Post on 25-Dec-2015
ANALYZING THE LEAKY PIPELINE:
Why are women scientists under-represented on the faculties of research universities?
Phoebe S. LeboyProfessor Emerita of BiochemistryUniversity of Pennsylvania
Secretary, Association for Women in Science (awis.org)
TIMELINE FOR REFORM OF GENDER BIAS IN SCIENCE:
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
o Abolish overt discriminationo Fill the PhD pipeline with women
o Decrease the “chilly climate”
oTackle unintentional discrimination
o Create family- friendly policies
Reform gender-biased structures in academe
FILLING THE PIPELINE: A GREAT SUCCESS:
# WOMEN GRADUATE STUDENTS
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
% G
RAD
UA
TE
STU
DEN
TS W
HO
ARE
WO
MEN
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
ENGINEERING
PHYSICAL SCI
MATHEMATICS
PROPORTION OF GRAD STUDENTSWHO ARE WOMEN
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
NU
MBE
R O
F W
OM
EN S
TU
DEN
TS
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
BIOLOGI CAL SCI
ENGINEERING
PHYSICALSCI
THE REMAINING PROBLEMS
Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academies of Sciences. Released Sept 18, 2006
“Women are seriously under-represented on
academic science and engineering faculties
because of a mix of “unintentional” biases and outdated institutional policies and structures”
Thus, we must-oTackle unintentional discriminationo Create family- friendly policieso Reform gender-biased structures in academe1990 2000 2010
THE NEED FOR FAMILY-FRIENDLY POLICIES
Data based on survey of 4400 U California facultyMason & Gould, Marriage and Baby Blues (2004) http://gradresearch.berkeley.edu/marriagebabyblues.pdf#search
Women with babies: 29% less likely to get a tenure-track position than women without babies.
Married women: 20% less likely to get tenure-track positions than single women
ESSENTIALFAMILY-RELATED POLICIES
1.Employer-provided day care
2.Extension of tenure-probationary period for family care (1 year/child or aged parent)
3.Post-maternity relief from teaching for a semester..
..but research efforts should continue
* Only for parents assuming ≥ 50% of family care responsibilities
http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/family/welcome.html
THE LEAKY ACADEMIC PIPELINE OF PhD WOMEN SCIENTISTS
GradSchool
Post-doc Tenure-track
TenuredBig cheese
%women
Leak Leak Leak
• How do we know there are leaks?
• Are they due to women “dropping out” of science
or to obstacles in the pipeline?
ASSESSING PIPELINE LEAKS
1. Determine the “availability pool” of women:
% OF DOCTORATES AWARDED TO WOMEN
1987 2004Biomed. Sci 39% 49%
Biology 35% 46%
Chemistry 21% 32%
Math 16% 28%
Physics 9% 16%
Engineering 7% 18%
MY DATA SET: FACULTY WOMEN AT HIGH-PRESTIGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES*
*The “9
Univ”Berkeley
Cal Tech
Harvard
Michigan
MIT
Penn
Princeton
Stanford
Yale
Proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty who are women (2003)
ENGI NEERI NG (av=8.93% +/- 2.3)
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
BI OLOGY (av=20.6% +/- 3.6 )
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
THE LEAKS ARE DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC
Non-tenured faculty at the “9 Univ” in 2003 compared with PhDs awarded from 1991-1995
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Basic Sci
Chem
Math
Physics
Engineer
PhD pool
Tenure- track Faculty
# faculty ≥availability pool
Availability pool > # faculty
Biomed Sci
“In physics and astronomy [nationally], there appears to be no leaky pipeline”American Institute of Physics report, June 2005
THE HIGH PRESTIGE “9 UNIVERSITIES”vs. 50 MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
50 Universities data from NAS (Nelson and Rogers 2004) report. *50 Univ data are for Biological Sci, but 9 Univ data are for Biomed Sci in Medical Schools
In fields with a leakypipeline, the 9 Univ group have fewer junior women faculty than a more broadly based group.
0 10 20 30 40
% Assistant Professors who are women0 10 20 30 40
Basic Sci
Chem
Math
Physics
Engineer
PhD pool (NAS data)9 Univ tenure- track 50 Univ tenure- track
Biology/Biomed*
9 Univ = 50% of expected
50 Univ =75% of expected
WHY ARE THERE SO FEW WOMEN SCIENTISTS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
Post-doc
Tenure-track Tenured
Big cheese
Leak Leak Leak
Are women “dropping out” of science
or finding obstacles in the pipeline?
