Susan-Metz-UMASS FINAL SLIDES.4.6.pptx

5/23/14
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 1 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 2 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 “Moving Beyond Fixing the Women to !
Influencing the
Culture by
Changing
theChanging
Culture! the Climate!
in Academic STEM Fields”!
OCTOBER 1927 FIFTH SOLVAY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONS AND PHOTONS, MONDADORI PORTFOLIO VIA GETTY IMAGES P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 3 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 4 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 1
5/23/14
45 minute -­‐ ROADMAP ROADMAP Framewor
Background Ac2ons k Background •  Define Terms in Context •  NaLonal Data – Tenure Status in STEM P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 5 •  Framework Promote Gender Equity Ø  Barriers Women’s ParLcipaLon STEM ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 Framework 7 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE Ac2ons •  COACHE Exemplars •  Resources •  Ideas, Comments, QuesLons P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 6 ROADMAP Background Framework Ac2ons ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology Culture: A pa[ern of shared basic assumpLons that gets passed down over Lme. 1.  ArLfacts 2.  Rituals 3.  Values 4.  Norms Extremely resistant to change (SCHEIN, 1992) P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 8 | 5/23/14 2
5/23/14
Tenure Status of Women in STEM by Field (2010) ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Tenured On Tenure Track Not on Tenure Track 70% Climate: PercepLons of organizaLonal pracLces. 1.  CommunicaLon 2.  Leadership 3.  Work-­‐life integraLon 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% More malleable and more easily studied 10% 0% Bio/Life Sci. Comp. & Info. Sci (VALIAN, 1998) ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 9 On Tenure Track 6% Engineer ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology FRAMEWORK FOR PROMOTING GENDER EQUITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Frame 1: Frame 2: Frame 3: Frame 4: 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Phys. Sci. Psychologist Social Sci. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 SOURCE: NaLonal Science FoundaLon, NaLonal Center for Science and Engineering StaLsLcs. 2013. Women, MinoriLes, and Persons with DisabiliLes in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-­‐304. Arlington, VA. Available at h[p://www.nsf.gov/staLsLcs/wmpd/. 10 | 5/23/14 | 5/23/14 Tenure Status of Underrepresented Minori2es in STEM (2010) Tenured Math. Sci. Equip the Woman Create Equal Opportunity Value Difference Re-­‐vision Work Culture Black Hispanic Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat. Nat. Hawaiian or Mul2ple Race other Pac Isl. ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 SOURCE: NaLonal Science FoundaLon, NaLonal Center for Science and Engineering StaLsLcs. 2013. Women, MinoriLes, and Persons with DisabiliLes in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-­‐304. Arlington, VA. Available at h[p://www.nsf.gov/staLsLcs/wmpd/. 11 | 5/23/14 CGO INSIGHTS, BRIEFING NOTE NO. 1, SIMMONS GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, HTTP://WWW.SIMMONS.EDU/SOM/DOCS/INSIGHTS_01.PDF. DOWNLOADED MARCH 25, 2014 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 12 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 3
5/23/14
Frame 1 Frame 2 (not fix) the Woman Equip Create Equal Opportunity: Level the Playing Field Provide opportuniLes to build skills for success. •  NegoLaLon •  Leadership •  Conflict Management •  AsserLveness Training •  Budget Management •  Public Speaking/PresentaLon Skills P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 14 What Major Factors Limit Women’s Advancement in Academic STEM Fields? UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge Supported by NSF ADVANCE Community Research •  Lack of family friendly policies (Frame 2) •  Implicit bias (Frame 3) DR. MARY ANN MASON AND DR. JOAN C. WILLIAMS (2013) WWW.TOOLSFORCHANGEINSTEM.ORG P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 15 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 13 Frame 2 Remove structural and procedural barriers that interfere with access and advancement of specific groups. Processes impacted: •  Hiring •  Performance EvaluaLon •  PromoLon and Tenure | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology Frame 2 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge Turning a problem into a compe77ve edge…. Conclusion: The University of California’s ability to a[ract and retain the best faculty over the next decade will depend largely on a culture that values and supports both work and family life needs of all faculty over the course of their career. Department chairs and deans have a central responsibility in understanding the importance of a family friendly department and in implemenLng policies, sharing resources, and reinforcing cultural pracLces to assist all faculty. Given that the tenure clock generally coincides with the biological clock, women faculty onen face parLcular challenges in achieving balance and success. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 HTTP://UCFAMILYEDGE.BERKELEY.EDU ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 16 | 5/23/14 4
