Women in Science Now: Stories and Strategies for Achieving Equity 9780231206143, 9780231556347

Citation preview

WOMEN IN SCIENCE NOW

WOMEN IN SCIENCE NOW Stories and Strategies for Achieving Equity

LISA M. P. MUNOZ

Columbia University Press New York

Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York Chichester, West Sussex cup.columbia.edu Copyright © 2023 Lisa M. P. Munoz All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Munoz, Lisa M. P., author. Title: Women in science now : stories and strategies for achieving equity / Lisa M. P. Munoz. Other titles: Stories and strategies for achieving equity Description: New York : Columbia University Press, [2023] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023012027 (print) | LCCN 2023012028 (ebook) | ISBN 9780231206143 (hardback) | ISBN 9780231556347 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Women in science—United States. | Sex discrimination in science—United States. | Sex discrimination against women—United States. | Women—Vocational guidance—United States. Classification: LCC Q130 .M86 2023 (print) | LCC Q130 (ebook) | DDC 500.82—dc23/eng/20230411 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023012027 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023012028

Cover design: Marina Durkman Cover image: Shutterstock

For Audrey and Amelia

•

CONTENTS

Introduction: Fixing a Broken System 1

Fixing Representation

1

7

Confronting Bias from a Young Age: Eva Pietri The Evolving Image of a Scientist

12

A Rotating View of Gender Stereotypes Box: Intersecting Identities

8

16

18

Box: Role Models for Multiple Identities

20

Identifying Some Roots of the Stereotypes

23

Box: How Parents’ Gender Attitudes Influence Their Daughters

25

Seeing STEM Representation in the Real World Box: I Am a Scientist 2 Fixing Signals

27

29

33

Reflecting on an Eye-Opening Interview Experience: Sapna Cheryan

33

CONTENTS

Changing the Environment

37

Box: History in Brief: Early Women Computer Scientists

40

Box: Recognizing Implicit Bias Broadening the View

44

46

Box: Putting Research Into Practice: Increasing Interest in Computer Science 3

Fixing Mentorship

51

55

Pushing Back Against a Culture of Extraction: Krystal Tsosie

56

Building Success from Mentors

61

Box: Gaining Power Through Mentor Networks Understanding the Role of Identity

64

65

Box: In Their Own Words: Marina Suarez on Representation in Mentorship

67

A Mentorship System Ripe for Disruption Box: Giving Wise Feedback

68

73

Box: Portrait of a Mentor: Janet Antwi on Paying It Forward

75

4 Fixing Recruitment

79

Questioning the Depths of Bias: Corinne Moss-Racusin

80

Using Science to Study Bias Among Scientists Designing an Experimental Test

85

Box: When You Feel Like an Imposter

88

Box: Replicating the CV Study with a Focus on Intersectionality

89

Researching Reactions to the Data

Q

viii

Q

90

83

CONTENTS

Box: The Start of the Pay Gap

91

Box: In Their Own Words: Krystal Tsosie on Tokenizing in Recruitment Intervening for Change

94

95

Case Study: A Method That Fueled the Myth of Gender-Related Brain Differences

97

Box: When Double-Blind Review Isn’t Enough

100

Beyond Recruitment: Obstacles Impeding Advancement of Women Scientists 5

102

Fixing Environments 105 Battling Adversity and Workplace Aggression: India Johnson

107

A Tax on Productivity 113 The Effects of a Toxic Workplace

114

Box: In Their Own Words: Incivility Incidences on Instagram

119

Training to Create Civility Training to Create Allies

122 124

Case Study: Bias Training in Action Box: Who Makes for a Good Ally?

126 128

The Hidden Housework in the Workplace Box: What’s Tenure Got to Do with It? 6 Fixing Visibility

129 134

137

Making Bias More Visible to Light the Way for Advancement: Aneeta Rattan

138

A Reinforcing Cycle of Misplaced Credit

145

Box: The Bias Behind Abusive Teacher Evaluations Box: History in Brief: The Matilda Effect

Q

ix

Q

150

148

CONTENTS

Adapting Authorship to Reflect Contributions

154

Case Study: Changing Gender Gaps in Citations Rebalancing Conference Panel Participation Equity in Earning Awards

