Women Into Philosophy (WiPhi)

1. Women Into Philosophy (WiPhi) Initiative to reduce the gender gap among UG majors at Northwestern's philosophy department Axel Mueller 10-06-2011

2. Women Into Philosophy (WiPhi)

3. Women Into Philosophy Presentation: 1) Facts, Figures 2) What’s wrong with underrepresentation 3) Explanatory hunches, some social mechanisms of reducing access: stereotyping, pipelining effects 4) Counteracting the mechanisms: what WiPhi offers (= WiPhi Roadmap for 2011-12 & Events already going on) Axel Mueller 10-06-2011

4. Women Into Philosophy Issue: not feminism (a branch of philosophy studying a certain form of underrepresentation) but Correcting the NUMBER of WOMEN PHILOSOPHERS to change the fact of female underrepresentation and its damages (a phenomenon of life at the department –and within the discipline at large)

5. Women Into Philosophy FACT? OK, here some numbers about female representation in the discipline: 1) 21% of employed philosophers are women (Kathryn Norlock) 2) 18.5% of philosophy faculty at top 54 programs (Leiter Report) are women (Julie van Camp); NU: 23-31% (2005-2011). 3) 30% of philosophy graduates at NU are women (2005-11). 4) 30% of philosophy majorsat NU are women (vs. 53% of enrolled undergraduates being female) (2011). 5) Philosophy PhDs awarded: 27% --and stuck there for the last ten years or so, with a spike to 33.3% in 2004, 25.1% in 2005 (Haslanger & van Camp @http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doctoral_2004.html).

6. Women Into Philosophy Contrasts (just HOW are we doing?!): 1) vs HUMANITIES: 41% of those employed in the humanities are women (2004 US Department of Education estimate). 2) vs NAT SCIENCE & ENGINEERING: 39.5% of PhDs awarded to women (2010, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11321/pdf/tab3.pdf) 3) vs History: 41%, Astronomy and physics: 26% [physics: ~10%, Astronomy stand-alone ~32%], Economics: 30%, (Survey of Degrees Awarded (SED) 2005) 4) vs Math/Computer Science: 26.1% (2010), Technical/Applied Engineering: 21.5% (=philosophy! 'yay'? GULP!) 5) vs. Social sciences: 49% (!!), Sociology 60.9%, PoliSci 45%, Linguistics 56.7%, Education 67% (2010 NSF figures for PhDs awarded)

7. Women Into Philosophy What’s wrong with that, anyway? ETHICS: The department and university don’t wish to, and don’t wish to be seen as encouraging or sustaining discriminatory practices. JUSTICE: Underrepresentation is equivalent to inequality of opportunity on (irrelevant) alone METHOD/EPISTEMOLOGICAL: Not considering and seeking what could turn out to be specific cognitive resources and talents in a large portion of the population = (risking to) forego evidence, methods, hypotheses, attention to data, theoretical approaches, etc. for the solution of philosophical problems.

8. Women Into Philosophy What’s wrong with that, anyway? RESEARCH into career-level effects: PIPELINIG (Calhoun, Hypatia 2006) Because of the CULTURAL nature of the female underrepresentation, small divergences from adequate representation at the UG level WORSEN up the path: UG majors: 33.3%, but faculty in high ranked depts 18.7%. Which means an accelerating depletion of female talent as women go through the ranks. PROBLEM: Disproportionately high RISK of LOSS OF EXPERTISE decreased safety of research quality.

9. Women Into Philosophy OK, so it’s wrong. But is it “actionable”? (Isn’t it ‘natural’?) => EXPLANATORY HUNCHES: Pattern of underrepresentation in philosophy matches that of FORMAL sciences better than that of humanities and social sciences. Support for this: Philosophy majors FAR outperform math majors, physics majors, econ majors &c. in mathematical and verbal GRE and other aptitude tests; i.e. are (socialized to become) at least as formally apt as them. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mathematical-aptitude-in-academics/) Philosophy (for the purpose at hand) is primarily a formal and foundational science&ability. If so: Philosophical research is male-dominated for the same socially prevalent stereotypes about gendered cognitive resources (Male formal, rational, etc., Femaleemotive, empathetic, etc.) as engineering, math, physics, etc. are.

10. Women Into Philosophy “Stereotype”? Similar to ‘prejudice’, but not exhausted by negative judgments “Mini-Theory” shared by a whole community regarding a certain kind of object, easy to apply under normal conditions, low-demand recognition-criteria for the purpose of quickly and uinreflectively sorting things and people; “conceptualization”, identification-tool. Priority in stereotyped cognition is to facilitate communication and shared cognitive expectations, not truth. Usually working at the level of background belief, not activated (or ‘consciously used’) but sustained by undisturbed and socially shared practices of minimally efficient application to instances. Often NOT subject to scientific criticism because of ‘self-immunization’: if something doesn’t fit the stereotype for F, it’s not a real F. Stereotyped cognition is SOCIAL, INTUITIVE (non-reflective), PRACTICALLY (not theoretically or experimentally) SUSTAINED; in SOCIAL cases, often results in exercises of power over stereotyped group that wouldn’t find approval without stereotyping.

