1 / 38

ANALYZING THE LEAKY PIPELINE: 

ANALYZING THE LEAKY PIPELINE: . Why are women scientists under-represented on the faculties of research universities?. Phoebe S. Leboy Professor Emerita of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania Secretary, Association for Women in Science (awis.org). TIMELINE FOR REFORM OF

arich
Download Presentation

ANALYZING THE LEAKY PIPELINE: 

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ANALYZING THE LEAKY PIPELINE:  Why are women scientists under-represented on the faculties of research universities? Phoebe S. Leboy Professor Emerita of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania Secretary, Association for Women in Science (awis.org)

  2. TIMELINE FOR REFORM OF GENDER BIAS IN SCIENCE: Reform gender-biased structures in academe • Abolish overt discrimination • Fill the PhD pipeline with women • Decrease the “chilly climate” • Tackle unintentional discrimination • Create family- • friendly policies 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

  3. FILLING THE PIPELINE: A GREAT SUCCESS: # WOMEN GRADUATE STUDENTS PROPORTION OF GRAD STUDENTS WHO ARE WOMEN

  4. THE REMAINING PROBLEMS “Women are seriously under-represented on academic science and engineering faculties because of a mix of “unintentional” biases and outdated institutional policies and structures” Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academies of Sciences. Released Sept 18, 2006 • Thus, we must- • Tackle unintentional discrimination • Create family- friendly policies • Reform gender-biased structures in academe • 1990 2000 2010

  5. THE NEED FOR FAMILY-FRIENDLY POLICIES Women with babies: 29% less likely to get a tenure-track position than women without babies. Married women: 20% less likely to get tenure-track positions than single women Data based on survey of 4400 U California faculty Mason & Gould, Marriage and Baby Blues (2004) http://gradresearch.berkeley.edu/marriagebabyblues.pdf#search

  6. ESSENTIALFAMILY-RELATED POLICIES • Employer-provided day care • Extension of tenure-probationary period for family care (1 year/child or aged parent) • Post-maternity relief from teaching for a semester.. • ..but research efforts should continue * Only for parents assuming ≥ 50% of family care responsibilities http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/family/welcome.html

  7. Leak Leak Leak THE LEAKY ACADEMIC PIPELINE OF PhD WOMEN SCIENTISTS % women Grad School Post- doc Tenure-track Tenured Big cheese • How do we know there are leaks? • Are they due to women “dropping out” of science • orto obstacles in the pipeline?

  8. ASSESSING PIPELINE LEAKS 1. Determine the “availability pool” of women:

  9. MY DATA SET: FACULTY WOMEN AT HIGH-PRESTIGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES* *The “9 Univ” Berkeley Cal Tech Harvard Michigan MIT Penn Princeton Stanford Yale Proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty who are women (2003)

  10. THE LEAKS ARE DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC Non-tenured faculty at the “9 Univ” in 2003 compared with PhDs awarded from 1991-1995 “In physics and astronomy [nationally], there appears to be no leaky pipeline” American Institute of Physics report, June 2005 # faculty ≥ availability pool Availability pool > # faculty Biomed Sci

  11. THE HIGH PRESTIGE “9 UNIVERSITIES”vs. 50 MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES In fields with a leaky pipeline, the 9 Univ group have fewer junior women faculty than a more broadly based group. 9 Univ = 50% of expected 50 Univ =75% of expected Biology/ Biomed* 50 Universities data from NAS (Nelson and Rogers 2004) report. *50 Univ data are for Biological Sci, but 9 Univ data are forBiomed Sci in Medical Schools

  12. Leak Leak Leak WHY ARE THERE SO FEW WOMEN SCIENTISTS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Are women “dropping out” of science orfinding obstacles in the pipeline? Post- doc Tenure- track Tenured Big cheese

  13. FOCUSING ON BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES Arguments for analyzing the phenomenon using the biomedical area: • Large numbers of PhDs awarded to women for many years. • Relatively little change in % PhDs who are women in the past 20 years.

  14. WOMEN IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: % UNTENURED = % TENURED * Nine University data for 2003** Medical School web sites, 2006

  15. CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRYAT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL The junior faculty pipeline is empty! Source: HMS web site http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/facts.asp August 2006

  16. HARVARD IS NOT ALONE

  17. ARE WOMEN CELL BIOLOGISTS DROPPING OUT? • % women among first authors and invited speakers at cell biology national meeting = 42 - 47%. They have not dropped out. ! • But the cell biology faculties of the 9 Univ group are only 22% women. * Nature Cell Biology 8 (9):899 September 2006

  18. WHY ARE WOMEN MISSING FROM BIOMEDICAL DEPARTMENTS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES? • 1.Women start on the tenure track but get discouraged. • 2.Women are not applying • In faculty searches, applications from women are much lower than expected : • They don’t see other women succeeding • They have alternatives with less prestige but less stress • in not-so- elite universities and colleges • in biotech companies

  19. WHY IS LIFE IN BIOMEDICAL DEPARTMENTS OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES SO UNPLEASANT? HYPOTHESES: 1. Departments exhibit “unintentional discrimination”. 2. Policies and practices of the universities are disproportionately unfavorable to women.

