Search News


Browse Archives

News

Female Faculty and the Sciences

October 18, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

During a Congressional hearing focused on the recruitment and retention of female faculty members in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields Wednesday, witnesses discussed how the federal government can combat the underrepresentation of women through targeted grants and incentives -- and even the creation of a new quasi-governmental agency that would expand the enforcement of Title IX, the landmark 1972 gender equity law, to better encompass academic practices.

“The original intent of Title IX was to ensure equal educational opportunity for both sexes. Yet, relatively little has been done outside of the arena of athletics to make that mandate meaningful,” said Gretchen Ritter, director of the Center for Women and Gender Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. She pointed out in her written testimony that while the Government Accountability Office did ask granting agencies to ensure that grant recipients comply with Title IX in 2004, “what this might mean in practice and whether such compliance reviews are being conducted is not entirely clear.”

“I know a lot about Title IX but more because of sports programs than educational programs and that’s something that Congress can easily fix,” said Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami and chair of the National Academies committee that wrote the recent report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering."

“We need an organization like the [National Collegiate Athletic Association] that holds us accountable,” Shalala added -- an entity situated somewhere between government and higher education.

Wednesday’s hearing of the House of Representatives Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education focused on the end of the pipeline, so to speak -- the representation of women within the faculty ranks. According to 2003 National Science Foundation data, women hold about 28 percent of all full-time science and engineering faculty positions -- representing 18 percent of full professors, 31 percent of associate professors and 40 percent of assistant professors. Despite growth in the Ph.D. pool, faculty appointments, particularly at the senior levels, are still lagging: While women now constitute more than 50 percent of Ph.D. students in the life sciences, for instance, and, in 2003, made up 42 percent of the entire pool of life science Ph.D. recipients within the six preceding years, they represented just 34 percent of assistant professor appointments.

"What we learned [in researching the "Beyond Bias" report] was the pools are there for the first time," Shalala said. "It's not the pool issue anymore. It's our behavior."

“Entire campuses have been dozing on this issue,” Kathie L. Olsen, deputy director of the NSF, said in prefacing her remarks about the foundation's ADVANCE Institutional Transformation awards. “Targeting funding for individuals simply did not go far enough. What we needed was a full, institution-wide shakeup to bring about results.”

The ADVANCE grants -- awarded to 58 institutions since the program began in 2001 -- support systemic, institutional changes that increase the representation of women in academic engineering and science positions, and several witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing lauded their effectiveness so far. At the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, for instance, the number of female tenure-track faculty has increased 48 percent from fall 2003, when the university's ADVANCE Program began, from 29 to 43. In that same time period, the number of male tenure-track faculty increased by 4 percent, from 137 to 142.

The university has been involved with revising its policies and also establishing targeted programs to provide mentors for female STEM hires. Yet, Freeman A. Hrabowski III, UMBC’s president, described the major advances as happening in the form of honest conversations on the faculty level. “Many of the policies that can help minorities in science can help all students in science. Many of the policies that help junior women help senior faculty,” Hrabowski said, noting how easily people can become defensive when discussing new policies perceived as benefiting another group. Getting faculty buy-in through such conversations is critical, Hrabowski said -- and, given who has traditionally dominated in the academy, that means that “the power rests in the hands of white males."

Other strategies for the recruitment and retention of female faculty described at Wednesday’s hearing include offering childcare grants for professional conferences, offering flexible tenure timelines for faculty with young children, addressing salary equity issues (the NSF's Olsen recalled an unsettling moment in her own academic history when, as the co-principal investigator on a research project, she was shocked to learn that a male postdoc assigned to her was making more money than she was), reading letters of recommendation with an attention to possible gender bias, providing extensive postdoctoral fellowship support to attract a broader applicant pool, and broadening faculty searches beyond highly specialized areas that may only have a couple graduates a year. In addition to championing those latter three approaches, Myron Campbell, chair of the University of Michigan’s physics department, described a more general need to change subtler climate conditions.

When Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), chair of the subcommittee, asked toward the end of the hearing what sort of “hammer” Congress might be able to swing to effect swifter change in the nation’s science, math and engineering departments, he was quickly reminded of academe’s distaste for directives from above -- but also of Congress’ ultimate power regardless. “Hammers don’t work the same way in universities, but money does talk,” UMBC’s Hrabowski said, mentioning incentives that could be tied to federal NSF and National Institutes of Health funding.

