explain the paucity of women in elite science, engineering, and technology (SET) careers. The issue really amounts to possible differences at the high extremes of ability distributions, but the available evidence is that any inherent differences are swamped by social and cultural factors. It is the failure to encourage more women to pursue SET careers, and to maintain their presence in these positions, that requires serious attention. As John Brock, the chief operating officer of Cadbury Schweppes, points out "A diverse workforce . . . is the best way to expand into new markets and stimulate new business ideas . . . that's a significant competitive advantage."
In the United Kingdom, we have a pressing need to encourage more women to enter SET careers. The UK government's agenda for economic growth includes a commitment to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent by both government and industry on R&D. Yet the Institute of Employment Studies predicts that by 2011, only 20% of the workforce will be white, male, able-bodied, and under 45. Eighty percent of future employment growth will be attributable to women.
Industry has recognized the value of an experienced female staff. In 2002, Lord Browne, chief executive of British Petroleum (BP), remarked that "because the management of the industry has been predominantly white and male and Anglo-Saxon, those people have recruited and promoted in their own image." Among other initiatives, BP has appointed a Vice President for Diversity, and Shell Oil holds recruiting events for female engineers at UK universities. Support for female employees during career breaks is becoming more common in UK-based companies, as industry recognizes that diversity is a strategic business issue. Industry has also responded to research showing that diverse teams are harder to manage than homogeneous groups: Absenteeism and staff turnover are higher; communication and social integration take more effort; common values and rules must be established; and the different needs, behaviors, and characteristics of team members must be supported. Team leaders must learn to manage differences of opinion--the very source of the diversity advantage. But the results are worth having: Diverse teams outperform on innovation, problem-solving, flexibility, and decision-making.
The UK's Athena program was established in 1999 to address the shortage of women in SET academic careers and to deliver a significant increase in the number of women recruited to top academic jobs. The Athena Survey of SET (ASSET) report (just released) compares career pathways of more than 6500 men and women in academia and research institutes in the United Kingdom.* The survey reveals that differences between women's and men's experiences are more marked in academia than in other kinds of research organizations. Men in academic positions are more likely to report that they were encouraged to apply for promotion, as compared with their female colleagues. In academia, women rank annual performance reviews and personal development more highly than men in supporting career progression; in research institutes, the ranking by both sexes is almost identical. Nearly 50% of women in universities feel disadvantaged in terms of salary and promotion, whereas only 15% of male staff recognize this as a problem for their female colleagues.
This is not to say that things haven't improved. When I went up to Cambridge University in the 1970s as an undergraduate, only 16% of all undergraduates were female, with a mere 2% studying physical sciences, and there were no female academic staff in the departments of physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, or mathematics. Now, Cambridge University has about 49% women undergraduates, of which 10 to 25% study the physical sciences, and 24% of the academic staff in the materials science department are women. At Imperial College (London), our fastest growing engineering course is bioengineering, with an undergraduate intake of 50% women.
Academic research and initiatives such as Athena have been effective in highlighting the benefits of diversity and the management challenges of maintaining a diverse workforce. Industry sees the competitive and financial advantages and has responded. Despite showing the way, academia is being left behind. We must embed in our universities the best practices that we preach.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601
Editorial
Benefits of Women in Science by Julia King
Recent comments from Harvard President Lawrence Summers have sparked heated discussion in the United States and abroad about possible inherent (that is, genetic) differences between women and men. The debate concerns whether these differences might explain the paucity of women in elite science, engineering, and technology (SET) careers. The issue really amounts to possible differences at the high extremes of ability distributions, but the available evidence is that any inherent differences are swamped by social and cultural factors. It is the failure to encourage more women to pursue SET careers, and to maintain their presence in these positions, that requires serious attention. As John Brock, the chief operating officer of Cadbury Schweppes, points out "A diverse workforce . . . is the best way to expand into new markets and stimulate new business ideas . . . that's a significant competitive advantage."
In the United Kingdom, we have a pressing need to encourage more women to enter SET careers. The UK government's agenda for economic growth includes a commitment to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent by both government and industry on R&D. Yet the Institute of Employment Studies predicts that by 2011, only 20% of the workforce will be white, male, able-bodied, and under 45. Eighty percent of future employment growth will be attributable to women.
Industry has recognized the value of an experienced female staff. In 2002, Lord Browne, chief executive of British Petroleum (BP), remarked that "because the management of the industry has been predominantly white and male and Anglo-Saxon, those people have recruited and promoted in their own image." Among other initiatives, BP has appointed a Vice President for Diversity, and Shell Oil holds recruiting events for female engineers at UK universities. Support for female employees during career breaks is becoming more common in UK-based companies, as industry recognizes that diversity is a strategic business issue. Industry has also responded to research showing that diverse teams are harder to manage than homogeneous groups: Absenteeism and staff turnover are higher; communication and social integration take more effort; common values and rules must be established; and the different needs, behaviors, and characteristics of team members must be supported. Team leaders must learn to manage differences of opinion--the very source of the diversity advantage. But the results are worth having: Diverse teams outperform on innovation, problem-solving, flexibility, and decision-making.
The UK's Athena program was established in 1999 to address the shortage of women in SET academic careers and to deliver a significant increase in the number of women recruited to top academic jobs. The Athena Survey of SET (ASSET) report (just released) compares career pathways of more than 6500 men and women in academia and research institutes in the United Kingdom.* The survey reveals that differences between women's and men's experiences are more marked in academia than in other kinds of research organizations. Men in academic positions are more likely to report that they were encouraged to apply for promotion, as compared with their female colleagues. In academia, women rank annual performance reviews and personal development more highly than men in supporting career progression; in research institutes, the ranking by both sexes is almost identical. Nearly 50% of women in universities feel disadvantaged in terms of salary and promotion, whereas only 15% of male staff recognize this as a problem for their female colleagues.
This is not to say that things haven't improved. When I went up to Cambridge University in the 1970s as an undergraduate, only 16% of all undergraduates were female, with a mere 2% studying physical sciences, and there were no female academic staff in the departments of physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, or mathematics. Now, Cambridge University has about 49% women undergraduates, of which 10 to 25% study the physical sciences, and 24% of the academic staff in the materials science department are women. At Imperial College (London), our fastest growing engineering course is bioengineering, with an undergraduate intake of 50% women.
Academic research and initiatives such as Athena have been effective in highlighting the benefits of diversity and the management challenges of maintaining a diverse workforce. Industry sees the competitive and financial advantages and has responded. Despite showing the way, academia is being left behind. We must embed in our universities the best practices that we preach.
Book recommended: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004
Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016
This statistical report assembles a series of indicators that examine the extent to which males and females have access to the same educational opportunities, avail themselves equally of these opportunities, perform at similar levels throughout schooling, succeed at similar rates, and reap the same benefits from their educational experiences. This report serves as an update of an earlier publication, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women (NCES 2000-030), which was prepared for Congress in 2000.
