Battling Biases and Barriers:
Necessary Steps our Academic
Institutions
Must Take to Assure a Strong
Science and Engineering
Workforce
Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of
Women in Academic Science and Engineering
The National Academies
September 18, 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 of Management, 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, Journal of the American Medical Association,
Chicago, Illinois
DENICE DENTON*, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz, California
BARBARA GROSZ, Higgins Professor of Natural Sciences, 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, IOM], Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, 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
More women are earning science and
engineering doctorates
60
Percent Women PhDs
50
40
Social Sciences
Life Sciences
30
Physical Sciences
20
Engineering
10
0
74
19
77
19
80
19
83
19
86
19
89
19
Year
92
19
95
19
98
19
01
20
04
20
But women are leaving
academic careers
Increasing the number of women earning science and engineering
doctorates will have little effect on the number of women in
academic positions, unless attention is paid to recruiting women to
these positions and retaining them once hired.
ISSUES EXAMINED
• Pipeline
• Differences in biology and aptitude
• Outright discrimination
• Unconscious bias
• Climate
• Rules, policies, and structures
Women have the drive and ability to
succeed in science and engineering.
Research on:
• brain structure and function
• hormonal modulation of performance
• cognitive development
• performance in math and science
 no significant biological differences between men
and women that would explain representation
 no significant differences in performance in science
and math that account for representation
 representation of women has increased 30-fold in
some fields in the last two decades, which shows
that when opportunities in science are available
women, they take them and excel
The problem is not simply the pipeline -(at least in the United States)
For more than 30 years, women have comprised
• more than 30% of doctorates in social and
behavioral sciences
• more than 20% in the life sciences
But, at top research institutions, women comprise
• 15% of full professors in social sciences
• 15% of full professors in the life sciences
• <10% of full professors in other scientific fields
• minority women are virtually absent from
leading science and engineering departments
Career impediments for women
deprive the world of an
important source of talented
and accomplished scientists
and engineers who could
contribute to the advancement
of basic knowledge and
technology development.
FINDINGS
• Pipeline
• Differences in biology and aptitude
• Outright discrimination
• Unconscious bias
• Climate
• Rules, policies, and structures
Women are very likely to face discrimination
in every field of science and engineering.
• Barriers limit the appointment, retention, and
advancement of women faculty
• Accumulation of disadvantage becomes acute
in more senior positions
• Minority women are subject to dual
discrimination and face even more barriers
• All women scientists face continued
questioning by others of their abilities and
commitment
FINDINGS
• Pipeline
• Differences in biology and aptitude
• Outright discrimination
• Unconscious bias
• Climate
• Rules, policies, and structures
A substantial body of evidence
establishes that most people—men and
women—hold implicit biases.
Decades of cognitive psychology research
shows that
• most of us intend to be fair
• most of us carry unconscious prejudices
• These biases influence our evaluations of
people and their work
Research with controlled experiments and
examination of real life show that people
• are less likely to hire a woman than a man
with identical qualifications
• are less likely to ascribe credit to a woman
than to a man for identical accomplishments
• will far more often give the benefit of the
doubt to a man than to a woman
Although most scientists and engineers
believe that they are objective and intend to
be fair, research shows that they are not
exempt from those tendencies.
Reactions to Evidence of Bias
• Not here…..
–
–
–
–
–
“It’s like that in Sweden, but not here in the U.S.”
“It’s like that at rural universities, but not urban ones.”
“It’s like that at Harvard, but not at our institution.”
“It’s like that at MIT, but not at Harvard.”
“It’s like that in the economics department, but certainly not here in
chemistry!”
• “Women and minorities are too sensitive”
• “What’s the standard deviation of the data in line 4 of Table 3
of the 1988 study?”
FINDINGS
• Pipeline
• Differences in biology and aptitude
• Outright discrimination
• Unconscious bias
• Climate
• Rules, policies, and structures
Climate
• Women often have to work harder than men for the
same recognition and rewards
• Women report feeling excluded from decision-making
and scientific discourse
• Women’s work is doubted simply because it was done
by women
• Women are often passed over for promotions and
leadership positions for which they are as qualified as
the men who receive them
• The cumulative effect of “small” disadvantages women
face have a major negative impact on their careers and
often cause them to leave the academy
FINDINGS
• Pipeline
• Differences in biology and aptitude
• Outright discrimination
• Unconscious bias
• Climate
• Rules, policies, and structures
Evaluation criteria contain arbitrary and
subjective components that
disadvantage women
Women faculty
• are paid less
• are promoted more slowly
• receive fewer honors
• hold fewer leadership positions
These discrepancies do not appear to be
based on productivity, the significance of their
work, or any other measure of performance.
