Happy fall! Here's what we've been reading this week.
1) Indira Raman writes a PowerHour-inspired essay about what power means in academic science and who has it. This essay explores how inevitable power differentials can be embraced in building healthy relationships and a thriving scientific community.
2) In light of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, everyone is talking about who is to blame for accepting his donations, or general bad behavior at universities. Virginia Valian argues that we should not be too quick to give ourselves a break--there are ways we could all take responsibility for making the academy a better work environment.
3) This article by Troy Vettese made its rounds in the summer, but we haven't posted it yet. It's a well-cited exploration of why women continue to be so underrepresented in academia.
4) Donica Belisle and Kiera Mitchell take a historical look at credit in academic scholarship and how women, particularly the wives of male scholars, were overlooked: "it was common during this time for married scholars to work together as a team, but for the male spouse only to receive credit." 😱
In other news:
-Postdocs: apply for the HHMI Hana H Gray Fellowship!
-On that note, if you want feedback on your fellowship applications, join us on PWN Slack! E-mail us at professionalwomensnexus@gmail.com for an invite!
-UMass Amherst hires Buju Dasgupta to run a network to increase diversity in STEM.
-Melinda Gates pledges $1 billion to promote gender equality. 🤑
Thursday, October 3, 2019
Monday, September 16, 2019
Selected articles for this week
As always, we try to bring you the latest news and studies surrounding issues women face in STEM and academia. In hopes to start these conversations and make progress to a more equal environment, we hope you find these posts helpful.
As members of the STEM community, we want to see the data! BBC News recently reviewed an article titled: Gender equality: 'No room at the top for women scientists.' Although women make up nearly 50% of all undergraduate and graduate students, disparate representation occurs at higher rungs of the academic ladder due to issues of harassment, limited opportunities, and exclusion.
Additionally, a nice paper from Nature reports that Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists. Previous research has relied on self-reporting when it comes to the controversial representation of women, which omits the very possible influence of implicit bias, while the current article analyzed real-world applications. In an effort to combat these gender biases, another Nature paper offers some insight on How to ban manels and manferences from scientific meetings.
One very real example of the exclusion of women can be found in Forbes's recently published '100 Most Innovative Leaders.' And of those 100, guess how many were women? One. Just 1 out of 100. How can this be? Read on here to learn more about how companies and institutions are taking more steps at becoming self-aware.
On the flip-side, a great win for women can be found in AAAS If/Then Ambassadors initiative. One hundred and twenty-five women across the United States were selected to take part in this opportunity in which they will connect with students both in person and through various channels of social media to promote. The goal for this initiative is to provide role models who represent the diverse array of STEM careers and opportunities that exist in all facets of life -- from entertainment to academia.
Thanks for stopping by!
As members of the STEM community, we want to see the data! BBC News recently reviewed an article titled: Gender equality: 'No room at the top for women scientists.' Although women make up nearly 50% of all undergraduate and graduate students, disparate representation occurs at higher rungs of the academic ladder due to issues of harassment, limited opportunities, and exclusion.
Additionally, a nice paper from Nature reports that Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists. Previous research has relied on self-reporting when it comes to the controversial representation of women, which omits the very possible influence of implicit bias, while the current article analyzed real-world applications. In an effort to combat these gender biases, another Nature paper offers some insight on How to ban manels and manferences from scientific meetings.
One very real example of the exclusion of women can be found in Forbes's recently published '100 Most Innovative Leaders.' And of those 100, guess how many were women? One. Just 1 out of 100. How can this be? Read on here to learn more about how companies and institutions are taking more steps at becoming self-aware.
On the flip-side, a great win for women can be found in AAAS If/Then Ambassadors initiative. One hundred and twenty-five women across the United States were selected to take part in this opportunity in which they will connect with students both in person and through various channels of social media to promote. The goal for this initiative is to provide role models who represent the diverse array of STEM careers and opportunities that exist in all facets of life -- from entertainment to academia.
Thanks for stopping by!
Friday, September 6, 2019
Our picks for Sep 6th!
Welcome back everyone!