5/23/14
Frame 2 Total Hours per Week Frame 2 Use of Family Friendly Policies and Sabba2cals by Eligible UC Assistant Professors* Everybody is Very Busy (UC Faculty, ages 30-­‐50) 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 35.5 14.6 20.3 8.1 10.6 11.9 8.6 10.6 Women, Assist. Prof. Professional Men, Assist. Prof. Housework 51.2 55.6 Women with Children Men with Children N=338
59.8 59.1 Caregiving Women without Men without Children Children 701
248
*At the Lme of the first child’s entry into household at assistant professor rank, post policy implementaLon (August 1, 1988 to present). The faculty member needed to be employed at UC at Lme of child’s arrival into the household and the policy had to be in place. 505
MASON, MARY ANN, ANGELICA STACY, AND MARC GOULDEN. 2003. “THE UC FACULTY WORK AND FAMILY SURVEY.” (HTTP://UCFAMILYEDGE.BERKELEY.EDU). ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 17 Frame 2 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 2/3 | W
0ORK 1/01/11 MASON, MARY ANN, ANGELICA STACY, AND MARC GOULDEN. 2003. “THE UC FP. ACULTY AND FAMILY SURVEY.” (HTTP://UCFAMILYEDGE.BERKELEY.EDU). | 5/23/14 18 Frame 2 Major Reasons Eligible UC Parents Did Not Use Ac2ve Service Modified Du2es (ASMD) Having Fewer Children Than They Wanted: Women Women Men Men *These quesLons were based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (h[p://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm). ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 2/3 | W
0ORK 1/01/11 MASON, MARY ANN, ANGELICA STACY, AND MARC GOULDEN. 2003. “THE UC FP. ACULTY AND FAMILY SURVEY.” (HTTP://UCFAMILYEDGE.BERKELEY.EDU). | 5/23/14 UC Faculty, Ages 40-­‐60, by Gender and Number of Children Percent Ci2ng Factor as a Major Reason for Not Using ASMD 19 | 5/23/14 Percent who indicated “Yes,” “I had fewer children than I wanted” *This quesLon was based on Robert Drago’s Mapping Project Survey Instrument (h[p://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/facultysurvey.htm). ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 2/3 | W
0ORK 1/01/11 MASON, MARY ANN, ANGELICA STACY, AND MARC GOULDEN. 2003. “THE UC FP. ACULTY AND FAMILY SURVEY.” (HTTP://UCFAMILYEDGE.BERKELEY.EDU). 20 | 5/23/14 5
5/23/14
Frame 2 Leaks in the Pipeline for Women PhDs in the Sciences Frame 2 Family Friendly Policies that Mager Most Coache data: n= over 15,000 pre-­‐tenure faculty •  Dedicated personnel to staff work-­‐life services offices. •  Wri[en policies: •  Dual career couples hiring •  Early promoLon and tenure •  Parental leave •  Modified duLes •  Part-­‐Lme tenure opLon •  Stop the tenure clock provisions •  Provide childcare, lactaLon rooms, flexibility, family socials and cafeteria menu of benefits that include eldercare. HTTP://WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG/ISSUES/2009/11/WOMEN_AND_SCIENCES.HTML P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 21 Frame 2 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 22 Department Chairs Role in Crea2ng a Family Friendly Department •  Make it a priority. •  Become conscious about unconscious bias issues concerning caregiving and gender. •  Know the family accommodaLon policies and laws. •  AcLvely highlight, adverLse and support your departments family accommodaLon policies for all faculty. •  Make the use of family accommodaLons standard operaLng procedures. •  Maintain zero tolerance for discriminatory or disparaging comments and behaviors. •  ProacLvely recruit and hire diverse faculty, including those who have temporarily slowed their careers for family reasons. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 Based on UC Faculty Friendly Edge data -­‐ WWW.TOOLSFORCHANGEINSTEM.ORG 23 (TROWER,2012) | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 Frame 3 Value Difference Provide content-­‐rich programming for academic leaders, faculty, staff, students that increase understanding, awareness of issues that prevent people from diverse backgrounds from fully engaging in and benefiung from the enterprise; the criLcal value they contribute; and the significant loss to the organizaLon if they are marginalized. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 24 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 6
5/23/14
Frame 3
Frame 3
What Major Factors Limit Women’s Advancement in Academic STEM Fields? •  Lack of family friendly policies (Frame 2) •  Implicit bias (Frame 3) P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 25 Frame 3
©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 26 Frame 3
©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 | 5/23/14 What happened when the baby was named? Feelings – Afraid or Angry? Unconscious Bias Danny
