Diversity of Science and Engineering Faculty at Research Universities

Chapter 2

Diversity of Science and Engineering Faculty at Research Universities Downloaded by CORNELL UNIV on November 3, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch002

Donna J. Nelson* Department of Chemistry, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-9704, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The most comprehensive demographic analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in top 100 departments of science and engineering disciplines shows that women and minorities remain significantly underrepresented among faculty. There are still relatively few tenured and tenure-track female and minority faculty in these research university departments, even though a growing number and percentage of women and minorities are completing their PhDs in these fields. Qualified women and minorities are not becoming faculty in science and engineering disciplines in sufficient numbers. Although in some engineering disciplines, there is a better match between the representation of females among PhD recipients versus among faculty, these disciplines are the ones with very low percentages of females among PhD recipients. Generally, the percentage of women among science and engineering BS recipients has been fairly stagnant over the past few years, and undergraduate women are likely to find themselves without sufficient female faculty to serve as optimal role models and mentors. Underrepresented minorities (URMs) face many of the same issues as women do. In no discipline is there a critical mass of URMs, nor do the percentages of URM faculty approach the percentages of URMs in the general population. Furthermore, although the numbers of female URM faculty are generally increasing, those numbers still remain at or near zero in the top 50 departments of most STEM disciplines.

© 2017 American Chemical Society Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Downloaded by CORNELL UNIV on November 3, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch002

Introduction For decades, many women, URMs, universities, and organizations, worked to increase the representation of women and URMs among faculty at top research universities. In spite of valiant efforts, progress and change were slow, although many options and potential solutions were attempted. From their surroundings, it was apparent to women and minorities that disparities and barriers existed. However, there was no way to measure the disparities nor the extent of success, if any, especially at higher levels. Data disaggregated by race and gender had long been available about STEM BS recipients and PhD recipients, since the 1960s and 1970s respectively, but there were none for corresponding faculty. This meant that demographics of the faculty hiring pool were established, but neither the numbers nor the exact representation of women nor URMs were available. With no complete faculty data, there was little understanding of the barriers to equality or steps needed to accomplish or approach it. A data-driven analysis of the barriers or steps in the “academic pipeline” beyond PhD recipients was impossible. Disparities for women and URM faculty obviously existed in each STEM discipline, but lack of data prevented comparison or pattern recognition; this caused each discipline to be analyzed and planned separately. In order to gather faculty data, survey samples were initially used, but statistics must be applied to samples, which invalidated results if the sample size was small. Other than data from survey samples, the only “data” available were from attendee observations at meetings and other gatherings. While there were sufficient women faculty to gather useful, but somewhat approximate, data via survey samples, there were insufficient URM faculty for this. For underrepresented minorities, faculty numbers were so small, especially when disaggregated by rank and gender, in order to have accurate numbers the only solution was to collect the whole population. In this way, statistics would not need to be applied to the data, because the number of all faculty would be merely counted. Many reasons were cited about the need for these data: (1) Comparing faculty data before versus after a program implementation would enable discerning the effect of the program. (2) The faculty demographics would provide benchmarks for universities and departments to compare against their own data. (3) If faculty demographics were collected over a number years, it would be possible to tell the progress or lack of progress over time, in each discipline. (4) Disciplines, departments, and universities would be able to compare data against each other and to measure and quantify their relative progress. Our first faculty survey was for chemistry and was carried out in FY2001. It provided the full population of tenured and tenure track faculty, disaggregated by race, by rank, and by gender, at the top 50 chemistry departments, as ranked by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Our survey provided the numbers that many women and URMs in chemistry had long desired and generated discussion and enabled research in diversity that was not possible previously. The NSF named our surveys “The Nelson Diversity Surveys.” Researchers in other STEM disciplines asked us to survey their disciplines similarly, which we did for 13 additional STEM disciplines in FY2002. 16 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Nelson Diversity Surveys were carried out twice more, for 15 STEM disciplines, in FY2005 and FY2007. These three surveys each provided a snapshot of tenured and tenure track faculty demographics in one year, disaggregated by race, by rank, and by gender. In order to determine change over time of faculty demographics, it was desirable to have demographics for more than three points in time. Therefore, we decided to carry out a Nelson Diversity Survey for one additional year, and those data are reported herein for FY2012.


Methodology In order to investigate the race/ethnicity, rank, and gender of faculty, we surveyed top research departments of fifteen science and engineering disciplines. Our data were gathered by surveying the top 100 departments in each of fifteen science and engineering disciplines, as ranked by the NSF according to research funds expended (1). Each department chair was asked to provide the gender, race/ethnicity, and rank of each tenured or tenure track faculty member. Data received were entered into tables, which are provided in the Appendix. For each discipline, we selected all pertinent departments in each university that ranked in the top 100, according to the most recent National Science Foundation annual report on academic research expenditures available at the time of data collection. The top 100 universities were different for each discipline. Over 90% of the departments in our sample are also located in universities classified in either the Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive category or the Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive category of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For each of the top 100 departments in research expenditures, department chairs were asked to report the race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, White, Hispanic, and Native American), rank (assistant, associate, and professor) and the gender of tenured and tenure-track faculty for fiscal year 2012. In a limited number of instances, data were unavailable from department chairs and were collected instead from other sources, such as department websites and published directories. If a university had both a math department and a department of statistics or applied mathematics, then we included both departments in the Appendix math tables and noted these by #. These additional departments were sufficiently few that still gather data for the full population in math. In biological sciences and in earth sciences, we surveyed all pertinent departments of each university (sometimes over 15 departments per university). In each discipline, some departments did not respond or declined to participate; in these cases, we gathered the information from departmental websites, so that we had the full population, rather than a sample. Universities for which departmental data were gathered from a source other than the chair(s) or the(ir) designee(s) are marked in the Appendix tables by **. In cases in which the NSF listed fewer than 100 departments for a discipline, we surveyed all that were provided. For example, NSF ranked only 40 astronomy departments at the time of the first survey. Engineering disciplines and social sciences 17 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

disciplines each had been grouped by NSF, and the research expenditures of the group were used to rank the top 100 universities. This caused an occasional sub-disciplinary department to be included among the top 100, even though it had no research expenditures reported (or might not even exist). We omitted those departments. Therefore, although it was still possible to sort and rank research funding expenditures by sub-discipline, some sub-disciplines have fewer than 100 departments, as seen in the Appendix tables.


Women Table 1 contains a summary of data for female students and faculty in each of 15 science and engineering disciplines at the top 50 departments in the United States, as ranked by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (1). The right side of the table summarizes faculty data from Appendix tables, which each contain faculty data for 50 departments in one discipline, disaggregated by race, rank, and gender. In these Appendix survey data tables, numbers before the decimal point refer to the total number of faculty in that group, while the numbers after the decimal point refers to the women there. The data in the left side of the summary table pertain to BS and PhD attainment data from the NSF webCASPAR database (1).