158

159

162

Box: Making Telescope Time More Within Reach

166

Box: In Their Own Words: Ben Barres on Gender Bias 7

168

Fixing Work-Life Balance

169

Balancing the Pressures of Being a Mom and a Scientist: Katharine Huntington

170

Shifting Boundaries Between the Personal and Professional

176

Box: In Their Own Words: India Johnson on the Daycare Burden

178

When Work and Family Collide 179 Box: In Their Own Words: The Author on Parental Perceptions in Hiring

183

Box: When Work Feels Like Family but Isn’t Navigating Travel Demands

186

187

Box: In Their Own Words: Jennifer Doudna on Being a Mom at a Conference

189

Combating Conference Harassment

190

Box: In Their Own Words: Kristina Rapuano on Conference Drinking Culture 8 Fixing Reporting

193

195

Getting to the Other Side of Sexual Assault: Kristina Rapuano

196

Q

x

Q

CONTENTS

Moving Reporting from Mere Compliance

201

Box: History in Brief: Applying Title IX to Sexual Harassment

203

Box: In Their Own Words: Anonymous on Anonymous Reporting

205

Overcoming the Power Dynamic Toward Cultural Change

207

Box: The Power of the Nondisclosure Agreement Building a Robust, Transparent System

210

Balancing Privacy and Accountability 9 Fixing Science

209

212

217

Defying Stereotypes Through New Pictures: Ellen Currano

219

Accelerating Generational Change with Action

224

Box: Seeing Change Across Four Centuries of Paleontology 226 Box: In Their Own Words: Katharine Huntington on the Existential Threat to the Geosciences Shifting Bias and Representation

230

230

Box: In Their Own Words: Sharon Shattuck on Discovering a New Way of Seeing Box: Telling New Stories of Science

234 238

Box: In Their Own Words: A New Phase for Indigenous Women Scientists

238

New Research Directions: Beyond Binary

239

Box: Portrait of Change: Maï Yasué with Perspective on Community-Based Efforts

Q

xi

Q

241

CONTENTS

Box: Key Takeaways from This Book Shifting the Narrative Acknowledgments Notes

248

251

253

Bibliography 291 Index

325

Q

xii

Q

245

WOMEN IN SCIENCE NOW

INTRODUCTION FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

I REMEMBER

clearly my first days as an engineering student at

Cornell University in the mid-1990s. Despite knowing I would be in the minority as a woman in most of my classes, I was not nervous; I did not feel out of place; I believed it was where I was meant to be. Then I started my first-year engineering courses, and things changed. In an intro electrical engineering class, I remember some male peers snickering when they saw my high marks on an assignment, saying quietly but audibly that they wondered what sexual favors I had done for the teaching assistant. I also remember feeling I could not cut it in my intro physics and computer science classes— classes that were known at the time to be designed to “weed out” the weakest students. I went to office hours for help but found little support. I persisted, but I started considering other fields. I did not feel comfortable in engineering, though at the time, I did not know why. I just knew I needed to find something different.

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

When Valerie Voss, an on-air meteorologist at CNN, came and gave a guest lecture for a course I was taking in a new earth systems science major, suddenly things started to click. Here was a female scientist working in my hometown, Atlanta, and she was kickass. She was not just a face on TV; she knew her science and brought significant technical and communication skills to the table. I walked right up to her after class and asked to intern at CNN that summer. That one experience shaped my entire path to becoming a science writer. I do have an engineering degree from Cornell, which I proudly have on display on the wall of my office. I feel lucky every day to be working in science, especially as I read stories of women being pushed out of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. The “leaky pipeline” many of us have come to associate with the attrition of women in STEM from undergraduate school through PhDs and employment (see figure 0.1)—is not so much a set of leaks as it is a force of nature. The leaky pipeline does not just need to be fixed; it needs to be retired as a metaphor for describing the forces at play for women in STEM fields. Women are not dripping through holes in the system; they are being pushed out of a system that historically did not want them in the first place, even if it wants them now. One paper describes it as a “hostile obstacle course,” which is a more apt description for the hurdles that women in science face throughout their careers.1 The traditional life course of a scientist from early inspirations and role models to primary and secondary school, through higher education and then into the workforce, is packed with

Q

2

Q

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

FIGURE  0.1 U.S. Women in Science and Engineering, 2018. The “leaky pipeline” commonly refers to the attrition of women from STEM fields over time, as shown here by the percentage of degrees obtained by women in STEM fields. Rather than leaking out, women are pushed out of many fields because of the systemic obstacles to equity in science. (Note: “% of Employed” data is from 2019; the rest is from 2018.) Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021,” data tables 5-1, 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 8-1, 9-5, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs /nsf21321 /data-tables.

