Gender in the Geosciences: Influences on Recruitment and Retention of Women in the Geosciences

1. Gender in the Geosciences: Influences on Recruitment and Retention of Women in the Geosciences Eric Riggs, Ph.D. Assistant Dean, College of Geosciences Research Associate Professor, Dept. of Geology & Geophysics Texas A&M University

2. The Team: Julie Sexton, University of Northern Colorado Kevin Pugh, University of Northern Colorado Cassendra Bergstrom, University of Northern Colorado Rhonda Parmley, Quaternia Services, LLC Michael Phillips, University of Northern Colorado Eric Riggs, Texas A&M University NSF-HRD 1136233 & 1136238

3. Background: Gender in the Geosciences • Women are under-represented in the geosciences, from faculty (nationally only about 15%) all the way to the undergraduate level (about 40%) • Some departments are much more successful than others at attracting and retaining female students • What can we do as a community to bring female participation to parity as we address workforce challenges in the geosciences?

6. American Geosciences Institute, 2014

7. Overview of the NSF Study • What factors relate to undergraduate female and male students selection of and persistence in a geoscience major? • Why are some departments more successful than others at attracting and retaining female students?

8. Social Cognitive Career Theory Environmental (e.g., Learning Environment, Culture) Major Choice Career Choice Personal/Cognitive (e.g., Self Efficacy, Interest) Behavior (e.g., Studying, Engagement)

9. Overall Methods • Data • Faculty and student interview data • Student survey data • Data collection sites: 6 geoscience departments • 3 low female sites: graduate < 40% female students • 3 high female sites: graduate > 40% female students • Program sites are geology & geophysics programs embedded in earth science offerings at relatively large public universities with available pairwise comparisons

10. Overview of Presentation • What attracts students to a geoscience major? (from interview and survey data) • Statistical model that explain students’ selection of a major and career (from survey data) • What students like about geosciences courses and faculty (from interview data) • Experiences of female and male students in four geoscience departments (from interview data)

11. Part 1: • What attracts students to the major? • Qualitative student data from interviews and surveys • Data collection sites: 4 geoscience departments • 2 low female sites: graduate < 40% female students • 2 high female sites: graduate > 40% female students

12. What attracts students to major? Results by Gender Men (N = 125, responses = 132) Women (N = 129, responses = 179)

13. What attracts students to major? Results by Gender 2 1 3 Men (N = 125, responses = 132) Women (N = 129, responses = 179)

14. What attracts students to major? Results by Site Type Low female (N = 128, responses = 140) High female (N = 126, responses = 171)

15. What attracts students to major? Results by Site Type 1 2 3 Low female (N = 128, responses = 140) High female (N = 126, responses = 171)

16. Summary 1 Interest is an important attractor for men and women and students at low and high sites Career opportunities are a frequent attractor for men and also for students overall at low sites Liking the department is a frequent attractor for women and also for students overall at high sites 2 3

17. Conclusion from qualitative data • Preliminary findings from Year 1 data • Departmental characteristics: Need to explore role in attracting and retaining women and men • Career opportunities: Need to explore role in attracting men and potential for attracting women

18. Part 2: • What attracts students to the major? • What attracts students to a geoscience major? (from interview and survey data) • Statistical model that explain students’ selection of a major and career (from survey data) • What students like about geosciences courses and faculty (from interview data) • Experiences of female and male students in four geoscience departments (from interview data)

19. Social Cognitive Career Theory Revisited Self-Efficacy Interest/Identity Transformative Experience Connection to Instructor

20. Transformative Experience Behavior Display motivated use of content Cognition Display expansion of perception Value Display experiential value

21. “I think about rocks differently than I did before. Now when I don’t have anything to do, I look at a rock and try to tell its story. I think about where it came from, where it formed, where it’s been, what its name is...I used to skip rocks down at the lake but now I can’t bear to throw away all those stories!” (Fourth grade student)

22. Do these factors (self-efficacy, interest/identity, connection to instructor, transformative experience) help us understand why women choose to major and pursue careers in the geosciences?

23. Survey Participants 229 Individuals – 35% Male, 62% Female (3% unreported). – 38% Geoscience Majors, 62% Non-majors. – 75% Caucasian, 11% Latino/Hispanic, 5.7% Asian, 7.7% other/multiracial (.6% unreported).

24. Pre-Survey (Beginning of Semester) • Self-Efficacy • – 4 items (=.86). • – “Even if the work in my geoscience course(s) is • hard, I can learn it.” • Interest/Identity • – 13 items (=.97). • – “I enjoy the geosciences.” • – “Being involved in the geosciences is a key part of • who I am.”

25. Post-Survey (End of Semester) Connection to Instructor – 3items (=.87). – “I felt I connected to the instructor(s) in my geoscience course(s).” Transformative Experience – 25 items (person and item reliability > .95). – “I look for chances to apply my knowledge of geoscience in my everyday life.”

26. Post-Survey (End of Semester) Intent to Major – 3items (=.98). – “I plan to major in the geosciences.” Confidence in Major – 3 items (=.91). – “I am confident in my decision to major in the geosciences.” Intent to Pursue a Career – 3 items (=.98). – “I see myself working as a geoscientist.”