“Institutions listen to the national science infrastructure," he said, "because they have the money.”

The Impact of Gender Imbalances

Meanwhile, a bit lower down the pipeline, on the undergraduate level, a new study by three Stanford University researchers published by Psychological Science this month finds that even highly confident women with science and math expertise can be negatively affected by their minority status in the STEM fields.

In “Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings,” Mary C. Murphy, Claude M. Steele and James J. Gross examine whether situational cues -- in this case, a promotional video for a math, science and engineering (MSE) conference featuring more men than women -- can lead female undergraduate majors in those fields to experience "social identity threat," defined as “a broad threat that people experience when they believe that they may be treated negatively or devalued in a setting simply because of a particular social identity they hold.”

The researchers showed male and female junior and senior majors two videos, one in which males outnumbered females 3 to 1 -- the ratio meant to replicate real-world ratios of males to females in math and science -- and one in which the ratio was 1 to 1. In addition to tracking statistically significant differences in physiological responses, the authors conclude that women who watched the video with the gender imbalance expressed a lower sense of belonging and less desire to participate in the conference than did females who watched a video featuring gender parity, while men were generally unaffected by the situational cue (but males, interestingly, were likewise more interested in participating when the gender ratio depicted on the video was equal).

"We controlled for competence, motivation, performance, ability and you're still finding these effects," said Murphy, now a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University. Not only that, but the women in the study were already committed to math and science fields and, three or four years into their undergraduate science degrees, probably weren't encountering such an imbalanced picture for the first time -- suggesting perhaps that women don't just "get used to" the gender imbalances.

"In contrast to biological and innate and socialization explanations," for the low participation of women in science, "we have to start asking what about the situation can be contributing to the underrepresentation?" Murphy said. "We need to start looking at these situational factors that seem innocuous to some people but to other groups have tremendous meaning and impact."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Female Faculty and the Sciences

  • Posted by Hans Gesund on October 18, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • I wonder how many male faculty members are to be found in colleges of nursing. In my institution there aren't any. What is to be done about the obvious discrimination?

  • Posted by jcl , lecturer on October 18, 2007 at 9:00am EDT
  • The dearth of male nursing faculty is a serious problem that has to be dealt with. For years, these men were shunted aside into lower-paid, lower-prestige doctor jobs.

  • Respect
  • Posted by Grocheio , Asst VP Planning and Institutional Effectiveness at Shorter College on October 18, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • My mother was a nurse, and I know how little respect they get from the all-powerful doctors. Hospitals are a harsh hierarchical environment. When nurses get more respect, men will join up. Why would the powerful class want to take up a subordinate position?

  • Hello, Larry Summers
  • Posted by L.L. on October 18, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • Will "sensitivity training" be provided to non-females prior to any discussions?

    After what happened to Mr. Summers -- does anyone with an iota of common sense think that non-females would utter anything but the Betty Friedan line of thought? The chances of free speech in North Korea is higher.

    I'm reminded of a doctoral-level discussion on qualitative methods in the South Pacific. As the research involved only women, only the women in the room spoke.

    Finally, one woman asked: "what about the men here? Aren't they going to speak up?"

    The non-female silence continued. The non-females weren't fools, idiots, or career-suicidal.

    Oh, and UT: before you start cutting-down Mr. Summers -- as part of the scientific method, let's see you provide the cognitive science research points that do NOT support the Betty Friedan crowd. If you can.

    Two legs good, four legs bad.

  • Must women out number men everywhere?
  • Posted by Hank on October 18, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • It's not just nursing, education is heavily women, and many campuses are 60% women, even in law and medical schools. How much imbalance in favor of women is required?

  • Whoa.
  • Posted by A.D. on October 18, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • " .. Hospitals are a harsh hierarchical environment. When nurses get more respect, men will join up .."

    Excuse me -- women are among the wealthiest of Americans.

    http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wcV&q=wealthiest+women+America+U.S.&btnG=Search

    Given what has been said -- when are those wealthy Americans going to start some project that shows an alleged "non-harsh" environment is superior to an alleged "harsh" one?