obstacles that too often push women out of science and onto another path, for better or worse. These stories do not stop once a scientist begins her job or makes it through the “pipeline.” Harassment, discrimination, and bias persist for women not only in academic science but also across industry and various disciplines. And as depicted in the iceberg image featured in a report on sexual harassment from

Q

3

Q

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

the National Academy of Sciences, these conditions range from the more visible cases of assault and harassment at the tip of the iceberg, to the daily slights and microaggressions that lie in the hostile waters below, to deep systemic issues that prevent women from advancing.2 I have seen much of this at play in my own career as a science writer. From the magazine newsroom to the halls of academia to the start-ups of Silicon Valley, I have had my share of comments on how I dress and how I “manage working as a mom,” being mistaken for an intern or administrator when I was a senior consultant, and being undervalued and overlooked in my contributions to teams. I often joke with my family about being “invisible” in my work. During the year before and while writing this book, I got a unique snapshot of women in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic—seeing how women continue to shoulder disproportionate work, at home and in the workplace, leading to even further stress in a time of crisis. I also saw the need more clearly than ever to have more voices in science represented, especially people of color, as we saw race, public health, and social justice issues converging in the wake of COVID and the killing of George Floyd. Women of color go unseen and unheard too often. The good news is that as researchers become more aware of the problems, they are also becoming more committed to using the tools of science to find solutions. As research grows in understanding bias in STEM, so too do the tools and policies to combat bias, increase representation, and make science more equitable and inclusive.

Q

4

Q

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

I pored through hours of conversations with scientists and hundreds of pages of scientific literature to bring what is still just a snapshot in time—a snapshot of how far women in science have come and how far we still have to go to fix the broken system. Each chapter of the book is organized around a key theme that underlies continued barriers for women in science: roughly starting from young childhood, through role models and mentorship, to recruitment and workplace environments, and on through career advancement, managing work-life balance, and other challenges to women’s successes, safety, and security in STEM fields. Leading each chapter is a woman’s story that relates to the theme; like all human stories, they do not fit neatly into thematic boxes. They are meant to highlight the varied paths into science and the varied obstacles and opportunities facing individuals on those paths. What is clear throughout the stories is how each scientist’s background has shaped their unique approach to science and the questions they ask. What is also clear is how society is slowly creating a new picture of scientists now based on not only how they look and the skills they bring but also how they act. At a time when “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” are sometimes dismissed as partisan buzzwords, I have seen that these principles offer a path forward for a new culture for science. Only when multiple backgrounds and viewpoints are broadly represented will we see the full force of humanity brought to bear in solving problems. And only then will we see large-scale reductions in the bias and discrimination that still pervade the institutions of science.

Q

5

Q

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM

No single intervention, policy, or law is enough. Throughout this book are examples of studies showing the complexity of the problem, how single interventions can help some groups but not others in various situations and how even well-intentioned policies can fall short when up against systemic inequities. The research presented is a sampling, not a comprehensive account, which shows the opportunities that exist for science-based approaches to create greater gender equity in science. The research illuminates a path forward through a multilayered approach—from awareness about the problems to solutions that help create more representative, welcoming, and inclusive environments to policies that hold harassers accountable and mitigate against future bias and harassment. The burden can no longer be on individual women to persist through the harassment and disenfranchisement they experience. The system has to change from the inside, and scientists are at the forefront of fixing it. My hope is that in sharing stories of the very people working to make that change, and the science behind their work, that more people can work to solve the problems—to remove the obstacles facing women scientists, so that they can bring their full selves to the pursuit of knowledge and innovation.

Q

6

Q

1

FIXING REPRESENTATION

WHOM DO

we envision when we think about science? Who are

our role models? And why is representation crucial to building equity within STEM fields? Since the 1960s, researchers have been studying how children think of scientists in an effort to better understand the roots and effects of gender stereotypes in the sciences. Their work has shown an evolving picture of a scientist from the lone, older white male to teams of people, including women, fieldwork, and people of color. As the picture changes, research is showing how increasing representation of women in science can positively influence young women to pursue STEM fields.

FIXING REPRESENTATION

FIGURE 1.1

Portrait of the social psychologist Eva Pietri, PhD.

