ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Female Faculty Members in University Chemistry Departments: Observations and Conclusions Based on Site Visits Sally Chapman,*,† Felicia F. Dixon,‡ Natalie Foster,§ Valerie J. Kuck,|| Deborah A. McCarthy,^ Nancy M. Tooney,z Janine P. Buckner,X,# Susan A. Nolan,X,# and Cecilia H. MarzabadiO,# †
Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York New York 10027, United States American Chemical Society, 1155 16th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, United States § Department of Chemistry, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, United States Department of Chemistry, College of St. Elizabeth, Morristown, New Jersey 07960, United States ^ Department of Chemistry and Physics, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States z Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, Polytechnic University of NYU, Brooklyn, New York 11201, United States X Department of Psychology, ODepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and #Center for Women’s Studies, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey 07079, United States
)
‡
ABSTRACT: Oral interviews in focus groups and written surveys were conducted with 877 men and women, including administrators, faculty members, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students, during one-day site visits to chemistry and chemical engineering departments at 28 Ph.D.-granting institutions. This report is a preliminary review of the perceptions of the situation for female tenured and tenure-track academic chemists based on the data collected during these visits. Some interesting differences are seen in responses at departments with more female faculty members as compared with departments with fewer female faculty members. Although many women are thriving, some feel isolated and marginalized. Gender barriers to success persist on both individual and institutional levels; changing this presents a serious and continuing challenge. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Women in Chemistry, Administrative Issues, Professional Development
he American Chemical Society’s (ACS) PROGRESS1 initiative, launched in 2002, included seven programs to enhance the status of women in chemistry. One program, the Academic Awareness—Site Visits project, was designed to assess climate and propose actions to increase the representation of women in tenured and tenure-track faculty positions in chemistry and chemical engineering departments at U.S. research universities. A pilot program, supported initially with ACS funding, involved site visits to chemistry departments at seven universities. The subsequent study, funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE Leadership Grant, included visits to chemistry and chemical engineering departments at 28 additional universities. The sites were chosen to include some of the top-ranked Ph.D. granting departments in the United States; other criteria included geographic region, type of institution (public vs private), whether a school had an NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant, the proportion of the faculty that is female, and the level of minority enrollment. Complete confidentiality was promised to all participants. Although we report that we visited most of the top-10 departments that produce future faculty members in top-rated chemistry departments,2 we do not identify them. The President of the ACS invited departments to participate. All accepted. A one-day site visit to each department was conducted by a chemist with experience in academia and industry
T
Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
and included meetings, convened by the departments, with groups of male and female administrators, faculty members, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students. The visit included both written surveys and structured oral focus group interviews with each of the groups. The surveys comprised a combination of forced-choice and open-ended questions, and the focus group interviews comprised a predetermined set of open-ended interview questions. The questions on both were developed and tested by a team of chemists and social scientists during the pilot phase of the study. The focus group interviews were recorded for later verbatim transcription. The transcripts were grouped by question and respondent type, and, with the surveys, were coded and statistically analyzed by a team that included an academic chemist and two social scientists. The visits were divided into five groups. As the analysis of the results was completed for a group, preliminary reports of aggregate findings were sent to the participating departments. The total number of participants in the 28 institutions in the study was 877, with comparable numbers of men (452) and women (414); 11 respondents did not indicate gender. Over 200 of these participating individuals were faculty members and administrators (130 men, 86 women). Analyses of
Published: March 11, 2011 716
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100098q | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 716–720
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
DGR data. The percentages of women were higher among assistant professors, but still significantly below the proportion of women in the pool of Ph.D.s produced in that age cohort. As reported in Science,4 this pattern is not true for all disciplines: for example, although the percentages are lower in chemical engineering, hiring in that field tracks the Ph.D. pool quite closely.
the complete data will be presented in a series of papers. This paper provides a preliminary report.