Measures of success underlying the current
“meritocracy”
• are often applied in a biased manner
• do not necessarily relate to scientific creativity
• celebrate assertiveness and singlemindedness
• do not celebrate flexibility, diplomacy, curiosity,
motivation, and dedication
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transforming institutional structures and procedures to
eliminate gender bias is a major national task that will
require strong leadership and continuous attention,
evaluation, and accountability.
The committee’s recommendations are large-scale and
interdependent, requiring the interaction of university
leaders and faculties, scientific and professional societies,
funding agencies, federal agencies, and Congress.
Recommendations for Universities
LEADERSHIP
CLIMATE
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
RECRUITING
HIRING, TENURE,
PROMOTION POLICIES
MONITOR AND
EVALUATE
Deans,
department chairs,
and tenured faculty
Trustees, University Presidents, and Provosts
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
LEADERSHIP
Provide clear leadership in
changing the culture and
structure of their institutions
to recruit, retain, and promote
women—including minority
women—into faculty and
leadership positions.
University leaders should incorporate into
campus strategic plans goals of
counteracting bias against women in hiring,
promotion, and treatment.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
MONITOR AND
EVALUATE
This includes:
•
Working with an inter-institution monitoring
organization to perform annual reviews of
the composition of their student body and
faculty ranks
•
Publicizing progress toward the goals
annually
•
Providing a detailed annual briefing to the
board of trustees.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
REMEDIES
University leaders
should take action
immediately to remedy
inequities in hiring,
promotion, and
treatment.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
LEADERSHIP
WORKSHOPS
University leaders should, as
part of their mandatory overall
management efforts, hold
leadership workshops for
deans, department heads,
search committee chairs, and
other faculty with personnel
management responsibilities
that include an integrated
component on diversity and
strategies to overcome bias
and gender schemas and
strategies for encouraging fair
treatment of all people.
It is crucial that these workshops
are integrated into the fabric of
the management of universities
and departments.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
FACULTY
RECRUITMENT
University leaders should
require evidence of a fair, broad,
and aggressive search before
approving appointments and
hold departments accountable
for the outcomes even if it
means canceling a search or
withholding a faculty position.
University leaders should develop and
implement hiring, tenure, and promotion
policies that take into account the flexibility
that faculty need across the life course,
allowing integration of family, work, and
community responsibilities.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
They should provide uniform policies and
central funding for faculty and staff on leave
and should visibly and vigorously support
campus programs that help faculty with
children or other caregiving responsibilities
to maintain productive careers.
HIRING, TENURE,
and PROMOTION
These programs should, at a minimum,
POLICIES
include provisions for paid parental leave for
faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and
graduate students; facilities and subsidies
for on-site and community-based child care;
dissertation defense and tenure clock
extensions; and family-friendly scheduling of
critical meetings.
Deans, Department Chairs, and Tenured Faculty
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
CLIMATE
Should take responsibility for
creating a productive
environment and immediately
implement programs and
strategies shown to be successful
in minimizing the effect of biases
in recruiting, hiring, promotion,
and tenure.
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
CLIMATE
Faculties and their senates
should initiate a full faculty
discussion of climate issues.
Develop and implement programs
that educate all faculty members and
students in their departments on
unexamined bias and effective
evaluation.
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
EVALUATION
• These programs should be integrated
into departmental meetings and
retreats, and professional development
and teacher-training courses.
• For example, such programs can be
incorporated into research ethics and
laboratory management courses for
graduate students, postdoctoral
scholars, and research staff; and can
be part of management leadership
workshops for faculty, deans, and
department chairs.
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
RECRUITMENT
Expand faculty recruitment efforts to
ensure that they reach adequately and
proactively into the existing and everincreasing pool of women candidates.