PDF open access on-line
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016
This statistical report assembles a series of indicators that examine the extent to which males and females have access to the same educational opportunities, avail themselves equally of these opportunities, perform at similar levels throughout schooling, succeed at similar rates, and reap the same benefits from their educational experiences. This report serves as an update of an earlier publication, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women (NCES 2000-030), which was prepared for Congress in 2000.
PDF open access on-line
Gender Differences and Performance in Science by C. Muller et al., Science 2005
Gender Differences and Performance in Science by Carol B. Muller et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?fulltext=gender+differences&issue=5712
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5712, 1043 , 18 February 2005
On 14 Jan., Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, speaking at a meeting of the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggested that since fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in high school, genetic, rather than social, differences may explain why so few women are successful in these fields ("Summers's comments draw attention to gender, racial gaps," News of the Week, A. Lawler, 28 Jan., p. 492).
Well-accepted, pathbreaking research on learning [for example, (1, 2)] shows that expectations heavily influence performance, particularly on tests. If society, institutions, teachers, and leaders like President Summers expect (overtly or subconsciously) that girls and women will not perform as well as boys and men, there is a good chance many will indeed not perform as well. At the same time, there is little evidence that those scoring at the very top of the range in standardized tests are likely to have more successful careers in the sciences. Too many other factors are involved. Finally, well-documented evidence demonstrates that women's efforts and achievements are not valued, recognized, and rewarded to the same extent as those of their male counterparts (3).As leaders in science, engineering, and education, we are concerned by the suggestion that the status quo for women in science and engineering may be natural, inevitable, and unrelated to social factors. Counterexamples to this suggestion are drawn from the fields of law and medicine. In 1970, women represented just 5% of law school students and 8% of medical school students (4). These low percentages have increased substantially in response to social changes and concerted institutional and individual effort and are now about 50% in each case. Obviously, the low rates of participation in 1970 were indicative of social, and not genetic, barriers to success.We must continue to address the multitude of small and subtle ways in which people of all kinds are discouraged from pursuing interest in scientific and technical fields. Society benefits most when we take full advantage of the scientific and technical talent among us. It is time to create a broader awareness of those proven and effective means, including institutional policies and practices, that enable women and other underrepresented groups to step beyond the historical barriers in science and engineering.
References
J. Bransford et al., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, ed. 1, 2000). C. M. Steele, Atlantic Monthly 284 (no. 2), 44 (Aug. 1999).
V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004 (National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 2004) (available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016 ).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?fulltext=gender+differences&issue=5712
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5712, 1043 , 18 February 2005
On 14 Jan., Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, speaking at a meeting of the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggested that since fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in high school, genetic, rather than social, differences may explain why so few women are successful in these fields ("Summers's comments draw attention to gender, racial gaps," News of the Week, A. Lawler, 28 Jan., p. 492).
Well-accepted, pathbreaking research on learning [for example, (1, 2)] shows that expectations heavily influence performance, particularly on tests. If society, institutions, teachers, and leaders like President Summers expect (overtly or subconsciously) that girls and women will not perform as well as boys and men, there is a good chance many will indeed not perform as well. At the same time, there is little evidence that those scoring at the very top of the range in standardized tests are likely to have more successful careers in the sciences. Too many other factors are involved. Finally, well-documented evidence demonstrates that women's efforts and achievements are not valued, recognized, and rewarded to the same extent as those of their male counterparts (3).As leaders in science, engineering, and education, we are concerned by the suggestion that the status quo for women in science and engineering may be natural, inevitable, and unrelated to social factors. Counterexamples to this suggestion are drawn from the fields of law and medicine. In 1970, women represented just 5% of law school students and 8% of medical school students (4). These low percentages have increased substantially in response to social changes and concerted institutional and individual effort and are now about 50% in each case. Obviously, the low rates of participation in 1970 were indicative of social, and not genetic, barriers to success.We must continue to address the multitude of small and subtle ways in which people of all kinds are discouraged from pursuing interest in scientific and technical fields. Society benefits most when we take full advantage of the scientific and technical talent among us. It is time to create a broader awareness of those proven and effective means, including institutional policies and practices, that enable women and other underrepresented groups to step beyond the historical barriers in science and engineering.
References
J. Bransford et al., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, ed. 1, 2000). C. M. Steele, Atlantic Monthly 284 (no. 2), 44 (Aug. 1999).
V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004 (National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 2004) (available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016 ).
Book recommended: Pandora's Breeches Women, Science and Power in teh Enlightenment
Pandora's Breeches Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment
Author: Patricia Fara Pimlico
(Random House), London, 2004. 288 pp. £12.50, C$34.95. ISBN 1-8441-3082-7.
A review by Judith Hawley Saturday April 3, 2004 The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1184639,00.html
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science: they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the 18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
In iconography and metaphor, women figured as symbols of knowledge, or as the object of knowledge, but in practical terms, they were not supposed to conduct scientific investigation themselves. Francis Bacon, the great 17th-century promoter of empirical natural philosophy, conceived of science as the masculine penetration and conquest of feminine Nature. However, reality did not reproduce the propaganda. Fara details a range of ways women were involved in science - or natural philosophy, as it was called. In most cases, the way to science was through a man. In aristocratic households, women often had access to their brothers' tutors and their fathers' libraries. Some, like intellectually ambitious gentlemen, amassed natural-history collections. Others corresponded with philosophers and even influenced their thinking.
Women might also participate in conversations with scientific guests and, in exceptional cases, preside over a learned salon. Thus they could not only engage in conversations about the latest scientific theories and discoveries, but act as patrons and further the career of male scientists. In England, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, and in France, Marie Paul Lavoisier presided over such salons and made a name for themselves as scientific adepts. In the case of the Duchess of Newcastle, the name that stuck was "Mad Madge". Fara also introduces us to women who kept the detailed records of experiments or observations that enabled their husbands or brothers to pursue further research, or who supervised and fed the numerous assistants and artisans who supported experimentation. They might assist in experiments or, like the women associated with the French astronomer Joseph Lalande, undertake tedious mathematical calculations to demonstrate the findings of others. Sally Wedgwood was one of many involved in the development of techniques and materials that would have commercial applications. Several women translated key scientific texts or adapted them for younger audiences and thus facilitated the spread of science. Jane Marcet's educational dialogue, Conversations on Chemistry (1806), so captured the imagination of the young Michael Faraday that she inspired him to undertake his pioneering career.
What facilitated the involvement of women was the fact that, in this pre-professional age, science was not carried out in industrial and university laboratories but in the home. Most of the scientific work they did was supportive and secondary rather than pioneering; it was in some respects an extension of their existing domestic roles. Caroline Herschel, the first woman to publish papers in the Philosophical Transactions and the first woman to receive a salary for her scientific work, voluntarily acted as a drudge for her brother William and, when he died, her nephew John. The 17th-century campaigner for women's education, Bathsua Makin, argued that domestic science involved natural philosophy. If chemistry is cooking for boys, cooking is chemistry for girls. However, by suggesting they were capable of rational activity, women also transgressed the bounds of feminine decorum.