’ BACKGROUND Many studies have documented the numbers of female3,4 and minority5 faculty members in chemistry departments and have explored the pipeline of graduate and postdoctoral associates.6 A wealth of information describes factors influencing academic employment patterns,7,8 gender discrimination in evaluation and hiring,9-14 mentoring,15-17 and other factors that can ameliorate or obstruct the advancement of women in academe.18-22 Our study is different in that we focus on attitudes and opinions of individuals in chemistry and chemical engineering departments. We analyzed these using a framework provided by social cognitive career theory,23 which posits that, when individuals perceive formidable barriers, their motivation and persistence to succeed are often diminished, despite strong “person variables”.24,25 In effect, individuals’ beliefs that they can succeed at a task, their expectations of positive outcome, and even their desire to achieve their goals often are not enough to counter negative environmental variables related to ethnic or gender bias, the absence of social supports, and the presence of other barriers. In this way, context can influence an individual’s behavior, motivations, and decisions about careers. The surveys and focus group interviews covered a range of topics, including: faculty recruitment and retention; resources and support; work-life issues; mentoring practices; and for the students, perceived needs and career goals. We asked participants to elaborate upon the factors that they thought may contribute to the low representation of tenured and tenure-track women in academic chemistry; in addition, we asked participants to assess the climate for women in their departments. Opinions on these issues were diverse, yet patterns have emerged in the responses. Studies suggest that a minority group needs to reach a critical mass, often said to be 15-20%, for its members to move from being isolated and at-risk to becoming full participants.20,26 These studies generally focus on groups considerably larger than a university chemistry department; moreover, the defining threshold for critical mass is often disputed. To investigate the effect of representation of women, we analyzed the responses in two groups: those with five or more tenured or tenure-track female faculty members, and those with four or fewer. Because the historical structure of many departments includes five divisions (organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, and biochemistry), a department with five or more women could have women represented across the discipline. The assignments were based on the number of female tenured or tenure-track faculty members in each chemistry department listed in the 2004 report in Chemical and Engineering News.27 If a school was not listed, we used the corresponding 2005 Chemical and Engineering News report28 or the 2003 ACS Directory of Graduate Research (DGR).29 Of the 28 chemistry departments in the NSF-funded part of our study, 13 had five or more tenured or tenure-track female faculty members. In 9 of these departments, this represented at least 15%; the rest fall between 11% and 14%. In all but one of the 15 departments with four or fewer tenured or tenure-track women, the fraction was less than 15%. Eight of the chemistry departments in our study had one or two female faculty members; six had seven or more. The overall average fraction of tenured and tenure-track women in these departments was 13% using 2003 DGR data, and 14% using 2005
’ SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP: SELECTED RESULTS Are there too few women in tenure and tenure-track faculty positions in Ph.D.-granting chemistry departments? Essentially all participants, faculty members and students, men and women, agree that there are too few women. When asked in focus groups for the reasons for the low numbers of tenured and tenure-track female faculty members, responses varied considerably. Many simply said they did not know. Several reasons were offered: 1. It is a pipeline issue: as the percentage of women earning Ph.D.s increases, faculty numbers will inevitably increase; in time the problem will be solved 2. Women are concentrated in subfields other than those in which departments are hiring 3. Women with Ph.D.s in chemistry are choosing areas of employment other than research universities, often driven by family and work-life considerations 4. Women who apply are not as qualified as male candidates 5. Women face subtle discrimination in hiring 6. Women encounter greater barriers to success after being hired Several survey questions asked faculty members about tenuretrack faculty recruitment. (Survey items that had categorical dependent variables, such as those for which we report percentages, were statistically analyzed using χ2 tests for independence. A p level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.) When faculty members were asked “Are you satisfied with how these procedures are working to recruit female faculty members?”, 63% of men and 46% of women said “yes”. This statistically significant gender difference was greater at schools with fewer female faculty members, where 57% of men and 29% of women answered in the affirmative. Significant differences were also based on rank. When asked “Has your department used effective procedures to recruit female faculty in recent years?”, 84% of full professors, 77% of associate professors, and 60% of assistant professors said “yes”. This statistically significant difference by rank is confounded by gender, given the larger proportion of women at the lower ranks. A substantial majority of faculty members felt that substantive