Moving the Middle: Unsettling Systemic Barriers to the Advancement of Women in

Academic STEM Sharon R. Bird, PhDIowa State UniversityISU ADVANCE Research Director

Iowa State University OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ISU ADVANCE Program www.advance.iastate.edu

Supported by the National Science Foundation

Advancing STEM Women

Framing the issues and questions Common answers Person-centered vs. system-centered

approaches “Moving the middle” Getting results

Advancing STEM Women:

FRAMING THE ISSUES & QUESTIONS

Universities

Disproportionately few women at the upper levels

Fewer women on major departmental, college and university committees

Fewer women among top award winners

(Jackson and Leon 2010; Bain and Cummings 2000)

Disciplines

Women hold a higher proportion of PhDs in social, agricultural, biological, chemistry and geosciences.

Women hold a lower proportion of PhDs in engineering, computer sciences and physics

Thus, there are also fewer women FULL professors in certain disciplines.

(Fox 2010; National Science Foundation 2007)

STEM Women Faculty Who “Make It” to the Top:

are less likely to be in male-dominated STEM fields;

are less likely as faculty to be in research-intensive and doctoral-granting institutions;

have few or no children/more often postpone children;

have overcome cumulative, subtle biases and systemic barriers; and

experience considerable isolation.

(Mason and Goulden 2004; Nelson 2004; Valian 1998)

“Some of the senior women can tell remarkable stories of bias or barriers or outright discrimination. They succeeded because they were extremely talented and dedicated […]. Such individuals know that they have climbed higher mountains than most of their male counterparts.”

(Woman, Advanced Assoc. Prof., Life Sciences)

THE QUESTION Given these circumstances, what are the

most effective strategies for ensuring the advancement of women to the upper levels across ALL fields of academic STEM?

Advancing STEM Women:

COMMON ANSWERS

Common Answers

1) It’s a “pipeline” problem:Girls and women have only recently gained

the credentials necessary for advancing through the ranks in academic STEM.

Research debunks this argument.Girls excel early in math and science in high

school; but as women, disproportionately leave STEM degree programs and academic positions.

Common Answers

2) It’s a “leaky pipeline” problem:

Women apply themselves, but opt out or burn out.

So what’s leading women to opt/burn out?

Women “Exit the Pipeline” for Many Reasons

Are women less capable?No.

Do women encounter systemically gendered barriers?Yes.

Common Answers

3) Women encounter multiple systemic barriers.

Access to information, people, and resources.

The structures and cultures within which scientists and engineers work are not yet as conducive to women’s advancement as to men’s advancement.

Advancing STEM Women:

Person-Centered vs. System-Centered Arguments

Person-Centered vs. System-Centered Change Strategies

Enhancing individual skills is a necessary but insufficient step (Bird 2010; Jackson and Leon 2010; Sturm 2006).

Person-centered approaches: focus on enhancing individual credentials, attitudes,

skills, and experiences.

System-centered approaches: focus on making the systems within which scientists

and engineers work more conducive to the success of ALL highly qualified people.

Universities continue to dedicate far fewer resources to addressing systemic barriers than to enhancing women’s abilities to navigate the system.

If the only plan for advancing underrepresented faculty in STEM is to enhance personal abilities for navigating the existing system, the barriers will remain in place

(Bird 2010; Dobbin 2007; Jackson and Leon 2010; Sturm 2006; Meyerson and Tompkins 2007)

What are the Systemic Barriers?

Research demonstrates that the barriers are multiple and interconnected.

Multiple and Interconnected Barriers

Work-life arrangements Failure to “mainstream” the

hiring of women and faculty of color

Failure to address the myth of “lowering standards”

Failure to address the myth of “gender blindness”

Promotion structures Information network

exclusion

Mentoring Benevolent sexism Lack of support for women

as department chairs and deans

Processes for granting prestigious awards/ recognitions

Failure to eliminate other subtle, cumulative gender and race/ethnic biases

And many more…

Barriers: A Few Examples

Derailment of efforts to discuss real problems

Promotion structures Isolation and lack of mentoring

Derailment of Efforts to Discuss and Address Problems

Myth of “lowering standards”

“I think honestly, the feeling is a diversity of ideas is ideal and the rest should be blind. One of the problems with diversity as it’s used today, it can pervert or skew away from ideas, meritocracy and other things […]. I try to be absolutely gender blind.”

(Man, Full Prof., Physical Sciences)

“I tend to avoid the women on campus in the […] STEM fields who are really big about promoting women, and I know that sounds horrible. […] I’m not saying that I’m not supportive and recognize that there’s other issues because, as I told you, there are issues for women.”

(Woman, Full Prof., Math/Technology)

Promotion Structures

Men overrepresented among faculty and on promotion committees.Men’s greater familiarity with the work of

colleagues with whom they spend time

Easier to interpret contributions of colleagues with whom they spend time

Unintentional attribution of stereotypes

“I feel valued out there, I’m an associate editor for a journal […] I am doing all this stuff externally that really shows leadership and shows respect for the research that I do, and yet I come back here and all I hear about are these other [men]. And if I want to hear about me, I have to stomp my feet!”

(Woman, Full Prof., Engineering)

“There is this value in the [research] center of working long hard hours. If you were there at 2 o’clock in the morning, you’re a horse. If you go home at 5, you are not. And I never did go home at 5, I mean my whole life has been work […] And so that is part of it, is just the hours you are seen there…”

(Woman, Full Prof., Engineering)

Isolation and Lack of Mentoring

Women’s marginalization from informal information networks

Lack of transparency of criteria for promotion

Common belief that those who “have what it takes” don’t need mentoring

“Well, my sense is that if you still need mentoring by the time you’re faculty […] I mean, the faculty should figure out that they need to talk to people in their area to learn about their area […]. I would certainly be opposed to any instituted formal program that forces people to spend lots of time doing this.”

