The Gender and URM Faculty Demographics Data Collected by

Chapter 4

Downloaded by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on December 30, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch004

The Gender and URM Faculty Demographics Data Collected by OXIDE Rigoberto Hernandez,* Dontarie Stallings, and Srikant Iyer Department of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) in partnership with Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) has been gathering and publishing the demographics of chemistry departments since 2009. Disaggregated data (available since the 2009-2010 academic year) has been generated according to department, faculty rank, and gender for more than 100 departments. The data (post the 2011-2012 academic year) has been further disaggregated according to underrepresented minorities. We will report these numbers with an emphasis on the trends as well as the prospects for achieving parity with availability. Moreover, we will discuss programmatic solutions that departments can implement to effectively transition their demographics towards parity with availability.

Introduction The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) was founded in 2010 in order to address the underrepresentation in chemistry faculties with respect to gender, underrepresented minorities, gender identity and orientation, and disabilities (1). The ontology of the phonetic acronym, OXIDE, has been a source of confusion for some, and is recapitulated in our other chapter in Volume 2 of this book (2). A side benefit of the confusion that this acronym creates is that it is a reminder that the conversion of the two “C”s into an “X” is not an obvious conversion to many of us. However, this is perhaps because few of us have the unique ability of dyslexia. That is an example of the power of diversity. We are © 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.


bringing people with different abilities, different points of view, different color, different gender, and different orientation, for example, to bear on the scientific challenges that confront us. In our work, we have focused on identifying barriers and solutions to diversity equity in chemistry departments in collaboration with department chairs, social scientists and the diversity community (1). To enable substantive changes, we have also focused on dissemination through many channels such as workshops and publications in traditional channels, and increasingly through social media and other nontraditional channels (2). However, there is another critical piece in our effort to move the demographics of chemistry faculties towards that of the available hiring pools. Namely, we need to know the demographics both historically and over the period of time of interventions by others and us. In this chapter, we report on those numbers paying particular focus to the numbers that have been reported in Chemical & Engineering News, initially collected by their reporters (3–13) and now collected by OXIDE (14, 15).

Defining the Case for Diversity In August 2014, Lego introduced the Research Institute as a limited set featuring a female paleontologist, a female astronomer and a female chemist in mock labs as shown in Figure 1 (16, 17).

Figure 1. Photographs of the Lego sets from left to right highlighting a woman scientist who is a paleontologist, an astronomer and a chemist, respectively. (Photo taken by Rigoberto Hernandez.) The set’s creation and production was motivated by the need to counter the lack of images of female scientists seen by young men and young women in their formative years generally, and, in particular, when they play with their Legos. This was a well-meaning gesture but it suffered from the fact that it sold out within days of its introduction. So the ironic result is that even in the Lego world, women scientists are actually rare and that’s what we have to fight against. It’s also relevant to note that all three characters are Lego white. We have to address such narrow imagery as well. Indeed, OXIDE aims to advance diversity along every vector. 102 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Moving beyond this motivation, the case for diversity has been made by us (1, 18, 19) and others (20) along several vectors. In the so-called business case for diversity, several studies (21–27) have argued and demonstrated that diverse working groups lead to higher success in the business and academic world. Rankings of universities such as the most recent NRC study (28) include significant correlation with international representation and other forms of diversity. Interestingly, the correlation to URGs was less clear, but the observation of such weak cofactors is likely attributable to the implicit biases that are encoded in professional culture and practice (29–33). Finally, perhaps the most compelling argument from the perspective of national needs for human resource development is the fact that the demographics of our faculties differ significantly from those of our overall population, and even to those of our doctoral pools (34–40). This is a human resource management issue whose importance is growing with time as the U.S. population moves towards have a minority majority (41). The remainder of this chapter therefore focuses on summarizing efforts by OXIDE and others to obtain and document the demographics of the faculties in chemistry.

