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because of a mix of “unintentional” biases and outdated institutional policies and structures”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

Tenure Review

SHALL WE CHANGE THE SYSTEM????

CV:GOD

Only 3 publications and he expects to get tenure? Do you think

he may be highly cited?