Transcript Elements of good management practice include: Commitment

ANALYZING THE LEAKY
PIPELINE:
Why are women scientists under-represented
on the faculties of research universities?
Phoebe S. Leboy
Professor Emerita of Biochemistry
University of Pennsylvania
Secretary, Association for Women in
Science (awis.org)
TIMELINE FOR REFORM OF
GENDER BIAS IN SCIENCE:
Abolish overt discrimination
o Fill the PhD pipeline with women
o
o
Decrease the “chilly climate”
oTackle
unintentional discrimination
Create familyfriendly policies
o
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Reform gender-biased
structures in academe
FILLING THE PIPELINE:
A GREAT SUCCESS:
30000
30000
25000
25000
20000
20000
15000
BIOLOGICAL
SCI
ENGINEERING
10000
1975
10000
PHYSICAL
SCI
5000
0
15000
1980
1985
1990
1995
5000
2000
0
2005
PROPORTION OF GRAD STUDENTS
WHO ARE WOMEN
% GRADUATE STUDENTS WHO ARE WOMEN
NUMBER OF WOMEN STUDENTS
# WOMEN GRADUATE STUDENTS
40
40
MATHEMATICS
30
30
PHYSICAL SCI
20
20
ENGINEERING
10
0
1975
10
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0
2005
THE REMAINING PROBLEMS
“Women are seriously under-represented on
academic science and engineering faculties
because of a mix of “unintentional” biases and
outdated institutional policies and structures”
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
Thus, we mustoTackle unintentional discrimination
o
Create family- friendly policies
o
Reform gender-biased structures in academe
1990
2000
2010
THE NEED FOR
FAMILY-FRIENDLY POLICIES
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
Data based on survey of 4400 U California faculty
Mason & Gould, Marriage and Baby Blues (2004)
http://gradresearch.berkeley.edu/marriagebabyblues.pdf#search
ESSENTIAL
FAMILY-RELATED POLICIES
1. Employer-provided day care
2. Extension of tenure-probationary period for
family care
(1 year/child or aged parent)
* Only
for parents assuming ≥ 50% of family care responsibilities
3. Post-maternity relief from teaching for a
semester..
..but research efforts should continue
http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/family/welcome.html
THE LEAKY ACADEMIC PIPELINE OF PhD
WOMEN SCIENTISTS
%
women
Grad
PostSchool doc
Tenure-track
Leak
Tenured
Leak
Big cheese
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
2004
Biomed. Sci
39%
49%
Biology
35%
46%
Chemistry
21%
32%
Math
16%
28%
Physics
9%
16%
Engineering
7%
18%
MY DATA SET: FACULTY WOMEN AT HIGHPRESTIGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES*
Proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty
who are women (2003)
ENGINEERING (av=8.93%
BIOLOGY (av=20.6%
+/-2.3 )
+/-3.6 )
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
*The
“9 Univ”
Berkeley
Cal Tech
Harvard
Michigan
MIT
Penn
Princeton
Stanford
Yale
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
Engineer
“In physics and
astronomy [nationally],
there appears to be no
leaky pipeline”
≥
# faculty
American
Institute of
Physics
report,pool
June
availability
2005
Tenure-track Faculty
Physics
PhD pool
Math
Availability pool >
# faculty
Chem
Biomed
Basic Sci
Sci
0
10
20
30
40
50
THE HIGH PRESTIGE “9 UNIVERSITIES”
vs. 50 MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
% Assistant Professors who are women
0
10
20
30
40
Engineer
50 Univ tenure-track
9 Univ tenure-track
PhD pool (NAS data)
Physics
Math
Chem
In fields with a leaky
pipeline, the 9 Univ
group have fewer
junior women faculty
than a more broadly
based group.
9 Univ = 50% of expected
50 Univ =75% of expected
Biology/
Basic Sci
Biomed*
0
10
20
30
40
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
WHY ARE THERE SO FEW WOMEN
SCIENTISTS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
Are women “dropping out” of science
or finding obstacles in the pipeline?
Postdoc
Tenuretrack
Leak
Tenured
Leak
Big cheese
Leak
% PhDs AWARDED TO WOMEN
FOCUSING ON BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1988
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
YEAR
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.
