BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF SUCCESS

FOR WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

REPORT OF A WORKSHOP

Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF SUCCESS FOR WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING REPORT OF A WORKSHOP Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the National Academies and the National Insti- tutes of Health Office for Research on Women’s Health under contract 1-OD-4-2137, task order 166. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the orga- nizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10041-0 (Book) International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10041-0 (Book) International Standard Book Number-10 0-309-65451-3 (PDF) International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-65451-7 (PDF) Library of Congress Control Number 2006933601 Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001; 202-334-2807; Internet, http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup. Additional copies of this workshop summary are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the respon- sibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON MAXIMIZING THE POTENTIAL OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DONNA E. SHALALA [IOM], (Chair) President, University of Miami, Miami, Florida ALICE M. AGOGINO [NAE], Roscoe and Elizabeth Hughes Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California LOTTE BAILYN, Professor, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts ROBERT J. BIRGENEAU [NAS], Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley, California ANA MARI CAUCE, Executive Vice Provost and Earl R. Carlson Professor of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington CATHERINE D. DEANGELIS [IOM], Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of the American Medical Association, New York, New York DENICE DENTON,* (Deceased) Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz, California BARBARA GROSZ, Higgins Professor of Natural Science, Division of Engi- neering and Applied Sciences, and Dean of Science, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JO HANDELSMAN, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin NAN KEOHANE, President Emerita, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina SHIRLEY MALCOM [NAS], Head, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC GERALDINE RICHMOND, Richard M. and Patricia H. Noyes Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon ALICE M. RIVLIN, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC RUTH SIMMONS, President, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island ELIZABETH SPELKE [NAS], Berkman Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JOAN STEITZ [NAS], Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Bio- chemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut ELAINE WEYUKER [NAE], Fellow, AT&T Laboratories, Florham Park, New Jersey *Served from September 2005 to June 2006. iv

OCR for page R1
MARIA T. ZUBER [NAS], E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Principal Project Staff LAUREL L. HAAK, Study Director JOHN SISLIN, Program Officer BERYL BENDERLY, Consultant Science Writer NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor JUDY GOSS, Senior Program Assistant JENNIFER HOBIN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow RACHAEL SCHOLZ, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow ERIN FRY, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow v

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY GEORGE WHITESIDES (Chair), Woodford L. and Ann A. Flowers University Professor, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts UMA CHOWDHRY, Vice President, Central Research and Development, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware RALPH J. CICERONE (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC R. JAMES COOK, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington HAILE DEBAS, Executive Director, UCSF Global Health Sciences, Maurice Galante Distinguished Professor of Surgery, San Francisco, California HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex officio), President, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex officio), Chancellor, University of California, San Diego, California ELSA GARMIRE, Sydney E. Junkins Professor, School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire M.R.C. GREENWOOD (Ex officio), Professor, Nutrition and Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, California NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WILLIAM H. JOYCE (Ex officio), Chairman and CEO, Nalco, Naperville, Illinois MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado RICHARD A. MESERVE, President, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC ROBERT M. NEREM, Parker H. Petit Professor and Director, Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, Retired Sector Vice President for Integrated Solutions, Science Applications International Corporation, La Jolla, California ANNE C. PETERSEN, President, Global Philanthropic Alliance, Kalamazoo, Michigan CECIL PICKETT, President, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, New Jersey EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Professor and Chair, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York vi

OCR for page R1
HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois LYDIA THOMAS (Ex officio), President and Chief Executive Officer, Mitretek Systems, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WM. A. WULF (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist, Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Staff RICHARD BISSELL, Executive Director DEBORAH D. STINE, Associate Director LAUREL L. HAAK, Program Officer MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Coordinator vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Twenty-five years ago, Congress passed the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act, which declares it “the policy of the United States that men and women have equal opportunity in education, training, and employment in scientific and technical fields.” Major advances have occurred since then in the numbers of women enrolling in science and engineering classes in high school and college, but academic institutions are not fully using the growing pool of women scientists and engineering graduates that these classes have produced. The nation’s ability to use all its scientific talent is vital to its ability to retain technological and economic leadership in an increasingly competitive world. A diverse workforce brings new perspectives and priorities to science and engineer- ing education and research. Removing artificial barriers that prevent scientists from making their optimal contributions therefore has high priority. Over the last 40 years, the number of women studying science and engineer- ing has increased dramatically. Women now earn 51% of the bachelor’s degrees and 37% of PhDs, including 45% those in biomedical fields. Within the popula- tion of women science and engineering students, there are divergent experiences. For example, white women earn 50% of the bachelor’s degrees and 41% of the PhDs awarded to whites. Hispanic women earn 55% of the bachelor’s degrees and 50% of the PhDs awarded to Hispanics. African American women earn 64% of the bachelor’s degrees and 54% of the PhDs awarded to African Americans. Nevertheless, women do not hold academic faculty positions in numbers commensurate with their increasing share of the science and engineering talent pool. This is particularly true for African American women. The discrepancy exists at both the junior and senior faculty levels but is especially great at the top ix