FOCUSING ON BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
Arguments for analyzing the phenomenon using the biomedical
area:Large numbers of PhDs awarded to women for many years.
Relatively little change in % PhDs who are women in the past
20 years.
YEAR
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
% P
hD
s A
WA
RD
ED
TO
WO
MEN
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
WOMEN IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: % UNTENURED = % TENURED
ARTS & SCIENCES*(Percent women)
Med-Basic
Science**Engineering Phys Sci Math Biology
TENURED 7.8% 9.0% 3.7% 21.8% 21.5%
TENURETRACK
19.0% 14.7% 8.9% 20.6% 20.0%
* Nine University data for 2003 ** Medical School web sites, 2006
CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRYAT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT Number of Assistant & Associate Professors
# Women
Biol Chem & Molec Pharmacology
13 0
Cell Biology 8 0
TOTAL 21 0
Source: HMS web site http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/facts.asp August 2006
The junior faculty pipeline is empty!
HARVARD IS NOT ALONE
[2006 web site data]
Assistant Professors at 6 Medical Schools(Harvard, Michigan, Penn, Stanford, Wisconsin,
Yale)
# Asst Prof depts with 0 women
Biochem 25 4 out of 6
Cell Biol 28 2 out of 6
ARE WOMEN CELL BIOLOGISTS DROPPING OUT?
% women among
first authors and
invited speakers at
cell biology national
meeting =
42 - 47%.
They have not
dropped out.
!
%
WO
MEN
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
PhD POOL (1987-95)
Am Soc Cell Biolinvited speakers (2005-06)
9 UNIVFACULTY (2005-06)
Nature Cell Biol 1st authors (2005-06)*
* Nature Cell Biology 8 (9):899 September 2006
But the cell biology
faculties of the 9 Univ
group are only 22%
women.
WHY ARE WOMEN MISSING FROM BIOMEDICAL DEPARTMENTS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES?
1.Women start on the tenure track but get discouraged.
2. Women are not applying
In faculty searches, applications from women are much
lower than expected :
They don’t see other women succeeding
They have alternatives with less prestige but less
stress
• in not-so- elite universities and colleges
• in biotech companies
WHY IS LIFE IN BIOMEDICAL DEPARTMENTS OF RESEARCH
UNIVERSITIES SO UNPLEASANT?
HYPOTHESES:
1. Departments exhibit “unintentional
discrimination”.
2. Policies and practices of the universities are
disproportionately unfavorable to women.
HYPOTHESIS: DISCRIMINATION PERSISTS
I NVI TED SPEAKERS AT KEYSTONE SYMPOSI A
Perc
ent
wom
en
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
some women organizersall male organizers
Biochem
/Mol
Biol
Cell Biol
lmmunolog
y
Microbi
ol
Cancer
Biol
(4)
(6)
(2)
(0)
(5)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)
ALL
(21)
(17)
p=0.028
(n) = number of meetings
WOMEN ARE DISCOURAGED BY UNIVERSITY PRACTICES
They are discouraged by:
inconveniently long hours
competitiveness & aggressiveness
emphasis on quantity rather than quality
THE DOGMA THAT SCIENCE REQUIRESAT LEAST 80 HRS/WEEK:
“What fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week?” (Larry
Summers, Harvard Prez)
NBER Conference on "Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S&E Careers, January 2005
“The assumption is that 80-hour workweeks are a necessary condition for intellectual creativity and excellence... That assumption has very little data going for it.
Virginia Valian, Washington Post Jan 29, 2005
AMERICAN SCIENCE IS ABOUT COMPETITION & AGGRESSION
“Science is a form of competitive and aggressive activity, a contest of man against man that provides knowledge as a side product. That side product is its only advantage over football.”
*Richard Lewontin, Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard (1980)(among papers commenting on James Watson’s book, “The Double Helix”)
COMPETITIVENESS & AGGRESSION:A NO-WIN SITUATION?
“I never met a woman who could negotiate for salary and status as well as a man- and if I interviewed her I wouldn’t hire her because I would not like her personality.”Math department chair
[We have] “a system that claims to reward based on merit but instead rewards traits such asassertiveness that are socially less acceptable for women.”