The woman of science is a hybrid, an unnatural figure, divided from her sex by her intellect and unable to join male institutions because of her gender. The title of the book alludes to the fear that when women wear the trousers, a host of evils will be unleashed on the world. Kant spluttered that "a woman who... conducts learned controversies on mechanics like the Marquise de Chatelier might as well have a beard". Emilie du Chtelet, whose translation of Newton made a big impact on French thought and whose Foundations of Physics was an ambitious synthesis of the theories of Newton, Descartes and Leibniz, certainly could conduct learned controversies on mechanics - and other subjects. But she did not conform to the stereotype of the de-feminised learned woman. Her fondness for dress and decoration did not meet with people's expectations. Her lover Voltaire acknowledged the impossibility of her position: she was, he declared, "a great man whose only fault was being a woman".
Finding out that, contrary to received wisdom, women actually did play a part in the scientific Enlightenment gives rise to the problem of how to write them back into history. How do we make sense of this knowledge? The aim of this book is not just to present information that will be new to most general readers, but also to reflect on how past histories of science have been written and how they might be written in future. It's all a question of framing. Fara complains that, while traditional histories of science have written women out because they have largely been histories of great men or big ideas, feminist histories are at fault for abstracting scientific women from their cultural contexts. She points out that national differences presented women with various opportunities: in France, women were seen as complementary to men and accorded more respect as rational beings; in Germany, the guild tradition enabled women to work in family trades; in England, well, women had to struggle.
Feminist historians, by treating women in science as pioneers, have created anachronistic collections of heroines, like cabinets of curiosities. Fara's aim is to change the history of science at a more fundamental level: "Rather than creating new female heroines, [ Pandora's Breeches ] has undermined conventional views of the past by attacking the very concept of heroism in science. This book has presented new interpretations of scientific men as well as of scientific women... Science is a collaborative project whose successes - and failures - can only be appreciated by understanding how scientific technology has permeated the whole of society."
This has the air of a publisher's blurb, but Fara does make good her rhetorical claims. Her contention about the collaborative nature of science is enshrined in the structure of her book, a structure that is at once intricate and solid. In thematic sections, she tackles the ideology of science; the "great men" view of history; science as part of everyday life; and the relation between science and the imagination. To explore each of these themes, she looks at exemplary pairs slashed together, such as Elisabeth of Bohemia/ René Descartes; Caroline Herschel/William Hershel; and Priscilla Wakfield/Carl Linnaeus. (What does the slash do? Make them equivalent, link them or divide them?) Each chapter opens with a summary of "traditional" accounts of male scientists and reframes our view by detailed examination of emblematic images such as portraits, frontispieces and scientific illustrations.
Fara's history foregrounds and makes a virtue of its construction: this is one way of telling the story, it declares, but there are others. This method might sometimes be heavy-handed but it is an excellent way of including women without doing men down. Fascinating in its details, Pandora's Breeches is also ground-breaking in the way it reframes the history of science.
Judith Hawley is the general editor of Literature and Science, 1660-1834, published by Pickering & Chatto.
See also:
Science magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5709/522?etoc
HISTORY OF SCIENCE: Spotlight on Invisible Women A review by Asha Gopinathan
Writing for a general audience, the author explores how women contributed to the development of science in 17th- and 18th-century Europe.
Author: Patricia Fara Pimlico
(Random House), London, 2004. 288 pp. £12.50, C$34.95. ISBN 1-8441-3082-7.
A review by Judith Hawley Saturday April 3, 2004 The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1184639,00.html
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science: they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the 18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.
In iconography and metaphor, women figured as symbols of knowledge, or as the object of knowledge, but in practical terms, they were not supposed to conduct scientific investigation themselves. Francis Bacon, the great 17th-century promoter of empirical natural philosophy, conceived of science as the masculine penetration and conquest of feminine Nature. However, reality did not reproduce the propaganda. Fara details a range of ways women were involved in science - or natural philosophy, as it was called. In most cases, the way to science was through a man. In aristocratic households, women often had access to their brothers' tutors and their fathers' libraries. Some, like intellectually ambitious gentlemen, amassed natural-history collections. Others corresponded with philosophers and even influenced their thinking.
Women might also participate in conversations with scientific guests and, in exceptional cases, preside over a learned salon. Thus they could not only engage in conversations about the latest scientific theories and discoveries, but act as patrons and further the career of male scientists. In England, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, and in France, Marie Paul Lavoisier presided over such salons and made a name for themselves as scientific adepts. In the case of the Duchess of Newcastle, the name that stuck was "Mad Madge". Fara also introduces us to women who kept the detailed records of experiments or observations that enabled their husbands or brothers to pursue further research, or who supervised and fed the numerous assistants and artisans who supported experimentation. They might assist in experiments or, like the women associated with the French astronomer Joseph Lalande, undertake tedious mathematical calculations to demonstrate the findings of others. Sally Wedgwood was one of many involved in the development of techniques and materials that would have commercial applications. Several women translated key scientific texts or adapted them for younger audiences and thus facilitated the spread of science. Jane Marcet's educational dialogue, Conversations on Chemistry (1806), so captured the imagination of the young Michael Faraday that she inspired him to undertake his pioneering career.
What facilitated the involvement of women was the fact that, in this pre-professional age, science was not carried out in industrial and university laboratories but in the home. Most of the scientific work they did was supportive and secondary rather than pioneering; it was in some respects an extension of their existing domestic roles. Caroline Herschel, the first woman to publish papers in the Philosophical Transactions and the first woman to receive a salary for her scientific work, voluntarily acted as a drudge for her brother William and, when he died, her nephew John. The 17th-century campaigner for women's education, Bathsua Makin, argued that domestic science involved natural philosophy. If chemistry is cooking for boys, cooking is chemistry for girls. However, by suggesting they were capable of rational activity, women also transgressed the bounds of feminine decorum.
The woman of science is a hybrid, an unnatural figure, divided from her sex by her intellect and unable to join male institutions because of her gender. The title of the book alludes to the fear that when women wear the trousers, a host of evils will be unleashed on the world. Kant spluttered that "a woman who... conducts learned controversies on mechanics like the Marquise de Chatelier might as well have a beard". Emilie du Chtelet, whose translation of Newton made a big impact on French thought and whose Foundations of Physics was an ambitious synthesis of the theories of Newton, Descartes and Leibniz, certainly could conduct learned controversies on mechanics - and other subjects. But she did not conform to the stereotype of the de-feminised learned woman. Her fondness for dress and decoration did not meet with people's expectations. Her lover Voltaire acknowledged the impossibility of her position: she was, he declared, "a great man whose only fault was being a woman".