    Might it be, at day's end, someone has to be held accountable? As opposed to an unaccountable bureaucracy?

  • Parity, guys
  • Posted by MM on October 18, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • Wow, a little sensitive today, are we? No one's looking for imbalance, just parity. It's not just women we're talking about, it's blacks, latino/as, native americans and native pacific islanders, too.

  • Posted by Marie on October 18, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • Why all the comments directing hostility at the above report? The climate of receptivity that men enounter in the sciences is a significant factor in their overrepresentation. Unraveling the psychological climate that interferes with the intellectual development and pursuits of any gender should not be threatening. That it is only confirms the premise of the story.

  • Women in the sciences
  • Posted by feudi pandola on October 18, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • This article did not address the fact that, since 1982, women have outnumbered men in terms of college graduates. The most recent data shows this growing disparity to be about 60/40 between the genders. When is this nation going to correct this obvious gender imbalance? The number of males in nursing has historically been around 5% to 8% and this disparity is also blamed on men not entering nursing because of its low prestige as a field of study. What rubbish! That notion have held water fifteen years ago, but not anymore. The reason men are so under-represented is due to sexism.

    In any event, if we keep graduating 60% females to 40% male, it will only be a matter of time, perhaps ten years, before the gender inequality in the sciences evaporates, and that's a good thing.

  • Imbalance FAVORING women?!?
  • Posted by JPB , Female Professor, PhD granting instution on October 18, 2007 at 11:05am EDT
  • FAVOR FOR WOMEN?!? Simply because there are more women on campus doesn't mean they are in positions equal or better in status or pay to the men. Look at salary studies...or, count who is in administration. Who is running the labs or holding non-tenure positions--is it men or women? Who gets more exposure and medals, the grant funds and the accolades? Or how about the senior level hires and promotions? Who more readily comes to mind when campus scientists are needed, when press opportunities present themselves, when selective invites to prestigious scientists give guest lectures, networking, and the like are handed out... Who is more closely scrutinized in job applications; even hiring programs that might lead to women getting the "benefit of the doubt" don't necessarily BENEFIT the ones they are purported to "benefit"...

  • Time the healer?
  • Posted by JPB on October 18, 2007 at 11:05am EDT
  • Time will not correct disparity. Sociocultural sterotypes need to change first before numbers make a difference. The sheer amount of graduating women doesn't CAUSE women to be hired by traditionally male administrators in traditionally male fields. A critical mass of women is only part of the issue here. Both men AND women need to acknowledge that women can be good scientists, that men can be good nurses or teachers, etc. And women and men need mentoring and appropriate training experiences to afford them this knowledge. Motivational factors as well as contextual ones interact here...

  • Posted by Chuck on October 18, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • Campuses do address gender disparities during the admission process, attempting to achieve an approximately equal balance. The disparities occur because males drop out (fail to finish) at a higher rate than females. In part, this is because they have greater opportunities for high paying jobs that compete with education. Males are also more likely to see the purpose of education as job-related. If people here wish to do something about disparities for men at the undergrad level, they should encourage male students to develop better study skills and also encourage them to value education for its own sake, not just for the vocational training. Perhaps then more males would be interested in the lower paying service-oriented careers in education, nursing and social services.

  • Posted by LM on October 18, 2007 at 11:45am EDT
  • Thank-you, JPB. The assumption that critical mass is the goal (or the indicator) of equality between the sexes is false.

    And I agree with MM - why the sensitivity? Policies and institutional space that emphsize equality translates into equity for all minority groups. Discussion and critique of all practices is crucial for all.

    LM

  • Theatre of the absurd?
  • Posted by L.L. on October 18, 2007 at 11:50am EDT
  • " .. No one’s looking for imbalance, just parity .."

    When a leading newspaper writes of "only 2/5ths" --

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/our-view-on-wom.html?loc=interstitialskip

    Using numbers, that 58%/42% male/female.

    What's good enough? 55/45? 52/48? 40/60? When can we stop spending money on this?

    No one knows because those in power refuse to be accountable. Like one judge who says 100 years, the other 25 years.

    This is getting absurd ..