BS and PhD Recipients The first indicator of women’s presence in academia comes from analysis of BS recipients. The first two columns in Table 1 reveal little change in the representation of women among BS recipients between 2010 and 2011—all disciplines except astronomy and physics showed less than 1% change in the percent of BS recipients who are women. Astronomy saw a significant increase (36.9% in 2010 compared to 38.3% in 2011), while physics had a significant decrease (20.6% to 18.9%). Of the 13 remaining disciplines with no significant change, seven (chemistry, math, computer science, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, economics, and political science) had a slight decrease, four (civil engineering, sociology, biological sciences, and earth sciences) experienced an increase, and two (electrical engineering and psychology) remain the same. The percentage of women among BS recipients is important because BS recipients are the source of PhD candidates and, by extension, professors. A small source (less than 25% to 30%) represents the first stage in their underrepresentation and could be a factor working against women entering academia. Currently, computer science (16.8%), physics (18.9%), civil engineering (22.0%), electrical engineering (9.9%), and mechanical engineering (11.3%) all have a low representation of females among BS recipients, constituting a small source for females in the academic pipeline for these disciplines. 18 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 1. Females Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments


Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

PhD8796

BS2010

BS2011

Chemistry

49.8%

49.0%

27.2%

Math

43.4%

43.1%

Computer Sci

16.9%

Astronomy

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

33.0%

25.5%

23.1%

13.1%

16.8%

23.0%

29.5%

26.5%

20.7%

9.6%

14.5%

16.8%

19.9%

21.7%

20.5%

18.9%

12.3%

15.7%

36.9%

38.3%

17.1%

23.8%

23.1%

25.0%

16.2%

19.2%

Physics

20.6%

18.9%

11.5%

14.7%

18.5%

15.7%

7.5%

10.3%

Chemical Engr

31.9%

31.0%

18.3%

24.2%

32.8%

23.8%

9.8%

16.9%

Civil Engr

21.5%

22.0%

13.5%

23.3%

32.5%

17.5%

10.0%

16.3%

Electrical Engr

9.9%

9.9%

9.2%

12.6%

17.9%

10.9%

7.7%

10.0%

Mechanical Engr

11.5%

11.3%

7.8%

12.4%

21.3%

14.5%

7.8%

12.0%

Economics

29.3%

28.9%

26.4%

31.2%

29.5%

18.3%

9.4%

16.1%

Political Science

50.9%

50.6%

33.3%

39.8%

40.4%

35.1%

22.3%

30.3%

Sociology

69.5%

69.8%

54.6%

61.6%

63.6%

54.2%

33.3%

45.4%

Psychology

77.0%

77.0%

60.7%

68.1%

50.3%

43.8%

32.7%

38.7%

Biological Sci

59.0%

59.5%

40.8%

47.1%

32.5%

31.2%

18.8%

24.8%

Earth Sciences

39.5%

40.0%

23.0%

32.6%

35.2%

28.4%

12.1%

20.2%

Women are making slow increases in PhD attainment, as seen by comparing the third and fourth columns of Table 1. The percentage of PhD recipients that are female increased significantly between 1987-1996 and 1997-2006 in every discipline. However, despite this general increase across decades, the percentage of women receiving PhDs is still low in many disciplines. Averaging across the second decade, between 1997 and 2006, women made up less than 25% of PhD recipients in computer science (21.7%), astronomy (23.8%), physics (14.7%), chemical engineering (24.2%), civil engineering (23.3%), electrical engineering (12.6%), and mechanical engineering (12.4%). While the increase in attainment shows improvement, the fact that seven of the fifteen disciplines still have such a small source shows that there is still much improvement needed. Another important comparison is that of BS recipients to PhD recipients (columns two and four of Table 1). This reveals the number of female BS recipients who go on receive a PhD and, conversely, the number who leave the academic pipeline at this point. In most disciplines the percentage of BS recipients 19 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

that are female is higher than that of PhD recipients; female BS recipients are underutilized. However, five disciplines over utilize female BS recipients—there are a higher percentage of women receiving PhDs than BSs; these are computer science (21.7% vs 16.8%, respectively), civil engineering (23.3% vs 22.0%), electrical engineering (12.6% vs 9.9%), mechanical engineering (12.4% vs 11.3%), and economics (31.2% vs 28.9%). The ten disciplines that underutilize female BS recipients are losing women disproportionately at this point, and should take note, if they are to retain them throughout the academic pipeline.


Critical Mass In order to facilitate women to achieve highest ranks, there must be sufficient women to make the necessary changes inside the disciplines. This makes the measure of critical mass—defined as the minimum proportion of individuals necessary to effect substantial change—of high importance (2). Generally, critical mass is deemed to be between 15% and 30%. In order to create changes that would make academic positions more desirable for women, and thus draw more women into the field, a critical mass of women professors, specifically at the highest ranks and positions, must be attained (2). Considering the representation of women among all ranks of professor combined (the final column in Table 1), it appears that critical mass has been attained generally. All disciplines examined in this study except math (14.5%), computer science (14.5%), physics (10.4%), electrical engineering (10.0%), and mechanical engineering (12.0%) have at least 15% females among professors. However, a problem at individual ranks becomes apparent. While all disciplines have attained a critical mass at the assistant professor level (column five), and all but electrical engineering (10.9%) and mechanical engineering (14.5%) have done so at the associate professor level (column six), there is a noticeable drop in the percentage of women who are “full” professors (column seven). Only five of the fifteen disciplines studied—astronomy (16.2%) political science (22.3%), sociology (33.3%), psychology (32.7%), and biological sciences (18.8%)—have attained a critical mass of women among tenured professors. Even among those disciplines that have reached a critical mass, none have come near the 51% that makes up the general population (3). In fact, the highest, sociology, only reaches 33.3%, nearly 20% away from matching the population of the United States as a whole. While female professors have generally attained critical mass, they are concentrated at the lowest ranks. Tenured “full” professors can more easily speak against discrimination or unfair practices, working to effect change, but there is greater risk for assistant and associate professors to do so. Thus, the underrepresentation of women as “full” professors perpetuates a cycle in which women are discouraged from academic careers, which in turn means that there are too few tenured professors to change the conditions that discourage the women in the first place. The loss of women between the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor must be remedied in order to break this cycle and facilitate change. 20 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Same-Gender Mentors Because most individuals are most comfortable in environments that include others who are similar to them, underrepresentation of women can impact the representation of women in the student body. Individuals tend to seek out role models and mentors that are similar to them. When there are insufficient mentors, female students may feel alienated or unsupported (4). Also, the mentor’s time and resources are spread too thinly amongst her various mentees, causing the quantity and quality of interactions to decline. Both outcomes will impact student success and retention adversely. These can lead to the feeling that women have no place in academia and that their needs will be ignored, leading to discouragement and driving students from the field (4). The data in Table 1 support this phenomenon for women in academia. The proportion of women seeking bachelor degrees is much greater than that of female professors, particularly higher-ranking professors. For example, despite making up nearly half (49.0%) of chemistry undergraduates, females account for only 16.8% of professors of all ranks in the top 50 chemistry departments, and 13.0% of full professors. A greater disparity exists in psychology, where females make up 77.0% of the undergraduate population, only 32.7% of professors are female. In two disciplines, chemistry (49.0% BS to 16.8% faculty) and math (43.1% and 14.5%) the percentage of female BS recipients is larger than the percentage of female professors of all ranks by a factor of almost three. In no discipline does the percentage of female full professors exceed that of female undergraduates, and the few that are close only are so only because the percentages of undergraduate females are so low. In electrical engineering, for example, there is only a 2.2% difference between the proportion of female undergraduate students and full professors. However, only 7.7% of full professors in that department are female (compared to 9.9% of undergraduates), so the low numbers are still a cause for concern. This trend is mirrored in the percentage of professors of all ranks. In all disciplines except mechanical and electrical engineering, female undergraduates account for a significantly higher proportion of their respective population than do female professors. When the proportions are close, this is due to a lack of female undergraduates, as opposed to an abundance of female professors. Hiring Pool Faculty are hired as assistant professors from a pool of candidates who have received PhDs. Comparing the percentage of female PhD recipients (Table 1, column four) versus the percentage of female assistant professors (column five) reveals how well disciplines utilize their hiring pools. If the representation of women is higher in PhD attainment versus that in assistant professors, then women PhDs are underutilized, signaling that women are leaving the academic pipeline faster than men are. This loss of representation is known as a “leaky pipeline” and suggests that conditions exist that prevent or deter women from becoming faculty, whether that be unfair hiring practices or non-ideal conditions in departments that students observe. 21 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


In 2012, seven disciplines underutilized their hiring pools. The greatest underutilization is in psychology (18.3% difference between the representation of women among PhD recipients versus assistant professors) and biological sciences (14.6%). Chemistry (7.6%), math (3.1%), economics (1.7%), computer science (1.2%), and astronomy (0.7%) also showed underutilization. Conversely, physics, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, political science, sociology, and earth sciences each had a higher percentage of female assistant professors than of female PhD recipients and were therefore over-utilizing their hiring pools. Disciplines characterized by hiring pool underutilization should make academia more appealing to female PhD recipients, in order to encourage women to enter that profession. They should also review hiring practices in order to retain women at this stage in the academic pipeline.