Finding out that, contrary to received wisdom, women actually did play a part in the scientific Enlightenment gives rise to the problem of how to write them back into history. How do we make sense of this knowledge? The aim of this book is not just to present information that will be new to most general readers, but also to reflect on how past histories of science have been written and how they might be written in future. It's all a question of framing. Fara complains that, while traditional histories of science have written women out because they have largely been histories of great men or big ideas, feminist histories are at fault for abstracting scientific women from their cultural contexts. She points out that national differences presented women with various opportunities: in France, women were seen as complementary to men and accorded more respect as rational beings; in Germany, the guild tradition enabled women to work in family trades; in England, well, women had to struggle.
Feminist historians, by treating women in science as pioneers, have created anachronistic collections of heroines, like cabinets of curiosities. Fara's aim is to change the history of science at a more fundamental level: "Rather than creating new female heroines, [ Pandora's Breeches ] has undermined conventional views of the past by attacking the very concept of heroism in science. This book has presented new interpretations of scientific men as well as of scientific women... Science is a collaborative project whose successes - and failures - can only be appreciated by understanding how scientific technology has permeated the whole of society."
This has the air of a publisher's blurb, but Fara does make good her rhetorical claims. Her contention about the collaborative nature of science is enshrined in the structure of her book, a structure that is at once intricate and solid. In thematic sections, she tackles the ideology of science; the "great men" view of history; science as part of everyday life; and the relation between science and the imagination. To explore each of these themes, she looks at exemplary pairs slashed together, such as Elisabeth of Bohemia/ René Descartes; Caroline Herschel/William Hershel; and Priscilla Wakfield/Carl Linnaeus. (What does the slash do? Make them equivalent, link them or divide them?) Each chapter opens with a summary of "traditional" accounts of male scientists and reframes our view by detailed examination of emblematic images such as portraits, frontispieces and scientific illustrations.
Fara's history foregrounds and makes a virtue of its construction: this is one way of telling the story, it declares, but there are others. This method might sometimes be heavy-handed but it is an excellent way of including women without doing men down. Fascinating in its details, Pandora's Breeches is also ground-breaking in the way it reframes the history of science.
Judith Hawley is the general editor of Literature and Science, 1660-1834, published by Pickering & Chatto.
See also:
Science magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5709/522?etoc
HISTORY OF SCIENCE: Spotlight on Invisible Women A review by Asha Gopinathan
Writing for a general audience, the author explores how women contributed to the development of science in 17th- and 18th-century Europe.
Book recommended: Beyond Bias and Barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11741
Sept. 18, 2006
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations OfficerMichelle Strikowsky, Media Relations AssistantOffice of News and Public Information202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Broad National Effort Urgently Needed To Maximize Potential of Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia
WASHINGTON -- Women face barriers to hiring and promotion in research universities in many fields of science and engineering -- a situation that deprives the United States of an important source of talent as the country faces increasingly stiff global competition in higher education, science and technology, and the marketplace, says a new report from the National Academies. Eliminating gender bias in universities requires immediate, overarching reform and decisive action by university administrators, professional societies, government agencies, and Congress.
"Women are capable of contributing more to the nation's science and engineering research enterprise, but bias and outmoded practices governing academic success impede their progress almost every step of the way," said Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Fundamental changes in the culture and opportunities at America's research universities are urgently needed. The United States should enhance its talent pool by making the most of its entire population."
The report offers a broad range of recommendations, including the following important steps. Trustees, university presidents, and provosts should provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of their institutions to recruit, retain, and promote more women -- including minority women -- into faculty and leadership positions. Specifically, university executives should require academic departments to show evidence of having conducted fair, broad, and aggressive talent searches before officials approve appointments. And departments should be held accountable for the equity of their search processes and outcomes, even if that means canceling a search or withholding a faculty position. The report also urges higher education organizations to consider forming a collaborative, self-monitoring body that would recommend standards for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion; collect data; and track compliance across institutions.
University leaders, the report adds, should develop and implement hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that take into account the flexibility that faculty members may need as they pass through various life stages -- and that do not sacrifice quality to meet rigid timelines. Administrators, for example, should visibly and vigorously support campus programs that help faculty members who have children or other caregiving duties to maintain productive careers. At a minimum, the programs should include provisions for paid parental leave, facilities and subsidies for on-site and community-based child care, and more time to work on dissertations and obtain tenure.
Forty years ago, women made up only 3 percent of America's scientific and technical workers, but by 2003 they accounted for nearly one-fifth. In addition, women have earned more than half of the bachelor's degrees awarded in science and engineering since 2000. However, their representation on university and college faculties fails to reflect these gains. Among science and engineering Ph.D.s, four times more men than women hold full-time faculty positions. And minority women with doctorates are less likely than white women or men of any racial or ethnic group to be in tenure positions. Previous studies of female faculty have shed light on common characteristics of their workplace environments. In one survey of 1,000 university faculty members, for example, women were more likely than men to feel that colleagues devalued their research, that they had fewer opportunities to participate in collaborative projects, and that they were constantly under a microscope. In another study, exit interviews of female faculty who "voluntarily" left a large university indicated that one of their main reasons for leaving was colleagues' lack of respect for them.
If academic institutions are not transformed to tackle such barriers, the future vitality of the U.S. research base and economy is in jeopardy, the report says. The following are some of the committee's key findings that underscore its call to action:
> Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in S&T fields.
> Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions. These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures, the report says.
> Measures of success underlying performance-evaluation systems are often arbitrary and frequently applied in ways that place women at a disadvantage. "Assertiveness," for example, may be viewed as a socially unacceptable trait for women but suitable for men. Also, structural constraints and expectations built into academic institutions assume that faculty members have substantial support from their spouses. Anyone lacking the career and family support traditionally provided by a "wife" is at a serious disadvantage in academe, evidence shows. Today about 90 percent of the spouses of women science and engineering faculty are employed full time. For the spouses of male faculty, it is nearly half.
If implemented and coordinated across public and private sectors as well as various institutions, the committee's nearly two dozen recommendations would improve workplace environments for all employees while strengthening the foundations of America's competitiveness. A brief overview of several recommendations follows.
Universities University leaders should incorporate the goal of counteracting bias against women in hiring, promotion, and treatment into campus strategic plans, the report says. And leaders, working with the monitoring body proposed by the report, should review the composition of their student enrollments and faculty ranks each year -- and publicize progress toward goals.
Universities also should examine evaluation practices, with the goal of focusing on the quality and impact of faculty contributions, the report says.
In the past decade, several universities and agencies have taken steps to increase the participation of women on faculties and their numbers in leadership positions. But such efforts have not transformed the fields, the report says. Now is the time for widespread reform, the committee emphasized.
Professional societies and higher education organizations
The American Council on Education should bring together other relevant groups -- such as the Association of American Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges -- to discuss the formation of the proposed monitoring body, the report says.
