AWARDS: Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in

Disciplinary Societies Erin Cadwalader, Ph.D.

Phoebe S. Leboy Public Policy Fellow ADVANCE

Grant #0930073

What is AWIS?

Association for Women in Science

Largest multi-disciplinary organization for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

Dedicated to achieving equity and full participation of women in all disciplines and across all employment sectors

AWIS Members

1%

2%

50%

9% 1%

4%

5%

2%

15%

6%

1%

4%

Agricultural Sciences

Behavioral Sciences

Biological Sciences

Chemistry

Computer Science

Earth/Atmospheric/Ocean Sciences

Engineering

Mathematics

Medical Sciences

Physical Sciences

Social Sciences

Other

Academia 59%

Non- profit

5%

Other 12%

Industry/ business

15%

Gov’t/ Public

8%

K-12 1%

Sector

Discipline

Attrition from STEM Careers

“Chilly Climate”

Work-life satisfaction challenges

Wage gap, even in STEM

Lack of promotion

Lack of recognition

Broader Impacts

Increasing transparency and efficiency of committee processes

Tenure, grant review panel, hiring, etc.

Women are underrepresented in many spaces

Science Advisory Boards

Commercialization activity

University and corporate leadership

Cross-disciplinary research teams

Greater diversity in ideas leads to better decisions

Awards 101

Why Do Societies Give Awards?

Recognize leaders and pioneers in a field

Highlight cutting edge research, emerging fields

Someone gave money for the award

Motivate and inspire younger scientists

Reward service, participation

Increase public awareness of contributions from scientific community

What do you notice first?

Who Are Awards Named After?

Alfred Bader Award in Bioinorganic or Bioorganic Chemistry

Alfred Burger Award in Medicinal Chemistry

E. Bright Wilson Award in Spectroscopy

Claude S. Hudson Award in Carbohydrate Chemistry

*American Chemical Society

Who Are Awards Named After?

Alfred Bader Award in Bioinorganic or Bioorganic Chemistry

Alfred Burger Award in Medicinal Chemistry

E. Bright Wilson Award in Spectroscopy

Claude S. Hudson Award in Carbohydrate Chemistry

What message does it send?

*American Chemical Society

What Types of Awards Do Societies Give?

Senior research, lifetime achievement

Junior Investigator

Teaching, mentoring

Service, leadership

Women-only

Minority-related

Student (undergrad, grad)

Why are awards important?

Reflect values of the scientific society

Consideration for tenure, promotions

Recognition within the discipline

Business management studies: awards are important to everyone for job satisfaction, many prefer recognition to a raise

How AWARDS Got Started

Anecdotes about disciplinary society awards:

Women are under-represented in scholarly award recipients

Women are over-represented in service, mentoring, and teaching awards

Can we verify the anecdote with data?

Dr. Phoebe S. Leboy started counting

Are women under-represented in scholarly awards recipients relative to the available pool?

And what is the right way to figure that out?

Representation of Senior Level Faculty By Discipline

Recognition of women’s service & teaching by disciplinary societies

Recognition of women’s scholarly achievements

The Psychology of What’s Fair

Three dimensions of fairness

Outcome fairness: do the results represent the desired outcome?

Procedural fairness: are the processes well-defined?

Interactional fairness: are individuals treated with respect during the process?

Partnered with Societies Representing Range of Disciplines

Society

Number of

members

% of women

members

Number of scholarly awards

% of women recipients for scholarly excellence

(2000-2010)

American Chemical Society 164,000 21% 50 7.3%

American Geophysical Union 60,000 24% 10 11.9%

American Mathematical Society

30,000 24% 14 5.5%

American Statistical Association

18,000 33% 7 12.2%

Mathematics Association of America

20,000 23% 12 12.1%

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

13,000

13%

12

4.7%

Society for Neuroscience 40,000 50% 7 20.6%

Societies Also Have Range of Member Size

Society

Number of

members

% of women

members

Number of scholarly awards

% of women recipients for scholarly excellence

(2000-2010)

American Chemical Society 164,000 21% 50 7.3%

American Geophysical Union 60,000 24% 10 11.9%

American Mathematical Society

30,000 24% 14 5.5%

American Statistical Association

18,000 33% 7 12.2%

Mathematics Association of America

20,000 23% 12 12.1%

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

13,000

13%

12

4.7%

Society for Neuroscience 40,000 50% 7 20.6%

Composition of Society Variable

Society

Number of

members

% of women

members

Number of scholarly awards

% of women recipients for scholarly excellence

(2000-2010)

American Chemical Society 164,000 21% 50 7.3%

American Geophysical Union 60,000 24% 10 11.9%

American Mathematical Society

30,000 24% 14 5.5%

American Statistical Association

18,000 33% 7 12.2%

Mathematics Association of America

20,000 23% 12 12.1%

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

13,000

13%

12

4.7%

Society for Neuroscience 40,000 50% 7 20.6%

Number of Scholarly Awards Variable, Too

Society

Number of

members

% of women

members

Number of scholarly awards

% of women recipients for scholarly excellence

(2000-2010)

American Chemical Society 164,000 21% 50 7.3%

American Geophysical Union 60,000 24% 10 11.9%

American Mathematical Society

30,000 24% 14 5.5%

American Statistical Association

18,000 33% 7 12.2%

Mathematics Association of America

20,000 23% 12 12.1%

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

13,000

13%

12

4.7%

Society for Neuroscience 40,000 50% 7 20.6%

Women Under-Represented Relative to Percent in Society

Society

Number of

members

% of women

members

Number of scholarly awards

% of women recipients for scholarly excellence

(2000-2010)

American Chemical Society 164,000 21% 50 7.3%

American Geophysical Union 60,000 24% 10 11.9%

American Mathematical Society

30,000 24% 14 5.5%

American Statistical Association

18,000 33% 7 12.2%

Mathematics Association of America

20,000 23% 12 12.1%

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

13,000

13%

12

4.7%

Society for Neuroscience 40,000 50% 7 20.6%

But that’s the total number, what about comparing available

pools of professors?