  • Madison Avenue/ Purdah
  • Posted by Sarah Schneewind , Assoc. Prof at research university on October 18, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I think the fundamental problem shows up in the marketing of women's bodies and in the use of women's bodies to market everything under the sun. [This is only the flip side of seclusion and the veil -- not a truly different approach.] Until that changes, i.e. until most people think of women in general as fully human with minds more important than their bodies, fixing on-campus movies etc. etc. will not be fully effective in creating a gender-blind job market.

  • Wealthy women
  • Posted by David at USC on October 18, 2007 at 5:35pm EDT
  • A.D.
    The main reaseon that women are wealthy is that they have married men who are or become wealthy, and they then outlive them. Marrying a cash cow and living off the milk is not really what is at issue here, unless you are a southern belle.
    In very specific contexts like classrooms(rather than whole fields)I don't find much anxiety from gender imbalances. Why, attend to the latest episodes of "House," for gosh sakes!

  • OCR
  • Posted by Victoria on October 18, 2007 at 6:35pm EDT
  • “We need an organization like the [National Collegiate Athletic Association] that holds us accountable,” Shalala added — “an entity situated somewhere between government and higher education.” We already have one, it’s called The Office for Civil Rights, www.ed.gov/ocr. Check it out; they are a law enforcement agency charged with enforcing Title IX.

  • Why women are wealthy and avoid MSE fields
  • Posted by J. on October 19, 2007 at 3:30am EDT
  • Some commenters here have observed that women are wealther than men... What relation does this have to the fact that women are less represented in the MSE fields?
    I think it's quite simple really - I believe women are actually SMARTER than men. As such, they see the writing on the wall when it comes to job opportunities in the MSE fields, namely that jobs and salaries in these fields are declining due to outsourcing and the importation of lesser paid foreign labor.

    Women, being more intelligent, avoid these declining fields and go into fields where they can earn more money, such as business and law, which are seeing growing representations of women. Hence, it's no wonder that women are wealther...

  • Bravo Freeman A. Hrabowski III
  • Posted by Latricia on October 19, 2007 at 11:15am EDT
  • Freeman A. Hrabowski III thank you for pointing out that the programs and initiatives that are implemented can benefit any student. Too often we focus on making improvements for minority groups and forget that what affects minority groups will eventually affect all students. It is because of economics that the minority groups exhibit the problems first. The majority do not have the resources to overcome the obstacles. Our policies need to be simply "student centered".

  • Posted by Melissa , Student on October 22, 2007 at 5:10pm EDT
  • As a female undergraduate student in an EMS school, I can't say that I feel any bias for or against myself or my work based on my gender. I know the rules for how to succeed in my field and I follow them. Women are not in the higher levels of faculty because they are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get there. I know that if I wanted to achieve say, head of my department, I would not be having children, I might not get married, and I would definitely be working that 60+ hour work week. And I would definitely not want a woman to be able to equal that without putting in the time and effort as I did simply because she's a woman on some grant or law.

  • Posted by Julia on October 22, 2007 at 7:20pm EDT
  • On the topic of discrimination against men in female-dominated occupations such as nursing and teaching:

    Many studies have shown that men in feminized occupations get "pushed up" by managers who encourage them to professionalize, or take administrative tracks upward and toward positions seen as more appropriately masculine (like a 1992 article on the hidden advantages for men in women's occupations by Christine Williams in the journal Social Forces).

    So there are two problems with comparing women in science careers with men in nursing careers. First, women's occupations are generally lower paid and lower status than men's. Second, women in male dominated occupations face downward discrimination, while men in women's work are encouraged to move upward and outward.

  • Women in sciences and engineering
  • Posted by Shawn Garcia on October 24, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • There is a good point made about the lack of females in sciences and engineering hower where are the same fight to get more males especially black males to graduate from high school and college. I understand equality should mean not denying the right or opportunity of jobs, scholarships, etc to females. However it is unfair to not give men who made the qualifications the same opportunity to just make it 50 50 if there are more females than males who dont want to be a scientist and engineering is just like it would be wrong to force colleges to take at least 50% of men because the population is 50-50

  • Yale bucking the trend
  • Posted by Mary-Anne Wolf on October 24, 2007 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Yale has just hired a female Dean of Engineering. If one wanted a place receptive to any experiment to try to create more female Engineers, that would be a good place, and let's get the word out. I think this Dean might welcome ideas.

    http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-09-06-02.all.html
    http://www.yale.edu/opa/v36.n2/story2.html

    I am a Software Engineer, a Yaley with 20 years experience working in industry, and I agree with the statement that as an American, if I were advising a young person, I would advise them avoid any field that could be outsourced to a foreign country, and most of the sciences include that. The non-clinical aspects of medicine are part of that too, as would be, for example, Radiology, even though the jobs for those are good currently, I do not expect them to stay good.