efforts are being made to recruit female faculty members. But in focus group interviews, some faculty members and students suggested that these recruiting efforts resulted in less-qualified hires. In particular, both target-of-opportunity hires (openings created specifically for a female candidate because of her gender) and spousal hires (when spouses are hired as part of an agreement to induce their partners to accept a job offer) were blamed for a lowering of standards for potential job candidates, with the implicit presumption that the woman is the trailing partner and the weaker candidate. More than half of these comments came from male students and postdoctoral associates at schools with fewer female faculty members. Recruiting faculty is a costly endeavor. Several faculty members, particularly junior women in departments with more female faculty members, observed in focus groups that search 717
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100098q |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 716–720
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
commented “I think the respect issue is the biggest issue: that women don’t get respected just because they are qualified, they have to fight for it.” Similar issues apply to students as well. Although many said that male and female students were treated equally, other students commented that women were sometimes not held to the same standards applied to their male peers. Even when they were asked the same tough questions as their male colleagues, about half of the women felt women were not given the same opportunities to respond. We asked a number of questions about mentoring, both of faculty members and of students. While some departments offer formal faculty mentoring programs, informal mentoring was most often the primary means through which young faculty members receive essential guidance and information. Most faculty members believe this to work well. But we found some interesting disparities. In departments with fewer female faculty members, male and female faculty members differed significantly in their response to the question “Is there effective mentoring in your department?”, with 78% of men and 50% of women saying “yes”. In contrast, no significant gender difference occurred in the response in departments with more female faculty members. A measure of effective mentoring is access to critical information. When asked on the written survey “Are criteria for tenure at your institution communicated effectively?”, 93% of men and 74% of women said “yes”. This gender discrepancy was statistically significant in departments with fewer female faculty members, not where there were more female faculty members. The Ph.D. in chemistry leads to a variety of positions: faculty positions in research universities, in four-year and two-year colleges, research positions in industries large and small, and positions in management and government. It was once a common belief, at least at major universities, that the best students would seek university faculty positions. This pattern may be changing; although many top students still seek university positions, other outstanding graduates seek employment in industry or at four-year colleges.30 Our data show that students’ job aspirations change during graduate school. About 30% of men and 24% of women in our surveys reported that before entering graduate school they were interested in seeking a faculty position at a research university. When asked their current goals, the proportion of men had not changed significantly, while that of women dropped to 17%. Why these changes? Several student participants commented that they respected their research advisors, but did not want to “become” them. Reasons for these attitudes were explored in student focus groups. Both men and women spoke of finding a suitable balance between work and the demands of their personal lives. Industry and undergraduate institutions were believed to offer shorter work hours and more family friendly policies. About 70% of the women in focus groups observed (or agreed with others’ observations) that women cannot succeed in a university faculty position and also raise children. Other concerns included feeling “married” to science and having no personal time.
committees are more risk-averse with female than with male candidates. They felt that female candidates may be subjected to excess scrutiny, an unfair “microscopic inspection”. One-third to one-half of female faculty members commented that search committees emphasize family and work-life issues when discussing female, but not male, candidates. It was often stated in focus groups that female candidates more easily secure job interviews, though some went on to say that it may be correspondingly harder for them to be hired. More than half the men in departments with fewer female faculty members noted this; it was a less frequent comment in departments with more female faculty members. It was also said that university administrators encourage departments to hire more women, offering with incentives, such as opening up additional positions or more readily providing start-up funding. One male faculty member observed: In all my experience, I have not known of a single competent woman not being hired because of her sex, but I have known of several instances in which incompetent women have been hired because of their sex. I think that that is a problem that’s not often addressed. When affirmative action is sometimes applied, the department may suffer. A female faculty member saw things quite differently: “In the process, which is so subjective, a couple of subtle comments can really have an impact on