We hope you had a relaxing summer, and are ready to start a productive and fun academic year. For all our readers in the South of the US, we hope hurricane season is not causing too much trouble and everybody is safe.
Below what we have been reading during the break:
In this preprint, authors examined how gender and nationality impact peer-review at all levels (author, editor and peer-reviewers). They analyzed peer-review outcomes of all of the submissions to the journal eLife between 2012 and 2017, and showed that mixed-gender reviewers teams lead to more equitable outcomes, whereas the likelihood of accepting a paper increases if the gatekeepers (editor and reviewers) share the same country than the authors. On this topic, NPP published a follow up study on gender balance and journal function. It highlights NPP's efforts to increase mindfulness of gender balance in journal function and presents the latest data on women representation at NPP. In addition, this preprint brings to light the persistent under-representation of science led by women in high profile journals. The study spanned 15 high-profile multidisciplinary and neuroscience journals for 2005-2017. Similarly, this study established a bias against female instructors' ratings by students compared to male instructors, and how statements about implicit bias can slightly help prevent this inclination.
In this article, author Dr. Tina M. Iverson briefly exposes her experience applying for grants using her full name or only her initials, and how the rate of successful applications drastically change (up to 5 fold variation) as a function of her name being gender neutral or not...
During the summer, this article became viral on #AcademicTwitter. In it, post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center, Dr. Troy Vettese, explains how sexism is prominent at all levels of Academia. The piece is a long read, but the level of detail and meticulous research makes the message even more powerful...and daunting. Highly recommended.
Outside of Academia, this article published in The Guardian dives deep into the difference between genders regarding "me time" and how this can deeply impact creativity and productivity.
To celebrate Women's Equality Day (celebrated in the US on August 26), PEW Charitable Trusts asked female scientists their opinion on what is needed to recruit and retain the next generation of female scientists. Some of their responses might surprise you!
Catch up with us next week for more articles on #WomenInSTEM.
Friday, July 5, 2019
Our Picks for July 5th!
Hello everyone,
We hope you enjoyed July 4th with family and friends! We share below our latest picks for the summer, before taking a break and coming back strong in the fall. Please keep sending job opening opportunities, publications, grants, or any other successes to professionalwomensnexus@gmail.com, we will be happy to share with the PWN community!
In this article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, author Lee Gardner reflects on the changes and initiatives that come along when women take on leadership roles in colleges.
This summer, take time to read Reinvented Magazine created by Caeley Looney, an aerospace engineer who aims to inspire young girls to pursue a career in STEM.
Enjoy the summer and see you in the fall!
Saturday, June 22, 2019
This Week's Picks
Happy Summer, everyone!
We're always talking about the under-representation of women in science. But what is fueling this gender imbalance? Marshall Shepherd, PhD, hones in on 5 Ways Society Sabotages Girls' Interest in Science and Math. I really loved this piece, but to summarize, we first have "Imagery." How are children molded by the toys and activities marketed to them? Real quick, do a Google search (I just did). No, really do it, it'll be eye-opening. What do you see when you search for "toys for girls"? The very first thing I see is a kitchen, followed by a makeup kit, and household appliances like a pink sewing machine, hair dryer, vacuum, and so on. What about "toys for boys"? Well, I see trucks, a tool box, dinosaurs, Legos -- toys that are designed to encourage curiosity about the natural world, cause-and-effect, logic, and critical thinking. Think about how easy it is to internalize the messages children receive when boys have toys that are inherently tied to scientific endeavors while girls have toys that reinforce "traditional" gender roles in which they are charged with domestic duties. So, even from a young age, women are being implicitly told "science is not for you."
Building off of this internalization, Dr. Shepherd lists "self-fulfilling prophecy." So, you have this deeply ingrained idea that because you are a woman, science and math are just not your strong suit. So, why bother, if you're only going to fail? Going into science and math classes with this notion detrimentally affects women's performance in these applications, leading to this self-fulfilling prophecy. You already go in feeling defeated, so you don't apply yourself, leading to a poor outcome. Furthermore, how are you meant to overcome these feelings, if you have no mentorship for young women?
