More Like this

1. How the Demographic Composition of Academic Science and Engineering Departments Influences Workplace Culture, Faculty Experience, and Retention Risk

   Griffith, Eric. E; Dasgupta, Nilanjana (January 2018, Social sciences)

   Although on average women are underrepresented in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments at universities, an under appreciated fact is that women’s representation varies widely across STEM disciplines. Past research is fairly silent on how local variations in gender composition impact faculty experiences. This study fills that gap. A survey of STEM departments at a large research university finds that women faculty in STEM are less professionally satisfied than male colleagues only if they are housed in departments where women are a small numeric minority. Gender differences in satisfaction are largest in departments with less than 25% women, smaller in departments with 25–35% women, and nonexistent in departments approaching 50% women. Gender differences in professional satisfaction in gender-unbalanced departments are mediated by women’s perception that their department’s climate is uncollegial, faculty governance is non-transparent, and gender relations are inequitable. Unfavorable department climates also predict retention risk for women in departments with few women, but not in departments closer to gender parity. Finally, faculty who find within-department mentors to be useful are more likely to have a favorable view of their department’s climate, which consequently predicts more professional satisfaction. Faculty gender and gender composition does not moderate these findings, suggesting that mentoring is equally effective for all faculty. Keywords: gender; STEM; climate; retention; faculty 

   more » « less
2. Influence of Workplace Microaggressions on Engineering Female Faculty Motivation to do Research

   https://doi.org/10.34190/icgr.6.1.1131  

   Mardani, Mojdeh; Stupnisky, Robert (April 2023, International Conference on Gender Research)

   Negative and often unconscious beliefs about marginalised groups, including women and people of colour, sometimes manifest in discriminatory and degrading slights called microaggressions. Since most often microaggressions are in the form of subtle actions, unobtrusive comments, or humorous gestures, they are frequently overlooked as innocent and harmless, specifically to bystanders. However, their adverse effects on those on the receiving end are anything but innocuous, even if perpetrators are utterly unaware of their harmful comments or behaviours. Minorities and marginalized individuals often find microaggressions more harmful than blatant racism and discrimination. Six hundred and eleven STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) faculty from ten USA universities completed an online survey in the spring of 2021, of which 39% self-identified as Underrepresented Minority, URM, faculty. This study revealed that on average, URM women were 50% more susceptible to gender microaggressions, which correlated negatively with autonomy (having choice) and competence (being capable and effective), and positively with amotivation (lack of motivation). Case in point, 38% of them believed their opinions were overlooked in a group discussion because of their gender. Women with intersecting identities, such as women of colour, experienced both forms of gender and racial/ethnic microaggressions. They have experienced being ignored at work, being treated differently, and their opinion being overlooked based on their gender and/or their race/ethnicity. While detecting bias and microaggression and acknowledging their occurrence is crucial, taking deliberate and precise actions to disrupt and prevent them from re-occurring is even more pivotal. By realising the prevalence of discrimination and microaggressions towards underrepresented minority female faculty, and sharing insights into the complex and overarching race, ethnic, and gender relations among other social constructs, this study deepens our understanding of the challenges and barriers that this group has to grapple with. By adopting and creating effective institutional policies and professional training in support of diversity, inclusion, and cultural competency we can improve the experiences of URM faculty and positively impact their motivation and productivity. 

   more » « less
3. Discovering our "We": Marginalization as Connection between International STEM Faculty and their Black and Brown Doctoral Mentees

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44789  

   Merriweather, Lisa; Howell, Cathy; Gnanadass, Edith (February 2023, 2023 Collaborative Network for Computing and Engineering Diversity)

