Linda F. Bisson, Karen McDonald, Mary Lou de Leon Siantz, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Sophie Barbu, and Jasleen Singh
Kudos to the Guardian for conducting a self-analysis of article commentary – and publishing an article on their findings thereof on April 12, 2016, even though such findings are not flattering.
Their goal in conducting this analysis was as stated: “As part of a series on the rising global phenomenon of online harassment, the Guardian commissioned research into the 70m comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black. Hear from three of those writers, explore the data and help us host better conversations online” by Becky Gardiner, Mahana Mansfield, Ian Anderson, Josh Holder, Daan Louter and Monica Ulmanu. The methodology used is presented here.
Over the past few years a number of important reports on the participation of women in Science and Engineering have been published. Many of these reports were presented at the first of a series of Brown Bag seminars focused on “Women faculty in STEM — Where do we stand?” UC Davis ADVANCE program coordinator Dr. Denneal Jamison-McClung highlighted work that shows that though progress has been made in the number of Science and Engineering degrees awarded since the 1970’s*, gender-based and ethnicity-based inequities in Science and Engineering are real, measurable and persistent for a number of career-related indicators.
There is a very interesting interview on “Blog Talk Radio”. Tom Levenson interviews Eileen Pollack about “Why So Few Women in Science”. Levenson is a science journalist, professor and all around brilliant scholar at MIT. Pollack is a wonderful writer, scholar and Professor at the University of Michigan and also author of an upcoming book on women in science (she has a background in physics).
Scientists are using blogs, social media and other web tools to call attention to inequities in the practice of science and, perhaps more importantly, to create opportunities for redressing them. Case in point:
A Nature News Blog posting by Elizabeth Gibney, highlighted an effort by scientists to highlight the absence of women on a preliminary list of invited speakers for a major international chemistry conference. The post reads (in part):
An open letter on the website Change.org has called for a boycott of the 15th International Congress of Quantum Chemistry (ICQC), to be held in Beijing in June 2015. The move came after a list was posted on the conference website that allegedly showed no women among 24 speakers and 5 chairs and honorary chairs. The list, screenshots of which were seen by Nature, has since been taken down.
The letter, which has gained more than 600 signatures in 48 hours, was authored by three eminent theoretical chemists: Emily Carter of Princeton University in New Jersey; Laura Gagliardi of the University of Minnesota; and Anna Krylov of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Dawn Sumner, a Geology Professor at UC Davis has suggested it might be good to host a Wikipedia Edit-athon on Women in Science at UC Davis March 4 to go with the one happening at the Royal Society. Some more detail is below:
Well, this is both important and very interesting. There is a new report just released by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee entitled “Women in scientific careers“. The report covers many issues of direct relevance of the UC Davis ADVANCE program and in general to issues of diversity in the sciences. The Nature News Blog has a story by Daniel Cressey on the report: “UK politicians demand action over dearth of female scientists“. The news story focuses on how the report is placing a lot of the blame for the lack of women scientists in the UK on universities themselves.
From Nature News:
Many universities are devolving their responsibilities to deal with this issue down to the level of research groups, the report says, and are thus failing in their obligation to improve science careers for all researchers.
I am not sure if I interpret the report in the exact same way but there is no doubt this is part of it’s theme. The summary of the report has a bit more breadth than this. Below is the summary with some bolding emphasis by me:
Many attempts have been made to improve the under-representation of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers in the UK. Yet currently only 17 per cent of STEM professors are women. It is astonishing that despite clear imperatives and multiple initiatives to improve diversity in STEM, women still remain under-represented at senior levels across every discipline. One compelling reason to tackle this problem is that the UK economy needs more STEM workers and we cannot meet the demand without increasing the numbers of women in STEM.
There is no single explanation for the lack of gender diversity in STEM; it is the result of perceptions and biases combined with the impracticalities of combining a career with family. Scientists often consider themselves to be objective and unbiased, yet studies have shown that scientists are susceptible to the same biases as the rest of the population.
Therefore we have recommended that diversity and equality training should be provided to all STEM undergraduate and postgraduate students. It should also be mandatory for all members of recruitment and promotion panels and line managers.
Early academic STEM careers are characterised by short term contracts, which are a barrier to job security and continuity of employment rights. This career stage coincides with the time when many women are considering starting families, and because women tend to be primary carers, they are more likely than men to end their STEM career at this stage. We call on the Government to work with the higher education sector to review the academic career structure and increase the number of longer-term positions for post-doctoral researchers. We have found that what benefits women benefits everyone in the STEM workplace.
Emphasis is often placed on inspiring young girls to choose science, which is commendable, but such efforts are wasted if women are subsequently disproportionately disadvantaged in scientific careers compared to men. The Government recognises the importance of gender diversity in STEM, but its efforts appeared to be largely focused on encouraging girls to study STEM, with little focus on enabling them to stay and progress in STEM careers. We were disappointed that BIS spending dedicated to improving diversity in STEM was virtually halved in the 2010 Spending Review and we recommend that the Government should monitor the effects of its policies on cutting and “mainstreaming” diversity funding.
The report has a lot of useful detail and references throughout and is definitely worth reading. If you only look at one part I recommend looking at the Conclusions and Recommendations section which goes through the “Business case for retention of women in science” and “The role of Government” and “Women in academia” “The nature and funding of research careers” and “Management of research careers by higher education institutions”. It is good to see these issues rising up to higher and higher levels in government. We need to make the scientific workplace more fair and figure out ways to improve the diversity of scientists and this will hopefully help some.
There is an interesting new paper in Nature of interest. The paper is titled “Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science” and is by Vincent Larivière, Chaoqun Ni, Yves Gingras, Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto. In the paper the authors report a detailed analysis three parameters:
The National Science Foundation began supporting ADVANCE initiatives in 2001, and has awarded over $130M in funding for a variety of programs. The most significant efforts seek to create permanent institutional transformation.
Professional disciplinary groups allow members to meet, engage, and share knowledge. This effort is particularly important to foster supportive, collaborative networks among scientists from under-represented groups.
We have compiled multiple publicly available databases of the published research related to NSF ADVANCE program efforts to increase diversity in STEM education and the STEM labor force. These include the literature on implicit bias, mentorship and other topics.
Balance is real challenge facing many faculty, particularly women with children. The perception (and reality) of the inflexibility and rigor of an academic career is one cause for the lack of diversity in STEM disciplines.