*Angry*
Debbie
*Afraid*
(CONDRY & CONDRY, 1976) P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 27 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology CONDRY & CONDRY, 1976 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 28 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 7
5/23/14
Frame 3
Implicit Bias • 
• 
• 
•  Beyond awareness and control Pervasive Affects livelihoods and lives Powerful GOLDIN & ROUSE, 2000 PAYNE, 2006 IMPLICIT.HARVARD.EDU/IMPLICIT/ P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 29 Frame 3
©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 30 Frame 3
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Hiring and Advancement EvaluaLon of CVs Le[ers of RecommendaLon Service Assignments Teaching EvaluaLons CitaLons | 5/23/14 What func2ons are affected by unintended bias/implicit associa2ons? ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 What the research says…. “Brian” is preferred 2:1 over “Karen” by psychology professors reviewing resumes. (STEINPREIS ET AL. ,1999) Applicants with African American sounding names have to send 15 resumes compared to 10 for white-­‐sounding names. Brian
Karen
Makayla
(BERTRAND & MULLAINATHAN, 2004) Science faculty regardless of gender, rated male student applicants significantly more competent than idenLcal female applicants. (JO HANDLESMAN ET. AL. 2012) P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 31 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 8
5/23/14
Frame 3
Frame 3
What the research says…. A double-­‐blind review process by Behavioral Ecology caused a significant increase in the publicaLon of arLcles with a woman as the first author. (BUDDEN ET. AL., 2008). In fields where considerable resources are necessary, women publish less. (AMARAL ET AL. 2012) Confirmed significant disparity especially in STEM fields. (SUGIMOTO ET AL. 2013) Women professors must do more “emoLonal work” inside and outside the classroom to earn a posiLve student evaluaLon. (CENTRA AND GAUBATZ, 2000; FELDER AND BRENT, 2008; BASOW, 1998) RecommendaLon le[ers for women are shorter, less posiLve and describe women as students and teachers vs. researchers and professionals. What the research says…. In review of recent law school graduate resumes, mothers are held to a higher standard than fathers or women without children. (FUEGEN & ENDICOTT, 2010) Women are onen asked to accept more service assignments, onen in the interest of adding diversity and mentoring more students. (GEE AND NORTON, 2009; MIT, 2011) Women spent much more Lme on service to the university which is recognized as less presLgious than service to the profession. (MISRA ET AL., 2011) !! Women who exhibit strong leadership skills are rated as less “likeable”. (EAGLY & KARAU,2002; HEILMAN,ET AL,2004; RIDGEWAY, 2001) Ø  Women Don’t Ask (2003): Likeability and negoLaLon – “A delicate balance” (TRIX & PSENKA, 2003) P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 33 Frame 3
©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 34 Implicit Associa2ons/Bias Takeaways Widely culturally shared •  Both men and women hold them about gender •  Both whites and people of color hold them about race •  People are onen not aware of them Applied more under circumstances of: •  Ambiguity (including lack of informaLon) •  Time pressure •  Lack of criLcal mass Good News! -­‐ Implicit associaLons/bias can’t be eliminated but awareness miLgates consequences. Keep talking about it! P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 Frame 4 Re-­‐vision Work C ulture Consider and address the underlying systemic characterisLcs of an organizaLon that leads to inequity in the workplace for underrepresented groups. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology ADVANCE U MICHIGAN– FISKE,1998; VALIAN,1998 35 | 5/23/14 36 | 5/23/14 9
5/23/14
Frame 4 Frame 4 Examine Core Assump2ons re: Tenure Examine Core Assump2ons re: Tenure •  Tenure is necessary to protect academic freedom and is required to a[ract men and women of ability. •  All faculty must excel in research, teaching and service – and at some insLtuLons outreach. •  The scholarship of discovery, parLcularly WITHIN the discipline should count the most in promoLon and tenure decisions. •  Tenure serves all faculty equally well regardless of faculty sex and race. •  The university is a meritocracy in which the most meritorious are promoted and tenured. •  Tenure should be “forever” even in the absence of early reLrement and presence of longer lives and careers. •  Tenure ensures that faculty will remain producLve over an academic career. •  To be an effecLve faculty member, you must spend your enLre career in academe. •  The soon-­‐to-­‐be minority (full-­‐Lme T/TT faculty) must have lifeLme employment. The soon-­‐to-­‐be majority (p/t and f/t faculty and researchers at interdisciplinary research centers) need not. (TROWER, 2012)
(TROWER, 2012)