CONFRONTING BIAS FROM A YOUNG AGE: EVA PIETRI I was born in New York City and am half Puerto Rican. My dad’s whole side of the family is Puerto Rican and lives in the Bronx. I loved growing up in New York City and being surrounded by individuals from diverse backgrounds. Q

8

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

My father was part of the Nuyorican poetry movement, and my mom was an aspiring artist. When I was nine years old, my parents were no longer together, and my mother decided she wanted to go back to school. At thirty-nine years old, she wanted to get a PhD in history. My grandmother was in Oklahoma, so my mom and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma. It was a very different experience. I was sort of spoiled in New York being in an environment where there were a lot of people who looked like me. I was used to being around other Latinx individuals. In Norman, there were pretty much no other Latinx individuals. I was the only Latina in my elementary school. There was another girl who was Indigenous, and we did not look anything alike. In my mind, I thought “I’m so much shorter, and she has straight hair, and I have curly hair.” But everyone would confuse us; I would always get called her name, and vice versa. This was my first taste of bias at nine years old, and it was really eye-opening. We lived in Norman for three years, and then we moved to Port Jefferson, New York, which is an aff luent area on Long Island. My mom was in graduate school at that point. We were living in a tiny apartment, which had no space and privacy, but my mom wanted me to be in a good school district. It was there that I started to incorrectly believe in meritocracy—like if you work hard, you will succeed. In hindsight, after moving around further, I saw it was because all these kids had so many resources at their disposal. When my mom met my stepdad, we moved to Terre Haute, Indiana. I was in high school, and it was a large school Q

9

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

with 1,600 people. There was a lot of segregation, which I found really disturbing. There was this rich neighborhood, which was majority white and fed into the fancy elementary school that fed into the fancy middle school. Then different schools fed into the high school. I took advanced placement (AP) courses, and everybody in my AP courses had gone to the fancy middle school. While the high school was about 30  percent Black students, there were virtually no nonwhite students in the AP courses. In general, there were few Latinx individuals in Terre Haute. I could so clearly see the disparities in the school system. I started to get interested in why this was happening. I wanted to have the language to understand it. I took AP psychology, but it was not until I went to college that I found what I was looking for in social psychology. I recognize my own privilege in approaching college. Because my mom went back to school late in life, I got to see the whole academic process in a way that most people do not get to see so young. I saw my mom as a graduate student, doing her dissertation defense, and then on the job market and the tenure track. She is now a Latin American historian. For better or worse, through her experiences, I could really see what I could do with a PhD and if I became a professor. When I arrived for undergraduate school at Amherst College, I briefly considered the medicine route with premed or psychiatry. I am probably one of the people who got weeded out of traditional STEM really quickly. I found the intro chemistry class challenging and so pivoted to

Q

10

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

psychology. In psychology, I could still use math and statistics and the scientific method to run experiments, all of which I loved. For my PhD program, I ended up in a classical social psychology program at the Ohio State University. My work focused on changing people’s attitudes, understanding how people decide if they like or dislike something. In graduate school, I remember experiencing imposter syndrome and wondering if I really belonged [see “When You Feel Like an Imposter” in chapter 4]. Even if everyone is really supportive, there is this feeling like “no one looks like me, none of the professors or the students. Am I going to really be successful?” I had a fantastic mentor, and there were two female professors, but it was still majority white men in the psychology department. At the time, I thought this was just what academia looked like, and I did not think anyone would have my background or experiences. I had the stereotype that all professors are white, and so I didn’t expect to see anybody who was Puerto Rican, for example. I remember going to a conference and seeing a Latina professor give a talk. I thought, “Oh, I can see people that look like me on occasion.” She was doing research that I found really fascinating and personally relevant. And in that moment, I realized I did not have a role model; I had wonderful mentors and allies and sponsors, but not role models. —Eva Pietri, PhD (social psychologist)

Q

11

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

THE EVOLVING IMAGE OF A SCIENTIST Eva Pietri’s experience in seeing for the first time a scientist who looked like her underscores how important representation is early in life. Exactly how children view the image of a scientist is an area that has been researched since at least the 1960s, when a study began that would spur a massive body of work on gender in science over the following decades. The classic “Draw a Scientist” study asked thousands of elementary school children to draw a scientist (see an example in figure 1.2). As published in 1983 by David Chambers, of the initial five thousand drawings collected over eleven years, only twenty-eight of them depicted a female scientist, and all twentyeight were drawn by girls. Not a single boy in the study drew a female scientist. In an introduction to these results in 1983, Chambers described: During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries visual and verbal images of the scientist were many and varied. Caricaturists, cartoonists, artists, and writers produced a diverse range of stereotypic figures: diabolical madmen, distinguished professors, harmless eccentrics, learned buffoons, and fashionable dilettantes. Naturalists in the field among flora and fauna were often pictured, as were physical scientists in their laboratories surrounded by vials and beakers. . . . And, of course, for centuries alchemy and black magic were invoked by caricaturists to lampoon the profession of chemistry.1 With a few exceptions, these images are now seldom seen.

