I spent much of March 13 and 14 at the Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering conference presented by the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford. Throughout, I was struck by the similarities between the stories of and data on discrimination and bias in both academia and industry. Here are a few highlights from the Thursday afternoon panel on Women and the Future of Science moderated by Londa Schiebinger, Director of the Clayman Institute.
The first speaker was James Patterson, Executive Director, Women’s Health at Stanford. He talked about the women’s cardiovascular health program, one of five key strategic areas for Stanford’s Cardiovascular Institute. He sees sex differences in cardiovascular health potentially becoming a major differentiator in their work.
Cynthia Friend, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard, shared her “Perspectives on Women As Academic Leaders in Science and Engineering.” Some of her key points were:
- Chemistry and the physical sciences tend to be very conservative. The historical culture of science, with research done by a cloistered man, is not appealing to many young scientists and is an impediment to innovation.
- Female leadership doesn’t necessarily increase opportunities for other women, particularly if the female leader is in an isolated situation. She’ll face resistance and criticism if she advocates for gender diversity, and doing so won’t always align with the metrics by which her success is measured.
- The glass ceiling is thinner, but still there. She quoted Virginia Valian — “It is very difficult for women to be perceived as both a likable and competent” — and gave several examples including Hillary Clinton.
- The achievements of women are still undervalued, and recognition of man and of women is interpreted differently. She gave this example: “she’s won so many awards — she can’t be that good” versus “he is incredible — look at all the awards he’s won.”
- Her recommendations for promoting positive change in academic culture were:
- Form a team. There is strength in numbers; find trusted advisers.
- Stay above the fray. Don’t personalize.
- Work creatively for a change in culture.
Nancy Hopkins, Professor of Biology at MIT and a Research Fellow at the Clayman Institute. Hopkins started by reviewing something from Londa Schiebinger’s opening talk, in which she described three levels (and on which the logo for the event was based):
- Level 1: Fixing the number of women in science.
- Level 2: Fixing the institutions.
- Level 3: Fixing for knowledge.
She focused on level 1, noting that progress has been recent and slow, therefore we don’t know yet what the impact will be. We do know that the percentage of women in faculty positions does not match the percentage of women doctoral students; it’s significantly lower in every science department at MIT. Incredibly, debunking the stereotypes is still needed: people need to be told that women can be great scientists. And every day, women and minorities still have to go in and show they deserve to be there. She also noted that the first wave of women are changing the workplace to make it easier for the next generation. While we may sometimes despair that change is so slow, we have made tremendous gains on several grounds, sexual harassment be one notable example.
Sue Rosser of Georgia Institute of technology, and a research fellow at the Clayman Institute, talked about Gender and Patents. Rosser is also the author of Female-Friendly Science: Applying Women’s Studies Methods and Theories to Attract Students. She had a lot of data on the numbers and percentages of patents, Ph.D.’s, and publications in the US and other countries. There was some intriguing data, for example, that while women have fewer patents and publications than men, women’s research papers are cited more frequently than men’s.
- Why aren’t women obtaining patents at the same rate as men? For the same reasons we’ve heard for over thirty years about why women don’t go into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), including fewer opportunities, homophily in mentoring and networks, work-family issues, gender stereotypes in how industry approaches women, risk aversion and geography.
- One solution: Both women and men are more interested in science and technology when they see how these can be used to help people.
I’ll follow up tomorrow with highlights from day 2. This event was videotaped and will be available through Stanford on iTunes U in a few weeks. And there is a new book available from Stanford University Press, also with the name Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.