Summary of Deficiencies Disciplines with a larger number of deficiencies can be expected to have more problems for underrepresented groups and to take longer to remedy them. Such categorization can also help identify areas that each discipline needs to improve. Therefore, it is desirable to compare the relative number of deficiencies in disciplines. In order to facilitate this, in Tables 1-12 disciplines are grouped according to patterns in their deficiencies. Group 1: The disciplines in life sciences and social sciences have reasonably sized sources to their pipelines, women have attained critical mass in faculty, but their hiring pools are underutilized; these have one deficiency each and are grouped at the bottom of Tables 1-12. Group 2: Physics, astronomy, and engineering have small sources for their pipelines, no critical mass in faculty, but overutilization of their hiring pools, and they are in the middle of the tables. This group of disciplines shows characteristics opposite to life sciences and social sciences; each has two deficiencies, but overutilization of hiring pools. Group 3: Chemistry, math, and computer science have reasonably sized sources, underutilization of their hiring pools, barely critical mass among faculty, and they are at the top of the tables. Each discipline has two deficiencies, in spite of a reasonably sized source.

Analysis and Comparison of Lower-Ranking Departments Table 2 contains analogous faculty data for the next 50 departments (51-100) and the top 100 departments as a whole. This table shows that the percentage of females in academia is essentially the same in the top 50 departments as in the next 50, except for a few disciplines. In astronomy, mechanical engineering, and biological sciences, women have significantly higher representation among faculty of all ranks in the first 50 departments than in the second 50, while economics, psychology, and earth sciences follow the opposite trend. 22 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 2. Females Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments


Discipline

Departments 51 - 100

Departments 1 - 100

asst

assoc

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

Chemistry

26.8%

19.4%

11.4%

16.2%

26.1%

21.3%

12.4%

16.6%

Math

29.9%

22.7%

9.6%

16.4%

27.9%

21.6%

9.6%

15.2%

Computer Sci

20.3%

13.6%

10.9%

13.6%

20.4%

16.5%

11.8%

14.8%

Astronomy

26.3%

15.7%

10.6%

14.8%

24.4%

21.6%

14.3%

17.7%

Physics

22.7%

17.5%

7.6%

12.4%

20.4%

16.5%

7.5%

11.2%

Chemical Engr

29.1%

17.4%

11.6%

16.7%

31.1%

20.7%

10.6%

16.8%

Civil Engr

25.0%

19.8%

6.5%

15.1%

29.3%

18.5%

8.8%

15.9%

Electrical Engr

15.3%

12.0%

8.4%

10.7%

16.9%

11.4%

7.9%

10.2%

Mechanical Engr

18.4%

6.6%

5.0%

8.5%

20.1%

11.4%

6.8%

10.7%

Economics

31.5%

22.9%

12.2%

19.4%

30.5%

20.5%

10.6%

17.6%

Political Science

42.7%

30.1%

18.6%

28.8%

41.5%

33.0%

20.8%

29.7%

Sociology

55.8%

54.6%

34.1%

46.0%

60.0%

54.4%

33.6%

45.7%

Psychology

56.1%

48.6%

33.9%

43.2%

53.3%

46.0%

33.2%

40.7%

Biological Sci

34.7%

29.5%

20.4%

26.1%

33.4%

30.5%

19.4%

25.3%

Earth Sciences

35.1%

28.6%

15.6%

22.7%

35.2%

28.5%

13.4%

21.3%

Underrepresented Minorities (URMs) The United States Census Bureau estimates that, in 2012, the representations of Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans (known collectively as underrepresented minorities or URMs) in the general US population were 12.6%, 17.2%, and 0.9%, respectively (3). However, those representations are not reflected in the percentages of URM professors. As seen in Tables 3, 5, and 7, URM professors at any rank have not attained a critical mass in any of the 15 disciplines studied. Nor have any of the percentages approached the percentages of URMs in the general population. Many of the same issues impacting female professors are observed for URMs, except to a greater degree. Blacks Table 3 contains data analogous to Table 1, but for Black students and professors. It reveals a severe underrepresentation of Black professors, 23 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

particularly full professors. In all but three disciplines (political science, sociology, and psychology) Blacks are less than 3% of professors of all ranks. In sociology, which has the highest percentage, Blacks account for only 7.7% of all professors and 6.7% of full professors. Five disciplines (math, computer science, physics, biological sciences, and earth sciences) Blacks have percentages of full professors that are less than 1%, ranging as low as 0.4% in computer science.

Table 3. Blacks Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments


Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

PhD8796

BS2010

BS2011

Chemistry

8.1%

8.0%

1.8%

Math

5.7%

5.3%

11.3%

Astronomy

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

3.4%

3.0%

2.8%

1.0%

1.6%

1.4%

2.8%

1.3%

1.5%

0.9%

1.1%

11.1%

1.3%

3.3%

2.8%

1.9%

0.4%

1.2%

2.1%

1.5%

0.7%

0.9%

2.6%

3.3%

1.6%

2.1%

Physics

3.3%

3.3%

1.1%

2.0%

0.7%

0.6%

0.9%

0.8%

Chemical Engr

4.4%

4.5%

2.0%

3.3%

2.7%

4.6%

2.1%

2.7%

Civil Engr

4.0%

3.8%

2.4%

3.6%

1.9%

2.6%

1.1%

1.6%

Electrical Engr

7.4%

7.1%

2.0%

4.0%

3.1%

2.2%

1.5%

1.9%

Mechanical Engr

3.2%

3.4%

1.3%

3.6%

5.2%

2.9%

1.5%

2.6%

Economics

5.9%

5.8%

4.1%

4.1%

1.3%

2.1%

1.1%

1.3%

Computer Sci

Political Science

10.6%

11.0%

7.6%

8.2%

5.8%

4.5%

3.7%

4.4%

Sociology

18.3%

19.4%

6.7%

9.8%

8.4%

9.0%

6.7%

7.7%

Psychology

12.4%

12.6%

4.0%

5.9%

7.0%

3.6%

2.0%

3.3%

Biological Sci

7.9%

7.8%

1.9%

3.1%

2.2%

2.1%

0.8%

1.4%

Earth Sciences

2.0%

1.9%

0.6%

1.2%

1.4%

2.1%

0.7%

1.2%

In all disciplines the percentage of Black undergraduate students is greater than the percentage of Black professors. For instance, in computer science, only 0.4% of full professors are Black, while 11.1% of BS recipients are. There are not enough Black professors to serve as mentors to the Black undergraduate population, which ultimately can cause Blacks to become discouraged and choose a new career path.

24 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 4 reveals the percentage of Blacks among faculty members in the second 50 and top 100 departments. Data for the first and second 50 departments are essentially equal, with the exception of a 2.7% difference in astronomy.