Women Winners Lower than Professor Pool

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

ACS AGU AMS ASA MAA SIAM SfN

% women tenuredfaculty (top 50institutions, 2010)

% women recipientsfor scholarlyexcellence (2000-2010)

Is it a leadership issue?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

ACS AGU AMS ASA MAA SIAM SfN

% women tenuredfaculty (top 50institutions, 2010)

% women recipientsfor scholarlyexcellence (2000-2010)

% womenpresidents since1990

Women More Likely to be Leaders than Winners

Best Practices for Achieving Parity

(as well as for keeping awards relevant and inspiring & considering

other committee compositions)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Competence Hirability Mentoring Competence Hirability Mentoring

Male Applicant Female Applicant

Male faculty

Female faculty

Moss-Racusin CA, et al. PNAS. 109 (41), 2012.

Implicit Bias: Hiring B.S.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Competence Hirability Mentoring Competence Hirability Mentoring

Male Applicant Female Applicant

Male faculty

Female faculty

Moss-Racusin CA, et al. PNAS. 109 (41), 2012.

Implicit Bias: Hiring B.S.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Competence Hirability Mentoring Competence Hirability Mentoring

Male Applicant Female Applicant

Male faculty

Female faculty

Moss-Racusin CA, et al. PNAS. 109 (41), 2012.

Implicit Bias: Hiring B.S.

Evaluation of identical lab manager application package based on whether a male or female’s name was on top of the resume

Inoculation Against Implicit Bias

Men and women both have these biases

Scientists are men and women

Therefore, scientists have these biases too…

Make people aware that we all have biases that subconsciously influence decisions

Effects of bias mitigated by awareness

Recommendation: Educate committees before selection process about implicit bias

Awards Portfolio Update-Names

Names of Awards

Are they all named after pioneers in the field?

Do the names reflect the diversity of the discipline?

Might people see the name and think of candidates that more closely resemble the namesake?

Discouraging others from applying?

Recommendation: Consider expanding breadth of representation or name new ones after field rather than individuals

Awards Portfolio Update-Subdiscipline

Some awards may no longer reflect cutting-edge fields within discipline

Are those all still relevant?

Women often go into emerging fields, interdisciplinary specialties, may not yet be individually rewarded

Recommendation: Consider assessing subdisciplinary awards and re-evaluating them for relevance

Awards Portfolio Update-Timing

Many awards attract few nominees

Many recycle nominations from year to year if candidates didn’t win first time

Perception is that each award is highly competitive, reality is some just don’t get many submitted nominees

Recommendation: Consider changing the cycle of award presentation to better match number of nominees

Awards Portfolio Update-Website

Where are the past winners displayed?

Are they all easy to find?

Are the qualities sought for each award clear?

Recommendations

Designate Awards page on website

List awards, past winners

Clearly spell out what is needed for application, nomination package

Solicitations- Dissemination

How are the solicitations disseminated?

Print? Online?

Goal: get best possible nominees

Recommendations:

Make sure solicitations are likely to be seen by different types of media users

Reach out to women’s and minority committees, department chairs at institutions, etc.

Form canvassing committees

Solicitations- Gender Neutral Language

Avoid using words that are male or female-specific in association

Masculine: exceptional, analytical, talented, results

Feminine: conscientious, methodical, dependable

Be conscious of it in solicitations as well as letters of recommendations

Gender Bias Calculator

Schmader T, et al. Sex Roles. 57 (7-8), 2007.

Committee Composition: Less Desirable

Committee Composition and Interactions

Better balance of genders, ethnicities

Greater variety of perspectives make better decisions

Interactions: In person or via Skype best, rather than phone

Take turns: Make sure there is enough time for everyone to speak

Evaluations: Rank candidates and submit via ballot, then discuss

Evaluate Nominees Objectively

Discuss criteria being evaluated before looking at individual nominees

Establish a list of which qualities are most important

Avoid focusing on the who’s, what’s, & where’s

Make sure the candidates have correct qualifications, avoids cronyism

Disclose conflicts of interest, recuse as necessary

Progress with Pioneer Societies

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ACS (46) AGU (8) AMS (12) ASA (11) MAA (20) SIAM (8) SfN (7)

avg

# o

f aw

ard

s/yr

wo

n b

y w

om

en

Society (total # awards/yr)

1991-2000

2001-2010

2011

2012

2013

Other Interesting Outcomes…

AGU: UniPHY to identify networks of influence and connectivity

AMS: increased number of women in leadership, on committees

MAA: adopted double-blind review process for journals

SIAM: Women 15% of SIAM editorial board of 14 journals, doubled the number of women recognized as fellows

New Societies

•American Astronomical Society

•American Economic Association

•American Institute of Biological Sciences

•Association for Psychological Science

•American Physical Society

•American Society of Plant Biologists

•Botanical Society of America

•Ecological Society of America

•Entomological Society of America

•Genetics Society of America

•Sigma Xi

Further Reading

AWARDS

http://raiseproject1.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-matilda-effect-in-science-awards-and-prizes-in-theus-1990s-and-2000s/

Implicit Bias

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Gender Neutral Language

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572075/

http://www.academic.umn.edu/wfc/rec%20letter%20study%202009.pdf

http://diversity.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/exploring-the-color-of-glass.pdf

1321 Duke Street

Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 894-4490 (phone)

cadwalader@awis.org http://www.awis.org