A Short History of the Gender and URM Scorecard The recent work by OXIDE (1) to gather data on the demographics of under-represented groups such as women in the faculties of the leading research-active chemistry departments has significant precedent. C&EN has been reporting data on women faculty since the early 2000s (3–12, 42–45), initially motivated by earlier surveys from the Women Chemists Committee and the findings from the Nelson Diversity Surveys (46, 47) at the University of Oklahoma (4). OXIDE began collecting data on women in 2009, and C&EN has been reporting the data from OXIDE’s gender survey every two years. It was a mission that was energized by C&E News at the turn of the 21st century with the gender scorecard (3–12, 42–45). Through its annual (or semiannual) publications, C&E News habitually spotlights the extent of under-representation of women in chemistry’s faculties as a whole as well as the departments for which the under-representation is particularly severe or laudable. It also creates an opportunity for departments to compete in terms of the largest representation of women. In parallel, OXIDE began collecting data on underrepresented minorities (URMs) in 2011 and that data was first published in C&EN last year (48). The Nelson Diversity Surveys (46, 47) were also critical in providing data on the URM representation in the faculties of many STEM departments—including chemistry—and also acted as a scorecard for the years that they reported. However, a necessary feature of the gender scorecard is that it is assessed yearly and longitudinally, as is now being gathered by OXIDE and reported by C&EN. The gender scorecard is subversive in that it appeals to the competitive drivers in Academia. Their mission is inextricably linked with excellence and their position relative to the top of rankings. The existence of a demographics scorecard provides visibility to the schools, which are at the top, and notoriety 103 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

to those schools near the bottom of the list. The existence of these scorecards is thereby providing motivation for departments to increase their diversity representation while also providing the community with quantitative tracking of the progress that has been made collectively towards reaching commensurability to availability.


OXIDE’s Gender Scorecard Starting with the 2011 publication in C&EN (49), the data collection of the gender scorecard has been undertaken primarily by OXIDE. Chemistry departments and department heads across the country are asked to self-report their demographics, without individual identification. This ensures that the survey collects no personally identifiable information that would leave OXIDE vulnerable to additional scrutiny by institutional review to ensure proper and ethical handling of the data. It is also notable that for the same reason, no other information is collected or correlated with the data. OXIDE surveys those departments with PhD programs and federally-funded chemical-research expenditures at or near the top 100 as tracked by the NSF (28). Thus far, the demographics have been tracked across gender —which is the focus of this section— and racial/ethnic background —which is the focus of the next section— of tenure track chemistry faculty. We have had not collected data across disability and sexual orientation data because chairs reported significant concerns over reporting such data because of privacy and legal concerns. This is unfortunate because we all recognize that the numbers of these cohorts are also important and awareness about them could help improve diversity equity (50–52) across those vectors as well. The percentages of female and male faculty across the top 50 chemistry departments over the first five years that OXIDE collected the data is shown in Table 1. The demographics are disaggregated across every tenure track level —assistant, associate and full professors— in Figure 2 and Table 2. One notable issue here is that the list used to create the cohort of top 50 schools changes from year to year. For simplicity, we refer to this data as being “congruent” in the sense that the data is generate for a give year and corresponding ranking. This practice of collecting and reporting the data in congruent sets was initiated by C&EN, and OXIDE has continued to aggregate the data accordingly. However, when the same cohort is used across the five years of OXIDE’s data collection, the aggregated representation of female scientists followed the same percentages (within statistical errors) as those shown in Table 1. One important finding of our work is that the female faculty representation, is not substantially affected by the ranking of the programs. That is, the percentages are the statistically equivalent whether you review programs in the top 10, top 25, top 50 or top 75 (13, 53), The lack of representation is partially due to the losses affecting the pipeline (54) into the faculties, but presumably also due to factors within the tenure stream as the percentages of female faculty fall precipitously across ranks. 104 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. Gender data collected by OXIDE showing the percentages of professors in the top 50 chemistry departments disaggregated according to gender: male vs. female (12, 13, 49, 53) AY2009-10

AY2010-11

AY2011-12

AY2012-13

AY2013-14

Female Faculty

16.4%

16.8%

16.4%

17.1%

17.8%

Male Faculty

83.6%

83.2%

83.6%

82.9%

82.2%

Figure 2. Gender data collected by OXIDE showing the breakdown in numbers and percentages of assistant, associate and full professors disaggregated according to gender: male vs. female. All data compiled and archived by OXIDE; different parts of the OXIDE data have been reported in Refs. (12, 13, 49, 53).