    However, the European Union "Blue Card" program
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7057575.stm
    suggests that the over-supply of geeks, at least, may be an American, not a world-wide, phenomenon. From watching friends look for work, and from the attitude of my employer and other employers, I am convinced that the demand in America for H1B Visas has much more to do with driving down the price than with a genuine shortage of people, but I don't know whether the same is true in Europe.

    So we need to be careful about making generalizations. I could advise young people who expect to find work in America to stay away from studying science and technology. I would think General Practice medicine, one of the flavors of Nurse who maximizes what she can do without supervision from an M.D., gerontologist, and those of the skilled trades not too tied to weather, season, or construction (plumber, electrician, car mechanic, etc.) all look good, no matter what your gender is.

    However, the same may not be true everywhere.

  • Melissa will learn
  • Posted by biosciprof on October 30, 2007 at 8:20pm EDT
  • I used to think like Melissa.

    If I worked harder than the guys, wasn't distracted by family or relationships (if I didn't HAVE any), won more grants, got more papers published, I would do better than they, right? And all those women were just whiners who didn't want to work hard.

    Wrong, Melissa.

    "You don't need the same salary he does, because he has a family."

    "He doesn't have to cover his summer salary, but you do." followed by, "and no one will ever know that."

    "If Prof X talks about his female student's work, he MUST be sleeping with her."

    "Women just aren't as smart as men."

    "She just doesn't have a personality for our institution, even if she has outpublished all the other candidates."

    "Why aren't you married, are you a lesbian?"

    All t hings I have heard as I persevered into the ranks of the few, the proud, the full professors.

    Studies have been done showing that your postdoctoral application will have to have at least 2 more publications than a man's just to have the same ranking by a fellowship committee (and scary, thta was done in Sweden.) Studies have shown that your tenure dossier will be reviewed more harshly if your name is female, than male. Women do it as much as men do. And studies show that even if you outperform the men, your salary will lag. No matter how good you are.

    So, Melissa, please stop dissing those who are working to make the system a little fairer for you. Trust me, honey. I didn't get this far up the ladder by being lazy or having an entitlement.

  • Posted by AC , grad student, physics on October 31, 2007 at 10:59am EDT
  • Do men think, if I want to be successful in my field and be department chair I won't have children and won't get married?

    Perhaps the dearth of men in nursing means that there are issues of gender imbalance in nursing that need to be addressed. But that seems irrelevant to the underrepresentation of women in SME fields. (In physics, the percentage of full professors who are women at research universities is around 5%, not %40.)

  • Oh dear ...
  • Posted by clvrgrli , scientist at Major University in the southeast on October 31, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • In reading one of the comments where a young woman scientist claims to never have encountered sexism or bias and further went on to pronounce that the under-representation of women in the sciences was due to women not being willing to make sacrifices ... I say ... your turn will come. As a young woman scientist I also had a certain bravado and was sure that any bias I encountered could be compensated for by just working harder and demonstrating my abilities. Nay not so. I have encountered many progressive minded male colleagues who recognize and value women scientists as colleagues. Many of them have served as mentors and have helped to advance my career. Unfortunately, I have also encountered insecure male colleagues who felt very threatened by competent women scientists. Our culture is permeated with sexism and the objectification of women. Working on the equity issue within academia is of course of paramount importance but we need to be more ambitious and try to change the culture of objectification as well.

  • Posted by REH on March 2, 2008 at 5:50am EST
  • Dear Melissa,

    all of the heads of department in science that I know have children, and I know alot of heads in different countries. However they all also happen to be male. Why would you see not having children as an essential criteria to becoming a department head?