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 37 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 38 FRAMEWORK FOR PROMOTING GENDER EQUITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Frame 1: Frame 2: Frame 3: Frame 4: Equip the Woman ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 COACHE Data 2005-­‐2006: 7 Exemplar Public Ins2tu2ons (Trower, 2012) Supported by ADVANCE Community Frame 1: Equip the Woman •  Sample dossiers of tenure-­‐track faculty who were promoted •  InformaLon websites where faculty can find what they need •  Workshops on geung tenure, running a lab, supervising students, geung grants Create Equal Opportunity Value Difference Re-­‐vision Work Culture CGO INSIGHTS, BRIEFING NOTE NO. 1, SIMMONS GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, HTTP://WWW.SIMMONS.EDU/SOM/DOCS/INSIGHTS_01.PDF. DOWNLOADED MARCH 25, 2014 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 39 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 40 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 10
5/23/14
COACHE Data 2005-­‐2006: 7 Exemplar Public Ins2tu2ons (Trower, 2012) Supported by ADVANCE Community COACHE Data 2005-­‐2006: 7 Exemplar Public Ins2tu2ons (Trower, 2012) Supported by ADVANCE Community Frame 2: Frame 2: Create Equal Opportunity •  OpportuniLes for networking, instrumental mentoring, collaboraLon •  Clarity about expectaLons for tenure re: weights, allocaLon of effort for the relevant components of faculty work •  Meaningful annual and midpoint reviews with wri[en feedback about performance and progress towards tenure P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 41 Create Equal Opportunity (cont’d) •  Policies that allow flexibility depending on life circumstances •  Clear, fair and equitable polices/pracLces re: work/life ma[ers including family friendly and dual-­‐careers •  Support for excellence in teaching and research ($ and non $) ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology 42 COACHE Data 2005-­‐2006: 7 Exemplar Public Ins2tu2ons (Trower, 2012) Supported by ADVANCE Community ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 | 5/23/14 | 5/23/14 TOOLKIT Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 3: Value Difference •  Offices with personnel focused on creaLng an equitable workplace •  Ongoing professional development for chairs, deans and senior faculty about issues affecLng tenure-­‐track faculty •  Sustained leadership from the top about the centrality of culLvaLng faculty talent P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 43 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology ACCESS: HTTP://WWW.TOOLSFORCHANGEINSTEM.ORG/ ACCESS: HTTP://WWW.PORTAL.ADVANCE.VT.EDU/ ACCESS: HTTP://GENDER.STANFORD.EDU/ ACCESS: WWW.STRATEGICTOOLKIT.ORG NSF ADVANCE HRD 0930097 LAURSEN, S. L., & AUSTIN, A. E. (2014). STRATEGIC TOOLKIT: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING GENDER EQUITY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. BOULDER, CO, AND EAST LANSING, MI. P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 44 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 11
5/23/14
TOOLKIT Frame 3 TOOLKIT Frame 4 Frame 4 Advance FORWARD Advocates & Allies Program ACCESS:HTTP://WWW.NDSU.EDU/FORWARD/
ADVANCE_FORWARD_INITIATIVES/
FORWARD_ADVOCATES_AND_ALLIES/ ACCESS: HTTPS://GENDEREDINNOVATIONS.STANFORD.EDU/ ACCESS: HTTP://WWW.NCWIT.ORG/ ACCESS: HTTP://VSERVER1.CSCS.LSA.UMICH.EDU/~SPAGE/ P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 45 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 46 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before star-ng to improve the world.
Anne Frank P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 47 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 48 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 12
5/23/14
Sources & Resources Sources & Resources Advance. ADVANCE Portal. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/
Advance U Michigan– Fiske (1998). Stereotyping, Prejudice And Discrimination. In Gilbert, Fiske & Lindsey.
Handbook Of Social Psychology. 4th Ed. Volume 2 .Pp 357-411); Valian (1998). Why So Slow. Mit Press
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. (2001). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling and
Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Condry, J. & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development, 47,
812-819.
Dasqupta,N. & Asgari,S. (2004). Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its
effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
642-658.
Eagly, Alice H. and Steven J. Karau. "Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders."
Psychological Review 109, no. 3 (07, 2002): 573-598.
Faculty Recruitment Handbook: A Research-Based Guide for Active Diversity Recruitment Practices (2007).
NSF ADVANCE at the University of Rhode Island. http://www.uri.edu/advance/recruitment.html
Gee, M., & Norton, S. (n.d.). Improving the Status of Women in the Academy. National Education Association.
Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA09WomenAcademy.pdf
Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment. Stanford University.
©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 Retrieved April 3, 2014 from https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/
49 | 5/23/14 Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind auditions” on female
musicians. The American Economic Review, 90, 715-741.
Goulden, M., Frasch, K., & Mason, M. A. (n.d.). Staying Competitive: Patching America's Leaky Pipeline in
the Sciences. American Progress. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/11/pdf/women_and_sciences.pdf
Greenwald, T., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. (n.d.). Project Implicit. Project Implicit. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Heilman, Madeline E., Aaron S. Wallen, Daniella Fuchs, and Melinda M. Tamkins. "Penalties for Success:
Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks." Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 3
(2004): 416-427.
Heilman, Madeline E., and T. G. Okimoto. 2008. “Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment
decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93:189-198.
Hiring for Excellence video (2008). Utah State University.
http://www.usu.edu/provost/colleges_and_departments/hiring_faculty/
Kolb, D., Fletcher, J., Meyerson, D., Merrill-Sands, D., & Ely, R. (n.d.). CGO Insights, Briefing Note Number
1. CGO Insights Briefing Notes. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from
https://www.simmons.edu/som/docs/Insights_01.pdf
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 50 Sources & Resources ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 Sources & Resources Lariviere, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Bibliometircs: Global gender disparities in
science. Nature, 504(7479). Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321
Pollack, E. (2013, October 3). Why Are There Still So Few Women In Science?.The New York Times
Magazine. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=0
Mason, M. A., Stacy, A., & Goulden, M. (n.d.). The UC Faculty Work and Family Survey. The UC Faculty
Family Friendly Edge. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. "Gender, Status, and Leadership." Journal of Social Issues 57, (2001): 637-655.
Resources. National Center for Women in Information Technology. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.ncwit.org/resources
Mason, M. A., & Williams, J. (n.d.). Tools for Change. Tools for Change in STEM. Retrieved April 3, 2014,
from http://www.toolsforchangeinstem.org/
Misra, J., Lundquist, J., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (n.d.). The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.American
Association of University Professors. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceilingservice-work#.Uz2imvldWCk
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Grahama, and Jo Handelsman.
"Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students." PNAS October 9, 2012 vol. 109 no. 41
16474-16479.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2013. Women,
Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-304.
Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
Page, Scott, E. (2007) The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools
and Societies. Princeton University Press.
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 51 | 5/23/14 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology Roehling, M.V., & Granberry Russell, P. (Eds.) (2012). Faculty search toolkit: A resource for search
committees and administrators at Michigan State University . East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University.http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/files_adapp-advance/content/FacultySearchToolkit-final.pdf
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simmard, Caroline and Denise L. Gammal. (2012) Solutions to Recruit Technical Women. Anita Borg
Institute Solutions Series.http://anitaborg.org/files/Anita-Borg-Inst-Solutions-To-Recruit-Technical-Women.pdf
Smyth, F. Implicit Bias in Science: The Power of Automatic, Unintended Mindsets. WEPAN. Presentation
conducted for WEPAN.
Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D (1999) The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job
applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41:509–528.
StratEGIC. Ethnograph & Evaluation Research. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/strategic.html
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 52 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 13
5/23/14
Sources & Resources The Clayman Institute for Gender Research. Stanford University. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from
http://gender.stanford.edu/
The UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge. (n.d.). The UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge. Retrieved April 3, 2014,
from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu
Trix, Frances and Carolyn Psenka. "Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and
Male Medical Faculty." Discourse & Society 14, no. 2 (2003): 191-220.
Trower, C. A.(2012). Success on the Tenure Track: Five Keys to Faculty Job Satisfaction. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from Project MUSE database.
Trower, C.A. Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey. COACHE Report 2005-2006. Retrieved April 3,
2014, from https://provost.uncc.edu/sites/provost.uncc.edu/files/media/COACHE-Report-2005-06.pdf
Valian, V. (1999). Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Woolley, Anita Williams, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi and Thomas W. Malone. 2010.
“Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups.” Science 29:686-688.
doi:10.1126/science.1193147.
Workshop on Faculty Recruitment for Diversity and Excellence. NSF ADVANCE Project at the University of
Michigan Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence (STRIDE). (2008).
http://www.advance.rackham.umich.edu/STRIDE-102708.pdf
P. 2/3 | 01/01/11 53 ©2011 Stevens Ins-tute of Technology | 5/23/14 14