“In March 1999, MIT released the summary of an
internal report on the status of women faculty in science that
immediately drew national and international attention. Its
central message was that gender discrimination is alive and well
in elite science, although it takes a form quite different from
what we typically recognize as discrimination. It is not a so
much a matter of explicit and intentional marginalization as of
innumerable small differences in treatment that can have
substantial cumulative effects: a pattern of powerful but
unrecognized attitudes and assumptions that work systematically
against women despite good will. While this report has been
received by many as a startling revelation about the gendered
dynamics of science, it builds on an expansive body of research
that documents what was identified, in the early 1980s as a
chilly climate for women in science and academia more
generally.” Wylie outlined the development of this research and
discussed why the gender of science matters.
The MIT report came about after individual
senior women faculty happened to come together and realized that
what they thought were individual instances of less money,
laboratory space and support were more universal across the
campus than they realized. The key discoveries of the formal
investigation were:
1.While each “microinequity” was beneath the
threshold of detection or concern, the cumulative effect was
systematic exclusion and marginalization and altered career
trajectories for women.
2.There were clear differences by cohort over
time, with the most senior women reporting the most problems.
This didn’t seem to be a factor of the younger women having a
more supportive climate, but rather that the older women
“feeling positive, too, when they were young.” That is, the
younger women had not yet been subject to the cumulative
microinequities long enough for them to have taken their toll.
Chillying practices take three forms:
1.Gender stereotyping . Women are expected to
take primary control of student affairs, but often have little
impact on key decision making. Training often reinforces these
stereotypes. For instance, in archeology, men are groomed for
the most prestigious field work, while women are trained in
laboratory procedures—demanding and exacting work, but with much
lower salaries.
2.Differential patterns of valuation. Assertive
behavior is considered a positive trait for men, but is often
perceived as brassy or pushy in a woman. Identical resumes
thought to belong to a James Moore are generally rated more
highly than those attributed to Carol Moore. While women have
lower publication rates than men, those publications are cited
more frequently: 24 to 14 in one study. Why this is so is not
well documented, but likely a result of women’s work being more
synthetic (big picture vs. smallest publishable segments, more
careful to stand up to scrutiny, and more comprehensive.
3.Practices of exclusion, which may be
unintentional. For instance, women aren’t privy to the work
related discussions that occur in locker rooms or at other
social venues. Often, women are not invited to these after hour
events and they feel awkward about inviting themselves.
For many years, the thought has been that if
more women enter the “pipeline” they will reach enough of a
critical mass to plug the leaks. This is not playing out yet
and the pipeline analogy may be too simplistic. While the
number of women in undergraduate SMET programs has increased
dramatically, the % of women at each upper level remains
similar. In fact, once women elect to pursue college level
science, they have higher grades and completion rates, but lower
rates of entry into master’s programs. Virginia Valian
discusses this phenomenon in “Why so slow?”
Why does it matter if women aren’t faring as
well in math and science? Wylie argues that is egregious that
this injustice exists and persists in science which is held up
as the ideal. And on a more practical note, the influx of
international scientists has declined in recent years as
programs at home universities develop and their prestige grows.
Scientific fields simply cannot afford to continue deflecting
this pool of trained, talented women. In addition, there is
evidence that innovations are more likely among a diverse group
than an homogeneous one. The story is likely more complex for
women of color, but few studies have looked at this pool except
to determine that Black women have the lowest retention rates in
academia.
Wylie’s presentation was followed by brief
commentary by Diane Murphy, former director of the Women’s
Studies program, and Marina Artuso, Associate Professor of
Physics and Co-Director of the Women in Science and Engineering
(WISE) program, both of Syracuse University. Murphy adds that
women are “Doing science” and are also the ones that work to
create maternity leave, health centers and day care options that
make universities more family friendly to all. Women constantly
need to educate their male and female peers about the sound
reasoning behind these decisions which should be taken up
institutionally. Artuso notes that WISE’s was created to
educate SU on patterns of women at Syracuse. Since its
creation, the numbers of women have increased, and the most
current report will be entering its final editing shortly.
During the question and answer period, we
learned one possible reason why there are so few studies that
specifically address women of color: the administration
requested that WISE’s proposal to study this particular group be
expanded to include all women on campus. We also discussed the
frustration felt when the numbers of women do increase in spite
of patriarchal training, but the atmosphere remains the same.
Wylie does worry about this type of socialization; leadership
must be top-down as the changes benefit everyone, not just “the
girls.”