11. Women Into Philosophy So how does STEROTYPED COGNITION produce/reproduce gender-gaps (or other types of exclusion-patterns)? Idea: Hey, women *CAN* be majors, they just choose not to. (They kind of like that stereotype, or may be real women really are like the stereotype says…) Answer: By producing environments that constitute and convey STEREOTYPE THREATS (http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html) Recent research in social psychology & cognitive science: stereotypes, as socially inculcated expectation-patterns, determine not only perception OF others, but also SELF-perception and expectation-patterning. Thus, they induce choice- and confidence-patterns in behavior that perpetuate the stereotype (b/c it’s easier to bear to satisfy than to defraud social expectations).

12. Women Into Philosophy Stereotypes only work under standard-conditions; Threats, or affective discomfort that distracts and diminishes confident performance at one’s best, need attention-levels to be around that are like tests for the features. Hence: stereotype-threats occur when either the stereotyped feature is explicitly mentioned (like when you have to identify yourself as ‘female’ to take a math test) or activated by environmental factors (like when many male ‘onlookers’, only male ‘mentors’ or ‘teachers’, etc. are around). Stereotypes are also, as SHARED social communicative resources, COMMUNITY or PEER-GROUP-RELATIVE(e.g. when women are asked in a female-friendly environment to identify as females, they don’t experience the threat).

13. Women Into Philosophy MOTIVATIONAL EFFECTS of stereotype-threats under ‘standard’-conditions: --Decrease in performance at tasks that people do better at without activation of the stereotyped feature --Discomfort and lack of motivation to persist in tasks --Lower general and/or specific self-esteem evaluations when solicited after stereotyped feature has been prompted (decreased ‘self-affirmation’) --Resignation to pursue longer-term goals in the absence of role-models that fit the same stereotype (‘quitter’-tendency) --Decreased social contacts and support in the pursuit of ‘marked’ activities (‘loner’-, ‘weirdo’- or ‘warrior’-syndrom)

14. Women Into Philosophy Result: WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM!!!! What we’ve done: Departmental Task force (Penny Deutscher) 2010  study of de-gendering strategies in math dept & across the college Invitation to world renowned researchers (Gendler, Haslanger) to campus to assist task force (2010/11) Assessment and detailed analysis of research with an eye to ideas for policies in the philosophy department (Goldberg, DUS –me; May 2011—Sept 2011)

15. Women Into Philosophy SUMMARY of suggestions for action from research: Contra PIPELINING  Countering the trend needs to begin at small differences at the UG level, which can translate in big effects at PhD-, PostDoc and faculty level. Contra STEREOTYPE-THREAT effects  (1) Local replacement of ‘standard’ conditions with threat-free conditions ( women-only environments, mentoring, ‘buddy systems’, integration of UG, grad, faculty) (2) De-activation of stereotype by branding it as questionable in the local culture ( Publicized events and activities) (3) Supply female role-models, success-stories, opportunities for self-affirmation & high-level interactions

16. Women Into Philosophy WiPhi is born!!! Components: Constitution of an all-female UG-group (“WiPhi”) with the following capacities: Regular ‘plenary’ get-togethers with snacks and coffee/drink, funded by the dept, 1-2 times a quarter; Creation of an agenda of philosophical pursuits to be executed: organized reading of philosophy, deepen class work, exchange views with others over topics, exchange of common concerns about what it’s like to be a woman in philosophy at NU, ……

17. Women Into Philosophy IMPORTANTLY: Selection of a female great philosopher who does great philosophy & organize an event with her for the WiPhi, issuing in a public lecture, the GERTRUDE BUSSEY LECTURE (first PhD at NU 1915, with a great background story, a true role model), hopefully in the spring of 2012, FULLY BACKED BY THE DEPARTMENT. Elements of this BUSSEY visit: brunch and dinner with the speaker by the WiPhi only, possibly discussion group with her, public lecture advertised and marketed as WiPhi-sponsored by the dept.

18. Women Into Philosophy Additionally: WiPhi counts (as I already secured) with ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT by the female grads and faculty. So: WiPhi (depending on organizing talents and availability) could also create, between the quarterly meetings or concurrently with them, a MENTORING and BUDDY system in which small numbers of WiPhi majors regularly interact with more advanced female peers. VISION: Create a NEW PEER GROUP as environment in which the threats are deactivated as a springboard and inoculator against the systemic resistance women are likely to find if they continue.

19. Women Into Philosophy Relevant activities in the near future: 10-21-2011: Visit of logician and philosopher of science GILLIAN RUSSELL, with discussion group and public lecture. 11-04-2011 till 11-06-2011: Midwestern Conference of the Society for Women in Philosophy (SWIP) at NU, hosted by dept (Rebecca Mason), with UG, grad and faculty speakers about and as women in philosophy. Possibly (if enough interest and organizatory energy is present) promoting the screening of a film about Simone Weill in cooperation with religion, Gender Studies, French&Italian, 10-24-2011. (FAST COMMITMENT needed)