BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF SUCCESS
FOR WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
REPORT OF A WORKSHOP
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
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 Institutes 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 organizations 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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
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 achievements 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 responsibility 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.
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 Engineering 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
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
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
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
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 engineering 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 engineering has increased dramatically. Women now earn 51% of the bachelor’s degrees and 37% of PhDs, including 45% those in biomedical fields. Within the population 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
research-intensive universities. Furthermore, women who find academic employment 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 discrimination, 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: Biological, 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 experiences, 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.nationalacademies.org/womeninacademe/. |
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 improving women’s opportunities to advance and succeed in academic science.
Although the discussions during those activities helped the committee to respond 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
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
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 knowledge, 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 manuscript 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, Pennsylvania 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
Although the reviewers had many constructive comments and suggestions about the report, they were not asked to endorse the findings and recommendations 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 accordance 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 Laboratory 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 collaborating 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 analytical 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.
Contents
|
||||
Gender Differences and Similarities in Abilities: |
||||
Sexual Dimorphism in the Developing Brain: |
||||
Environment-Genetic Interactions in the Adult Brain: Effects of Stress on Learning: |
||||
Biopsychosocial Contributions to Cognitive Performance: |
||||
Implicit and Explicit Gender Discrimination: |
||||
Contextual Influences on Performance: |
|
|
|||
|
||||
Initiatives to Increase Recruitment, Retention and Advancement of Women in Science and Engineering Disciplines at Kansas State University, |
||||
Effective Practices for STEM Faculty Diversity, |
||||
NSF ADVANCE at the UW-Madison: Three Success Stories, |
||||
Institutional Transformation at Virginia Tech, |
||||
Institutional Transformation at the University of Michigan, |
||||
Scientifically Correct: Speaking to Scientists about Diversity, |
||||
Working to Increase the Success of Women Scientists in Academia, |
||||
Leadership Workshops to Effect Cultural Change, |
||||
ADVANCE: Successful Recruitment of Womento STEM at UCI, |
||||
|
||||
FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES
Figures
1-6 |
Fiske et al.’s Stereotype Content Model applied to subtypes of women, |
|||
1-7 |
Percentage of doctorates granted to females, |
|||
1-8 |
Percentage of tenured faculty who are women, |
|||
1-9 |
Women fast-track professionals with babies in the household, by age of professional, |
|||
1-10 |
Physical science, mathematics, and engineering applicant pool and faculty positions at The University of California, Berkeley, |
|||
1-11 |
Biological and health sciences applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, |
|||
1-12 |
Departmental hiring vs the applicant pool, University of California, Berkeley, |
|||
1-13 |
Children in households among assistant professors at the University of California, Berkeley, |
|||
1-14 |
Number of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to minority females, by race and ethnicity, 1994-2001, |
|||
1-15 |
Number of science and engineering doctorates awarded to minority-group women, by race and ethnicity, 1994-2001, |
|||
1-16 |
Medical school faculty by rank, gender, race, and ethnicity, |
|||
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, |
|||
Section 2 |
||||
2-1 |
Percentage of doctorates granted to females, 1974-2004, |
|||
2-2 |
Percentage of tenured faculty who are female, by discipline, 1973-2001, |
|||
2-3 |
Gender differences in tenure track job within 5 years of PhD, |
|||
2-4 |
Gender differences in promotion to tenure 10 years past PhD, |
|||
2-5 |
Gender salary gap by academic rank, 2001 SDR, |
|||
2-6 |
Biopsychosocial model in which the nature-nurture dichotomy is replaced with a continuous feedback loop, |
|||
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, |
|||
2-8 |
Gender differences in achievement: 15 year old and 8th grade students, |
|||
2-9 |
Average SAT scores of entering college classes, 1967-2004, |
|||
2-10 |
Georgia Institute of Technology female faculty by rank and year, institution-wide, |
|||
2-11 |
Georgia Institute of Technology faculty flux charts, |
2-12 |
Synthetic cohort life course, career processes, and outcomes examined, and data sources, |
|||
2-13 |
Sex-specific probabilities for selected pathways to an S/E baccalaureate, |
|||
2-14 |
Trends in female-male ratio of publication rate, |
Tables
Section 1 |
||||
1-1 |
Methods Used by University of California, Berkeley Departments to Enhance Faculty Hiring Pool, |
|||
1-2 |
Intentions of Freshman to Major in Science and Engineering Fields, by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, 2002, |
|||
Section 2 |
||||
2-1 |
The Magnitude of Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance as a Function of Age and Cognitive Level of the Test, |
|||
2-2 |
Effect Sizes for Gender Differences in Mathematics and Science Test Performance Across Countries, |
|||
2-3 |
Total Responses to Question 1, |
|||
2-4 |
Categorization of Question 1 across Year of Award, |
|||
2-5 |
Standardized Mean Gender Difference of Math Achievement Scores Among High School Seniors by Cohort, |
|||
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, |
|||
2-7 |
Estimated Female-to-Male Ratio of Publication, |
|||
2-8 |
Female-to-Male Odds Ratio of Post-Baccalaureate Career Paths by Family Status, |
|||
2-9 |
Comparison between Conventional Thinking and Our Findings, |
Boxes