Table 4. Blacks Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments


Discipline


Departments 1 - 100

asst

assoc

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

Chemistry

2.8%

4.5%

1.0%

2.1%

2.9%

3.7%

1.0%

1.8%

Math

2.4%

1.9%

1.8%

1.9%

1.8%

1.7%

1.2%

1.4%

Computer Science

3.9%

0.5%

0.6%

1.2%

3.3%

1.3%

0.4%

1.2%

Astronomy

2.6%

6.7%

4.8%

4.8%

2.6%

4.6%

2.7%

3.1%

Physics

0.8%

0.4%

0.3%

0.4%

0.8%

0.5%

0.6%

0.6%

Chemical Engr

3.4%

1.4%

1.6%

1.9%

3.0%

3.1%

1.9%

2.4%

Civil Engr

3.6%

2.8%

0.8%

2.1%

2.6%

2.7%

1.0%

1.8%

Electrical Engr

5.4%

2.7%

1.3%

2.4%

4.0%

2.4%

1.4%

2.1%

Mechanical Engr

5.1%

2.5%

2.2%

2.9%

5.1%

2.7%

1.7%

2.7%

Economics

1.4%

4.2%

1.8%

2.2%

1.4%

3.1%

1.4%

1.7%

Political Science

5.9%

6.8%

5.5%

6.0%

5.8%

5.5%

4.4%

5.1%

Sociology

10.6%

8.3%

5.0%

7.5%

9.4%

8.7%

6.1%

7.6%

Psychology

6.4%

4.4%

3.3%

4.3%

6.7%

4.0%

2.5%

3.7%

Biological Sci

2.9%

1.7%

1.4%

1.8%

2.5%

2.0%

1.0%

1.6%

Earth Sciences

1.5%

1.1%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.7%

1.1%

1.3%

Hispanics Table 5 summarizes the representation of Hispanics among students and faculty in the top 50 departments. It reveals that Hispanics are underrepresented at all levels of academia. The percentages of Hispanics increase at lower ranks, but the highest percentage of Hispanic professors is merely 9.7%, in psychology. This ranges down to 2.8% in computer science and in electrical engineering. Numbers are even lower for full professors. In computer science, Hispanics make up only 1.2% of full professors, and only 1.4% in earth sciences. Civil engineering has the highest percentage of Hispanic full professors - 5.0%, but this is still less than one-third of the representation of Hispanics in the US population. 25 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 5. Hispanics Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments


Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

PhD8796

BS2010

BS2011

Chemistry

7.6%

8.1%

3.2%

Math

6.8%

7.4%

Computer Sci

8.8%

Astronomy

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

3.7%

3.6%

5.6%

3.1%

3.6%

2.2%

3.6%

3.3%

1.9%

2.9%

2.8%

9.3%

1.6%

2.7%

2.8%

1.9%

1.2%

1.7%

9.7%

8.0%

2.0%

2.9%

4.3%

3.3%

1.8%

2.5%

Physics

5.9%

6.1%

2.6%

2.8%

4.2%

2.2%

2.3%

2.6%

Chemical Engr

7.7%

7.5%

2.8%

4.0%

7.1%

5.3%

4.1%

4.9%

Civil Engr

10.9%

10.6%

3.5%

4.8%

7.1%

7.3%

5.0%

6.0%

Electrical Engr

10.0%

11.1%

2.3%

3.8%

2.8%

5.6%

2.6%

3.4%

Mechanical Engr

8.5%

8.7%

1.8%

3.5%

4.6%

3.7%

2.0%

2.9%

Economics

7.5%

7.5%

2.8%

4.6%

6.3%

4.3%

2.4%

3.7%

Political Science

11.2%

12.1%

3.4%

4.3%

7.6%

6.7%

2.2%

4.8%

Sociology

14.0%

14.9%

4.7%

6.3%

9.2%

7.1%

4.4%

6.1%

Psychology

11.6%

12.6%

4.2%

6.5%

9.7%

5.4%

2.7%

4.6%

Biological Sci

8.7%

9.1%

2.8%

4.5%

4.3%

4.2%

2.5%

3.3%

Earth Sciences

5.6%

5.6%

2.0%

3.1%

5.2%

3.0%

1.4%

2.5%

Hispanic undergraduates also lack same-race mentors. The percentage of Hispanic among B.S. recipients is higher among all disciplines than among professors at any rank, often twice as large or more. In psychology, with 12.6% of BS recipients Hispanic, only 2.7% of full professors and 4.6% of all professors are Hispanic. Table 6 compiles the percentage of Hispanics among faculty members in the second 50 and top 100 departments. There is no significant difference in any discipline between the representation of Hispanic professors of all ranks in the first and second 50 departments.


Table 6. Hispanics Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments


Discipline


Departments 1 - 100

asst

assoc

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

Chemistry

5.3%

4.1%

1.1%

2.6%

4.4%

4.9%

2.3%

3.1%

Math

2.7%

4.5%

3.0%

3.3%

3.1%

3.1%

3.0%

3.0%

Computer Sci

3.4%

1.3%

2.0%

2.0%

3.0%

1.6%

1.5%

1.8%

Astronomy

7.9%

1.1%

1.8%

2.8%

5.7%

2.5%

1.8%

2.6%

Physics

4.1%

4.4%

3.1%

3.6%

4.2%

3.1%

2.6%

3.0%

Chemical Engr

8.1%

5.6%

5.6%

6.1%

7.6%

5.4%

4.7%

5.4%

Civil Engr

5.6%

3.6%

3.3%

4.0%

6.5%

5.8%

4.4%

5.2%

Electrical Engr

0.5%

3.0%

1.3%

1.7%

1.9%

4.5%

2.2%

2.8%

Mechanical Engr

1.4%

2.1%

1.2%

1.5%

3.3%

3.1%

1.7%

2.4%

Economics

7.2%

3.7%

3.7%

4.6%

6.8%

4.0%

3.0%

4.1%

Political Science

6.9%

5.9%

2.5%

4.8%

7.3%

6.4%

2.3%

4.8%

Sociology

6.0%

7.5%

5.3%

6.2%

7.8%

7.3%

4.7%

6.2%

Psychology

4.9%

5.4%

2.4%

3.8%

7.2%

5.4%

2.6%

4.3%

Biological Sci

7.0%

5.4%

2.1%

4.1%

5.4%

4.7%

2.3%

3.6%

Earth Sciences

1.2%

3.4%

1.6%

1.9%

3.5%

3.1%

1.5%

2.2%

Native Americans Table 7 summarizes the representation of Native Americans among students and faculty in the top 50 departments. This table shows that, not only are Native Americans underrepresented among professors in all 15 disciplines, they are not represented at all, in any rank, in five disciplines—math, mechanical engineering, economics, political science, and sociology. Despite Native Americans being 1.2% of the U.S. population, in no professor rank do they surpass 1.0%. Although Native Americans do make up 1.0% of psychology assistant professors, there are no Native American full professors in the field. Only six fields—chemistry, computer science, astronomy, physics, biological sciences, and earth sciences—have any Native American full professors, with the highest percentage being 0.23% in astronomy.


Table 7. Native Americans Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments


Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

PhD8796

BS2010

BS2011

Chemistry

0.6%

0.8%

0.3%

Math

0.5%

0.8%

Computer Sci

0.7%

Astronomy

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

0.6%

-

-

0.09%

0.06%

0.2%

0.3%

-

-

-

0.00%

0.9%

0.3%

0.5%

-

0.21%

0.11%

0.13%

0.9%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

-

-

0.23%

0.14%

Physics

0.8%

0.8%

0.3%

0.3%

-

-

0.07%

0.05%

Chemical Engr

0.6%

0.5%

0.3%

0.5%

0.55%

-

-

0.11%

Civil Engr

0.6%

0.9%

0.4%

0.4%

0.75%

0.29%

-

0.22%

Electrical Engr

0.5%

0.6%

0.2%

0.4%

-

0.20%

-

0.05%

Mechanical Engr

0.5%

0.7%

0.2%

0.7%

-

-

-

0.00%

Economics

0.5%

0.7%

0.2%

0.3%

-

-

-

0.00%

Political Science

0.8%

1.0%

0.4%

0.6%

-

-

-

0.00%

Sociology

1.0%

1.2%

0.7%

0.9%

-

-

-

0.00%

Psychology

0.8%

0.9%

0.5%

0.8%

1.00%

0.68%

-

0.35%

Biological Sci

0.7%

0.9%

0.3%

0.6%

0.70%

0.18%

0.16%

0.28%

Earth Sciences

1.1%

0.9%

0.3%

0.9%

0.86%

0.23%

0.09%

0.27%

Having so many departments with no Native American professors poses a problem; in some fields there are no professors, in any of the top 50 research universities, to serve as role models for Native American students. Those students will not receive mentoring needed, and academia can seem unwelcoming to them. These numbers are sufficiently low that, even if a Native American professor in a student’s field exists, that professor may work at a different university, and it is likely that some students may never have contact with a professor in their fields. This may contribute to the low percentages of Native Americans among BS recipients, which range from 0.3% in astronomy to 1.2% in sociology. Table 8 reveals data on Native Americans among faculty members in the second 50 and top 100 departments. Once again, the representation of Native Americans among professors of all ranks in the top 50 departments is essentially equal to that of the representation in the second 50 departments.