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
HIRING, TENURE,
and PROMOTION
POLICIES
Faculties and their senates should
immediately review their tenure
processes and timelines to ensure that
hiring, tenure, and promotion policies
take into account the flexibility that
faculty need across the life course and
do not sacrifice quality in the process of
meeting rigid timelines.
Trustees,
university presidents,
and provosts
Deans, department chairs,
and tenured faculty
EVALUATION
University leaders should work with
their faculties and department chairs
to examine evaluation practices to
focus on the quality of contributions
and their impact.
Higher education organizations, scientific
and professional societies, journals, and
honorary societies
have a responsibility to play a leading role in
promoting equal treatment of women and
men and demonstrate this commitment in
their practices.
Together, higher education
organizations should consider
forming an inter-institution
monitoring organization.
Higher education
organizations
EVALUATE
and MONITOR
• This body could act as an
intermediary between academic
institutions and federal agencies in
recommending norms and measures,
in collecting data, and in crossinstitution tracking of compliance and
accountability.
•As an initial step, the American
Council on Education should convene
national higher education
organizations to consider the creation
of a monitoring body.
Foundations and federal funding agencies
Funders
PROGRAMS
and POLICIES
Ensure that their practices—including
rules and regulations—support the full
participation of women and do not
reinforce a culture that fundamentally
discriminates against women.
Federal Enforcement Agencies
Federal agencies
MONITOR
Even without additional resources,
federal agencies should move
immediately to enforce the federal antidiscrimination laws at universities and
other higher education institutions
through regular compliance reviews
and prompt and thorough investigation
of discrimination complaints.
Federal enforcement agencies, including
the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Department of Justice,
the Department of Labor, the Department
of Education, and individual federal
granting agencies’ Offices of Civil Rights
should encourage and provide technical
assistance on how to achieve equity in
university programs and employment, by
Federal agencies
• Providing technical assistance to
educational institutions to help them to
comply with the anti-discrimination laws
• Creating a clearinghouse for dissemination
of strategies that have been proven
effective
MONITOR
• Providing awards and recognition for model
university programs
Call to Action
Faculty, university leaders, professional and scientific
societies, federal agencies and the federal
government must unite to ensure that all our nation’s
people are welcomed and encouraged to excel in
science and engineering in our research universities.
Our nation’s future depends on it.
For more information on the study, see
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/womeninacademe/
COACh
An organization working to increase
the numbers and success of women
scientists.
Website: http://coach.uoregon.edu
Sponsors: NSF, NIH, DOE
Membership open to both men and women.
COACh
Motivation for its Formation
• The low number of women chemistry faculty,
particularly in research universities.
• The documented discrepancy in the advancement of
women scientists in academia relative to their male peers.
• The concern that the glass ceiling in chemistry is
actually a robust polycarbonate.
COACh
COACh Goals
Developing programs that can be
broadly used in higher education to
enable scientists to achieve their
academic career goals.
COACh
COACh Programs
Enhancing women’s leadership skills.
Expanding connections.
Improving institutional climate.
Leveling the playing field.
COACh
COACh is guided by an Advisory Board
Current COACh Advisory Board Members
Esin Gulari, Wayne State U
Geraldine Richmond, U of Oregon
Jani Ingram, Northern Arizona U
Kristin Bowman-James, U of Kansas
Leslie Jimenez, Rutgers University
Cynthia Burrows, U of Utah
Saundra McGuire, Louisiana State
Janis Hicks, NSF Liason
Margaret Merritt, Wellesley College
Sally Chapman, Barnard College
Kathlyn Parker, SUNY, Stony Brook
Marye Anne Fox, UC SanDiego
Jeanne Pemberton, U of Arizona
Cynthia Friend, Harvard University
Angelica Stacy, UC Berkeley
Cornelia Gillyard, Spelman College
Mary Wirth, U of Arizona
Sandra Greer, U of Maryland
Hilary Godwin, Northwestern Univ
Funded by NSF, NIH and DOE-BES
COACh Programs
1. Leadership Workshops for Women
Faculty
Postdocs
Graduate students
2. Leadership Workshops for Minority Women
3. Leadership Forums (men and women)
• Institutions
• Departments
• Research Institutes and Centers
Over 350 female chemistry and chemical engineering
faculty have attended COACh workshops at ACS &
AIChE meetings since 2001!