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE research-intensive universities. Furthermore, women who find academic employ- ment are less likely than men to have tenure-track jobs in science or engineering departments or to advance to tenure. Even when they land tenure-track jobs and earn tenure, women lag behind men in salary, professional honors, and positions of authority. The causes of the discrepancies are controversial. Observers have attributed differences in career progression and success to sex differences in cognitive abilities, to differences in career interests and preferences, to bias and discrimina- tion, to gendered institutional policies and practices, to broader societal gender roles and assumptions, or to a combination of these factors. To explore the question, the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy assembled the ad hoc Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering and charged it to • Review and assess the research on sex and gender issues in science and engineering, including innate differences in cognition, implicit bias, and faculty diversity. • Examine the institutional culture and practices of academic institutions that discourage and prevent talented individuals from realizing their full potential as scientists and engineers. • Determine effective practices to ensure that women doctorates have access to a wide range of career opportunities in academe and in other research settings. • Determine effective practices for recruiting and retention of women scientists and engineers in faculty positions. • Provide recommendations to guide faculty, deans, department chairs, other university leaders, funding organizations, and government agencies in the best ways to maximize the potential of women science and engineering researchers. As a vital part of its effort, the committee held a public convocation, Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering: Bio- logical, Social and Organizational Components of Success, on December 9, 2005, in Washington, DC.1 The convocation consisted of three elements: a series of panel discussions, poster sessions where attendees shared their data and experi- ences, and a public comment session. We brought together national experts in a number of disciplines to discuss crucial and controversial questions. Speakers were asked to address what sex differences research tells us about capability, 1 The meeting agenda and speaker presentations are available online at http://www7.national academies.org/womeninacademe/.

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE behavior, career decisions, and achievement; the role of organizational structures and institutional policy; cross-cutting issues of race and ethnicity; key research needs and experimental paradigms and tools; and the ramifications of their research for policy, particularly for evaluating current and potential academic faculty. Speakers presented the most up-to-date research exploring the effects of sex and gender2 on cognition and on recruiting, hiring, promoting, and retaining women scientists and engineers, and they described the best methods for improv- ing women’s opportunities to advance and succeed in academic science. Although the discussions during those activities helped the committee to re- spond to its charge, this report presents the views and opinions of the convocation participants and may not reflect the views of the committee or of the National Academies. The committee released a final consensus report with findings and recommendations in September 2006. Donna E. Shalala, Chair Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering 2Sex is defined as “the biological state of being male or female” and gender as “the culturally prescribed characteristics and roles of a male or female in society and associated with masculinity and femininity.”

