Nature 18 February 2010
A step towards transparency
The lot of women scientists would improve with more openness in policy and practice, argues Jan Bogg.
Jan Bogg
http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=142&m=34637012&r=MjA1NzU2OTkyMgS2&b=2&j=Njc1MzkzOTES1&mt=1&rt=0
Policy-makers and university administrators have long wrangled over the barriers that hinder women's advancement in science. But there is one clear and obvious step many at universities and in industry could take in short order: improve transparency so that both the statistics of those who advance, and the process itself, are readily apparent.
My recent work, part of a project called Breaking Barriers, found that women, especially those at junior and mid-level grades, believe they do not experience sufficient transparency of information, policy and practice. The project included quantitative and qualitative interviews with more than 5,000 UK women working in various science posts, including research scientists, academics and health professionals.
Women in academia wanted transparency in terms of teaching load and its impact on research time. They also wanted consistent career-progress information from senior staff that reflected university policy — for example, if a human-resources document states that “an international reputation” is required to reach senior levels in academia, what does this really mean? Is it referring only to high-impact journal publications? Or are there more wide-ranging criteria?
Take one example in which providing statistics could help inform current and prospective female employees. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council has recognized that academic medicine is failing to attract and retain women, and that very few women reach the sector's highest levels.
Currently, almost 60% of UK medical students are female. But the higher the level, the rarer women become. Around 40% of lecturers are women, 28% of senior lecturers and 13% of professors. The number of women in professorial posts has increased by only 2% since 2004.
Reporting on the number of women in senior positions may seem a crude practice, but it does provide transparency and a basis for identifying blockages in the system. If the proportion of women in senior positions in an organization does not reflect the proportion in the grade below, then there is a need to investigate why this might be the case.
Change is happening, yet figures from many UK professional bodies demonstrate just how slow the progress is — with the number of senior women rising at a snail's pace. For example, the Sex and Power report, produced by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, examines women in the top positions of power and influence across the public and private sectors. It estimates that at the current rate it will be 73 years until there are equal numbers of men and women among the directors of the 100 leading companies on the stock exchange.
More needs to be done. Institutions should offer training in an attempt to alter attitudes, and should consider sanctions for managers who provide inadequate performance reviews or poor mentoring. Only by addressing such issues now will the next decade focus on real progress for women in science careers.
Jan Bogg is director of Breaking Barriers, a European Commission-funded programme addressing equality, diversity and career progression for women at the University of Liverpool, UK.
26 March 2010
New Report Explains 'Why So Few' Women in Science
New Report Explains 'Why So Few' Women in Science
by Jeffrey Mervis on March 22, 2010 4:56 PM
From the Science Policy Blog
ScienceInsider reported this week on a new report on women in science by the American Association of University Women that distills several recent reports on gender equity to provide a road map for those seeking improvements
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/new-report-explains-why-so-few-w.html
Anyone familiar with the cultural and environmental factors that make it harder for women to become scientists and engineers may not learn much from reading a new report, Why So Few?, by the American Association of University Women. That's because the report, out today, summarizes the findings of eight major gender equity studies of the past decade.
The repetition is OK with the National Science Foundation, which traditionally supports researchers trying to create new knowledge. That's because its $250,000 grant to AAUW was aimed at sharing that knowledge with people who can make a difference, says Jolene Jesse, who runs NSF's Research on Gender in Science and Engineering program.
"We want to get what we know into the hands of the practitioners," Jesse explains. "And our definition of practitioner includes teachers and faculty members, guidance counselors, parents, and anybody who can have an impact on a girl's choice of a career in science."
The new report analyzes several factors that can influence whether girls decide to study science and pursue it as a career. It summarizes recent studies on topics ranging from gender stereotypes and self-assessment of talent to how spatial visualization, an important skill for a budding scientist, can be improved with practice. It cites how small changes in the culture of some academic departments have been found to have a big impact on attracting and retaining women. And it notes an unconscious societal bias against women entering so-called "masculine" professions.
AAUW didn't want to simply document what are often called "best practices" and "hope for the best," explains Catherine Hill, the lead author on the 134-page report. "Part of the problem with looking at successful models is that it's hard to judge their impact," she says. "So we began by looking at what's new in the research, and thinking about what will help move the discussion forward."
The need "to distill what we already know," as Jesse describes the AAUW report, arises from what she and others see as the narrow perspectives of many scientists and engineers. "Most scientists don't read outside their disciplines," says Hill, who holds a doctorate in public policy and has studied gender policy issues. "And they are very busy people. Some of them may not even know how many women are in their department. In addition, there's something very powerful about documenting what exists, as well as knowing what your peers are doing."
Also today, an ongoing survey of U.S. science education sponsored by the Bayer Corporation reports that "significant numbers of women and underrepresented minority chemists and chemical engineers say they were discouraged from pursuing" a career in science and engineering at some point in their lives. The 14th annual survey polled 1226 female, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American members of the American Chemical Society.
by Jeffrey Mervis on March 22, 2010 4:56 PM
From the Science Policy Blog
ScienceInsider reported this week on a new report on women in science by the American Association of University Women that distills several recent reports on gender equity to provide a road map for those seeking improvements
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/new-report-explains-why-so-few-w.html
Anyone familiar with the cultural and environmental factors that make it harder for women to become scientists and engineers may not learn much from reading a new report, Why So Few?, by the American Association of University Women. That's because the report, out today, summarizes the findings of eight major gender equity studies of the past decade.
The repetition is OK with the National Science Foundation, which traditionally supports researchers trying to create new knowledge. That's because its $250,000 grant to AAUW was aimed at sharing that knowledge with people who can make a difference, says Jolene Jesse, who runs NSF's Research on Gender in Science and Engineering program.
"We want to get what we know into the hands of the practitioners," Jesse explains. "And our definition of practitioner includes teachers and faculty members, guidance counselors, parents, and anybody who can have an impact on a girl's choice of a career in science."
The new report analyzes several factors that can influence whether girls decide to study science and pursue it as a career. It summarizes recent studies on topics ranging from gender stereotypes and self-assessment of talent to how spatial visualization, an important skill for a budding scientist, can be improved with practice. It cites how small changes in the culture of some academic departments have been found to have a big impact on attracting and retaining women. And it notes an unconscious societal bias against women entering so-called "masculine" professions.
AAUW didn't want to simply document what are often called "best practices" and "hope for the best," explains Catherine Hill, the lead author on the 134-page report. "Part of the problem with looking at successful models is that it's hard to judge their impact," she says. "So we began by looking at what's new in the research, and thinking about what will help move the discussion forward."
The need "to distill what we already know," as Jesse describes the AAUW report, arises from what she and others see as the narrow perspectives of many scientists and engineers. "Most scientists don't read outside their disciplines," says Hill, who holds a doctorate in public policy and has studied gender policy issues. "And they are very busy people. Some of them may not even know how many women are in their department. In addition, there's something very powerful about documenting what exists, as well as knowing what your peers are doing."
Also today, an ongoing survey of U.S. science education sponsored by the Bayer Corporation reports that "significant numbers of women and underrepresented minority chemists and chemical engineers say they were discouraged from pursuing" a career in science and engineering at some point in their lives. The 14th annual survey polled 1226 female, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American members of the American Chemical Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)