In addition, honorary societies should review their nomination and election procedures to address the underrepresentation of women in their memberships. The report also recommends that scholarly journals examine their processes for reviewing papers submitted for publication. To minimize any bias, they should consider keeping authors' identities hidden until reviews have been completed. Government agencies and Congress
Federal funding agencies and foundations, in collaboration with professional and scientific societies, should hold mandatory national meetings to educate university department chairs, agency program officers, and members of review panels on ways to minimize the effects of gender bias in performance evaluations, the report says. Furthermore, these agencies should come up with more ways to pay for interim technical or administrative support for researchers who are on leave because of caregiving responsibilities.
Federal enforcement agencies -- including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); U.S. departments of Education, Justice, and Labor; and various federal civil rights offices -- should provide technical assistance to help universities achieve diversity in their programs and employment, and encourage them to meet such goals. These agencies also should regularly conduct compliance reviews at higher education institutions to make sure that federal antidiscrimination laws are being upheld, the committee said. Discrimination complaints should be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Likewise, Congress should make sure that these laws are enforced, and routinely hold oversight hearings to investigate how well relevant laws are being upheld by the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, and Labor; EEOC; and science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and NASA.
The study was sponsored by the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health; Eli Lilly and Co.; National Science Foundation; Ford Foundation; and the National Academies. The Academies comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.Pre-publication copies of Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/. The cost of the report is $57.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org/ ]
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERINGandINSTITUTE OF MEDICINECommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
Sept. 18, 2006
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations OfficerMichelle Strikowsky, Media Relations AssistantOffice of News and Public Information202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Broad National Effort Urgently Needed To Maximize Potential of Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia
WASHINGTON -- Women face barriers to hiring and promotion in research universities in many fields of science and engineering -- a situation that deprives the United States of an important source of talent as the country faces increasingly stiff global competition in higher education, science and technology, and the marketplace, says a new report from the National Academies. Eliminating gender bias in universities requires immediate, overarching reform and decisive action by university administrators, professional societies, government agencies, and Congress.
"Women are capable of contributing more to the nation's science and engineering research enterprise, but bias and outmoded practices governing academic success impede their progress almost every step of the way," said Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Fundamental changes in the culture and opportunities at America's research universities are urgently needed. The United States should enhance its talent pool by making the most of its entire population."
The report offers a broad range of recommendations, including the following important steps. Trustees, university presidents, and provosts should provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of their institutions to recruit, retain, and promote more women -- including minority women -- into faculty and leadership positions. Specifically, university executives should require academic departments to show evidence of having conducted fair, broad, and aggressive talent searches before officials approve appointments. And departments should be held accountable for the equity of their search processes and outcomes, even if that means canceling a search or withholding a faculty position. The report also urges higher education organizations to consider forming a collaborative, self-monitoring body that would recommend standards for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion; collect data; and track compliance across institutions.
University leaders, the report adds, should develop and implement hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that take into account the flexibility that faculty members may need as they pass through various life stages -- and that do not sacrifice quality to meet rigid timelines. Administrators, for example, should visibly and vigorously support campus programs that help faculty members who have children or other caregiving duties to maintain productive careers. At a minimum, the programs should include provisions for paid parental leave, facilities and subsidies for on-site and community-based child care, and more time to work on dissertations and obtain tenure.
Forty years ago, women made up only 3 percent of America's scientific and technical workers, but by 2003 they accounted for nearly one-fifth. In addition, women have earned more than half of the bachelor's degrees awarded in science and engineering since 2000. However, their representation on university and college faculties fails to reflect these gains. Among science and engineering Ph.D.s, four times more men than women hold full-time faculty positions. And minority women with doctorates are less likely than white women or men of any racial or ethnic group to be in tenure positions. Previous studies of female faculty have shed light on common characteristics of their workplace environments. In one survey of 1,000 university faculty members, for example, women were more likely than men to feel that colleagues devalued their research, that they had fewer opportunities to participate in collaborative projects, and that they were constantly under a microscope. In another study, exit interviews of female faculty who "voluntarily" left a large university indicated that one of their main reasons for leaving was colleagues' lack of respect for them.
If academic institutions are not transformed to tackle such barriers, the future vitality of the U.S. research base and economy is in jeopardy, the report says. The following are some of the committee's key findings that underscore its call to action:
> Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in S&T fields.
> Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions. These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures, the report says.
> Measures of success underlying performance-evaluation systems are often arbitrary and frequently applied in ways that place women at a disadvantage. "Assertiveness," for example, may be viewed as a socially unacceptable trait for women but suitable for men. Also, structural constraints and expectations built into academic institutions assume that faculty members have substantial support from their spouses. Anyone lacking the career and family support traditionally provided by a "wife" is at a serious disadvantage in academe, evidence shows. Today about 90 percent of the spouses of women science and engineering faculty are employed full time. For the spouses of male faculty, it is nearly half.
If implemented and coordinated across public and private sectors as well as various institutions, the committee's nearly two dozen recommendations would improve workplace environments for all employees while strengthening the foundations of America's competitiveness. A brief overview of several recommendations follows.
Universities University leaders should incorporate the goal of counteracting bias against women in hiring, promotion, and treatment into campus strategic plans, the report says. And leaders, working with the monitoring body proposed by the report, should review the composition of their student enrollments and faculty ranks each year -- and publicize progress toward goals.
Universities also should examine evaluation practices, with the goal of focusing on the quality and impact of faculty contributions, the report says.
In the past decade, several universities and agencies have taken steps to increase the participation of women on faculties and their numbers in leadership positions. But such efforts have not transformed the fields, the report says. Now is the time for widespread reform, the committee emphasized.
Professional societies and higher education organizations
The American Council on Education should bring together other relevant groups -- such as the Association of American Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges -- to discuss the formation of the proposed monitoring body, the report says.
In addition, honorary societies should review their nomination and election procedures to address the underrepresentation of women in their memberships. The report also recommends that scholarly journals examine their processes for reviewing papers submitted for publication. To minimize any bias, they should consider keeping authors' identities hidden until reviews have been completed. Government agencies and Congress
Federal funding agencies and foundations, in collaboration with professional and scientific societies, should hold mandatory national meetings to educate university department chairs, agency program officers, and members of review panels on ways to minimize the effects of gender bias in performance evaluations, the report says. Furthermore, these agencies should come up with more ways to pay for interim technical or administrative support for researchers who are on leave because of caregiving responsibilities.
Federal enforcement agencies -- including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); U.S. departments of Education, Justice, and Labor; and various federal civil rights offices -- should provide technical assistance to help universities achieve diversity in their programs and employment, and encourage them to meet such goals. These agencies also should regularly conduct compliance reviews at higher education institutions to make sure that federal antidiscrimination laws are being upheld, the committee said. Discrimination complaints should be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Likewise, Congress should make sure that these laws are enforced, and routinely hold oversight hearings to investigate how well relevant laws are being upheld by the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, and Labor; EEOC; and science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and NASA.
