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 87
APPENDIX E-5
Status of Women in the Chemical Sciences
Robert Lichter,1 Willie Pearson, Jr.,2 Lisa J. Borello,3 Janet L. Bryant4
Introduction
The world of academia is a very tough one, with real funding problems. Particularly as a
woman, this really puts me off it. As well as the long hours required, necessity to travel to
conferences regularly as group leader, the battle for funding would not go well with
hopes to have children one day.
The comment above comes from a woman respondent to a survey of chemistry doctoral
students published in 2008. Although the more than 650 responses revealed considerable
concern by both men and women about their futures as researchers in the chemical sciences,
women expressed more reservations than men. For example, the proportion of women Ph.D.
students planning a science-related career fell from 85 percent in the first year to 79 percent in
the third year, while the proportion of men increased from 73 to 86 percent in the same period.
More strikingly, the proportion of women who planned a career as a research chemist fell from
72 percent in the first year to 37 percent in the third, while the proportion of men remained about
the same (61 to 59 percent). Of those women who were planning a research career, 51 percent
intended during their first year of graduate study to stay in academia, but this proportion fell to
33 percent in the third year. The drop in men's interest was smaller: 44 to 36 percent from the
first to the third year. Overall, only about 12 percent of women planned to remain in academia
compared to 21 percent of men.
Focus groups and interviews with participants in the survey established some of the
reasons for these findings. These included inadequate or sometimes hostile supervision, a sense
of isolation and exclusion, various implied messages that questioned their competence, and the
"macho" environment for doing research. For an academic career, women perceived that the
potential rewards were insufficient incentives to overcome the challenges and compromises
required for success, and that an industrial setting would provide a more compatible
environment. Those challenges and compromises included the all-consuming and insufficiently
collaborative requirements for success, challenges to building of family and other relationships,
and advice from others that they were likely to be less competitive by virtue of their gender.
1
Robert Lichter, principal, Merrimack Consultants, LLC.
2
Willie Pearson, Jr., professor, School of History, Technology, and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology.
3
Lisa J. Borello, Ph.D. candidate, School of History, Technology, and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology.
4
Janet L. Bryant, scientist and engineer IV, National Security Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
87
OCR for page 88
88 BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
Such perceptions are not uncommon among women at this career stage in the United States.
However, this examination took place not in the United States but in the United Kingdom.5,6
That the perceptions in that country so closely echo those that have emerged from similar studies
in the United States raises the question, of course, of how general these outcomes are across a
wide swath of countries and cultures. This critical question is what underlies the ongoing effort
to collect data about the status of women chemists across a range of countries.
WHY CHEMISTRY?
Although recent years have witnessed measurable gains by women in receiving first and
advanced university degrees in the chemical sciences,7 the progress of women chemists through
their careers, as in most other science and engineering fields, continues to lag behind those of
men worldwide.8 Gender disparities persist in pay, promotion rates, and access to certain areas
of specialization, and women are often excluded or underrepresented in research and in key
leadership positions. The consequence is the inability to have the largest pool of people from
whom to draw the top talent required to address global economic and societal challenges, and to
sustain a country's global economic competitiveness. In the United States, increased
competition from Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and South American and
Asian countries--all of which have been making more strategic investments in chemistry
research and education--poses a growing concern for policy-makers.
While increasing the participation of and leadership by women in all STEM9 fields is
vital, it is especially critical in the chemical sciences for two important reasons. First, the
fundamentals of the chemical sciences underpin advances in many other scientific and technical
arenas: biology, materials, electronics, environmental sciences, and more. Second, chemical
scientists work in a variety of settings, mostly non-academic, not just in those specific to their
disciplines. Thus, in addition to recruitment, retention of talented women in the chemical
sciences and advancement to positions of leadership across employment sectors is of equal
importance. Notwithstanding recent gains, women are lost at each rung along the career ladder,
with many highly trained women opting out of careers in chemistry altogether.
Data Collection Challenges
Owing largely to data limitations across the globe, much has remained unknown about
the status of women chemical scientists on a global level, in educational attainment, and
particularly regarding career outcomes. This is a serious challenge. Understanding the reasons
for women's slow progress, and developing effective policies and programs to advance women
in the chemical disciplines, both require robust and reliable data that can be compared across
5
S. Dickinson and J. L. Newsome. 2008. Change of Heart: Career Intentions and the Chemistry Ph.D. Royal
Society of Chemistry.
6
J. L. Newsome. 2008. The Chemistry Ph.D. The Impact on Women's Retention. Royal Society of Chemistry and
the United Kingdom Resource Center for Women in SET. Available at
http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/WomenRetention.asp.
7
Hansen, D.J. 2010. Gains Continue for Chemistry Grads. Chemical Engineering News. 88(34):44-54.
8
National Science Board. 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation (NSB 10-01). Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/.
9
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is a commonly used acronym in the United States.
OCR for page 89
APPENDIX E-5: STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHEMICAL SCIENCES 89
countries and cultures. Doing so can reveal common factors that can facilitate shared solutions
across national boundaries, and uncover factors unique to a national or cultural setting that may
require unique approaches.
