|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 119
Carol B. Muller, Founder and CEO
MentorNeti
Despite some concerted attention and resources devoted to recruit-
ment and retention of women in engineering over the last couple of de-
cades, they are still woefully underrepresented in engineering and many
related sciences. This underrepresentation is problematic from several
perspectives: From the point of view of the U.S. science and engineering
workforce, nearly half the potential talent for the technical workforce is
missing. There is also cause for concern on the part of those seeking
quality, talent, and creativity for the engineering and scientific disci-
plines and professions. And women themselves are missing out on op-
portunities to leverage learning and skills in interesting and rewarding
careers, explore new fields, develop new knowledge, design new solu-
~ MentorNet (www.MentorNet.net), the e-mentoring network for women in engineering and
science, is a nonprofit organization. MentorNet's mission is to further women's progress in
scientific and technical fields through a dynamic, technology-supported mentoring program
and to advance women and society by developing a diversified, expanded, and talented
workforce. The vision is threefold: to establish excellence in large-scale e-mentoring, to cre-
ate the e-community of choice for women in engineering and science through online
mentoring and networking, and to leverage that community for positive social change.
MentorNet leverages technology to build large-scale impact for women and positive social
change, on a scale which has increased over its five year history. During 2001-02, more than
3,000 undergraduate and graduate women studying engineering and related sciences at
more than 100 colleges and universities across the U.S., and in several other nations, were
matched in structured, one-on-one, email-based mentoring relationships with male and fe-
male scientific and technical professionals working in industry and government.
OCR for page 120
PAN-~CANIZAHONAL SUMMIT
lions, and benefit from the rewards of financial independence and eco-
. .
Nordic equity.
DATA
When we consider why there are so few women in science and tech-
nology fields, it's important to consider a few facts. Women represent
more than half the population and 46 percent of the U.S. workforce, but
just 24 percent of those working in science and engineering combined and
only 10 percent of the engineering workforce (NSF, 2002~. Since 1980, the
percentage of women receiving bachelor's degrees in engineering has
slowly increased from about 10 percent to nearly 20 percent. But in some
of those years, the percentage remained flat, and in recent years, even
when the percentage increased, the total numbers remained the same or
decreased.
Those less engaged with developing the scientific and technical work-
force may be lulled into complacency. Since the social changes of the
women's movement and legislation removing barriers and addressing
gender equity changed the landscape for women's opportunities 30 years
ago, women have made considerable progress in participation in a vari-
ety of professional fields. National Science Foundation data put the per-
centage of women receiving bachelor's degrees in science and engineer-
ing combined at 50 percent of the total in 2000. At first glance, one would
think equity had been achieved, but upon closer scrutiny one sees that the
definition of "science" in this case includes social and behavioral sciences,
including psychology (in which women represented 76 percent of
bachelor's degree recipients in 2000) and other fields where women are
overrepresented. In 2000, women earned about 20 percent of bachelor's
degrees in engineering, 33 percent in mathematical and computer sciences,
and 56 percent in biological and agricultural sciences.
Furthermore, the apparent "gains" in percentages are more reflec-
tive of the lower percentages of men entering these fields than increases
in percentages of women: In 1980, 1.3 percent of women earning
bachelor's degrees majored in engineering vs. 11.1 percent of men. In
2000, 1.7 percent of women earning bachelor's degrees majored in engi-
neering vs. 8.8 percent of men. The numbers of women beginning ma-
jors in science and math are much smaller than those for men, but once
in these fields, women's attrition is not appreciably different from men's
(Campbell et al., 2002), except at highly selective institutions (Strenta,
1993~. Attrition and differential retention for women may still be a con-
cern, however, since we would expect even stronger retention among
women than among men, given their higher average academic perfor-
mance (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997~.
OCR for page 121
MENTORNET
The gap in participation of minority groups is not as large as the gen-
der gap (Campbell et al., 2002), but race and ethnicity are also key factors
in understanding the full spectrum of women's participation in science
and engineering. While the Sender Ban in Preparation for higher educa-
~ · 1 1 1 · ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ A ~ -
hon has closed, a gap In preparation persists for students of Air~can-
American, Hispanic, and Native American background compared with
their white and Asian counterparts.