The study was sponsored by the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health; Eli Lilly and Co.; National Science Foundation; Ford Foundation; and the National Academies. The Academies comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.Pre-publication copies of Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/. The cost of the report is $57.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org/ ]
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERINGandINSTITUTE OF MEDICINECommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches, 2006
Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches
THE NEW YORK TIMES December 19, 2006
by CORNELIA DEAN
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/cornelia_dean/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
The article discusses, among other topics, what is called "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Some of the more hard hitting excerpts:
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said....
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/science/19women.html?em&ex=1166677200&en=042466bb6e9f2f55&ei=5087%0A
Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches
by Cornelia Dean, NYT, December 19, 2006.
HOUSTON - Since the 1970s, women have surged into science and engineering classes in larger and larger numbers, even at top-tier institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/massachusetts_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, where half the undergraduate science majors and more than a third of the engineering students are women. Half of the nation's medical students are women, and for decades the numbers have been rising similarly in disciplines like biology and mathematics.
Michael Stravato for the New York Times
Rebecca Richards-Kortum, chairwoman of bio-engineering at Rice University, juggles motherhood and career.
Yet studies show that women in science still routinely receive less research support than their male colleagues, and they have not reached the top academic ranks in numbers anything like their growing presence would suggest.
For example, at top-tier institutions only about 15 percent of full professors in social, behavioral or life sciences are women, "and these are the only fields in science and engineering where the proportion of women reaches into the double digits," an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_academy_of_sciences/index.html?inline=nyt-org> reported in September. And at each step on the academic ladder, more women than men leave science and engineering.
So in government agencies, at scientific organizations and on university campuses, female scientists are asking why, and wondering what they can do about it. The Association for Women in Science, the National Science Foundation <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_science_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the National Research Council <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_research_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org> are among the groups tackling these issues. In just the past two months, conferences have been held at Columbia University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the City University of New York <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/city_university_of_new_york/index.html?inline=nyt-org> graduate center. Harvard <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> has a yearlong lecture series on "Women, Science and Society."
This fall, female scientists at Rice University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rice_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> here gathered promising women who are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to help them learn skills that they will need to deal with the perils of job hunting, promotion and tenure in high-stakes academic science.
"The reality is there are barriers that women face," said Kathleen S. Matthews, the dean of natural sciences at Rice, who spoke at the meeting's opening dinner. "There are circles and communities of engagement where women are by and large not included."
Organizers of these events dismiss the idea voiced in 2005 by Lawrence H. Summers <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/lawrence_h_summers/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, then president of Harvard, that women over all are handicapped as scientists because as a group they are somehow innately deficient in mathematics. The organizers point to ample evidence that any performance gap between men and women is changeable and is shrinking to the vanishing point.
Instead, they talk about what they have to know and do to get ahead. They talk about unspoken, even unconscious sexism that means they must be better than men to be thought as good - that they must, as one Rice participant put it, literally and figuratively wear a suit and heels, while men can relax in jeans.
They muse on the importance of mentoring and other professional support and talk about ways women can provide it for each other if they do not receive it from their professors or advisers.
And they obsess about what they call "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Just having a chance to talk about these issues with others who face them lifts some of the burden, said Marla Geha, a postdoctoral fellow in astronomy at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., who attended the Rice meeting. "It's even just knowing there's someone else out there going through the same things."
For Princess Imoukhouede, who is working for her doctorate in bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/california_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, the Rice conference was helpful because "this is a difficult issue to talk about."
"There is a perception in science that all things are equal," Ms. Imoukhouede said. "But gender actually does matter, and by the same token, race, too."
One issue is negotiating skills, said Daniel R. Ames, a psychologist who teaches at Columbia University's business school and who spoke last month at a university-sponsored symposium, "The Science of Diversity." Dr. Ames said that when he asks people what worries them about navigating the workplace, men and women give the same answer: How hard should I push? How aggressive should I be? Too little seems ineffective, but too much comes across as brash or unpleasant.
Answering the aggressiveness question correctly can be a key to obtaining the financial resources (like laboratory space or stipends for graduate students) and the social capital (like collaboration and sharing) that are essential for success in science, he said. But, he told his mostly female audience, "the band of acceptable behavior for women is narrower than it is for men."
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said.
Another speaker at the Columbia conference, Madeline Heilman, a psychologist at New York University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, said clear and explicit evaluation criteria are essential.
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."
The importance of mentors is another theme that runs through these sessions. In her keynote speech at the Rice conference, Deb Niemeier, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org> at Davis, mentioned several occasions when timely intervention from a thesis adviser, department chairman or other mentor turned things around for her.
Joan Steitz, a professor of molecular biophysics at Yale <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/y/yale_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and a member of the academy's expert panel, said the same thing in one of the Harvard lectures this month. It is crucial to have "someone up your sleeve who will save you," Dr. Steitz said.
But there is evidence that women do not receive this support to the degree men do.
Dr. Steitz cited a study of letters of recommendation written for men and women seeking academic appointments. Though all the applicants were successful, she said, and though the letters were written by men and women, the study found that the applicant's personal life was mentioned six times more often if the letter was about a woman.
Also, Dr. Steitz said, "For women, the things that were talked about more frequently were how well they were trained, what good teachers they were and how well their applications were put together." When the subject of the letter was male, she said, the big topics were research skills and success in the lab.
"Ever since I read this paper and I sit down to write a letter of recommendation," Dr. Steitz said, "I think, 'Oh, have I fallen into this trap?' "
If mentors don't present themselves, women may have to create them, Dr. Steitz said.
She cited "Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists" (Yale University Press, 2006), a book by Ellen Daniell, a former assistant professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In the book Dr. Daniell describes a group of female scientists who have been meeting regularly for more than 20 years to talk about their professional triumphs and travails, turning themselves into mentors and role models for one other.
As Dr. Niemeier told the women at Rice, "If your adviser is not going to help you with a strong network, form a network of your own. Pick out some women you would like to get to know, who have scholarly reputations, and get to know them."
Even if their work is brilliant, aspiring scientists must still get through the interview process when applying for a university job. The interview normally lasts a full day and may consist of multiple conversations with faculty members and administrators, a lunch, a dinner and a seminar or colloquium in which the applicant presents her work to an audience that is eager to pick it apart.
At the Rice conference, there was plenty of advice about handling the interview. Some would apply to anyone: shake hands firmly, look people in the eye, have a just-in-case copy of your presentation, and know how to describe your work quickly and clearly to a nonexpert.
But when it came time for questions, a female graduate student in the audience zeroed in on an issue that rarely arises with men: "What should I wear?"
At her university, she said, "The men always come in jeans and the women come in a suit." But she said she worried that dressing so formally might suggest that she was trying too hard.
Not so, said Rebecca Richards-Kortum, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice who was an organizer of the conference. She was wearing slacks, a sweater set and pearls -O.K. for traveling, she said, but "a little underdressed" for a presentation.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
Remember, Sherry E. Woods told the group, "there is still that thing about even male and female faculty. They are going to judge you by different standards."
Dr. Woods, an administrator in the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, reminded the young women of research in which academics were asked to judge the otherwise identical résumés of people who were identified as Ken, Karen or K.