whether an individual is above or below the line.” Many issues about recruiting were also raised in focus group comments from female faculty members in departments with few female faculty members. The overscrutinization of female candidates was also reported by this cohort. For example, one woman perceived that even the physical characteristics of female candidates was a subject of conversation by her colleagues: I’ve seen many very qualified women come through, and listening to the comments I hear from my own colleagues about them is very discouraging. They’re not strong enough. They don’t speak loudly enough. They couldn’t possibly teach. They don’t have the presence that a male would have. The thinking that I find worse is that some of my colleagues now, at this time, still refer to all women on the faculty as “affirmative action hires”. Retention of female faculty members was explored in a number of survey and focus group questions. Female faculty members, and students and postdoctoral associates who observe them, both said that female faculty members are devalued and marginalized, that they had to work harder to prove themselves than their male colleagues did. More that half the women in all ranks in departments with more female faculty members made at least one such comment in their focus group interviews. In departments with fewer women, about one-third of the female students and about one-half of the female faculty members were likely to mention this. About 10% of male graduate students and postdoctoral associates and even fewer male faculty members commented on this marginalization. Male faculty members were generally confident that women and men in their department were treated equally. Many women concurred. But a least one-third of female faculty members, students, and postdoctoral associates in departments with fewer female faculty members described their departments as an “old boys’ club” in which women were not afforded the same level of respect as men. Some men made similar comments, or agreed. One woman student in a department with fewer women
’ DISCUSSION Increasing the proportion of women in tenured positions in chemistry departments at research universities involves actively recruiting qualified women, and working to retain them. According to National Science Foundation data,31 in 2002-2003 women earned 49.3% of bachelors’ degrees in chemistry, almost 46% of the masters’ degrees, and 34% of doctoral degrees 718
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100098q |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 716–720
Journal of Chemical Education (the last up from 14% in 1982). A cohort study in Chemical and Engineering News32 showed that in 2002, 39% of the doctoral recipients graduating from the top 25 departments from which most new faculty members are hired were women, while two years later women represented only 18% of the assistant professors hired at Ph.D.-granting institutions. Although attrition of women occurs all along the pipeline, the largest drop occurs after completion of the Ph.D. Our data show that some women’s goals are turning during graduate school toward careers elsewhere. Faculty search procedures play a critical role in the future of any department. The composition of the search committee, the definition of the position, how candidates are recruited, how the short list is generated, how the visits are conducted, who meets the candidate, and how the committee discussions are framed all contribute to the final outcome. Women can be subject to small disadvantages at many stages, and the accumulation of these disadvantages can pose a significant barrier to gender equity.18 Family issues present university search committees with special challenges. If candidates have family obligations, how committed are they to giving an extraordinarily difficult job the focus, time, and energy it requires? Should family issues be discussed during the search? There are legal restrictions on what a candidate may be asked in an interview, but what about discussions within the search committee? Women and men may wish to know about family leave policies and access to childcare, and not all women have children. Finding employment for a partner may be an issue for both female and male candidates. Academic careers at universities are exceedingly demanding, but women and men succeed in academia while caring for their families. It is unfortunate if the implicit and sometimes explicit message heard by today’s students is that doing both is impossible without a nonworking partner at home.
ARTICLE
paper exploring the “demographic inertia” that hinders the growth of women advancement on university faculties despite changes in the Ph.D. pool concludes with a 17-point list of recommendations.33 Achieving gender equity requires careful self-assessment. Some universities have undertaken detailed self-studies of gender equity, patterned after the work at MIT.34 A recent study of 80 female faculty members at a large research one university suggests that individual and institutional discrimination based on gender still persists.35 To make progress, departments need to achieve a better understanding of how their climate for women is perceived by faculty members, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students. Frank discussions about policies may go a long way to raising awareness. This job should not be relegated to women.36 The future strength of the chemical enterprise is at stake, because in the increasingly diverse world of the 21st century, healthy institutions need to be welcoming to all.