Q

12

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

Chambers then went on to describe the emerging composite portrait of a scientist, as written up in a 1957 study by Margaret Mead and Rhoda Métraux: The scientist is a man who wears a white coat and works in a laboratory. He is elderly or middle aged and wears glasses . . . he may wear a beard . . . he is surrounded by equipment: test tubes, Bunsen burners, f lasks and bottles, a jungle gym of blown glass tubes and weird machines with dials . . . he writes neatly in black notebooks. . . . One day he may straighten up and shout: “I’ve found it! I’ve found it!” . . . Through his work people will have new and better products . . . he has to keep dangerous secrets . . . his work may be dangerous . . . he is always reading a book. 2

These stereotypes of a lone male scientist persisted for decades: think of Doc Brown in Back to the Future, Gene Wilder’s depiction of Dr. Frankenstein in Young Frankenstein, or Rick in the show Rick and Morty. In a 2017 analysis, researchers at the Lyda Hill Foundation and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media looked at more than one thousand leading or major characters taken from the most popular movies and TV shows between 2007 and 2017.3 They found that male scientists outnumbered female scientists by nearly two to one. Moreover, the results showed that 71.2 percent of all scientist characters during the study time span were white. (One note for throughout the book: The genders, races, and ethnicities described in each chapter are consistent with the

Q

13

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

terms used in the corresponding research studies being referenced. That terminology may vary among different studies and may not reflect the most common or appropriate terms, nor all genders and identities. Please see “New Research Directions: Beyond Binary” in chapter 9 for a discussion of the research gaps when it comes to gender and other identities.) The good news is that these images are evolving and changing over time. Research using the “Draw a Scientist” test has continued for the past five decades, showing a shift in children’s drawings and thus in the stereotypical view of scientists. When he was a graduate student at Northwestern University, David Miller and colleagues did a comprehensive quantitative review of seventy-eight “Draw a Scientist” studies— looking at all the relevant U.S. studies with children, including more than twenty thousand drawings.4 While in the 1960s and 1970s, less than 1 percent of children drew a female scientist, in 2018, Miller and colleagues reported an average of about 33 percent female scientists in children’s drawings. Miller’s team also found interesting changes across children’s ages. When children began in kindergarten, they drew roughly equal proportions of female and male scientists, suggesting that they had not yet learned associations between science and men. Girls were more likely to draw female scientists, and boys were more likely to draw male scientists. The tendency to draw male scientists then substantially increased with children’s age such that by the time that the children reached high school they were drawing more male scientists than female scientists by a ratio of about three to one. 5 In an interview for this book, Miller, who in early 2022 was a senior researcher at a nonprofit research organization, Q

14

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

FIGURE  1.2 “Draw a scientist” image by author’s daughter Audrey J. Munoz when she was in fourth grade.

remembered first learning about the “Draw a Scientist” studies in his first year in graduate school and thinking, “It’s so simple, right? You just simply ask children to draw a scientist.” What has resulted is an elegant indirect measure of stereotypes. Miller pointed out that gender is not always clear in the Q

15

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

drawings. Researchers must rely on hair length and attire, as well as sometimes asking children about their drawings and inferring from the use of male or female pronouns. The drawings often included the canonical image of scientists with wild Einstein hair, in lab coats working indoors with laboratory equipment. Indeed, in the quantitative review, researchers found that, on average, half the students drew scientists wearing lab coats. And eight in ten drawings appeared to depict white people.