WOMEN IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES:
% UNTENURED = % TENURED
ARTS & SCIENCES*
(Percent women)
Engineering Phys Sci
Math
Biology
Med-Basic
Science**
TENURED
7.8%
9.0%
3.7%
21.8%
21.5%
TENURE
TRACK
19.0%
14.7% 8.9%
20.6%
20.0%
* Nine University data for 2003
** Medical School web sites, 2006
CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT
Biol Chem & Molec
Pharmacology
Cell Biology
TOTAL
Number of Assistant # Women
& Associate Professors
13
0
8
0
21
0
The junior faculty pipeline is empty!
Source: HMS web site http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/facts.asp
August 2006
HARVARD IS NOT ALONE
Assistant Professors at 6 Medical Schools
[2006 web
site data]
(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
50
50
40
40
30
30
!
20
20
10
10
 % women among first
authors and invited
speakers at cell biology
national meeting =
42 - 47%.
They have not dropped
out.
But the cell biology
faculties of the 9 Univ
group are only 22%
women.

0
PhD POOL
(1987-95)
Nature Cell Biol Am Soc Cell Biol
1st authors
invited speakers
(2005-06)*
(2005-06)
9 UNIV
FACULTY
(2005-06)
0
* Nature Cell Biology 8 (9):899 September 2006
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
40
Percent women
30
(n) = number of meetings
some women organizers
all male organizers
(2)
p=0.028
30
(21)
20
40
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(17)
(2)
(3)
(6)
20
(2)
10
10
(0)
0
iol
B
l
Mo
/
em
L
AL
h
c
Bio
gy
l
o
ol
l
o
i
iol
i
o
b
B
B
n
o
u
r
ll
cr
m
ce
Ce
n
Mi
lm
Ca
INVITED SPEAKERS AT KEYSTONE SYMPOSIA
0
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 REQUIRES
AT LEAST 80 HRS/WEEK:
“What
fraction of
women in
“The assumption
is young
that 80-hour
their
mid-twenties
make a decision
workweeks
are a necessary
condition
that
they don't creativity
want to have
for intellectual
anda job
that
they think about eighty hours a
excellence...
week?”
(Larry Summers,
Harvard
That assumption
has very
little Prez)
data
going for it.
Virginia Valian, Washington Post Jan 29, 2005
NBER Conference on "Diversifying the Science & Engineering
Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S&E Careers,
January 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 as
assertiveness 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
Will
It
a bad message to our students
be self-reproducing
is inherently unfair
MY NIGHTMARE:
ACADEMIC LAB OF THE FUTURE
*****ATTENTION
Minimum workday= 14h
Minimum workweek = 6 days
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 STANDARD
DEFINED:
“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 productivity
turn 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
Women’s average/men’s average
Average NIH award
Fiscal year
Men’s average award
Women’s average award
“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
STUDENT CHOICES CAN BE GENDER-BIASED
GRAD STUDENT CHOICE OF MENTORS AT UNIV. PENN:
An example of gender-biased decision making that is hard to fix.
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
WITH GRADUATE STUDENTS
AV. NUMBER
GRAD STUDENTS/ ASST.PROF
WOMEN
(N=10)
MEN
(N=28)
0
20
40
60
80
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
PERCENT
Faculty in Biomedical Graduate Groups from
Medical School basic science departments + Biology (2002-2003)
WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO
MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY?
1. Show us your best 3-5 publications
and 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
NUMBERS vs CITATION RATES
PAPERS PUBLISHED 1996-2004
AS FIRST OR LAST AUTHOR
50
Difference
significant @
p = 0.004
40
30
30
20
20
CITATIONS/PAPER
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS
40
# CITATIONS/PAPER (MEDIAN)
10
10
0
WOMEN
MEN
0
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.
CITATION ANALYSIS
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
SO WHY DO OUR EVALUATIONS
EMPHASIZE PRODUCTIVITY??
Tenure Review
CV:
GOD
Do you think
he may be
highly cited?
Only 3
publications and
he expects to get
tenure?
SHALL WE CHANGE THE SYSTEM????