  20. HYPOTHESIS: DISCRIMINATION PERSISTS

  21. WOMEN ARE DISCOURAGED BY UNIVERSITY PRACTICES They are discouraged by: • inconveniently long hours • competitiveness & aggressiveness • emphasis on quantity rather than quality

  22. THE DOGMA THAT SCIENCE REQUIRESAT LEAST 80 HRS/WEEK: “The assumption is that 80-hour workweeks are a necessary condition for intellectual creativity and excellence... That assumption has very little data going for it. Virginia Valian, Washington Post Jan 29, 2005 “What fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week?” (Larry Summers, HarvardPrez) NBER Conference on "Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S&E Careers, January 2005

  23. AMERICAN SCIENCE IS ABOUT COMPETITION & AGGRESSION “Science is a form of competitive and aggressive activity, a contest of man against man that provides knowledge as a side product. That side product is its only advantage over football.” *Richard Lewontin, Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard(1980) (among papers commenting on James Watson’s book, “The Double Helix”)

  24. COMPETITIVENESS & AGGRESSION:A NO-WIN SITUATION? “I never met a woman who could negotiate for salary and status as well as a man- and if I interviewed her I wouldn’t hire her because I would not like her personality.” Math department chair [We have] “a system that claims to reward based on merit but instead rewards traits such as assertiveness that are socially less acceptable for women.” Fulfilling thePotential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academies of Sciences. Released Sept 18, 2006

  25. WHAT’S WRONG WITH AN ALL-MALE FACULTY? • Sends a bad message to our students • Will be self-reproducing • It is inherently unfair

  26. Mommy, which one is daddy? MY NIGHTMARE: ACADEMIC LAB OF THE FUTURE *****ATTENTION Minimum workday= 14h Minimum workweek = 6 days

  27. WOMEN DROP OFF THE TENURE TRACK BECAUSE OF: • inconveniently long hours • competitiveness & aggressiveness • emphasis on quantity rather than quality* - THE PRODUCTIVITY PROBLEM *This is a relatively new phenomenon. Universities started “upping the ante” when women started applying… a correlation that does not imply causality.

  28. THE PRODUCTIVITY STANDARDDEFINED: “Quality is no substitute for quantity.” Anthropology Dept Chair, 2002

  29. THE PRODUCTIVITY STANDARD IN ACADEMIA Scientific Merit Productivity • A dubious assumption that has become the cornerstone of faculty evaluations. • and most measures of productivity turn out to be gender-biased.

  30. # 1 MEASURE OF PRODUCTIVITY:NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS 8 scientists elected to the National Academy of Sciences between 2002 and 2005 were paired for age and discipline: 2 male & 2 female Mol. Biologists 2 male & 2 female Biochemists Publications were determined using Google Scholar. CONCLUSION: women still publish significantly fewer papers than men.

  31. NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS∞NUMBER OF HANDS Large numbers of publications require many graduate students and post-docs… which requires big grants….. But-

  32. NIH GRANT FUNDING IS GENDER BIASED Women’s average/men’s average Average NIH award Fiscal year Men’s average award Women’s average award “In the past decade, NIH research grants to women have remained at about 80% of the size of research grants to men.“ Nature Medicine 11, 1129 (Nov 2005) from NIH data

  33. STUDENT CHOICES CAN BE GENDER-BIASED GRAD STUDENT CHOICE OF MENTORS AT UNIV. PENN: An example of gender-biased decision making that is hard to fix.

  34. WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY? • Show us your best 3-5 publications • and we will read them! • 2. What is the citation record for this individual? e.g. # citations per paper (average or median) # citations per paper as “corresponding author”. # citations per paper/authors

  35. USING CITATION ANALYSIS:A CASE STUDY

  36. NUMBERS vs CITATION RATES 8 scientists elected to the National Academy of Sciences between 2002 and 2005 were paired for age and discipline. Google Scholar was used to determine citations.

  37. CITATION ANALYSIS SO WHY DO OUR EVALUATIONS EMPHASIZE PRODUCTIVITY?? Citation analysis has a long history: • Schoenbach, UH & Garfield, E. Citation indexes for science. Science. Jan 1956 123(3185):61-2. • Geller NL, DeCani JS, & Davies,RE Life-time citation rates - A mathematical model to compare scientists work. J. Am. Soc. Information Science 1981 32(1): 3-15 Citation analysis is alive and well • Duval J Towards the origins of scientometrics: The emergence of the Science Citation Index. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociale 2006 164:10 • Bornmann L, Daniel HDSelecting scientific excellence through committee peer review-A citation analysis of publications vs approval of fellowship applicants. Scientometrics 2006 68 (3): 427-440

  38. Do you think he may be highly cited? Tenure Review SHALL WE CHANGE THE SYSTEM???? CV: GOD Only 3 publications and he expects to get tenure?

More Related