How to diversify science and why

1

Strassmann/ Queller lab group

It’s not self promotion, it’s the system –what to do?

Joan E. Strassmann & Christina Grozinger

[email protected], http://strassmannandquellerlab.wordpress.com

Read my blog! http://sociobiology.wordpress.com

Photographs by Joan unless otherwise noted

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Anna S. Mueller, sociologist, University of Memphis

Christina Grozinger, biologist, Penn State University

Why is this important to me?

• Note that most of this info relates to women

in academia

– Has the most stats, info, surveys

• But can relate to everyone

– What if you differ from your professional group in

terms of your personal and professional

interests? Your background? Your personal life?

Will this affect your job satisfaction, and how you

are evaluated?

Why have diversity in science?

• From employers’ perspective, want as many good

candidates as possible

• Different approaches to science/health

• General public education

• Science in the US is mostly funded by tax-payers… should

have fair representation of all groups

1. Do we have fair representation?

Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era. AAAS 2004

White men are over-represented in the STEM

workforce

Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era. AAAS 2004

Over and underrepresentation in the STEM

workforce

80% overrepresented50% underrepresented370% overrepresented30% overrepresented63% underrepresented80% underrepresented76% underrepresented82% underrepresented

2. Why are there fewer women in biology????

Women are not lacking in ability!

Are women viewed differently from men?

C. Megan Urry, a professor of physics and astronomy at Yale … cited a 1983 study in which 360 people - half men, half women - rated mathematics papers on a five-point scale.

On average, the men rated them a full point higher when the author was "John T. McKay" than when the author was "Joan T. McKay." There was a similar, but smaller disparity in the scores the women gave.

A recent experiment showed that when Princeton students were asked to evaluate two highly qualified candidates for an engineering job - one with more education, the other with more work experience - they picked the more educated candidate 75 percent of the time.

But when the candidates were designated as male or female, and the educated candidate bore a female name, suddenly she was preferred only 48 percent of the time.

Angier and Chang. “Gray Matter and Sexes: A Scientific Gray Area”New York Times. Jan 24, 2005

Subtle differences in perception of women?

3. Why are women judged differently from men????

Psychological approach: Minimal Group Paradigm

Image: Wikimedia


Minimal group paradigmFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

The minimal group paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology.[1] While it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is most well known as method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings[2] or the colour of their shirts,[3] can trigger a tendency to favour one's own group at the expense of others.[4][5][6][7]


Humans favor others like themselves, even if it is as simple as what kind of candy you got as you came in.


Humans favor others like themselves, even if it is as simple as what kind of candy you got as you came in.


Adam Kuspa, Vice President for Research, Baylor College of Medicine


Mary Ann Rankin, Senior Vice President and Provost, University of Maryland

Photo credit: Michael Barnes, Austin American Statesman

INEQUALITY REGIMESAll organizations have inequality regimes, defined as loosely interrelated practices,processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender,and racial inequalities within particular organizations. The ubiquity of inequalityis obvious: Managers, executives, leaders, and department heads have much morepower and higher pay than secretaries, production workers, students, or even professors.Even organizations that have explicit egalitarian goals develop inequalityregimes over time, as considerable research on egalitarian feminist organizationshas shown (Ferree and Martin 1995; Scott 2000).

Photo credit: University of Oregon

Stereotype threat

Effects of differences in perception

J.D. Nordell Slate 2006 Positions of Power: How female ambition is shaped.

Robert Rosenthal, a sociologist at UCLA, randomly assigned

children to different classes, and then told half the classrooms'

teachers they had gifted classes and the other half that their

students were average. At the end of the year, the "gifted"

students scored higher on IQ tests.

Toni Schmader, a psychologist at the University of Arizona:

tested students, one group was told this was a problem-solving

exercise, the other, that this was a test comparing men and

women. Women's performance suffered only when they believed

they were being compared to men

In Schmader's word-memorization study, a third group was told

that exposure to stereotypes (stereotype threat) might lead

women to underperform. In this group, the women and men scored

equally well, suggesting that awareness of bias may mitigate its

effect.

J.D. Nordell Slate 2006 Positions of Power: How female ambition is shaped.


Why So Few? (2010) AAUW


Why So Few? (2010) AAUW


more than 300 studies have been published that support this finding.

The results of these experiments show that stereotype threat is often the default situation in testing environments. The threat can be easily induced by asking students to indicate their gender before a test or simply having a larger ratio of men to women in a testing situation (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000).

What to do????

We need to change the system so we don’t think like this.

Apparently the effect nearly disappears in departments with

about 30 percent women

In the meantime see to it you are one of the visible women bringing the discipline

to and above that 30 percent.

Erica Harris, Emory University

Boahemaa Adu-Oppong, Washington University in St. Louis

Remember, the men are not the problem. It is the system, even though the answer is

more women on the faculty

4. What can you do to succeed?

Mentors are crucial

Aggressive self promotion can be problematic

Self promotion does not have to be obnoxious

Promote yourself, your science, your group, your field

Have a clear focus

Jennifer Rudgers: mutualism in ecology

Have a clear focus

Liz Haswell: force in plants

Love your science!

Be visible

• Go to events on campus, undergrad poster shows, receptions, visiting speaker talks and receptions.

• You don’t have to stay long, but circulate and recognize people. Ask them what they are up to.

• Contact your university publicity office when you have a nice publication for a press release.

You help yourself when you help others

Be true to your own personality

• Be yourself

• But do things that stretch you

1. Cite yourself when appropriate.


2. Define your field through review papers that give your work a place.



3. Publish in high profile journals




4. Accept seminar invitations, but family comes first.





5. Take the lead on some collaborations.





5. Take the lead on collaborations.

6. Talk to your program officer.







7. Protect your authorship position.








8. Nominate others for awards; get yourself nominated.








8. Nominate others for awards; get yourself nominated.

9. Cite women

Don’t follow the rules.

Understand what counts

•Publications

•Funding• Collegiality• Teaching and Mentoring• Committee work

What keeps publications and funding going?

• Great new ideas

• Dedicated follow through

• Take the time to publish high

• Collaboration

• Periodic change in focus

• Deep love of research

• You are never too old to need mentors!

Have fun! Science is amazing!