A ROTATING VIEW OF GENDER STEREOTYPES Miller first became interested in gender stereotypes in science based on a thesis project he did on spatial skills—cognitive tasks such as mentally rotating and positioning shapes. Past studies had shown gender differences in these tasks, with men performing higher on mental rotation tasks than women.6 There are various explanations for this, Miller said, including biological and environmental ones (see “Case Study: A Method That Fueled the Myth of Gender-Related Brain Differences” in chapter 4), “but what I was particularly interested in was the malleability of these skills.” Miller conducted a research project in which high-performing first-year STEM undergraduates took twelve hours of spatial training.7 He and colleagues wanted to see whether the spatial skills training narrowed gender gaps in spatial skills. They found that even among participants who started with very high spatial skills, twelve hours of instruction further improved their

Q

16

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

skill set. They also found evidence that the training narrowed gender gaps in spatial skills and improved physics course grades by about one-third of a letter grade. While such interventions have not translated to more women in certain STEM fields,8 changing the perception of gender and spatial effects can have other real-world effects, including on how people feel about their own groups—an area of research called “stereotype threat.” Coined by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson in 1995, stereotype threat is the concern people have about being seen through the lens of a negative stereotype about their group, which can translate to performing poorly on academic cognitive tasks.9 Stereotype threat is especially harmful in domains that people care strongly about (e.g., women who are math majors and want to do well in math). The body of work on stereotype suggests that women or girls might be concerned that others view them in the context of negative stereotypes about mathematical or spatial abilities. In turn, individuals’ performance can become impaired by stereotype threat because they become more worried about making errors and more self-conscious about potentially failing on a task that matches a particular stereotype. Some studies have shown that this threat can be combated by asking test takers to reappraise their anxiety.10 In studies specific to spatial skills, researchers have found that reframing a spatial memory task as a fun drawing task rather than a geometry one can also reduce stereotype threat.11 Other research has shown that classrooms or workplaces can reduce stereotype threat by putting in place gender-inclusive policies that decrease

Q

17

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

awareness of gender on a daily basis and that promote positive conversations between men and women.12 Importantly, while stereotype threat can exist in private settings, research has found that the threat can be decreased when women are in the majority in a testing situation.13 The presence of other women as role models can buffer against the threat, as shown in research by the psychologist Denise Sekaquaptewa and colleagues. They found that women operating under both “solo status,” being the only woman present in the room, and under stereotype threat for a particular task performed worse than operating under just one of the conditions; men’s performance was the same across all conditions.14 This growing body of work suggests that simple, targeted interventions can help reduce the impact of gender stereotypes in STEM fields— and that role models can be an important part of the solution.

INTERSECTING IDENTITIES A word previously unknown to many that started coming more to the fore in 2020, “intersectionality” was coined by the American lawyer and civil rights activist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989. It refers to the ways that multiple identities can converge to create discrimination or privilege.15 The psychologist India Johnson wears a necklace with a one-word charm, “intersectional.” In an interview for this book, she said she thinks about intersectionality as the “constellation of identities” that shapes how individuals view

Q

18

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

one another. Specifically for women, she said that it’s important not to “assume that every person who identifies as a woman has the same interests, same needs, or concerns.” Indeed, intersectionality is an important concept in the context of women in science, as women of color can face a “double jeopardy,” experiencing more harassment than white women or men.16 In a 2020 study by Kimberly Chaney and colleagues, the researchers found that women of color, when feeling threatened because of either their race or gender, feel the dual effect of both. They wrote: “Dual threats in STEM settings may significantly decrease sense of belonging, potentially leading to disengagement from STEM in an effort to avoid experiences of identity threat or discrimination.”17 In a 2017 study, the anthropologist Kathryn Clancy and colleagues surveyed 474 astronomers and planetary scientists about their workplace experiences, finding that women of color reported the highest rates of negative experiences, such as harassment and assault. Some 40 percent of women of color reported feeling unsafe in their workplaces as a result of their gender or sex, and 28 percent felt unsafe as a result of their race.18 Intersectionality extends to other identities as well, including those identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ ). In a 2021 study, Erin Cech and Tom Waidzunas analyzed data from a survey of twentyone professional STEM societies. Controlling for discipline, job factors, and other demographics, they found that LGBTQ STEM professionals were “more likely to experience career

Q

19

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

limitations, harassment, and professional devaluation than their non-LGBTQ peers.” LGBTQ STEM professionals also reported more health challenges and a higher likelihood to leave their STEM fields.19 These studies point to the importance of considering intersectionality, which carries with it multiple different stereotypes and biases, in addressing systemic bias in STEM.