   International faculty have a strong presence in STEM university educational programming. They represent the second largest demographic, after White faculty, among STEM faculty in US universities, the majority of which are from Asian countries such as China, South Korea, and India, surpassing by large margins racially minoritized domestic faculty including Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans (NSF, 2022). These demographics mirror that of STEM doctoral students with White students occupying the largest share, followed by Asian students (international and domestic). Because of this, the National Science Foundation determined that Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans were underrepresented in STEM education and occupations. It should come as no surprise that the majority of these racially minoritized students engage in cross-cultural mentoring. While much attention has been devoted to cross-cultural mentoring with White faculty, less has been paid to cross-cultural mentoring with international faculty. International faculty, especially Asian, often occupy a peculiar space as they are often viewed through the model minority lens while also being cast as sufficiently different based on white hegemonic norms (Author, 2021). They are subjected to acceptance for their presumed STEM gifts and talents on one hand, while on the other hand being subjected to marginalization emanating from their home language, accents, and culture (Herget, 2016). International faculty may face isolation and bias in ways similar to their racially minoritized students. Literature is relatively silent on international faculty's doctoral mentoring perceptions and if shared experiences of marginalization are leveraged to enhance the quality of cross-cultural doctoral mentorships between international faculty and Black and Brown students and This paper explores the perceptions of mentoring of international STEM doctoral faculty at three US universities in the southeast. Data were extracted from a larger multiple embedded qualitative case study (Yin, 2018) utilizing interviews with 18 international faculty from three US institutions in the southeast and a survey. Constant comparative inductive analysis was employed to develop findings. The findings suggest that international faculty often share cultural attitudes not much different than their White faculty counterparts, attitudes that reflect anti-Black racism (Gordon, 1995; Dumas & ross, 2016). The findings also reveal an assumption of science neutrality, lacking criticality in understanding science from broader epistemological foundations. Finally, the findings indicate that pragmatic concerns are prioritized over sociocultural and sociopolitical ones that may impact US racially minoritized doctoral students, resulting in international faculty failing to appreciate how their experiences of marginalization can result in empathic connections to their marginalized students. The implications implore STEM education to reimagine STEM doctoral education and mentoring as "holistic and embedded in and accountable to cultural imperatives" (Author, 2022). International faculty should become more aware of ways in which implicit bias fueled by anti-Black racism negatively impacts their Black and Brown doctoral mentees. STEM faculty development education should consider ways to assist international faculty with better connecting with racially minoritized and marginalized students to improve the cross-cultural doctoral mentoring experience. 

   more » « less
4. U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.792756  

   Casad, Bettina J.; Garasky, Christina E.; Jancetic, Taylor R.; Brown, Anne K.; Franks, Jillian E.; Bach, Christopher R. (May 2022, Frontiers in Psychology)

   There is a national interest in United States women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, gender inequality in the social sciences has not received similar attention. Although women increasingly earn postgraduate degrees in the social sciences, women faculty still experience gender inequities. Consistent gender inequities include slower career advancement, blunted salaries, unequal workloads, work-life conflict, systemic gender biases, underrepresentation in positions of power, and hostile work environments. Cultural biases suggest that once women have achieved parity, gender bias no longer exists. This review challenges that notion by providing evidence from social science domains in which women are well-represented but continue to face systemic gender biases. We examine cultural influences on gender representation and career advancement in psychology, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology. We make interdisciplinary comparisons of career trajectories and salaries using national data, documenting patterns across the social sciences. For example, women economists face gendered standards in publishing, and women political scientists are less likely to have their work cited than men. Furthermore, data show that salaries become stagnant as the representation of women in these fields increases. These disparities reflect cultural biases in perceptions of women’s competence stemming from social role theory. We discuss best practices to address these problems, focusing on the ADVANCE organizational change programs funded by the National Science Foundation that target (a) improving academic climate, (b) providing professional development, and (c) fostering social networking. Federally supported interventions can reveal systemic gender biases in academia and reduce gender disparities for women academics in the social sciences. 

   more » « less
5. Toward institutional transformation: warming the chilly climate for women in STEM through macrostructural change

   https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1328574  

   Erichsen, Kristen; Šaras, Emily D; Perez-Felkner, Lara (April 2024, Frontiers in Education)

   Introduction. Although the demand for graduates with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) credentials continues to climb, women remain underrepresented as both students and faculty in STEM higher education. Compounding social forces can hinder organizational change for gender equity in STEM, constraining institutions and individuals within them. This study advances macrostructural theory to examine the impact of gender composition (including group size and heterogeneity) of women faculty on structural change, as measured by gender desegregation of STEM degree earners. We advance this theory by incorporating faculty, rather than treating group composition as a static category. Method. This study draws on a federal repository of data to assess institutional change in the share of STEM women faculty in the U.S. We employ quasi-experimental methods to explore the following research questions: (1) does hiring more women onto an institution’s faculty roster shrink the gender gap among STEM degree earners? and (2) does segregation of faculty by gender within institutions shape the gender gap among STEM degree earners? Findings. While institutional efforts herald their efforts of hiring more women faculty, our findings indicate that gender desegregation of STEM degree earners partially depends on the promotion of women faculty to tenure. Discussion. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed, with a focus on institutional-level change.< 

   more » « less