While it can be empowering to see women becoming more and more involved in STEM, once we're there, there is this invisible, but ever-present feeling of having to prove something. Women are underrepresented in science, and now you're a woman in science -- now it's your job to overcome any perceived stereotypes. Prove you're not like the "others!" All eyes are on you now, as you clearly speak and act on behalf of all women! Hopefully the sarcasm is coming through here, but consider this strange phenomenon of women doing their jobs in STEM and having people be surprised! Lastly, are we conveying the value of STEM? Just like with the above mentioned marketing of toys to boys and girls, are we conveying the importance of science to underrepresented populations like women? How can we personalize STEM, make it applicable for everyone? Consider reading the full piece to see how this all ties together.
Here is an external example of the obstacles women face -- a recent study asserts that Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in zoology and ecology. The paper explores the patterns in publishing between men and women scientists in these fields. While research groups led by women had 60% female co-authors, only 20% female co-authors were found when the research group was led by men. The authors of this analysis demonstrate that this is yet another possible way in which women do not continue in STEM fields.
In our effort to combat gender inequality in STEM, institutions are trying to find ways to settle this imbalance. But are these efforts genuine and fruitful? Or is this endeavor just becoming another item to "check off"? Charikleia Tzanakou asserts that this should not just be a matter of quantity, but quality. What kind of diversity can be found in women? What are these Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans?
Thanks for stopping by!
We're always talking about the under-representation of women in science. But what is fueling this gender imbalance? Marshall Shepherd, PhD, hones in on 5 Ways Society Sabotages Girls' Interest in Science and Math. I really loved this piece, but to summarize, we first have "Imagery." How are children molded by the toys and activities marketed to them? Real quick, do a Google search (I just did). No, really do it, it'll be eye-opening. What do you see when you search for "toys for girls"? The very first thing I see is a kitchen, followed by a makeup kit, and household appliances like a pink sewing machine, hair dryer, vacuum, and so on. What about "toys for boys"? Well, I see trucks, a tool box, dinosaurs, Legos -- toys that are designed to encourage curiosity about the natural world, cause-and-effect, logic, and critical thinking. Think about how easy it is to internalize the messages children receive when boys have toys that are inherently tied to scientific endeavors while girls have toys that reinforce "traditional" gender roles in which they are charged with domestic duties. So, even from a young age, women are being implicitly told "science is not for you."
Building off of this internalization, Dr. Shepherd lists "self-fulfilling prophecy." So, you have this deeply ingrained idea that because you are a woman, science and math are just not your strong suit. So, why bother, if you're only going to fail? Going into science and math classes with this notion detrimentally affects women's performance in these applications, leading to this self-fulfilling prophecy. You already go in feeling defeated, so you don't apply yourself, leading to a poor outcome. Furthermore, how are you meant to overcome these feelings, if you have no mentorship for young women?
While it can be empowering to see women becoming more and more involved in STEM, once we're there, there is this invisible, but ever-present feeling of having to prove something. Women are underrepresented in science, and now you're a woman in science -- now it's your job to overcome any perceived stereotypes. Prove you're not like the "others!" All eyes are on you now, as you clearly speak and act on behalf of all women! Hopefully the sarcasm is coming through here, but consider this strange phenomenon of women doing their jobs in STEM and having people be surprised! Lastly, are we conveying the value of STEM? Just like with the above mentioned marketing of toys to boys and girls, are we conveying the importance of science to underrepresented populations like women? How can we personalize STEM, make it applicable for everyone? Consider reading the full piece to see how this all ties together.
Here is an external example of the obstacles women face -- a recent study asserts that Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in zoology and ecology. The paper explores the patterns in publishing between men and women scientists in these fields. While research groups led by women had 60% female co-authors, only 20% female co-authors were found when the research group was led by men. The authors of this analysis demonstrate that this is yet another possible way in which women do not continue in STEM fields.
In our effort to combat gender inequality in STEM, institutions are trying to find ways to settle this imbalance. But are these efforts genuine and fruitful? Or is this endeavor just becoming another item to "check off"? Charikleia Tzanakou asserts that this should not just be a matter of quantity, but quality. What kind of diversity can be found in women? What are these Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans?
Thanks for stopping by!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)