Table 8. Native Americans Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments Discipline

Chemistry Math

Departments 1 - 100

asst

assoc

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

-

-

0.28%

0.17%

-

-

0.16%

0.10%

-

0.71%

-

0.17%

-

0.32%

-

0.07%

0.48%

0.26%

-

0.18%

0.22%

0.23%

0.07%

0.15%

-

-

0.44%

0.26%

-

-

0.30%

0.18%

Physics

-

0.40%

-

0.08%

-

0.17%

0.05%

0.06%

Chemical Engr

-

0.69%

0.26%

0.30%

0.30%

0.34%

0.11%

0.19%

Civil Engr

-

0.40%

-

0.12%

0.43%

0.34%

-

0.19%

Electrical Engr

-

-

-

-

-

0.11%

-

0.03%

Mechanical Engr

-

0.41%

-

0.10%

-

0.16%

-

0.04%

Economics

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Political Science

0.35%

0.29%

-

0.19%

0.16%

0.13%

-

0.08%

Sociology

0.50%

0.83%

0.30%

0.52%

0.23%

0.36%

0.11%

0.21%

Psychology

0.61%

0.26%

0.15%

0.29%

0.80%

0.48%

0.06%

0.32%

Biological Sci

0.14%

0.39%

0.13%

0.19%

0.46%

0.26%

0.15%

0.25%

Earth Sciences

0.77%

0.38%

0.15%

0.34%

0.82%

0.29%

0.11%

0.29%

Computer Science

Astronomy



Asians Table 9 summarizes the representation of Asians among students and faculty in the top 50 departments. Although Asians are a minority, just 5.1% of the population of the United States, they are not an underrepresented minority (URM). In each discipline studied, the percentage of Asian professors is higher than the percentage of Asians in the nation, except full professors in political science, sociology, and psychology. In those three fields, the percentages are close; Asians account for 4.2%, 4.9%, and 4.2%, respectively, of full professors in each of the disciplines.


Table 9. Asians Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments


Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

BS2010

BS2011

PhD8796

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

Chemistry

15.6%

15.3%

12.6%

11.7%

24.5%

18.3%

8.8%

13.1%

Math

11.1%

11.6%

15.4%

11.3%

31.0%

24.7%

15.9%

20.0%

Computer Sci

9.2%

9.9%

17.3%

19.2%

35.4%

32.3%

26.0%

29.4%

Astronomy

10.6%

6.2%

6.2%

7.2%

14.5%

12.5%

8.9%

10.6%

Physics

7.1%

7.4%

15.1%

11.7%

22.3%

16.6%

11.9%

14.2%

Chemical Engr

15.3%

14.0%

18.2%

17.5%

26.8%

22.5%

15.9%

19.2%

Civil Engr

8.9%

9.3%

19.6%

15.2%

26.5%

17.2%

14.6%

17.6%

Electrical Engr

17.5%

17.9%

26.3%

25.5%

37.9%

33.7%

25.1%

29.1%

Mechanical Engr

9.0%

9.0%

24.5%

18.3%

35.9%

24.5%

24.9%

27.0%

Economics

19.0%

18.2%

11.4%

13.3%

24.1%

11.1%

9.4%

13.4%

Political Science

7.1%

7.0%

5.4%

5.0%

11.2%

8.1%

4.2%

7.0%

Sociology

7.5%

6.7%

6.9%

6.0%

12.1%

5.0%

4.9%

6.4%

Psychology

7.0%

6.7%

2.5%

4.6%

12.0%

10.0%

4.2%

7.1%

Biological Sci

17.5%

17.1%

11.5%

13.9%

22.0%

14.5%

8.8%

13.1%

Earth Sciences

3.7%

3.2%

6.2%

5.9%

16.0%

13.9%

7.9%

10.8%

Asians have attained a critical mass in six disciplines—math, computer science, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. In addition, they are close to attaining critical mass in chemistry, astronomy, physics, economics, biological sciences, and earth sciences. As with other races, the percentage of Asians decreases as rank increases. However, Asians constitute a higher percentage among professors than Hispanics and Native Americans at all ranks in all disciplines, and higher than Blacks in all disciplines except sociology. Furthermore, although Asians make up significantly less of the population than do women, their representation is higher than women in math, computer science, physics, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. Despite Asian professors having achieved a critical mass in almost all disciplines at all ranks, Asian undergraduates only have a critical mass in four disciplines. This favorable ratio provides students better access to mentors 30 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


and role models, which in turn helps Asian undergraduates achieve successful academic careers. Table 10 shows the percentage of Asians among faculty members in the second 50 and top 100 departments. Representation of Asian professors at all ranks generally increases from the first 50 to the second 50 departments. The disciplines of chemistry, astronomy, physics, chemical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, sociology, and biological sciences all experience a significant increase in Asians among faculty, while only in earth sciences does their representation significantly decrease in the second 50 departments.

Table 10. Asians Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments Discipline

Departments 51 - 100 asst

assoc

Chemistry

28.5%

Math

35.6%

Computer Sci

Departments 1 - 100

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

15.7%

11.3%

15.7%

26.3%

18.9%

16.7%

20.7%

32.9%

17.0%

9.8%

14.2%

22.1%

16.2%

20.3%

32.9%

35.9%

23.0%

29.3%

34.3%

33.9%

24.9%

29.4%

Astronomy

14.5%

20.2%

12.8%

14.8%

14.5%

15.4%

10.2%

12.1%

Physics

24.0%

15.5%

Chemical Engr

30.4%

20.8%

15.9%

17.4%

23.1%

16.3%

13.4%

15.4%

21.4%

23.3%

28.4%

21.7%

18.1%

21.0%

Civil Engr

29.1%

19.8%

21.8%

23.0%

27.6%

18.3%

17.0%

19.6%

Electrical Engr

43.6%

30.4%

27.6%

31.2%

40.1%

32.3%

25.9%

29.8%

Mechanical Engr

37.8%

32.6%

29.2%

32.0%

36.6%

27.7%

26.4%

28.9%

Economics

24.3%

15.0%

7.6%

13.4%

24.2%

12.9%

8.6%

13.4%

Political Science

10.8%

4.7%

3.0%

5.6%

11.0%

6.6%

3.8%

6.4%

Sociology

10.6%

12.5%

6.8%

9.5%

11.4%

8.2%

5.6%

7.7%

Psychology

11.9%

5.4%

2.5%

5.5%

11.9%

7.8%

3.5%

6.4%

Biological Sci

22.3%

18.7%

11.9%

16.0%

22.1%

16.2%

10.0%

14.2%

Earth Sciences

12.0%

9.8%

6.1%

8.2%

14.3%

12.3%

7.3%

9.8%

White Males Table 11 summarizes the representation of White males among students and faculty in the top 50 departments. The representation of White males stands in stark contrast to that of women, URMs, and even Asians. While the percentage 31 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

of other demographics falls as rank increases, the percentage of White male professors increase as rank increases in each discipline. While the highest concentration of other demographic groups generally is at the rank of assistant professor, White males reach their highest percentage at the rank of full professor. Furthermore, in all disciplines, the percentage of White male full professors is higher than their representation in the U.S. population (approximately 49%). This is also true at the rank of associate professor in all disciplines but psychology.