Most of the data reported, however, are not disaggregated by gender
and race/ethnicity. Potentially even more problematic for educational
equity is the lack of data on the relationship of socioeconomic status to
entry and persistence in science and engineering education and workforce
participation. The development of policy and practice to ameliorate the
underrepresentation of various kinds of students and, later, workforce
participants, is impeded by these limitations of available data. Because of
the strong correlation, it's often not at all clear when differences in prepa-
ration, for example, reflect differences in socioeconomic status and when
they reflect institutional or individual racism.
The situation of women's considerable underrepresentation in science
and engineering cries out for remedy, but remedy is complex. Dramatic
gains have proven elusive over the last three decades even though overt
barriers to women's participation in these fields have fallen.
EXAMINING EXPLANATIONS FOR GENDER DIFFERENCES
Differences in aptitude, achievement, or preparation do not appear to
explain women's lower rates of participation in engineering and science.
Some may assume that women leave scientific and technical fields of
study because they find them too difficult. Yet the achievement gap in
mathematics between boys and girls is less than 1 percent (Campbell et
al., 2002), and research suggests that women switching out of science and
engineering majors in college have higher GPAs in these fields than do
men who stay in such majors (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Adelman, 1998~.
Girls and boys appear to be taking math and science classes in high school
at about the same levels.
The remaining area of gender difference as students prepare to enter
college appears to be interest, with girls even less interested than boys in
pursuing engineering and science in college and beyond. Women, to a
somewhat greater extent than men, are apt to choose fields of study they
believe will contribute to the social good, and engineering and related
sciences are not widely perceived as professions making such contribu-
tions. Though examples abound of discoveries, inventions, and solid en-
gineering work and scientific research that contribute to the health and
welfare of people all over the planet, to environmental protection and
OCR for page 122
PAN-~CANIZAHONAL SUMMIT
improved quality of life, the links between this work and engineering and
science are not obvious to those outside these fields, and the perception
remains.
Lack of interest or misperceptions on the part of students are not the
responsibility or domain of any one institution or system. They are
prompted by a social fabric that pervades our society, represented not
only within our educational systems but also in homes, within families,
and in popular culture, which, by and large, stereotypes engineering and
scientific fields as "geeky" and particularly inappropriate for girls and
women. Targeted programs frequently attract only a portion of the stu-
dents who could benefit from them, due to stigmas attached to participa-
tion, including peer backlash and harassment of those who participate.
We should be cautious about overemphasizing gender differences in
seeking explanations and remedies for women's underrepresentation in
science and engineering. Men and women are more alike than they are
different. Women, like men, are not monolithic in nature; they choose to
pursue or leave certain fields of study or employment for a wide variety
of reasons. As a result, there won't be a "one size fits all" solution to in-
creasing women's participation in scientific and technical fields, and many
of the same strategies that work to encourage men's participation will
encourage women's, and vice versa.
At the same time, we need to recognize that societal beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors still lead to differential perceptions of and expectations for
women (see, for example, Valian, 1998~. Expectations, in turn, strongly
influence learning and behaviors (Steele, 1999~. Mitigating differential ex-
pectations through deliberate encouragement of women, provision of
mentoring, role models, internships and scholarships, and related strate-
gies can be helpful.
Good educational practice, focused on improving the learning of all
students without a particular focus on gender, frequently results in greater
gender parity. Similarly, when special effort is put into understanding the
causes and providing remedies for women's underrepresentation (e.g.,
through examination of institutional policies and practices, faculty devel-
opment, or providing a stronger community of support), the resulting
changes often benefit all students.
LESSONS LEARNED: STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE
Solutions to increase participation of women in science and engineer-
ing often initially focus on the problem of how to persuade more girls and
women to enter and remain in these fields. These interventions have been
characterized as efforts that focus on a "deficit" model, in which it is as-
sumed that these individuals lack something ability, experience, inter-
OCR for page 123
MENTORNET
est. inspiration, motivation that they need in order to succeed. In this
model, attention is paid to mitigating that deficit, typically by providing
programs summer camps, internships, remedial courses, special study
groups, mentoring programs, social opportunities, seminars, evening pro-
grams, etc.