Four major hurdles to collecting the required data emerged during the course of this
project. First is the absence of much data altogether. Many countries simply do not collect data
on the status of women scientists at all, or do so in only a limited way. Second, where data are
available, they are often not disaggregated into individual disciplines but are combined, for
example, into general areas such as physical sciences or biological sciences. Third, where data
for individual disciplines are collected, they are often not comparable across national borders
because of the disparate nature, degree of completeness, assignment of responsibility, and
methodological inconsistency of data collection across regions. No sole entity has taken the lead
for gathering and analyzing global data on education and labor market trends, not only in the
chemical sciences, but also for STEM fields in general.
Fourth, no consensus on an operational definition of a chemist exists beyond the notion
that "a chemist is what a chemist does." For many, "chemical sciences" generally includes
chemistry and closely related sciences that are grounded in fundamental chemical principles.
These may include, for example, biochemistry, materials sciences, biophysical chemistry,
chemical biology, and some areas of nanosciences. In some cases, these fields are considered
separately; in others, they may be classified into chemistry, biology, physics, or even some
engineering fields. These differences make cross-national comparisons difficult. Furthermore,
because chemists work in a variety of venues, most of which are outside the more-easily counted
academic settings, surveys can often overlook them.
Example
Nonetheless, within these constraints, meaningful data can still be extracted that allow
some cross-cultural comparisons. Sources of data include journal publications, government
reports and statistics, reports compiled from professional organizations and technical societies,
and personal inquiries to contacts in other countries. The National Science Board's Science and
Engineering Indicators is a particularly rich source of limited global information available.
An example of the desired kinds of comparisons is given in Table E-5-1. Trends over a
number of years (not given here) demonstrate that the percentage of women receiving first and
third degrees in chemistry has been increasing steadily. Table E-5-1 shows the percentage of
women receiving first (bachelors) and third (doctorate) degrees in three Western countries:
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Table E-5-1 also compares these numbers
with the percentage of women on chemistry doctoral faculties in the same countries. The close
tracking of the percentage of degrees awarded to women among the three countries, and the
comparable drop in the percentage of women faculty members, suggest the existence of common
factors that require further examination.
OCR for page 90
90 BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
TABLE E-5-1. Percent of First and Doctorate University Degrees in Chemistry Awarded to
Women, and Percent of Women on Academic Chemistry Faculties in Doctoral Institutions, 2008
Country First degree Doctorate Faculty
United States 50 39 16*
United Kingdom 50 40 12
Germany 40 38 11
* Data for 2009, doctoral institutions only.
SOURCES: Schmitz, K. 2009. Hochschullehrnachwuchs und Professorinnen. 2008. Nachrichten Chemie.
57:463-465 (April), and "Who is Teaching Whom?" Complete Report on the Fall 2009 Committee on Professional
Training Survey of Faculty Status. American Chemical Society. Fall 2010. Available at
http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/about/governance/
committees/training/reports/cptreports/CNBP_025912.
Steps Toward Change
The slow pace of change in the status of women chemists does not imply that no attempts
have been made to effect positive change. In the United States and elsewhere, a variety of
governmental and private efforts, not outlined here, have been in place for some years. Since
1994, the United Kingdom's Royal Society has offered Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships annually
to early-career scientists who do not yet hold permanent positions and who require flexibility in
their working patterns because of personal matters such as childbirth and parenting, family care
responsibilities, or health issues.10 The intent is to keep promising younger scientists, especially
women, engaged in science on a part-time basis even while they attend to such personal issues.
Stipends are relatively generous and include funds for research-related activities, and the term
can last up to four years. Regrettably, only ten of these are awarded each year across a number
of scientific disciplines, so the systemic impact is obviously limited. In Germany, both the
chemical industry and the unions representing their workers have jointly created a number of
programs for advancing women chemists in industry, and for addressing work-life balance
issues.11
10
The Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship program page is available at: http://royalsociety.org/grants/schemes/dorothy-
hodgkin.
11
National Chemistry Employers Association (BAVC) and the Mining, Chemistry, and Energy Workers Union (IG
BCE), "Chancengleichheit im Betrieb: Umsetzung und Erfahrungen,[online]." Report of a 1999 Conference on
Women in German industry, Progressdruck, Speyer, Germany, August 2000. Available: http://www.cssa-
wiesbaden.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/chancengleichheit.pdf, accessed 12/22/2011; and Wolfgang Goos and Veronika
Keller-Lauscher, "Chancengleichheit in der Chemischen Industrie,[online]" Buchdruckwerkstätten Hannover
GmbH, Hannover, Germany, January 2002. Available:
http://www.bavc.de/bavc/web/web.nsf/id/pa_publ_chancengleichheit.html. [Accessed 12/22/2011] .
OCR for page 91
APPENDIX E-5: STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHEMICAL SCIENCES 91
Next Steps
The examples presented here are intended to give a flavor of the data and comparisons
sought in the ongoing project, and underscore the need for broader-based data collection and
examination. Even if relevant data turn out not to be generally available, the questions that arise
are expected to propel the necessary efforts to generate those data, and thus shape policies and
programs internationally that can advance women, and make their influence more visible, in the
chemical sciences.
OCR for page 92