Table 11. White Males Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 50 Departments Downloaded by CORNELL UNIV on November 3, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch002

Discipline

Students

Professors FY2012

PhD8796

BS2010

BS2011

Chemistry

36.4%

36.4%

60.9%

Math

42.9%

42.8%

Computer Sci

60.3%

Astronomy

PhD9706

asst

assoc

prof

all

55.7%

51.3%

55.8%

76.0%

68.5%

62.8%

59.1%

48.1%

58.1%

73.2%

66.3%

59.2%

63.6%

59.8%

47.6%

50.3%

62.4%

57.4%

49.9%

50.6%

75.9%

67.9%

59.0%

61.2%

73.7%

68.6%

Physics

66.0%

67.5%

73.0%

72.0%

58.9%

68.6%

79.0%

74.4%

Chemical Engr

51.5%

52.8%

63.1%

58.8%

43.7%

53.0%

70.2%

61.8%

Civil Engr

60.8%

60.2%

63.7%

58.5%

44.0%

60.1%

70.4%

62.6%

Electrical Engr

59.7%

58.1%

63.2%

59.4%

46.7%

52.6%

65.3%

59.4%

Mechanical Engr

70.5%

70.3%

66.5%

65.5%

42.6%

59.2%

66.0%

59.7%

Economics

50.2%

50.7%

59.0%

54.4%

49.5%

68.1%

78.9%

69.5%

Political Science

36.9%

36.5%

55.0%

50.3%

45.0%

52.3%

70.4%

59.2%

Sociology

18.7%

18.7%

36.0%

29.5%

26.4%

35.0%

55.9%

44.0%

Psychology

16.0%

15.8%

35.4%

27.0%

38.3%

47.6%

62.0%

54.2%

Biological Sci

27.7%

26.9%

49.9%

42.1%

46.9%

54.8%

71.7%

62.2%

Earth Sciences

54.3%

53.7%

69.8%

59.7%

48.7%

57.5%

78.8%

68.3%

In all fields but mechanical engineering, the percentage of White male full professors is higher than that of White male undergraduates. Even in mechanical engineering the gap is small—70.0% of full professors are White males, while 71.7% of students are White males. Therefore, there is an abundance of role models for these undergraduate White male students, giving these students an advantage over other students, who are unable to find same-gender or same-race mentors. 32 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 12 contains data on White males among faculty members in the second 50 and top 100 departments. The representation of White male professors of all ranks in the top 50 departments is marginally larger than in the second 50, with math, physics, chemical engineering, economics, sociology, psychology, and biological sciences having a significantly larger percentage in the top 50 than in the second.

Table 12. White Males Among Professors by Rank and Discipline at Top 100 Departments


Discipline


Departments 1 - 100

asst

assoc

prof

all

asst

assoc

prof

all

Chemistry

45.9%

61.6%

76.4%

67.1%

48.9%

58.6%

76.2%

67.9%

Math

41.4%

57.9%

71.4%

62.7%

45.3%

58.0%

72.6%

64.9%

Computer Sci

49.8%

54.7%

65.4%

58.7%

48.6%

52.3%

63.6%

57.3%

Astronomy

56.6%

60.7%

71.8%

66.3%

58.0%

61.0%

73.1%

67.8%

Physics

55.2%

66.1%

74.5%

69.4%

57.4%

67.5%

77.3%

72.5%

Chemical Engr

43.2%

58.3%

61.4%

56.8%

43.5%

55.6%

66.6%

59.7%

Civil Engr

48.0%

58.3%

68.9%

60.6%

45.7%

59.3%

69.9%

61.8%

Electrical Engr

41.1%

56.2%

64.5%

58.0%

44.5%

54.1%

65.0%

58.9%

Mechanical Engr

45.6%

57.9%

62.9%

57.7%

43.8%

58.7%

64.9%

59.0%

Economics

47.1%

60.7%

76.5%

65.7%

48.4%

64.6%

77.9%

67.8%

Political Science

45.1%

60.2%

73.2%

61.4%

45.1%

55.7%

71.5%

60.1%

Sociology

31.7%

30.8%

53.7%

41.0%

28.8%

33.2%

55.1%

42.8%

Psychology

36.0%

45.8%

60.8%

50.7%

37.1%

46.7%

61.5%

52.6%

Biological Sci

43.4%

50.5%

66.5%

57.1%

45.4%

53.0%

69.7%

60.1%

Earth Sciences

54.4%

61.7%

76.6%

68.5%

50.8%

59.2%

78.0%

68.3%

Changes in Representation Over Time The following bar graphs (Figures 1-12) analyze and compare data on the representations, by gender and race, among faculty in 15 science and engineering departments at the top 50 departments at four different points in time. They draw data from the 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012 surveys. Tables 1-12 above and analogous tables from the three previous surveys, each provide a snapshot in time of current data. However, the bar graphs below reveal change in representation over time. 33 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


The bar graphs of professors (all ranks) reflect hiring and retention underrepresented by departments in each discipline. A relatively static set of bars indicates that neither hiring nor attrition of the pertinent group is occurring significantly. Poor retention has been cited as evidence of discrimination in the workplace that leads women and URMs to either leave the field or be let go (5). An increasing percentage shows that, new individuals are being hired and/or individuals on the tenure track are ultimately achieving tenure and promotion. Because conditions for women and URMs will not change rapidly, in order to reliably gauge the status of these demographics in academia, it is important to measure change over time. Data pertaining to all professors are presented in the graphs by increasing percentage from 2002 to 2012, so the discipline that has the greatest increase in diversity from 2002 to 2012 is on the right, while the discipline with the least increase (or greatest loss) is on the left. The change in representation of assistant professors reflects recent hiring of the pertinent groups, and change in representation of all professors combined reflects retention of the group. Change in the former can take place faster than in the latter. Thus, those disciplines showing a large increase in percentage of women and URMs in the assistant professor position are generally making an effort to decrease underrepresentation. Data pertaining to assistant professors are presented in their bar graphs in the same order as in the bar graphs pertaining to professors of all ranks, in order to facilitate comparison. Women – Retention Patterns Figure 1 reveals the change over time of females among professors of all ranks; growth of females in all disciplines is fairly steady. With the exception of psychology and chemical engineering between 2005 and 2007, the representation of women increased across the board. Biological science, sociology, and political science experienced the greatest increase, about 10%. This growth indicates that these disciplines generally are able to retain professors at all ranks. On the other hand, electrical engineering, physics, and computer science have seen relatively slow growth of only a few percentage points since 2002, which could suggest trouble retaining female professors. Women – Hiring Patterns Figure 2 examines the change over time of females among assistant professors. When comparing the percentage of female assistant professors in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012, it is apparent that some disciplines have greater increases in the representation of women. For example, between 2002 and 2012, there has been approximately a 10% increase in females among assistant professors in chemical engineering, civil engineering, and sociology. In other fields, such as astronomy and political science, representation has remained fairly stagnant, showing only minimal increases. Most troubling, however, are the fields in which representation has decreased. Despite a large jump in representation between 2002 and 2005, the proportion of females among assistant professors in economics, math, astronomy, and biological sciences has dropped since 2007. 34 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


35 Figure 1. Bar graph comparing the number of female professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of female professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)

Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


36 Figure 2. Bar graph comparing the number of female assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of female assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)


Blacks – Retention Patterns


Figure 3 shows the change over time of Blacks among professors of all ranks, revealing that steady growth is not present in most departments. Representation in political science and economics has actually dropped since 2002, while civil engineering, electrical engineering, physics, math, earth sciences, chemistry, biological sciences, and psychology show very little growth. A greater degree of growth can be seen in fields such as astronomy, sociology, and chemical engineering; however, even this growth is fairly minimal. In general, science and engineering departments need to find ways to increase retention and thus representation of Black professors.