Program evaluation suggests that well-designed intervention pro-
grams can definitely make a difference in increasing the numbers of
women in science and engineering, at least for some portion of the popu-
lation in some environments. But even on college campuses with long-
standing, comprehensive programs focused on women in engineering
and/or science, the representation of women does not rise to parity. Some
have criticized this approach for its development of "Band-aid" efforts
that address symptoms rather than tackling the roots of the problem.
In the last decade, juxtaposed to the program intervention approach,
many have suggested that we should instead address what needs to be
changed in these fields, disciplines, and institutions so that more girls and
women will be attracted to them. Within this framework, greater atten-
tion is paid to institutional and "systemic" features of the fields of study,
modes of instruction, organizational policies, cultural practices, and struc-
tural elements that may impede women's full participation and success.
Under consideration in this model, for example, are admissions policies,
teaching practices, faculty rewards and incentives, faculty development,
grading, testing, and other forms of assessment, curricular structure, and
program and degree requirements. The appeal of this approach is strong.
In theory at least, systemic change will address root causes and solve the
problems so that they will not recur and will not need recurring treat-
ment. It's also a bold, transformative approach with appeal to change
agents who recognize and appreciate the serious limitations of program
intervention.
At the same time, however, systemic change requires long-term
investment to create measurable shifts in values, beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors, as well as structural changes in complex, interconnected orga-
nizations, professions, and practices. These changes are frequently chal-
lenging, complex, and time consuming, particularly if a comprehensive
shift is desired, with measurable impact on the participation of currently
underrepresented groups. There is a need to address interrelated systems
and organizations in ways that are not under the control of any one single
group of change agents.
Making a distinction between these two approaches is not always
easy, and valuing one over the other is not altogether helpful either. We
need to focus on changing systems, practices, and institutions, not on "fix-
ing" the individuals who aren't choosing engineering and scientific fields,
but support programs should not be tossed out even as we focus on criti-
OCR for page 124
PAN-~CANIZAHONAL SUMMIT
cat systemic change. An analogy to consider is the treatment of disease:
There are diseases for which the cause and cure are still unknown, but
while research scientists are investigating the cause and cure, we don't
withhold treatment to ameliorate the symptoms of the disease, improve
quality of life, and extend life. Similarly, as we pursue systemic change, it
is important to continue to measure the effects of good intervention pro-
grams and to offer as widely as possible those that are effective.
Programs that support and encourage individual girls and women,
helping them to understand and thrive even within current flawed sys-
tems and organizational structures, are valuable. Such programs may also
seed the process of longer-term shifts in institutional practices and cul-
ture. For example, in situations where men who are professional engi-
neers and scientists serve as mentors to women students, they may learn
more about the barriers women face in ways that lead to changes in their
own beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. In another example, faculty spon-
soring research internships may have their erroneous assumptions about
women students' abilities or other stereotypes dispelled.
There are already many strong programs in place, innovative as well
as "tried and true," local, regional, and national, that help spark interest
among young women; help to mentor students and emerging profession-
als at every level; provide "hands on" opportunities to explore the fun,
challenge, and excitement of engineering and science; and offer role mod-
els and communities of support. Too often, however, these programs ex-
ist at the margins of our institutions, short on infrastructure for sustain-
ability and scalability, the first to be cut when budgets are tight, vulnerable
to leadership burnout or personnel changes. Leadership is needed to rec-
ognize the importance of this work, bring it into the mainstream of every-
day educational practice, and create more ways to institutionalize, repli-
cate, and scale effective efforts. Often, resources are needed to provide
appropriate infrastructure for organizations or programs to ensure their
sustainability, stability, and growth.
Too, the endless appetite of funding agencies, the media, and creative
individuals who develop programs for the "new new thing" in programs
for women and girls in engineering and science, may contribute to an
overinvestment in "startups" at the expense of sustaining high-perform-
ing but more seasoned operations.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM MENTORNET
Mentoring is a frequently employed strategy for retention of women in
engineering and science. The power of mentoring is sometimes poorly un-
derstood, and mentoring is not always effectively practiced (Zachary, 2000~.