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Support of The American Chemical Society and of the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program (NSFADV-0318387) is gratefully acknowledged. ’ REFERENCES (1) PROGRESS = Partnerships, Reflection, Openness, Grants, Resources, Education, Site Visits and Success: An Initiative Funded by the Board of Trustees of the American Chemical Society ACS, 2002. (2) Kuck, V. J.; Marzabadi, C. H.; Nolan, S. A.; Buckner, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 356–363. (3) Everett, K. G.; DeLoach, W. S.; Bressan, S. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 139–141. (4) Handelsman, J.; Cantor, N.; Carnes, M.; Denton, D.; Fine, E.; Grosz, B.; Hinshaw, V.; Marrett, C.; Rosser, S.; Shalala, D.; Sheridan, J. Science 2005, 309, 1190–1191. (5) Nelson, D.; Rogers, D. C. A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities, National Organization for Women, 2004. (6) Kuck, V. J. ACS Symp. Ser. 2006, 929, 107–128. (7) Kulis, S.; Sicotte, D. Res. Higher Educ. 2002, 43, 1–30. (8) van Anders, S. M. Sex Roles 2004, 51, 511–21. (9) Trix, F.; Psenka, C. Discourse Society 2003, 14, 191–220. (10) Foschi, M. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1996, 59, 237–54. (11) Goldin, C.; Rouse, C. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 715–741. (12) Heilman, M. E.; Wallen, A. S.; Fuchs, D.; Tamkins, D. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 416–27. (13) Steinpreis, R.; Ander, K. A.; Ritzke, D. Sex Roles 1999, 41, 509–528. (14) Wenneras, C.; Wold, A. Nature 1997, 387, 341–343. (15) Pfund, C.; Maidl Pribbenow, C.; Branchaw, J.; Miller Lauffer, S.; Handelsman, J. Science 2006, 311, 473–474. (16) Success Strategies for Women in Science: A Portable Mentor; Pritchard, P. A., Ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: Burlington MA, 2006. (17) Quinlan, K. M. J. Higher Educ. Policy and Manage. 1999, 21, 31–42. (18) Valian, V. Why So Slow: The Advancement of Women; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1998. (19) National Research Council, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology. Women in the Chemical Workforce: A Workshop Report to the
’ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Men and women in our surveys and focus groups often had similar views. Most agreed that having a larger percentage of tenured and tenure-track female faculty members is a desirable goal. Most felt that their departments are engaged in making sincere efforts to find and hire qualified women. Although some saw shortcomings in the hiring process as it is typically carried out, most believed that women and men are held to the same standards for tenure and promotion after they are hired. But there were often voices of dissent: faculty members and students observing that female faculty candidates are judged differently, their candidacies scrutinized excessively, their commitment held in question. Although in some departments female faculty members are well supported, respected, and thriving, we visited several departments where both students and faculty members observed that female faculty members were marginalized and undervalued. Some women argued that the climate for women in general, faculty members and students, was hostile and unsupportive. Yet male faculty members in the same departments were generally unaware of any problems. Our data support the assertion that a “critical mass” of female faculty members is important to progress. We found that departments with more female faculty members had better mentoring of young faculty members, better communication, and a better understanding of the challenges faced by women. Women students in departments with fewer female faculty members were more likely to abandon their goal of a university faculty position. What should be done to address this? A recent 719
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100098q |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 716–720
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Chemical Sciences Roundtable, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2000. (20) National Academy of Sciences. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2006. (21) Sonnert, G.; Holton, G. Who Succeeds in Science: The Gender Dimension; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1995. (22) Xie, Y.; Shauman, K. Women in Science: Career Prospects and Outcomes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2003. (23) Lent, R. W.; Brown, S. D.; Hackett, G. J. Vocat. Behav. 1994, 45, 79–122. (24) Brown, S. D.; Lent, R. W. Career Dev. Q. 1996, 44, 354–366. (25) Nolan, S. A.; Buckner, J. P.; Marzabadi, C. H.; Kuck, V. J. Sex Roles 2008, 58, 235–250. (26) Etzkowitz, H.; Kemelgor, C.; Uzzi, B. Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2000. (27) Marasco, C. A. Chem. Eng. News 2004, 82 (39), 32–33. (28) Marasco, C. A. Chem. Eng. News 2005, 83 (43), 38–39. (29) American Chemical Society Directory of Graduate Research; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2003. (30) Marzabadi, C. A. ACS Symp. Ser. 2003, 929, 89–106. (31) National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics (accessed Jan 2011). (32) Kuck, V. J. Chem. Eng. News 2004, 82, 64–65. (33) Marschke, R.; Laursen, S.; Neilsen, J. M.; Rankin, P. J. Higher Educ. 2007, 78, 1–27. (34) Members of the First and Second Committees on Women Faculty in the School of Science at MIT. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1999. (35) Monroe, K.; Ozyurt, S.; Wrigley, T.; Alexander, A. Perspect. Politics 2008, 6, 215–233. (36) Bird, S.; Litt, J.; Wang, Y. NWSA J. 2004, 16, 194–206.
720
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100098q |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 716–720