ROLE MODELS FOR MULTIPLE IDENTITIES While doing postdoctoral work in the Center for Scientific Teaching at Yale University, the social psychologist Eva Pietri started to get more interested in the issue of how female role models can help and protect women in STEM fields. Working with the psychologists Jack Dovidio and Corinne Moss-Racusin, she was developing videos to help raise awareness of gender bias in the sciences (see more on this in chapter 4, “Fixing Recruitment”). During this time, she went to a social psychology conference where she reconnected with a peer from graduate school, India Johnson. Pietri, a Latina psychologist, and Johnson, a Black psychologist, shared a common interest in understanding how multiple identities could shape a role model relationship. There was already powerful work by Nilanjana Dasgupta and colleagues about how when people feel similar to role models, the role models can act as “social vaccines” that inoculate against negative stereotypes.20 Yet there was little work up until then that considered the factors

Q

20

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

affecting women with multiple marginalized identities or the intersectional perspective when it came to role models in science. “At that point, it was just a question,” Pietri recalled in an interview for this book. “Since then, we have developed a lot of theory and ideas behind what’s going on.” The limited subject pool for Black and Latina study participants meant it took a while for Johnson and Pietri’s research collaboration to take off. But once Pietri began working at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, they were able to produce multiple studies and a large body of research on the factors that make for effective role models for women in science. Pietri and Johnson have broadly found and replicated across several populations that for a Black woman, a white woman is not as effective of a role model as a Black man or woman. A white woman “is not really effective at inspiring a sense of belonging in STEM or in a classroom environment for a Black woman,” Pietri explained, “whereas matching their race is more inspirational, will inspire belonging, and will spark feelings of being safe in an environment.”21 These results fit with other work on intersectional identity that shows that race tends to be more important than gender when it comes to role models.22 Pietri says that it is in part because Black women are aware of historical and societal biases caused by racism and therefore feel more of a connection with Black scientists. How role models are viewed in a university or workplace setting influences perceptions of allyship and safety.

Q

21

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

In one set of experiments, they tested how Black women felt about a company featuring a Black female or Black male scientist compared to a white woman scientist or no scientist. They found that sensitivity to the possibility of experiencing discrimination, called “stigma consciousness,” influenced Black women’s reported feelings of trust and belonging. Black women with higher stigma consciousness anticipated they would feel relatively less trust and belonging at a company that did not feature a Black female scientist: “Black women’s differing levels of race or gender stigma consciousness may . . . determine which scientist functions as the most efficacious identity-safe cue.”23 Pietri and Johnson have also studied ways to make a white woman more effective as a role model based on previous research about the influence of awareness about gender bias. In a study, they randomly assigned Black women to learn about either a white female or a Black female professor in the STEM field who either did or did not discuss their experiences with sexism. White female professors who talked about experiences of mistreatment encouraged more identification and empathy among the Black women. They also found that the women who heard about sexism from the professors reported greater feelings of belonging and safety.24 “Having a white woman talk about facing sexism did foster more of a connection with the Black women, but not as much as with the Black woman,” said Pietri in 2021 before the study’s publication. “This speaks to the importance of recruiting and retaining Black female professors.”

Q

22

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

The research partnership that Pietri and Johnson formed at a single conference has now produced a rich body of work from which individuals and organizations can draw to better inform how to foster effective role models that cut across identities.

IDENTIFYING SOME ROOTS OF THE STEREOTYPES In general, Miller said that it is important to recognize that stereotypes originate from multiple places, including depictions of scientists in toys and media, as well as deep roots in traditional gender roles. “There is a framework called ‘social role theory’ that roughly says that the stereotypes that we learn about women and men comes from observing them in different roles,” he explained. For example, if children observe women in primary caretaking roles, they might infer that women are more nurturing or caring than men. “Whether or not that is true, we make that observation based on the roles that people enact,” Miller said. First posited by the psychologist Alice Eagly in 1987 and further developed by others since, social role theory is but one of many psychological frameworks for understanding the origins of stereotypes in society. In social role theory, gender differences in behavior arise from the division of labor among genders in a society.25 Those observations have led to the “communion stereotype” of women as they moved into paid labor.26 As women entered

