Scientific achievements of women undervalued

Many of us are familiar with stories of Nobel Prize-snubbing, such as in the cases of Chien-Shiung Wu and Rosalind Franklin.  Both women were extraordinary scientists who made important contributions to Nobel Prize winning work, but were left out while the Nobel Prize was received by male colleagues.  While we hope that this sort of devaluation of the work done by women scientists is in the past, a very disconcerting study from Social Studies of Sciences recently revealed that “when men chair committees that select scientific awards recipients, males win the awards more than 95% of the time”, even while women make up over 20% of the nomination pool.  And while women are winning more awards than in the past, they are more likely to win awards for their service or teaching than for their scholarly achievements.  Between 2001 and 2010, for the societies examined in the study, women won 10% of science awards, ~32% of service awards, and ~37% of teaching awards.

The authors suggest that the fact that women win more service and teaching awards than science awards is reflective of “the tacit assumption that scientists and rigorous scholars are men, and that women are incongruent with the scientist role.”

Increasing the number of women on the awards committee helps to even the score, and authors suggest solutions such as: ensuring women are represented well in prize committees, reviewing award criteria for bias, and having oversight committees.

 

Unconscious Bias

I’m blogging from the American Astronomical Society meeting in Austin, TX!  Today I attended a great series of talks all falling under the umbrella of increasing diversity in astronomy (particularly in universities).  One talk, given by Caroline Simpson, addressed the issue of unconscious bias in hiring.  She cited a lot of really interesting research, which I’ll blog about later, but first I’d like to give an introduction to unconscious bias.

First things first: I need to introduce the concept of a schema.  A schema is basically a structure we use to help ourselves organize knowledge.  In this context, it can be thought of as a broad assumption (or group of assumptions) about a group of people.  An example of something that used to be more of a schema than it is today is that mothers do not work.  A schema that still exists is that scientists are male.

Schemas can be mismatched.  A female scientist with children is an example of a mismatching schemas – it is in conflict with with the schema that scientists are male, and also with the (slightly outdated) schema that mothers don’t work.

Unconscious bias occurs when schemas are mismatched.  In hiring, unconscious bias can occur when a candidate’s schema does not match the schema of the outcome.  If a woman is interviewing for a research scientist position, her schema does not match that of the hired research scientist (who would typically be male).  The person in the position to hire may form invalid opinions about the candidate based on their schema, which may result in a negative hiring decision.

Unconscious bias sounds really similar to overt discrimination (forming untrue, negative opinions about others based on their sex/gender/race/etc).  But it differs from overt discrimination in that a person may not even be aware that they are biased against a certain group (or groups).  Unconscious bias is very subtle, which is why it is so important to be aware of it.  Making others aware that unconscious bias exists is the first step towards eliminating it!

Happy (belated) Women’s Equality Day!

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of Women’s Equality Day.  Women’s Equality Day began in 1971, and August 26th was chosen as the day to commemorate the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote.  Women have come a long way since 1920 (when the 19th Amendment was passed), but there is still work to be done!  For example, women still only make 79 cents for every dollar men make, and only 12 Fortune 500 companies are run by women.  There is also a significant gender gap that still exists in the sciences – women make up just 24% of employees in all STEM jobs.  I experience this gender gap in my physics classes – in high school, I was one of two girls in my AP Physics class of ~25 students, and in my college classes, there are typically only two girls in physics classes with 15 students.  This is not acceptable, and it’s something that needs to be addressed and remedied.  It’s important to stay informed about things that hinder women’s advancement in the sciences – such as unconscious bias, and lack of role models or mentors – so that we can work to ensure women achieve equality in the sciences.

Galaxy Zoo blog Part 2: Obstacles for professional female astronomers

As I discussed in my last post, the “She’s an Astronomer” series by Karen Masters asks women astronomers (amateur and professional) the same questions in order to see how different women feel about the same issues.  Her recent summary post compiles all the answers to the question “What (if any) do you think are the main barriers to women’s involvement in Astronomy?”.  Previously, I talked about the obstacle of poor grade school enthusiasm for science as a barrier to women’s involvement.  This post will discuss some of the views of the professional astronomers.

There were varying opinions on barriers to women’s involvement depending on how long a person had been a professional astronomer.  Encouragingly, the younger members tended to express the view that strong discrimination against women in science is more or less gone.  Recent PhD recipients said that they haven’t experienced any discrimination and that they didn’t feel there have been any obstacles for them.  However, the older professional astronomers did not share this same view.  Professor Meg Urry said that as an undergraduate and a graduate student, she didn’t expect or notice any discrimination problems, but that as her career progressed she noticed “the huge pile of female talent that goes wasted every year”.

A masters student that was interviewed said that she had a male colleague tell her that now, it was easier to be a woman in astronomy than a man.  Professor Meg Urry talks about this issue in her interview, describing that ‘even 30 years ago she was being told that “as a woman, I would benefit (the implication was, unfairly) from affirmative action” and concludes “When people say this today, as they often do, I have to laugh. . I sure do wish it were true [..]”’.

Many issues for women in astronomy are related to the astronomy career path, which involves moving several times from post-doc to post-doc.  One astronomer points out that this isn’t a barrier specific to women, and that it is something men have to deal with as well.  Karen Masters says, “to remain in a career as a researcher is very difficult for both men and women, and I believe slightly more so for women”.  Masters also talks about the difficulty of having two academics in a relationship, saying that “because of the current gender imbalance, a higher proportion of female scientists than male scientists are married to other scientists”.   Having a family is also something of concern to some of the professional researchers, who say that it is extremely difficult to be a researcher and have a family at the same time.

The most senior professional astronomers interviewed said that there is still discrimination, but that it is usually subtle.  For example, Meg Urry said that “Fewer women are sought after as speakers, assistant professors, prize winners, than men of comparable ability”.  She also said that she has “seen talented women ignored, overlooked, and sometimes denigrated to the point where they abandon their dreams”.  Another professional astronomer, Pamela Gay, remembered the assumption that she must be a secretary if she was in the physics department.  She thinks that it will take a generation and maternity/health care reforms for real change to take place.

The article closes with a statement by Meg Urry about unconscious bias – discrimination done by all of us, male or female, whether we are aware of it or not.  She states that since we are raised in a society where men hold most leadership positions, women are often undervalued.

She gives some good advice that I will take to heart: that “every young woman or under-represented minority scientist should learn about this “unconscious bias” so that, should they ever find themselves getting discouraged or feeling inadequate as scientists, they will correct for the effect of a harmful environment and recognize their own considerable achievements and talents.”