Six years ago—in 2009, —the percentage of women earning PhDs was 37% (49). That same year, the female faculty representation within the top 50 chemistry programs was 16% as reported in Table 1 (12, 13, 49, 53). Fast-forward to the 2013-2014 academic year, and the female faculty representation has only increased to 18%, and 25% for assistant professors as reported in Table 2 (53). Between academic year 2009-10 and academic year 2013-14 there was only a 2% increase in female faculty representation. The rate of increased representation is too slow (1). At that pace, it would take more than 30 additional years to reach female faculty representation that correlates to 2010 female PhD availability. Moreover, even these small increases in the female faculty representation have not occurred exclusively as a function more participation by female faculty because the overall number of positions also decreased. Indeed over this period, the net increase in female faculty in this cohort over 5 years was only 12 additional female professors. 105 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 representation of female faculty is not the same and decreasing with respect to the tenure track tiers: assistant professor, associate professor and full professor. Tenured and promoted female faculty representation has lagged behind female PhD for entirely too long (Table 2) (54). When one breaks down the overall percent of faculty by tiers, full faculty vastly outnumbers its corresponding tenure track tiers. While male full faculty members more than quadruple the corresponding tenure track tiers, female faculty members almost double their corresponding tenure track tiers. Meanwhile, the number of female assistant faculty is consistently larger than the number of female associate faculty. Conversely, male associate faculty consistently outnumber male assistant faculty. This data speaks to the fact that, women entering the faculty pipeline are not reaching tenure at the same rate as their male counterparts. As a result of this inequity, there are fewer female faculty traversing the pipeline to become full faculty.

Table 2. Percentage of URM chemistry professors at top 50 departments collected and archived by OXIDE. (Notably, some of this data was reported by Chemical & Enginering News in Ref. (55).) AY 2011-12

AY 2012-13

AY 2013-14

Assistant Professors

5.2%

6.0%

5.6%

Associate Professors

8.3%

7.8%

7.3%

Full Professors

2.5%

2.7%

3.4%

All Professors

3.8%

4.1%

4.2%

OXIDE’s URM Scorecard The first article providing longitudinal demographics of chemistry faculties whose race/ethnicity are under-represented within the chemistry faculty cohort was published in C&E News last year based on the data that OXIDE obtained from the chemistry departments through a gender and URM survey (55). Within the chemistry community under-represented group are defined as: Hispanic or Latino, African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander and individuals that are multiracial including these categories. The so-called under-represented minorities (URM) scorecard thus serves as a complement to the gender scorecard in assessing the diversity of our faculties. Groups whose race/ethnicity are under-represented within the chemistry community represent 33.1% of the United States population. Conversely that same population represents 6.6% of tenure track chemistry faculty as indicated in Figure 3. The lack of effective utilization of the URM cohort is even more profound considering the United States will transition into a majority minority nation by year 2050 (41, 56). When you drill down and look at the various relative 106 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


percentages, the data is not pretty. URM faculty members undergo professional advancement at a slower rate. URM faculty members are currently spending a longer than average period of time at the associate professor tier. A thin line separates top and bottom performing programs. If another institution poaches one or two URM faculty from these schools, rankings change dramatically. That is to say, the current numbers of URM professors in a given department are so small that only three or four URM faculty are needed to be at the top of the URM Scorecard. Every underrepresented minority category is truly over “under-represented” if you will.

Figure 3. This illustration of OXIDE’s under-represented minority data for AY 2013-14 stands in large contrast to the overall population of the US, which is presently well over 30% in URM representation.

Representation of URM professors over the past 15 years is very flat unlike the modest but palpable increases seen in female faculty representation. Indeed, some URM groups exhibit decreasing representation. In 2000, the number of Hispanic and Latino professors were around 1-2%, and this was comparable to the number of African American professors (4). During the last 15 years the number of Hispanic and Latinos professors have gone up while the number of African American faculty have stagnated (47, 57). Though the modest improvements in the representation of Hispanic and Latino professors are laudable, the representation of both these URM cohorts do not approach the availability in the country as a whole, or chemistry undergraduate majors. The advent of the URM scorecard provides an effective baseline to address the current inequities and the effects of future diversity solutions. Similar to the gender scorecard, the URM scorecard highlights each department’s level of “success.” The current percentage of URMs entering college is on par with majority students entering college (58, 59). As of now, there is a substantial gap between representation and availability. Though the K-12 system is problematic, 107 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

chemistry departments have the capacity to play a significant role in the recruitment, retention and graduation of its URM students.