Blacks – Hiring Patterns Figure 4 examines the change over time of Black assistant professors. Growth in representation of URMs is more sporadic than that of female assistant professors. The only fields that saw steady growth in the percentage of Blacks among assistant professors were those of earth sciences, chemistry, and biological sciences, but these growths were negligible (the largest growth being about 2% in chemistry). Civil engineering, economics, sociology, math, and physics each revealed a general downward trend, meaning improvement in the representation of Blacks in those disciplines is unlikely in the near future. However, a few disciplines show promising improvement between 2007 and 2012. Political science, mechanical engineering, computer science, and astronomy each experienced a significant increase in the percentage of blacks among assistant professors during that time period, possibly indicating the beginning of change.



38 Figure 3. Bar graph comparing the number of Black professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Black professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



39 Figure 4. Bar graph comparing the number of Black assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Black assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



Hispanics – Retention Patterns Figure 5 examines the change over time of Hispanics among professors of all ranks, showing an increase from 2002 to 2007. Representation in political science, sociology, civil engineering, chemistry, and chemical engineering increased most rapidly, while their representation in math, computer science, physics, and earth sciences grew at a slower pace. Furthermore, while most disciplines show fairly constant growth, math, computer science, electrical engineering, and astronomy were erratic, with periods of growth and decline. Hispanic representation in computer science has grown overall since 2002, but it has declined since 2005, indicating recent problems retaining Hispanic faculty. However, as a general trend among disciplines representation has been steadily increasing.

Hispanics – Hiring Patterns Figure 6 examines the change over time of Hispanics among assistant professors. In some disciplines, Hispanics have seen a vast amount of growth in the assistant professor rank. Representation in political science, sociology, chemical engineering, and psychology has significantly increased since 2002, with the largest growth happening in the period between 2007 and 2012. However, representation in math and electrical engineering has decreased, and the percentage of Hispanic assistant professors in computer science, physics, mechanical engineering, astronomy, and biological sciences has shown very little growth (less than 1%). Overall, the change in proportion of Hispanics among assistant professors varies widely based on discipline, indicating that some fields are doing more to increase their representation than others.



41 Figure 5. Bar graph comparing the number of Hispanic professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Hispanic professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



42 Figure 6. Bar graph comparing the number of Hispanic assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Hispanic assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)


Native Americans – Retention Patterns


Figure 7 examines the change over time of Native Americans among professors of all ranks. All disciplines had some representation of Native American professors between 2002 and 2012. However, that representation in economics, sociology, political science, math, and mechanical engineering has since reduced to zero. In fact, there is a general downward trend in all fields except biological sciences, civil engineering, computer science, and earth sciences. Only in civil engineering is there somewhat substantial improvement. This indicates that, in general, Native Americans are not being retained once they enter academia.

Native Americans – Hiring Patterns Figure 8 examines the change over time of Native Americans among assistant professors. Of the 15 disciplines examined in this study, only political science, earth sciences, psychology, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, and biological sciences have had any Native American assistant professors between 2002 and 2012. Of those, the representation in political science and electrical engineering has since dropped to zero. However, earth science and biological science show significant increases, and civil and chemical engineering show modest increases. Despite initial increases after 2002, since 2005 the percentage of Native Americans among assistant professors in psychology has declined. Overall, there seems to be very little advancement in hiring Native Americans among assistant professors.



44 Figure 7. Bar graph comparing the number of Native American professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Native American professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



45 Figure 8. Bar graph comparing the number of Native American assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Native American assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)


Asians – Retention Patterns


Figure 9 reveals the change over time of Asians among professors of all ranks, which has steadily increased in all disciplines. Computer science shows the largest growth, with math, chemical engineering, and chemistry having marginally less. Sociology, political science, and economics have the slowest growth. Thus, Asians are more effectively retained throughout all ranks, including during the tenure process, and they will remain an overrepresented minority in academia

Asians – Hiring Patterns Figure 10 graphs the change over time of Asians among assistant professors, whose representation has generally been increasing since 2002. All disciplines show growth among Asians in this rank, but it appears that this growth is leveling out. Representation in math, chemical engineering, and electrical engineering has decreased between 2007 and 2012, while representation in most other fields shows very little growth in this time period. Although Asians will probably continue to be overrepresented in academia, based on the trends shown in Figure 10, their representation will soon begin to level out.



47 Figure 9. Bar graph comparing the number of Asian professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Asian professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



48 Figure 10. Bar graph comparing the number of Asian assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of Asian assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)


White Males – Retention Patterns


Figure 11 gives the change over time of White males among professors of all ranks, which exhibits the opposite trends of other demographics. In all fields, the percentage of White male professors has decreased since 2002. The reasoning is again due to increased representation in other demographics, and reveals that the demographics of academia are beginning to move towards mirroring the demographics of the U.S. However, much more change is needed before those demographics will match.

White Males – Hiring Patterns Figure 12 examines the change over time of White males among assistant professors, and it reveals this same downward trend as observed in Figure 11. In every field but chemistry, the percentage of White males among assistant professors has steadily declined since 2002, generally by 10% or more. This downward trend can be explained by the general increase in representation of other demographics. By decreasing the proportion of White males hired for professor positions, that demographic will slowly fall to more closely match the proportion of White males in the United States population.



50 Figure 11. Bar graph comparing the number of White male professors (all ranks) in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of White male professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



51 Figure 12. Bar graph comparing the number of White male assistant professors in “Top 50” departments from FY 2002, FY 2005, FY 2007, and FY 2012 surveys. The number at the top of each 2012 bar corresponds to the total number of White male assistant professors in the 2012 survey. (see color insert)



Changes in Representation among URM Women Table 13 analyzes and compares change in the representation of female Blacks and Hispanics among assistant and full professors in 15 science and engineering disciplines over time. Specifically, displays the data from the 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012 diversity surveys. Although the numbers are small, overall growth is present. The total numbers of both Black and Hispanic females among full professors have increased steadily each year the surveys were conducted (Hispanic females = 19, 26, 40, 50, and Black females = 22, 29, 34, 75). In addition, totals for Black and Hispanic females among assistant professors have also steadily increased (Hispanic females = 49, 60, 64, 69, and Black females = 50, 70, 66, 91), with the exception of Black professors from 2005 to 2007. The increase in full professors shows that an increasing number of female URMs are staying in the academic pipeline and reaching that rank.

Table 13. Female URM Professors by Rank and Year in Top 50 Departments

The increasing number of assistant professors reveals that, not only are female URMs increasingly staying in the academic pipeline, but they are being brought into it at a faster rate as well. This improvement shows that over time, more female URMs are being hired into academic positions, which promises future growth in their representation among faculty.