27. Model of Relationships Major & Career Outcomes Personal Factors Environmental Factors Behavioral Factors Intent to Major Interest/Identity Confidence in Major Self-Efficacy Intent to Pursue a Career Connection to Instructor Transformative Experience

28. Results

29. Results – Gender Differences

30. Implications Foster Interest – Involvement, Meaning, Relevance. Connect to Students – Responsiveness, informal interactions. – Female faculty? Teach for Transformative Experiences – Frame the content in terms of its everyday use. – Scaffold re-seeing. – Model transformative experience.

31. Conclusion from survey data • Further to investigate the role of following factors in recruitment and retention: • Transformative Experiences • Connecting to instructor

32. Part 3: • Role of courses and faculty • What attracts students to a geoscience major? (from interview and survey data) • Statistical model that explain students’ selection of a major and career (from survey data) • What students like about geosciences courses and faculty (from interview data) • Experiences of female and male students in four geoscience departments (from interview data)

33. Role of Courses and Faculty • What do students like and dislike about geoscience courses? • What do students like and dislike about geoscience faculty? • Are there any differences in these preferences between sites and gender groups?

34. Method • Four sites • 2 low sites graduate < 40% female students • 2 high sites graduate > 40% female students • Interview data • Student focus groups • 2 to 6 participantsper group • Grouped by gender and level

35. Like Courses by Gender Male Students (N=33, responses=87) Female Students (N=28, responses=67)

36. Like Courses by High and Low Sites Low Sites (N=25, responses=35) High Sites (N=36, responses=52)

37. Dislike Courses by Gender Male Students (N=33, responses=35) Female Students (N=28, responses=29)

38. Like Faculty by Gender Individual Characteristics Professional Characteristics

39. Dislike Faculty by Gender Male Students (N=33, responses=43) Female Students (N=28, responses=42)

40. Conclusion • Students’ views of courses and faculty impact their decisions to major and continue in a career • Male vs. female student views • Overall, students had more comments about what they liked than what they disliked • Future work: • Investigate patterns within the larger categories, especially those with discrepancies • Investigate patterns within sites

41. Part 4: • Gendered experience in departments • What attracts students to a geoscience major? (from interview and survey data) • Statistical model that explain students’ selection of a major and career (from survey data) • What students like about geosciences courses and faculty (from interview data) • Experiences of female and male students in four geoscience departments (from interview data)

42. Introduction • 22 Faculty and 61 students interviewed at 2 low sites and 2 high sites. • Low sites graduate < 40% women • High sites graduate > 40% women • Research question: • What differences in faculty and student interactions do faculty and students perceive based on gender?

43. Coding Process • Coded responses and applied equity categories developed by other researchers who have investigated equity. • Student and student interactions • Faculty and student interactions

44. I don’t know: Null • Null experiences are absent of negative and positive experiences. • Experiences that are devoid of equity messages are inherently discriminatory for persons that are in lower represented groups because the “normal/neutral” environment is too often designed in terms of “white male privilege.” (MacIntosh) • Exemplars (“I don’t know”) • “I’ve never looked for it.” • “Probably, but I would not have any idea what they are.”

45. Yes: Negative • Include both overt and subtle displays. • These are experiences in which someone unconsciously or deliberately displays, creates, or acts in ways that discriminate, exclude, and produce a hostile environment for women • Exemplars (“Yes: negative”) • Female student:“Being a female in our major you have to work a little harder. I’ve had to work harder on tests to, not necessarily get the same grade, but get the same amount of respect [from the professor] on the assignment." • Female faculty: “There was [a male] instructor who [said] that women could not do fieldwork…that it was too physically demanding. Or that most women couldn’t…It was one of his duties to flush out the women who couldn’t."

46. Yes: Positive • Additive experiences support equity, but they represent only those of which the mainstream/dominant culture is comfortable. • Transformative experiences send messages from the equity-centric perspective rather than the dominant culture perspective. It is a purposeful approach for a commitment to equity through personal involvement and commitment to change. • Exemplars (“Yes: positive”) • Female student: “Having positive and successful [female faculty] in the department is really inspiring…Seeing women being very successful is great and they’re super inspirational.” • Female student: “I have heard a couple of professors say, ‘We can’t lose you, we need female students.’ There’s been a group effort to keep me here.”

47. No: No equity measure • How do we interpret “no” responses when faculty and students are relating “yes – negative” experiences about their sites? • Possible interpretations: • “no” means “no”. • “no” means lack of awareness of implicit gender differencesor unwillingness to look at gendered experiences. In this case, “no” responses would be categorized as “null”. • Exemplars (“No”) • Male faculty: “I don’t see a clear difference between them (male and female students). It’s more of an individual issue.” • Male faculty: “I haven’t witnessed [differential treatment in my experience here… Everybody treats everybody else pretty much the same.”

48. Findings: Overall Pattern Faculty and Student Responses by Site Low sites participants (N=36, responses=88) High sites participants (N=48, responses=58)

49. Findings: Student Responses by Gender Male students (N=28, responses=18) Female students (N=33, responses=41)

50. Findings: Student responses by gender and high and low sites Male Students Low Site (N=15, responses=8) Male students High Site (N=18, responses=10) Female Students Low Site (N=10, responses=25) Female Students High Site (N=18, responses=16)