Conclusion In this chapter, we have summarized some of the recent data on the demographics of the faculty in many research-active chemistry departments. The entire data set and more extensive comparisons of aggregated cohorts are available online (60). We track over a hundred schools, we did this in order to be able to retrospectively and longitudinally track the top 50 and top 75 schools in research expenditures as identified by the NSF in a given year. The longitudinal tracking is important so as to ensure that changes in the percentages over time are due to changes in the consistent cohort and not because the members of the cohort have changed. The survey collection is a yearly process and the 2015-2016 survey had been released before March 2016, and the 2016-2017 survey will be released in the late fall of 2016. Unfortunately, the data collection is arduous because we rely on a survey for which we need nearly 100% participation. While some departments respond quickly, invariably there are a few departments (and not always the same ones) that take nearly a year to complete the survey. The survey instrument continues to be refined so as to make it easier for completion, and many departments report that it takes short time to complete. C&E news released our 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 data in September 2016 (15), and we will continue to work with them to disseminate the demographics until we have reached commensurability in the demographics of the faculties and availability. OXIDE is also leveraging the data release to increase the level of conversation on inclusive excellence among the chemistry faculties and student bodies. In a separate chapter (2), we discussed our approach for engaging in this conversation via social media but we are not above using standard media. One of us has published two Comments in C&EN highlighting solutions to diversity equity (18, 61). In a workshop styled meeting OXIDE along with department heads and chairs, has generated a list of effective solutions that can be implemented in chemistry departments to advance diversity equity (62, 63). Many of these are “low hanging fruits” that require little expense and have substantial impact, such as creation of diversity equity committees (18). Finally, OXIDE plans to publish another ACS symposium series book summarizing all of our workshops—the National Diversity Equity Workshops (NDEWs). Several social scientists were invited —and all accepted— to speak at the ACS Symposium on the “Social and Chemical Science of Diversity Equity.” We encourage readers to continue the conversation: make sure that wherever you go, people know that diversity and inclusion is integral towards being the best chemist that we all want to be.

Acknowledgments This work and the OXIDE program have been jointly supported by the NIH, DOE and NSF through NSF grant #CHE-1048939. Cognizant units are the 108 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Division at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) at the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Chemistry Division of the Math and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) at the National Science Foundation (NSF).

References Downloaded by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on December 30, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch004

1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Hernandez, R.; Watt, S. A Top-Down Approach for Diversity and Inclusion in Chemistry Departments. In Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise, 2014; Vol. 1169, pp 207−224. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Accelerating Change: #DiversitySolutions on Social Media. In Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs; American Chemical Society: 2017; Vol. 1256, Chapter 6. Long, J. R. Women Chemists Still Rare in Academia. Chem. Eng. News 2000, 78 (39), 56. Long, J. R. Minority Chemists missing in Action. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (23), 67. Byrum, A. Women’s place in ranks of academia. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (40), 98–99. Marasco, C. A. Numbers of Women Nudge up Slightly. Chem. Eng. News 2003, 81 (43), 58–59. Marasco, C. A. No Change in Numbers of Women Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2004, 82 (39), 32–33. Marasco, C. A. Women Faculty make Little Progress. Chem. Eng. News 2005, 83 (44), 38. Marasco, C. A. Women Faculty Gain Little Ground. Chem. Eng. News 2006, 84 (51), 58–59. Raber, L. R. Small Increase in Women Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2007, 85 (52), 44–46. Raber, L. R. Women now 16% of Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2008, 86 (51), 40–41. Raber, L. R. Women now 17% of Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88 (9), 42–43. Rovner, S. L. Women are 17% of chemistry faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89 (44), 42–46. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. Diversifying Academia. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93 (20), 37–39. Wang, L. Women crack the academic glass ceiling. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94 (36), 18–21. Abrams, R. Short-Lived Science Line From Lego for Girls. The New York Times, August 21, 2014. Weinstock, M. LEGO adds more women in science to its lineup. Scientific American, June 25, 2015. 109