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy appreciates the support of the National Academies standing Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE), which is represented on the Guidance Group, on the study committee, and through staff support. This report is the product of the efforts of many people. We would like to thank those who spoke at our convocation (in alphabetical order): MAHZARIN RUSTUM BANAJI, Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics, Harvard University, and Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Cambridge, Massachusetts ROBERT DRAGO, Professor of Labor and Women’s Studies, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania SUSAN FISKE, Professor of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey JAY GIEDD, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland DONNA GINTHER, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas DIANE HALPERN, Professor and Chair of Psychology, Berger Institute for Work, Family, and Children, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California JANET HYDE, Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin JOANNE MARTIN, Fred H. Merrill Professor of Organizational Behavior, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BRUCE McEWEN [NAS/IOM], Professor, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York KELLEE NOONAN, Diversity Program Manager, Technical Career Path, Hewlett Packard, Sunnyvale, California JOAN REEDE, Dean for Diversity and Community Partnership and Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts SUE ROSSER, Professor and Dean, Ivan Allen College, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia ANGELICA STACY, Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California JOAN WILLIAMS, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Center for WorkLife Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California YU XIE, Otis Dudley Duncan Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan This report has been reviewed in draft form by those selected for their knowl- edge, expertise, and wide range of perspectives, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manu- script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following for their participation in the review of this report: ROBERT DRAGO, Professor of Labor Studies and Women’s Studies, Pennsyl- vania State University, State College, Pennsylvania EVELYNN HAMMONDS, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts KRISTINA JOHNSON, Professor and Dean, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina JAMES C. KAUFMAN, Assistant Professor of Psychology, California State University at San Bernardino JOANNE MARTIN, Fred H. Merrill Professor, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California CHERRY MURRAY, Deputy Director for Science, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California LONDA SCHIEBINGER, The John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California ABIGAIL STEWART, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

OCR for page R1
xv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although the reviewers had many constructive comments and suggestions about the report, they were not asked to endorse the findings and recommenda- tions of the report, nor did they see a final draft of the report before its release. The report review was overseen by May R. Berenbaum, Professor and Head of the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, appointed by the Report Review Committee, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accor- dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. In addition, we thank the Guidance Group that oversaw this project: NANCY HOPKINS (Guidance Group Chair), Amgen Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts ELSA GARMIRE, Professor, School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry, Joint Institute for Labora- tory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado ANNE C. PETERSEN, President, Global Philanthropic Alliance, Kalamazoo, Michigan MAXINE SINGER, President Emerita, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois LILLIAN WU, Director of University Relations, International Business Machines, New York, New York MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist, Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Finally, we thank the staff of this project for their guidance, including Laurel Haak, program officer with the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy and study director, who managed the project; John Sislin, the collaborat- ing program officer from the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering; Beryl Benderly, the science writer for this report; Judy Goss, who provided project support; Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Graduate Policy Fellows Jennifer Hobin, Rachael Scholz, and Erin Fry, who provided research and ana- lytical support; Jong-On Hahm, former director of the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering; Peter Henderson, director of the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering; Mary Mattis, senior program officer, National Academy of Engineering; Richard Bissell, executive director and Charlotte Kuh, deputy executive director of the Policy and Global Affairs; and Deborah D. Stine, associate director, of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents Introduction 1 Section 1: Summaries of Convocation Sessions 7 Panel 1: Cognitive and Biological Contributions Panel Summary 10 Gender Differences and Similarities in Abilities: Janet Hyde, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 11 Sexual Dimorphism in the Developing Brain: Jay Giedd, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 15 Environment-Genetic Interactions in the Adult Brain: Effects of Stress on Learning: Bruce McEwen, The Rockefeller University, 17 Biopsychosocial Contributions to Cognitive Performance: Diane Halpern, Berger Institute for Work, Family, and Children, Claremont McKenna College, 20 Selections from the Question and Answer Session, 24 Panel 2: Social Contributions 28 Panel Summary 29 Implicit and Explicit Gender Discrimination: Mahzarin Rustum Banaji, Department of Psychology, Harvard University and Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, 30 Contextual Influences on Performance: Toni Schmader, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, 32 xvii

OCR for page R1
xviii CONTENTS Interactions Between Power and Gender: Susan Fiske, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, 38 Social Influences on Science and Engineering Career Decisions: Yu Xie, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, 42 Selections from the Question and Answer Session, 44 Panel 3: Organizational Structures 48 Panel Summary 49 Moving Beyond the “Chilly Climate” to a New Model for Spurring Organizational Change: Joan Williams, Center for WorkLife Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 51 Economics of Gendered Distribution of Resources in Academe: Donna Ginther, Department of Economics, University of Kansas, 56 Bias Avoidance in the Academy: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Value of Policies: Robert Drago, Departments of Labor and Women’s Studies, Pennsylvania State University, 61 Gendered Organizations: Scientists and Engineers in Universities and Corporations Joanne Martin, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 64 Selections from the Question and Answer Session, 69 Panel 4: Implementing Policies 72 Panel Summary 73 Recruitment Practices: Angelica Stacy, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, 74 Reaching into Minority Populations: Joan Reede, Harvard Medical School, 81 Creating an Inclusive Work Environment: Sue Rosser, Ivan Allen College, Georgia Institute of Technology, 89 Successful Practices in Industry: Kellee Noonan, Technical Career Path, Hewlett Packard, 91 Selections from the Question and Answer Session, 93 Section 2: Workshop Papers 97 Donna Ginther, The Economics of Gender Differences in Employment Outcomes in Academia, 99 Diane Halpern, Biopsychosocial Contributions to Cognitive Performance, 113 Janet Shibley Hyde, Women in Science and Mathematics: Gender Similarities in Abilities and Sociocultural Forces, 127