At its weakest, mentoring is viewed as a somewhat offhand strategy to
OCR for page 125
MENTORNET
address deficits, providing some needed encouragement and advising of
weaker and less confident students. Once in college, women are somewhat
more likely than men to doubt their ability to succeed in scientific and tech-
nical fields, yet lack of confidence frequently influences women's decisions
to persist in studies or postgraduate opportunities in these fields (Seymour
and Hewitt, 1997~. Mentoring appears to be a strategy that helps increase
women's confidence in their abilities (MentorNet, 2002~.
At its strongest, however, mentoring is understood as a powerful
learning process, which assures the intergenerational transfer of knowl-
edge and "know-how" on an ongoing basis throughout one's life
(Clutterbuck, 2001; Zachary, 2000~. Mentoring helps make explicit the tacit
knowledge of a discipline and its professional culture. Whether or not
such individuals are labeled "mentors," nearly everyone has one or more
mentors in the form of more experienced guides and advisers as they Prow
and develop as individuals and professionals.
Both proteges and mentors learn from mentoring relationships
(Zachary, 2000~. Well-deployed mentoring can be highly effective in sup-
porting systemic change and in creating positive, productive, equitable
learning environments (Clutterbuck, 2001~. When mentoring is under-
stood as a serious and powerful learning process, complete with the need
to establish learning objectives, measures, and discipline to achieve re-
sults, its potential can be realized (Zachary, 2000~. Policymakers, funders,
and program developers, however, need to understand better the ele-
ments of effective mentoring and to consider how best to construct
mentoring experiences that can be valuable and powerful in their trans-
formation of individuals and organizations.
MentorNet was specifically designed to take advantage of newly
emerging widespread use of Internet technologies to create mentoring
opportunities where they couldn't previously exist due to constraints of
time and geography. It was also designed to leverage technology in sup-
port of scale of programs that can otherwise be very time consuming to
manage well. Research-based program design, continuous improvement
and feedback loops, and clever adaptation of technology-supported solu-
tions have enabled an electronic mentoring program linking students with
professionals in industry that is both scalable and cost-effective.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
· Disaggregate data by sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to
ensure that program and change design will be influenced by data appro-
priate for all within the targeted population.
· Measure the effects of intervention programs, and offer those that
are effective as widely as possible.
OCR for page 126
PAN-~CANIZAHONAL SUMMIT
· Bring effective programs into the mainstream of everyday educa-
tional practice, and create more ways to institutionalize, replicate, and
scale these efforts.
· Invest in infrastructure for effective programs to ensure
sustainability, stability, and growth, creating high-performance organiza-
tions.
· Invest in both treatment (support under current systems) and cure
(systemic change).
· Use research and practice to inform the development of effective
mentoring programs for specific learning objectives for individuals and
to support systemic change, measuring results against objectives.
· Explore ways in which technology can support scale and achieve
efficiencies.
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1998~. Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model for Analyses of Under-
graduate Careers. U.S. Department of Education, The National Institute for Science Edu-
cation, Washington, DC.
Campbell, P., Jolly, E., Hoey, L., and Perlman, L. (2002~. Upping the Numbers: Using Research-
Based Decision Making to Increase Diversity in the Quantitative Disciplines. A report com-
missioned by the GE Fund.
Clutterbuck, D. (2001~. Everyone Needs a Mentor. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-
opment. London: CIPD Publishing.
MentorNet (2002~. 2000-01 MentorNet Evaluation Report. http://www.mentornet.net/Documents/
About/Results/Evaluation/OO-O1 /OO.Ol.YearEnd.Eval.Report.appendices.pdf.
National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, Chapter 3: Science and
Engineering Workforce Women and Minorities in SHE. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/
srs/seindO2/.
Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N. (1997~. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sci-
ences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Steele, C. (1999~. Thin Ice: "Stereotype Threat" and Black College Students, Atlantic Monthly,
August 1999. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908stereotype.htm.
Strenta, C. (1993~. Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions: General Factors
and the Question of Gender. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New York, NY.
Valian, V. (1998~. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zachary, L. (2000~. The Mentor's Guide. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
technical fields