Conclusions This comprehensive demographic analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in top 50 departments of 15 science and engineering disciplines shows that women, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans remain significantly underrepresented. Analogous data are also compiled separately for the top 100 departments, in order to compare trends of the two groups. Space limitations prevent full discussion of all comparisons enabled by these data, but they are made available so that other researchers and organizations can take advantage of them in order to guide their own work, and so that universities can gage their own performance relative to other schools and relative to the national averages. There are relatively few tenured and tenure-track female faculty in these research university departments, even though a growing number and percentage of women are completing their PhDs. Insufficient qualified women are entering these sciences and engineering faculties at research universities. Although in some engineering disciplines, there is a better match between the representations of females in PhD attainment versus faculty, these disciplines are the ones with very low percentages of females in PhD attainment. Generally, the percentage of women in science and engineering BS attainment has been fairly stagnant over the past few years; however, undergraduate women are likely to find themselves without the female faculty needed for optimal role models and mentors. In the group of top 50 departments for each discipline, there are few female full professors in science and engineering; in ten of the fifteen disciplines surveyed the percentage of women among full professors was less than 15%. This means the highest-ranking women, those most likely to have the job security to be vocal, did not have critical mass in those disciplines. Even in the discipline with the highest percentage of female full professors (sociology), the percentage falls almost 20% short of the percentage of women in the general population (33.3% versus 50.8%). In all but one discipline surveyed (astronomy), the highest percentage of female faculty is at the level of assistant professor (23.1% vs 25% among associate professors). In order to measure utilization of the hiring pool, the percentage of women among recent PhD recipients versus among assistant professors, the typical rank of recently hired faculty. In the top 50 departments of most disciplines surveyed, the former is much higher than the latter. This means that the hiring pools for these disciplines are not being fully utilized. In order to measure the availability of same-gender or same-race mentors, the percentage of a group among BS recipients is compared against its percentage among assistant professors. The data for top 50 departments demonstrate that while the representation of females in science and engineering PhD attainment has significantly increased in recent years, the corresponding faculties are still overwhelmingly dominated by White men. For example, in 2011, 49.0% of the students graduating with a BS in chemistry were female, but in 2012, only 13.0% of faculty at the top 50 chemistry departments were female. In contrast, the corresponding percentages for White males are 36.4% and 76.0%, respectively. In some disciplines, female faculty are so few that it is likely a women can get a 53 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


BS or PhD without being taught by or having access to a female professor in that discipline. For the top 50 departments, data indicate that a possible reason for the persistence of low representation of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans is because a cycle is perpetuated. For example, women are less likely to enter and remain in science and engineering when they lack same-gender mentors and role models. In most science disciplines, the percentage of women among faculty recently hired is not comparable to that of recent women PhDs. This results in fewer female faculty to act as role models for female undergraduates and graduate students. Female students observe this in the course of sampling the environment. If female professors are not hired, treated fairly, and retained, female students observe this. They perceive that they will be treated similarly. This dissuades them from persisting in that discipline. Underrepresented minorities (URMs) face many of the same issues and mechanisms as do women. In no discipline is there a critical mass of URMs, nor do the percentages of URM faculty approach the percentages of URMs in the general population. Furthermore, although the numbers of female URM faculty are generally increasing slowly, those numbers still remain zero or near zero at research universities in most STEM disciplines. The percentages of female faculty have been increasing since 2002, however, which reveals that there are improvements. In general, percentages for URMs are also increasing, while the percentages of White males and Asians have gradually been falling. These trends reveal that academic faculty in science and engineering departments are becoming more diverse in gender and race. It appears that their demographics are gradually moving towards mirroring that of the general population of the U.S. Our FY2002 Nelson Diversity Survey data for top research university faculties were for whole populations. Therefore, they provided the first measure of the representation of women and URM faculty in STEM departments, disaggregated by race, by rank, by gender, and by discipline. The data in our first survey, as well as all our subsequent surveys, were whole populations. These data satisfy several uses needed by women and URMs for years before they were collected: (1) With disaggregated data of women and URMs now quantified, data before and after implementation of a program, which is designed to remove barriers or to improve the environment, can be compared in order to discern impacts of the program. (2) The quantified demographics provide benchmarks for disciplines, universities, and departments to compare against their own data. (3) Faculty demographics for all 15 disciplines are provided once again, for the fourth time (FY2012, FY2007, FY2005, FY2002), in order to show change over time of each discipline. (4) Disciplines, departments, and universities can compare data against each other and measure and quantify relative progress. Using these data to identify points of strength and challenge for each discipline, can guide the search for programs, resources, and attitudes that are responsible for the results. Behaviors in disciplines or in individual departments which show diversity can be identified and used as models. These data can guide researchers and organizations in their work to increase diversity among faculty. The data will thereby facilitate the transfer of good practices among disciplines. 54 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


The author regards the extreme interest of undergraduate volunteers in this project, their attitudes toward it, their enthusiasm for it, and their positive comments about it (including by White male volunteers), as refreshing signs of the desirability of, demand for, and expectation for equality by the next generation. (See Acknowledgements below.) In other words, Dr. Nelson predicts that discrimination will not only dissuade future women and URMs from entering academia, it will also dissuade the next generation of White males. Hence, in egalitarianism activities involving the next generation, White males are more likely to be genuine allies than opponents of women and URMS in these efforts.

Acknowledgments The work presented herein spanned the years 2001 – 2014. The author is very grateful that during this time, the Nelson Diversity Surveys were supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Oklahoma. The author also wishes to thank sincerely the thousands of department chairs who generously gave their time by participating in these surveys over the years. Dr. Nelson appreciates the graduate students and postdocs who assisted on this project. A great deal of work was done by hundreds of undergraduate volunteers (mostly women and URMs) at the University of Oklahoma, as independent study, research, and/or directed readings. The author is grateful that undergraduates had such an extreme interest in this project; without their help in tabulating, data entry, checking and repeatedly re-checking table accuracy, and so on, its success would not have been possible.

Appendix The Appendix contains Tables A1−A15 on the following pages.


56


Table A1. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Chemistry Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


57


Table A1-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Chemistry Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


58


Table A2. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Math & Statistics Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


59


Table A2-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Math & Statistics Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


60


Table A3. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Computer Science Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


61


Table A3-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Computer Science Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


62


Table A4. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Astronomy Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


63


Table A4-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Astronomy Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


64


Table A5. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Physics Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


65


Table A5-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Physics Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


66


Table A6. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Chemical Engineering Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


67


Table A6-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Chemical Engineering Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


68


Table A7. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Civil Engineering Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


69


Table A7-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Civil Engineering Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


70


Table A8. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Electrical Engineering Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


71


Table A8-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Electrical Engineering Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


72


Table A9. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Mechanical Engineering Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


73


Table A9-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Mechanical Engineering Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


74


Table A10. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Economics Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


75


Table A10-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Economics Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


76


Table A11. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Political Science Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


77


Table A11-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Political Science Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


78


Table A12. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Sociology Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


79


Table A12-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Sociology Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


80


Table A13. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the “Top 50” Psychology Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


81


Table A13-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the “Top 51 - 100” Psychology Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


82


Table A14. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Biological Sciences Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


83


Table A14-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Biological Sciences Departments No. 51-100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


84


Table A15. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at the Top 50 Earth Sciences Departments by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


85


Table A15-B. Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty at Earth Science Departments No. 51 - 100 by Race/Ethnicity, by Gender, and by Rank (FY 2012)*


References 1.

2.


3.

4.

5.

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Research and Development at Universities and Colleges, 2012, Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR). https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/ (accessed May 31, 2014). Etzkowitz, H.; Kemelgor, C.; Neuschatz, M.; Uzzi, B.; Alonzo, J. The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science 1994, 266, 51–54; http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/paradox.pdf (accessed May 31, 2014).. U.S. Census Bureau: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012, 2012 Population Estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=PEP_2012_PEPSR6H&prodType=table (accessed May 19, 2017). Etzkowtiz, H.; Kemelgor, C.; Nueschatz, M.; Uzzi, B. Barriers to women in academic science and engineering. In Who Will Do Science? Educating the Next Generation; Pearson, W., Fechter, I., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 1994. Wenzel, S. A.; Hollenshead, C. Former Women Faculty: Reasons for Leaving One Research University; Center for the Education of Women: 1998. http://www.cew.umich.edu/sites/default/files/wenzel98.pdf (accessed May 31, 2014).


Diversity of Science and Engineering Faculty at Research Universities

Recommend Documents