OCR for page R1
xix CONTENTS Sue V. Rosser, Creating an Inclusive Work Environment , 137 Joan C. Williams, Long Time No See: Why Are There Still So Few Women in Academic Science and Engineering? 149 Yu Xie, Social Influences on Science and Engineering Career Decisions, 166 Section 3: Poster Abstracts 175 Sociology 177 Florence Bonner and Vernese Edgeh, Policy and Praxis: Advancing Women in Higher Education and Influencing Outcomes, 177 Miguel R. Olivas-Luján, Ann Gregory, John Miller, JoAnn Duffy, Suzy Fox, Terri Lituchy, Silvia Inés Monserrat, Betty Jane Punnett, and Neusa María Bastos F. Santos, Successful Academic Women in the Americas: Human and Social Capital Descriptors, 178 Gloria Scott, Science Is Foundation for Leadership, 180 Roberta Spalter-Roth, Work-Family Policies in Academia as Resources or Rewards, 180 Monica Young, Case Studies from the Female Engineering Professoriate, 181 Organizational Structure 182 Amber Barnato and Pamela Peele, The Role of Informal Organizational Structures on Women in the Health Sciences, 182 Diana Bilimoria, Susan R. Perry, Xiangfen Liang, Patricia Higgins, Eleanor P. Stoller, and Cyrus C. Taylor, How Do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job Satisfaction? 183 Diana Bilimoria, C. Greer Jordan, and Susan R. Perry, A Good Place to Do Science: Creating and Sustaining a Productive, Inclusive Work Environment for Female and Male Scientists, 183 Diana Bilimoria, Margaret M. Hopkins, Deborah A. O’Neil, and Susan R. Perry, An Integrated Coaching and Mentoring Program for University Transformation, 184 Cheryl Geisler, Deborah Kaminski, Robyn Berkley, and Linda Layne, Up Against the Glass: Gender and Promotion at a Technological University, 185 Rachel Ivie, Women in Academic Physics and Astronomy, 186 Mary Ellen Jackson, Phyllis Robinson, Sarah Conolly Hokenmaier, and J. Lynn Zimmer, Faculty Horizons: Recruiting a Diverse Faculty, 186 Delia Saenz and Allecia Reid, Diversity in STEM Disciplines: The Case of Faculty Women of Color, 187

OCR for page R1
xx CONTENTS Institutional Policy 188 Ruth Dyer and Beth A. Montelone, Initiatives to Increase Recruitment, Retention and Advancement of Women in Science and Engineering Disciplines at Kansas State University, 188 Lisa Frehill, Mary O’Connell, Elba Serrano, and Cecily Jeser-Cannavale, Effective Practices for STEM Faculty Diversity, 189 Jo Handelsman, Molly Carnes, Jennifer Sheridan, Eve Fine, and Christine Pribbenow, NSF ADVANCE at the UW-Madison: Three Success Stories, 190 Peggy Layne, Patricia Hyer, and Elizabeth Creamer, Institutional Transformation at Virginia Tech, 190 Janet Malley, Pamela Raymond, and Abigail Stewart, Institutional Transformation at the University of Michigan, 191 Nancy Martin, Beth Mitchneck, and William McCallum, Scientifically Correct: Speaking to Scientists about Diversity, 192 Geralidine L. Richmond, Working to Increase the Success of Women Scientists in Academia, 192 Eve A. Riskin, Kate Quinn, Joyce W. Yen, Sheila Edwards Lange, Suzanne Brainard, Ana Mari Cauce, and Denice D. Denton, Leadership Workshops to Effect Cultural Change, 193 Tammy Smecker-Hane, Lisa Frehill, Priscilla Kehoe, Susan V. Bryant, Herb Killackey, and Debra Richardson, ADVANCE: Successful Recruitment of Womento STEM at UCI, 194 Section 4: Appendixes A Workshop Agenda 197 B Speaker Biographical Information 202 C Committee Biographical Information 211 D Statement of Task 221 FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES Figures Section 1 1-1 Cross-cultural differences in fifth-grade mathematics performance, 14 1-2 Longitudinal development of white matter, 16 1-3 Biopsychosocial model, 22 1-4 Gender differences in mathematics performance, 34 1-5 Teaching about stereotype threat inoculates against its effects, 38