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


18. Hernandez, R. Diversity in Academia: Solutions To Get There. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93 (33), 40. 19. Iyer, S. K.; Stallings, D.; Hernandez, R. Enabling diveristy conversations with department chairs thorough OXIDE. Presented at the 252nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 2016. 20. Diaz-Uda, A.; Carmen Medina, B. S. Diversity’s New Frontier; Deloitte University Press: July 23, 2013. 21. Dechant, G. R. K. Building a Business Case for Diversity. Acad. Manage. J. 1997, 11 (3), 21–31. 22. Richard, O. C. Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: Resource-Based View. Acad. Manage. J. 2000, 43 (2), 164–177. 23. Kalev, A.; Dobbin, F. Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. Am. Soc. Rev. 2006, 71 (4), 589–617. 24. Dobbin, F. K. A.; Kelly, E. Diversity Management in Corporate America. Contexts 2007, 6 (4), 21–28. 25. Herring, C. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. Am. Soc. Rev. 2009, 74 (2), 208–224. 26. Dobbin, F.; Kim, S.; Kalev, A. You can’t always get what you need: Organizational determinants of diversity programs. Am. Soc. Rev. 2011, 76 (3), 386–411. 27. Guteri, F. Diversity in Science: Why It Is Essential for Excellence. Scientific American 2014. 28. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Higher Education Research and Development Survey, Fiscal Year 2014. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/HERD2014_DST_44.html. 29. Hugenberg, K.; Bodenhausen, G. V. Facing Prejudice: Implicit Prejudice and the Perception of Facial Threat. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14 (6), 640–643. 30. Green, A. R.; Carney, D. R.; Pallin, D. J.; Ngo, L. H.; Raymond, K. L.; Iezzoni, L. I.; Banaji, M. R. Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients. J. Gen. Inter. Med. 2007, 22 (9), 1231–1238. 31. Nosek, B. A.; Smyth, F. L.; Hansen, J. J.; Devos, T.; Lindner, N. M.; Ranganath, K. A.; Smith, C. T.; Olson, K. R.; Chugh, D.; Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 18 (1), 36–88. 32. Implicit predictors of STEM engagement. Presented at Gender Summit 2013, Washington DC, 2013. 33. Reuben, E.; Sapienza, P.; Zingales, L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111 (12), 4403–4408. 34. Workshop on Faculty Recruitment for Diversity and Excellence. 35. The ACS Committee on Professional Training: Workshop on HBCUs and African American-Serving Institutions; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2004. 36. Workshop on Increasing Participation of Hispanic Undergraduate Students in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. 110 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


37. A Report on the Workshop on Gender Equity in Materials Science and Engineering; National Science Foundation: College Park, MD, 2008. 38. Workshop on Increasing Participation of Native American Undergraduate Students in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. 39. Ali, H. B. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce: Achieving Racial & Ethnic Equity in Chemistry; National Science Foundation: 2008. 40. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce 2009; National Science Foundation: 2009. 41. Colby, S. L.; Ortman, J. M. Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2015. 42. Long, J. R. Women Still Lag in Academic Ranks. Chem. Eng. News 2002, 80 (38), 110–111. 43. Marasco, C. A. Women Faculty Make Little Progress. Chem. Eng. News 2005, 83 (44), 38–39. 44. Rovner, S. Women Are 17% Of Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89 (44), 42–46. 45. Rovner, S. Women Faculty Positions Edge Up. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92 (14), 41–44. 46. Nelson, D. J. A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities; University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK, 2004. 47. Brammer, D. J. N. C. N. A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities; University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK, 2010. 48. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. New Survey on Minority Chemistry Professors Released. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93 (20), 37–39. 49. Wang, L. Diversifying Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89 (9), 46–47. 50. Gewin, V. Equality: The Fight for Access. Nature 2011, 469, 255–257. 51. Waldrop, M. M. Diversity: Pride in Science. Nature 2014, 513 (7518), 297–300. 52. Walker, C. Equality: Standing Out. Nature 2014, 505, 249–251. 53. Rovner, S. L. Women Faculty Positions Edge Up. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92 (14), 41–44. 54. Shaw, A. K.; Stanton, D. E. Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2012, 279 (1743), 3736–3741. 55. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. New Survey On Minority Chemistry Professors Released. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93 (20), 2. 56. Carr, S. Tomorrow’s Test: America’s Schools are Majority-Minority. Now What? http://www.slate.com/articles/life/tomorrows_test/2016/06/ american_is_becoming_a_majority_minority_nation_it_s_already_ happened_in.html (accessed June 5). 57. Casadevall, A. Achieving Speaker Gender Equity at the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting. mbio 2015, 6 (4), 1–4. 111 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


58. Krogstad, J. M.; Fry, R. More Hispanics, Balcks Enrolling in College, But Lag in Bachelor’s Degrees. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/ 04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelorsdegrees/. 59. Casselman, B. Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollement, But Not in Graduation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-incollege-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/. 60. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Faculty Demographics Data. http:// oxide.jhu.edu/2/demographics. 61. Hernandez, R. Advancing The Chemical Sciences Through Diversity. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92 (28), 45. 62. Watt, S.; Hernandez, R. Chair Recommendations from National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW 2013). http://oxide.jhu.edu/src/NDEW/2013/ NDEW2013_Recommendations_for_Chairs.pdf. 63. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Chair Recommendations from National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW 2015). http://oxide.jhu.edu/ src/NDEW/2015/NDEW2015_Recommendation_For_Chairs.pdf.

112 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 Gender and URM Faculty Demographics Data Collected by

Recommend Documents