In these studies, she said, Ken consistently comes out on top.
"You are in a male-dominated field," Dr. Woods said. "You have to present yourself in a way that assures them you know your technical stuff."
Another young woman raised another question that rarely troubles men. "When I talk about the work in my lab," she asked, "should I say I or we?"
Dr. Richards-Kortum suggested this formula: "We've talked about it in our lab and I think..." She added, "if you say 'we' too much it can be misinterpreted." And then there was the two-body problem.
In physics, the two-body problem is a matter of calculating the paths of objects in orbit around each other. For women in science, it is a matter of landing a job not just for yourself but for your partner, and then balancing the demands of children and the laboratory.
Here the advice is less clear-cut.
For example, when women at the Rice meeting asked about the best time to tell a prospective boss that a trailing spouse will also need an academic job, they heard answers ranging from "as soon as possible" to "only after you have a firm job offer."
Children add even more complexities.
"I am pregnant and during my interview process I will be visibly pregnant," said Caroline Nam-Laufer, a postdoctoral chemical engineer at the University of Delaware <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_delaware/index.html?inline=nyt-org>. "I want to put myself forth so that my qualifications come through and not my belly."
Dr. Niemeier, who acquired her own two-body problem recently when she began a relationship with a woman who has two children, suggested responding to questions about children with, "Could you tell me how that factors into your evaluation?" or, "Right now, I am looking for the best job I can get."
"Go into it thinking you are the cream of the crop," she reminded them.
But the speakers had little advice they could offer with confidence that it would fit every woman.
Dr. Richards-Kortum won admiring gasps when she disclosed she is a mother of four who successfully interviewed for a tenured position while visibly pregnant. She faced the process with less trepidation, she said, once she realized "it was O.K. with me if I had kids and didn't get tenure, but it would not be O.K. with me if I got tenure and didn't have kids."
Dr. Niemeier also advised the group to watch for signs that a university might not be ready to embrace successful female scientists. When she was job-hunting, she said, she was advised, "if you are the first woman in the department, walk away. You can have other jobs."
"I don't necessarily agree with that advice," she said. But she didn't necessarily disagree with it either.
Still, many of the women involved in these efforts say things have improved a lot, and continue to get better.
Evelynn Hammonds, a historian of science who heads a Harvard diversity effort started after Dr. Summers's remarks, recalled when, as an aspiring engineer, she was advised that her neat handwriting might mean she would be a good secretary. Instead, she earned a degree in electrical engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/georgia_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, a master's in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate at Harvard.
Among other things, she said, universities should be asking whether a career in science demands 70-hour work weeks "at every point in time," or whether people should be able to step in and out of academia, as family demands change.
But family issues and other problems affect women beyond academia, she said, and they are more than academic institutions can solve on their own.
At the end of her talk, Dr. Steitz displayed a chart showing rises in the proportion of women in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. There were few until the passage of civil rights legislation 40 years ago, when the numbers jumped a bit and then leveled off, she said. The numbers jumped again in the late 1990s after a report criticized the institute's hiring and promotion practices as they related to women.
"We now have another plateau," Dr. Steitz said, "and it's my fervent hope that Larry Summers, God bless him, and the report that's just come out will have this kind of impact."
Ms. Imoukhouede hopes so, too. She said she was encouraged by the National Academy study - "that it could be done, and that it was taken seriously, that people would be willing to listen to women bringing up these issues."
Meanwhile, though, she added, "I try to spend less time thinking about these perceptions and more time on my research."
THE NEW YORK TIMES December 19, 2006
by CORNELIA DEAN
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/cornelia_dean/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
The article discusses, among other topics, what is called "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Some of the more hard hitting excerpts:
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said....
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/science/19women.html?em&ex=1166677200&en=042466bb6e9f2f55&ei=5087%0A
Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches
by Cornelia Dean, NYT, December 19, 2006.
HOUSTON - Since the 1970s, women have surged into science and engineering classes in larger and larger numbers, even at top-tier institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/massachusetts_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, where half the undergraduate science majors and more than a third of the engineering students are women. Half of the nation's medical students are women, and for decades the numbers have been rising similarly in disciplines like biology and mathematics.
Michael Stravato for the New York Times
Rebecca Richards-Kortum, chairwoman of bio-engineering at Rice University, juggles motherhood and career.
Yet studies show that women in science still routinely receive less research support than their male colleagues, and they have not reached the top academic ranks in numbers anything like their growing presence would suggest.
For example, at top-tier institutions only about 15 percent of full professors in social, behavioral or life sciences are women, "and these are the only fields in science and engineering where the proportion of women reaches into the double digits," an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_academy_of_sciences/index.html?inline=nyt-org> reported in September. And at each step on the academic ladder, more women than men leave science and engineering.
So in government agencies, at scientific organizations and on university campuses, female scientists are asking why, and wondering what they can do about it. The Association for Women in Science, the National Science Foundation <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_science_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the National Research Council <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_research_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org> are among the groups tackling these issues. In just the past two months, conferences have been held at Columbia University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the City University of New York <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/city_university_of_new_york/index.html?inline=nyt-org> graduate center. Harvard <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> has a yearlong lecture series on "Women, Science and Society."
This fall, female scientists at Rice University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rice_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> here gathered promising women who are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to help them learn skills that they will need to deal with the perils of job hunting, promotion and tenure in high-stakes academic science.
"The reality is there are barriers that women face," said Kathleen S. Matthews, the dean of natural sciences at Rice, who spoke at the meeting's opening dinner. "There are circles and communities of engagement where women are by and large not included."
Organizers of these events dismiss the idea voiced in 2005 by Lawrence H. Summers <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/lawrence_h_summers/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, then president of Harvard, that women over all are handicapped as scientists because as a group they are somehow innately deficient in mathematics. The organizers point to ample evidence that any performance gap between men and women is changeable and is shrinking to the vanishing point.
Instead, they talk about what they have to know and do to get ahead. They talk about unspoken, even unconscious sexism that means they must be better than men to be thought as good - that they must, as one Rice participant put it, literally and figuratively wear a suit and heels, while men can relax in jeans.
They muse on the importance of mentoring and other professional support and talk about ways women can provide it for each other if they do not receive it from their professors or advisers.
And they obsess about what they call "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Just having a chance to talk about these issues with others who face them lifts some of the burden, said Marla Geha, a postdoctoral fellow in astronomy at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., who attended the Rice meeting. "It's even just knowing there's someone else out there going through the same things."
For Princess Imoukhouede, who is working for her doctorate in bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/california_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, the Rice conference was helpful because "this is a difficult issue to talk about."
"There is a perception in science that all things are equal," Ms. Imoukhouede said. "But gender actually does matter, and by the same token, race, too."