OCR for page R1
xxi CONTENTS 1-6 Fiske et al.’s Stereotype Content Model applied to subtypes of women, 41 1-7 Percentage of doctorates granted to females, 58 1-8 Percentage of tenured faculty who are women, 59 1-9 Women fast-track professionals with babies in the household, by age of professional, 62 1-10 Physical science, mathematics, and engineering applicant pool and faculty positions at The University of California, Berkeley, 76 1-11 Biological and health sciences applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, 77 1-12 Departmental hiring vs the applicant pool, University of California, Berkeley, 78 1-13 Children in households among assistant professors at the University of California, Berkeley, 80 1-14 Number of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to minority females, by race and ethnicity, 1994-2001, 84 1-15 Number of science and engineering doctorates awarded to minority- group women, by race and ethnicity, 1994-2001, 85 1-16 Medical school faculty by rank, gender, race, and ethnicity, 86 1-17 Number of science and engineering doctorate holders employed in science and engineering occupations in universities and 4-year colleges, by race, ethnicity, and faculty rank, 2001, 87 Section 2 2-1 Percentage of doctorates granted to females, 1974-2004, 103 2-2 Percentage of tenured faculty who are female, by discipline, 1973- 2001, 104 2-3 Gender differences in tenure track job within 5 years of PhD, 105 2-4 Gender differences in promotion to tenure 10 years past PhD, 105 2-5 Gender salary gap by academic rank, 2001 SDR, 109 2-6 Biopsychosocial model in which the nature-nurture dichotomy is replaced with a continuous feedback loop, 117 2-7 An example of a mental rotation task. Can the pairs of figures in A and B be rotated so that they are identical? Reaction times and correct answers are recorded, 119 2-8 Gender differences in achievement: 15 year old and 8th grade students, 122 2-9 Average SAT scores of entering college classes, 1967-2004, 123 2-10 Georgia Institute of Technology female faculty by rank and year, institution-wide, 145 2-11 Georgia Institute of Technology faculty flux charts, 146

OCR for page R1
xxii CONTENTS 2-12 Synthetic cohort life course, career processes, and outcomes examined, and data sources, 168 2-13 Sex-specific probabilities for selected pathways to an S/E baccalaureate, 170 2-14 Trends in female-male ratio of publication rate, 172 Tables Section 1 1-1 Methods Used by University of California, Berkeley Departments to Enhance Faculty Hiring Pool, 79 1-2 Intentions of Freshman to Major in Science and Engineering Fields, by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, 2002, 83 Section 2 2-1 The Magnitude of Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance as a Function of Age and Cognitive Level of the Test, 129 2-2 Effect Sizes for Gender Differences in Mathematics and Science Test Performance Across Countries, 133 2-3 Total Responses to Question 1, 140 2-4 Categorization of Question 1 across Year of Award, 141 2-5 Standardized Mean Gender Difference of Math Achievement Scores Among High School Seniors by Cohort, 169 2-6 Female-to-Male Ratio of the Odds of Achieving in the Top 5% of the Distribution of Math Achievement Test Scores Among High School Seniors by Cohort, 169 2-7 Estimated Female-to-Male Ratio of Publication, 172 2-8 Female-to-Male Odds Ratio of Post-Baccalaureate Career Paths by Family Status, 173 2-9 Comparison between Conventional Thinking and Our Findings, 174 Boxes 1-1 Meta-Analysis, 12 1-2 Stereotype Threat, 33 1-3 The Economist’s Perspective, 57 1-4 Bias Avoidance Behaviors, 62 1-5 Pioneers Have Predictable Problems, 65