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academies of Sciences. Released Sept 18, 2006
WHAT’S WRONG WITH AN ALL-MALE FACULTY?
Sends a bad message to our students
Will be self-reproducing
It is inherently unfair
*****ATTENTIONMinimum workday= 14h
Minimum workweek = 6 days
MY NIGHTMARE: ACADEMIC LAB OF THE FUTURE
Mommy, which one is daddy?
WOMEN DROP OFF THE TENURE TRACK BECAUSE OF:
inconveniently long hours competitiveness & aggressiveness emphasis on quantity rather than
quality* - THE PRODUCTIVITY PROBLEM
*This is a relatively new phenomenon. Universities started “upping the ante” when women started applying… a correlation that does not imply causality.
THE PRODUCTIVITY STANDARDDEFINED:
“Quality is no substitute for quantity.”
Anthropology Dept Chair, 2002
THE PRODUCTIVITY STANDARD IN ACADEMIA
Scientific Merit Productivity
A dubious assumption that has become the cornerstone of faculty evaluations.
and most measures of productivityturn out to be gender-biased.
# 1 MEASURE OF PRODUCTIVITY:NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS
8 scientists elected to the
National Academy of Sciences
between 2002 and 2005 were
paired for age and discipline:
2 male & 2 female Mol. Biologists
2 male & 2 female Biochemists
Publications were determined
using Google Scholar.
CONCLUSION: women still publish
significantly fewer papers than
men.
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS ∞ NUMBER OF HANDS
Large numbers of publications require
many graduate students and post-docs…
which requires big grants…..
But-
NIH GRANT FUNDING IS GENDER BIASED
“In the past decade, NIH research grants to women have remained at about 80% of the size of research grants to men.“Nature Medicine 11, 1129 (Nov 2005) from NIH data
Average NIH award
Women’s average/men’s average
Men’s average award Women’s average award
Fiscal year
STUDENT CHOICES CAN BE GENDER-BIASED
ASSISTANT PROFESSORSWITH GRADUATE STUDENTS
PERCENT0 20 40 60 80
WOMEN(N=10)
MEN(N=28)
AV. NUMBER GRAD STUDENTS/ ASST.PROF
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Faculty in Biomedical Graduate Groups from Medical School basic science departments + Biology (2002-2003)
GRAD STUDENT CHOICE OF MENTORS AT UNIV. PENN:An example of gender-biased decision making that is hard to fix.
WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY?
1.Show us your best 3-5 publicationsand we will read them!
2. What is the citation record for this individual?
e.g.
# citations per paper (average or median)
# citations per paper as “corresponding author”.
# citations per paper/authors
USING CITATION ANALYSIS:A CASE STUDY
ME HIM
# PAPERS (1963-1975) 12 28
TOTAL # CITATIONS 984 1120
MEAN # CITATIONS 82 40
# CITATIONS/ AUTHOR: MEDIAN 22 11
NU
MBER O
F P
UBLIC
ATIO
NS
0
10
20
30
40
CIT
ATIO
NS/P
APE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50Diff erencesignificant @p = 0.004
PAPERS PUBLISHED 1996- 2004AS FI RST OR LAST AUTHOR
# CITATIONS/PAPER (MEDIAN)
WOMEN MEN WOMEN MEN
8 scientists elected to the National Academy of Sciences between 2002 and 2005 were paired for age and discipline. Google Scholar was used to determine citations.
NUMBERS vs CITATION RATES
SO WHY DO OUR EVALUATIONS EMPHASIZE PRODUCTIVITY??
Citation analysis has a long history:• Schoenbach, UH & Garfield, E. Citation indexes for science.
Science. Jan 1956 123(3185):61-2.
• Geller NL, DeCani JS, & Davies, RE
Life-time citation rates - A mathematical model to compare scientists work.
J. Am. Soc. Information Science 1981 32(1): 3-15
Citation analysis is alive and well• Duval J Towards the origins of scientometrics: The emergence of the Science Citation Index.
Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociale 2006 164:10
• Bornmann L, Daniel HD
Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review- A citation
analysis of publications vs approval of fellowship applicants.
Scientometrics 2006 68 (3): 427-440
CITATION ANALYSIS