One issue is negotiating skills, said Daniel R. Ames, a psychologist who teaches at Columbia University's business school and who spoke last month at a university-sponsored symposium, "The Science of Diversity." Dr. Ames said that when he asks people what worries them about navigating the workplace, men and women give the same answer: How hard should I push? How aggressive should I be? Too little seems ineffective, but too much comes across as brash or unpleasant.
Answering the aggressiveness question correctly can be a key to obtaining the financial resources (like laboratory space or stipends for graduate students) and the social capital (like collaboration and sharing) that are essential for success in science, he said. But, he told his mostly female audience, "the band of acceptable behavior for women is narrower than it is for men."
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said.
Another speaker at the Columbia conference, Madeline Heilman, a psychologist at New York University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, said clear and explicit evaluation criteria are essential.
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."
The importance of mentors is another theme that runs through these sessions. In her keynote speech at the Rice conference, Deb Niemeier, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org> at Davis, mentioned several occasions when timely intervention from a thesis adviser, department chairman or other mentor turned things around for her.
Joan Steitz, a professor of molecular biophysics at Yale <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/y/yale_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and a member of the academy's expert panel, said the same thing in one of the Harvard lectures this month. It is crucial to have "someone up your sleeve who will save you," Dr. Steitz said.
But there is evidence that women do not receive this support to the degree men do.
Dr. Steitz cited a study of letters of recommendation written for men and women seeking academic appointments. Though all the applicants were successful, she said, and though the letters were written by men and women, the study found that the applicant's personal life was mentioned six times more often if the letter was about a woman.
Also, Dr. Steitz said, "For women, the things that were talked about more frequently were how well they were trained, what good teachers they were and how well their applications were put together." When the subject of the letter was male, she said, the big topics were research skills and success in the lab.
"Ever since I read this paper and I sit down to write a letter of recommendation," Dr. Steitz said, "I think, 'Oh, have I fallen into this trap?' "
If mentors don't present themselves, women may have to create them, Dr. Steitz said.
She cited "Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists" (Yale University Press, 2006), a book by Ellen Daniell, a former assistant professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In the book Dr. Daniell describes a group of female scientists who have been meeting regularly for more than 20 years to talk about their professional triumphs and travails, turning themselves into mentors and role models for one other.
As Dr. Niemeier told the women at Rice, "If your adviser is not going to help you with a strong network, form a network of your own. Pick out some women you would like to get to know, who have scholarly reputations, and get to know them."
Even if their work is brilliant, aspiring scientists must still get through the interview process when applying for a university job. The interview normally lasts a full day and may consist of multiple conversations with faculty members and administrators, a lunch, a dinner and a seminar or colloquium in which the applicant presents her work to an audience that is eager to pick it apart.
At the Rice conference, there was plenty of advice about handling the interview. Some would apply to anyone: shake hands firmly, look people in the eye, have a just-in-case copy of your presentation, and know how to describe your work quickly and clearly to a nonexpert.
But when it came time for questions, a female graduate student in the audience zeroed in on an issue that rarely arises with men: "What should I wear?"
At her university, she said, "The men always come in jeans and the women come in a suit." But she said she worried that dressing so formally might suggest that she was trying too hard.
Not so, said Rebecca Richards-Kortum, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice who was an organizer of the conference. She was wearing slacks, a sweater set and pearls -O.K. for traveling, she said, but "a little underdressed" for a presentation.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
Remember, Sherry E. Woods told the group, "there is still that thing about even male and female faculty. They are going to judge you by different standards."
Dr. Woods, an administrator in the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, reminded the young women of research in which academics were asked to judge the otherwise identical résumés of people who were identified as Ken, Karen or K.
In these studies, she said, Ken consistently comes out on top.
"You are in a male-dominated field," Dr. Woods said. "You have to present yourself in a way that assures them you know your technical stuff."
Another young woman raised another question that rarely troubles men. "When I talk about the work in my lab," she asked, "should I say I or we?"
Dr. Richards-Kortum suggested this formula: "We've talked about it in our lab and I think..." She added, "if you say 'we' too much it can be misinterpreted." And then there was the two-body problem.
In physics, the two-body problem is a matter of calculating the paths of objects in orbit around each other. For women in science, it is a matter of landing a job not just for yourself but for your partner, and then balancing the demands of children and the laboratory.
Here the advice is less clear-cut.
For example, when women at the Rice meeting asked about the best time to tell a prospective boss that a trailing spouse will also need an academic job, they heard answers ranging from "as soon as possible" to "only after you have a firm job offer."
Children add even more complexities.
"I am pregnant and during my interview process I will be visibly pregnant," said Caroline Nam-Laufer, a postdoctoral chemical engineer at the University of Delaware <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_delaware/index.html?inline=nyt-org>. "I want to put myself forth so that my qualifications come through and not my belly."
Dr. Niemeier, who acquired her own two-body problem recently when she began a relationship with a woman who has two children, suggested responding to questions about children with, "Could you tell me how that factors into your evaluation?" or, "Right now, I am looking for the best job I can get."
"Go into it thinking you are the cream of the crop," she reminded them.
But the speakers had little advice they could offer with confidence that it would fit every woman.
Dr. Richards-Kortum won admiring gasps when she disclosed she is a mother of four who successfully interviewed for a tenured position while visibly pregnant. She faced the process with less trepidation, she said, once she realized "it was O.K. with me if I had kids and didn't get tenure, but it would not be O.K. with me if I got tenure and didn't have kids."
Dr. Niemeier also advised the group to watch for signs that a university might not be ready to embrace successful female scientists. When she was job-hunting, she said, she was advised, "if you are the first woman in the department, walk away. You can have other jobs."
"I don't necessarily agree with that advice," she said. But she didn't necessarily disagree with it either.
Still, many of the women involved in these efforts say things have improved a lot, and continue to get better.
Evelynn Hammonds, a historian of science who heads a Harvard diversity effort started after Dr. Summers's remarks, recalled when, as an aspiring engineer, she was advised that her neat handwriting might mean she would be a good secretary. Instead, she earned a degree in electrical engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/georgia_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, a master's in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate at Harvard.
Among other things, she said, universities should be asking whether a career in science demands 70-hour work weeks "at every point in time," or whether people should be able to step in and out of academia, as family demands change.
But family issues and other problems affect women beyond academia, she said, and they are more than academic institutions can solve on their own.
At the end of her talk, Dr. Steitz displayed a chart showing rises in the proportion of women in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. There were few until the passage of civil rights legislation 40 years ago, when the numbers jumped a bit and then leveled off, she said. The numbers jumped again in the late 1990s after a report criticized the institute's hiring and promotion practices as they related to women.
"We now have another plateau," Dr. Steitz said, "and it's my fervent hope that Larry Summers, God bless him, and the report that's just come out will have this kind of impact."
Ms. Imoukhouede hopes so, too. She said she was encouraged by the National Academy study - "that it could be done, and that it was taken seriously, that people would be willing to listen to women bringing up these issues."
Meanwhile, though, she added, "I try to spend less time thinking about these perceptions and more time on my research."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)