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Postdoctoral Associates
COACh Workshops
Impact
Over 1000 additional women scientists in
• Physics
• Mathematics
• Biochemistry
• Geology
• Computer science
• Biology
. attended these COACh developed workshops at
have
professional meetings or home institutions.
Over 300 chemistry graduate students have attended COACh
workshops at home institutions and regional meetings.
COACh Workshops
Taking the Impact Home
Our research shows that > 90%have
mentored other women in negotiation
skills learned in the COACH
workshops.*
*From surveys conducted 2 years after the workshops.
Assessing the Impact: 2-3 years later
Did the skills learned lessen stress?
NR
4%
No
13%
YES
83%
COACh
A career in academia?
Why Bother?
Why NOT?
COACh
Website: http://coach.uoregon.edu
Assessing the Impact: 2-3 years later
How important to hear others discuss their
challenges?
Not
4%
Extremely
34%
Somewhat
23%
Quite
41%
COACh
Working to level the playing field
for women scientists in academia.
For more information, and to join COACh
http://coach.uoregon.edu
www.coach.uoregon.edu
COACh Workshops
Coaching Strong Women in the Art of
Strategic Persuasion (Part A)
• Successful negotiation techniques and strategies
• Case studies
• Group problem solving
• Using the “Power of Partnerships”
Facilitators
•Barbara Butterfield, Chief Human Resource Officer for Academic and Staff
Human Resources and Affirmative Action, University of Michigan
•Jane Tucker, Senior Manager, Sap - Administration Systems Management Group,
Duke University
COACh Workshops
Coaching Strong Women in the Art of
Strategic Persuasion (Part B)
• Strategic rather than reactive behavior
• Effective speaking voices and self presentation
• Stress reduction and confidence building
• Leadership and team development skills
Facilitators
•Lee Warren, Associate Director, Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning,
Harvard University
•Nancy Houfek, Head of Voice and Speech, Institute for Advanced Theater Training,
Harvard University
COACh Workshops
The Chemistry of Leadership: A Women's
Leadership Development Program
• Concepts of leadership (including self evaluation).
• Explore what is known the role of gender in leadership
situations.
• Reflect on own leadership challenges.
• Identify/develop areas for skill enhancement.
Facilitator
Sandra L. Shullman, Executive Development Group - Columbus, OH
COACh Workshops
Professional Skills for Postdocs and Graduate
Students Considering Academic Careers
A. Training in professional negotiation skills including
• identifying negotiables.
• role playing negotiation situations.
• building confidence and networks.
B. Panel discussion with COACh senior women faculty
Assessing the Impact: 2-3 years later
Used negotiation skills learned at the
workshop to positively influence
60
Other faculty
Percent
50
40
30
Academic
Leadership
20
Students
10
0
Often
Some
Not
Assessing the Impact: 2-3 years later
Skills used most:
Preparation for negotiation
76%
Identifying & meeting mutual
interests
74%
Providing options for solution
76%
74%
Clarification of purpose
65%
Avoidance of personalizing
61%
Using alies
59%
Research Support Data
Understanding others position
46%
New COACh Activities
Academic Leadership Forums:
• Institutions
• Departments
• Research Institutes and Centers
For men and women!
Sponsored by the host institution.
COACh
Academic Leadership Forums
Schedule: Consists of 4 modules covering:
• Leadership dynamics; faculty meetings, anatomy of
power, reaching consensus and negotiation.
• Faculty recruitment, evaluation and retention.
• Rewards, risks and current challenges of academic
leadership.
• Academic planning, budgeting, policy and stewardship.
• Working as a team to reach consensus
Case studies, theatre and lively debate are central
to the design.
COACh Workshop Participants (240!)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Postdoctoral Associates
COACh Workshops
Impact Beyond Chemistry
Over 600 additional women scientists in
• Physics
• Mathematics
• Chemistry & Biochemistry
• Geology
• Computer science
• Biology
have attended these COACh developed workshops at
professional meetings or home institutions.
COACh Programs
1. Leadership Workshops for Women
• Leadership skills training
• Forum for mentoring and networking
• Research on climate and impact
….and teaching women how to play hard ball!