(Man, Full Prof., Physical Sciences)

“He’s [her male colleague] always hiding behind [the concept that] he wants to protect my time, that’s his big hide, ‘Oh you are so busy’. And I am busy […] I am always going to be busy, I am always making choices on priorities and what I want to do, but don’t not give me the choice because you determine I am too busy.”

(Woman, Full Prof., Engineering)

Advancing STEM Women:

Moving the Middle

“Moving the Middle”

Reproducing ‘business as usual’ requires no conscious conspiracy; once in place, systemic barriers “persist not because of conscious efforts on the part of individuals to create patterns of difference but because of individual actions that are complicit with previous established norms.” (Bird 2010)

“Moving the Middle”

Few people consciously subscribe to discriminatory beliefs or consciously engage in discriminatory actions.

The challenge is to “move” those who are neither consciously biased nor consciously acting to undo systemic barriers.

Advancing STEM Women:

Getting Results

Comprehensive Institutional Change: Many Components

Simultaneous “top down” AND “bottom up” initiatives are needed.

Well crafted policies won’t work unless departmental cultures are conducive to effective implementation.

System-Wide Leadership for Change ADVANCE Leadership Team

Susan Carlson (PI & Associate Provost)

Sharon Bird Bonnie Bowen Diane Debinski Carla Fehr Sandra Gahn Flo Hamrick

Equity Advisors Kristen Constant Lisa Larson Janette Thompson

Associate Deans Joe Coletti David Oliver Diane Rover

Advance (Departmental) Professors Adam Bogdonav Chuck Glatz Alan Goldman Mark Gordman Shauna Hallmark Fred Janzen Elisabeth Lonergan Ralph Napolitano Jo Anne Powell-Coffman Steve Rodermel Jim Raich

Plus: Internal Advisory Board (Provost &

Deans) External Advisors Leaders of on-

campus programs for enhancing diversity in STEM

Systemic Change Components Infrastructure

Policies

Accountability

“Collaborative transformation” involves: Training departmental leaders Recognizing disciplinary and departmental differences Collecting and analyzing data and mirroring it back to the faculty Ownership of the faculty in developing change strategies at the

department level. Using results from departments to inform changes at college and

university level

(Bird and Hamrick 2008; Bird et al. 2008)

ISU: Impressive Results

Focus on Collaborative Transformation 9 departments so far – 79% overall participation Chairs and faculty:

embrace the process recognize the negative impacts of unintentionally

discriminatory structures/practices have implemented new departmental procedures have pushed for/supported new university-wide policies and

programs

Upper administration Highly supportive and excited about implementing

“collaborative transformation” across the university.

ISU: Impressive Results

Addressing work-life issues Department-specific guidelines

Addressing department climate issues Practical tools for recognizing unintentional bias

Addressing tenure and promotion issues Department-specific mentoring for promotion to full

Addressing recruitment issues Discussing criteria for positions in advance of on-site

interviews and openly discussing gender/race bias.

Department Chair Quotes

“ADVANCE has helped change how we talk about issues like recruitment in the department; you have changed the culture of our department.”

“The [focal department] study told me that there were more issues [in my department] that needed my attention than I really knew about, and I really liked that.”

“I think the things that you have done to raise the awareness of department chairs and to provide resources for departments to do these jobs differently, I think those are really important; those are the things that impacted me personally.”

References Bain, O. and W. Cummings. 2000. “Academe’s Glass Ceiling: Societal, Professional, Organizational and

Institutional Barriers to the Career Advancement of Academic Women.” Comparative Educational Review 44(4): 493-514.

Bird, Sharon R. forthcoming (2010). “Unsettling Universities’ Incongruous Gendered Bureaucratic Structures’: A Case Study Approach.” Gender, Work and Organization.

Bird, Sharon R. and Florence A. Hamrick. 2008. ISU ADVANCE Collaborative Transformation Synthesis Report of Year 1 Department-Level Findings. 33 pages.

Bird, Sharon R., Kristen Constant, Fred Janzen and Jo Anne Powell-Coffman. 2008. “ISU ADVANCE Collaborative Transformation Project: First Round Focal Department Transformational Strategies and Outcomes, January 2008 – January 2009).” 9 pages. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program.

Fox, Mary Frank. 2010. “Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social Organizational Indicators and Implications.” American Behavioral Scientist 53(7): 997-1012.

Jackson, Jerlando F. and Raul A. Leon. 2010. “Enlarging Our Understanding of Glass Ceiling Effects with Social Closure Theory in Higher Education.” Higher Education Handbook: Handbook of Theory and Research 25:551-379.

Mason, Mary Ann and Marc Goulden. 2004. “Do Babies Matter (Part II): Closing the Baby Gap.” Academe 90(6).

Meyerson, Deborah and Megan Tompkins. 2007. “Tempered Radicals as Institutional Change Agents: The Case of Advancing Gender Equity at the University of Michigan.” Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 30: 303-332.

National Science Foundation. 2007. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: NSF 07-315. Division of Science Resources Statistics, Arlington, VA.

Nelson, Donna J. 2004. Nelson Diversity Surveys. Norman, OK: Diversity in Science Association. Roos, Patricia A. and Mary L. Gatta. 2009. “Gender (In)equity in the Academy: Subtle Mechanisms and the

Production of Inequaltiy.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27:177-200. Weatherly, Ulysses G. 1909. “How Does the Access of Women to Industrial Occupations React on the

Family? American Journal of Sociology 14(6):740-65. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.