Q

23

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

into the paid labor force in greater numbers since the 1950s, they have tended to move into occupations that have a high social content to them. At the same time, research has found that men are viewed as more assertive and aggressive than women, Miller said, which are traits that are viewed as important for assuming leadership positions. “And we can trace these broader gender stereotypes also back to STEM fields,” he said. People have traditionally associated scientists with these stereotypically masculine traits, seeing them as go-getters who assertively go after ideas and grants and demonstrating less drive toward benefiting society.27 Those stereotypes now appear to be reflected in the gender gaps in specific STEM fields. For example, women are more highly represented in life science fields, which are often viewed as more critical for work in human health than, for example, engineering or physics, even though all these fields are highly connected. In 2018, women earned the majority of degrees in the life sciences and social sciences but still represented a minority in some other fields, such as physics, engineering, and computer science, where their representation at the bachelor’s level was less than 20 percent.28 It’s in part a chicken-and-egg scenario where the stereotypes may be inadvertently pushing women toward or away from specific fields,29 and the subsequent representation in those fields then helps lure or sway the next generation. Indeed, in a large study of about 350,000 participants across sixty-six countries, Miller and colleagues found that countries that had a higher representation of women in science also had weaker stereotypical associations between men and science. Conversely, those

Q

24

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

with lower representation had larger gender gaps. For example, in the Netherlands, researchers found that degrees in science fields among men outnumbered women four to one, and, at the same time there, were strong stereotypes associating science with men.30 This result was surprising, Miller said, as many people view the Netherlands as a relatively gender-progressive place: “What we see in terms of looking across nations, in looking at even variation in stereotypes over time, is that stereotypes are responsive to changes in the cultural environment,” Miller said. “So, it’s not as if they are fundamentally disconnected from reality. There is some basis in terms of making observations of the roles that women and men play.”

HOW PARENTS’ GENDER ATTITUDES INFLUENCE THEIR DAUGHTERS Children are exposed to stereotypes, both implicit and explicit, from young ages. But it’s not just the gendered toy ads or what they hear at school; they are, of course, also heavily influenced by their parents at home. At the University of British Columbia, Toni Schmader studies how gender stereotypes develop at a young age. In a 2013 study titled “The Second Shift Reflected in the Second Generation: Do Parents’ Gender Roles at Home Predict Children’s Aspirations?” her team surveyed 196 elementaryschool-age boys, 167 elementary-school-age girls, and at least one parent of each and asked them about gender stereotypes, gendered behavior, and, for parents, division of household labor.

Q

25

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

The survey reflected a pattern seen in many other sociology and psychology studies: women, even those who work outside the home, do more housework than men—a pattern called “the second shift,” referring to women putting in an extra day’s work at home. In seeing this pattern, children take cues from both their mothers and fathers on gender roles. The researchers found that the influence of fathers was particularly pronounced: the more egalitarian, less stereotyped view that fathers took of gender roles, the more likely their daughters were to want to work outside the home. While this study was not specific to gender stereotypes in STEM fields, it shows an important way the communal stereotype influences children’s future careers.31 A 2022 study by Lindsey Hildebrand and colleagues found that parents’ attitudes are predictive of their daughters’ attitude toward math. Looking at math attitudes and beliefs of six- to ten-year-olds and their parents, using implicit association tasks (see “Recognizing Implicit Bias” in chapter 2, they found that parents and children had implicit associations between math and difficulty but that only the parents significantly associated math with males.32 These studies are but a handful showing the inf luence parents wield in how girls perceive their place in the world and their interests—also showing a powerful potential path forward in targeted interventions to reach children early. A wealth of other studies in developmental psychology point toward a variety of early influences, from parents and peers to personality and societal factors.33

Q

26

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

SEEING STEM REPRESENTATION IN THE REAL WORLD In much the same way that real-world STEM representation can reflect and alter reality, so too can media. Over the last several decades, representation of women in science has increased in TV, film, and magazines and online. That reflects both the increase in representation in the real world as well as an intentional effort to increase the visibility of positive role models in science. In Highlights for Children magazine, the number of female scientists has increased over time; in the 1960s, only about 13 percent of their science stories featured women, compared to 44 percent in a 2016 study.34 Shows like Doc McStuffins, which aired on the Disney Channel in 2012 and portrayed a six-yearold African American girl who plans to be a doctor like her mother, paved the way for other female-centered STEM shows.35 And in popular blockbuster movies, there has been a shift too, with films like Hidden Figures, the 2016 remake of Ghostbusters, and Black Panther featuring female scientists. In the Lyda Hill Foundation and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media study, researchers found that TV and film portrayals can help young women ages eleven to twenty-four see female scientists in a more positive light and encourage them to consider a career in science. More than 80 percent of those surveyed said that seeing female scientists on screen was important, and most respondents could give an example of a female character who had inspired them to study science.

Q

27

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

These portrayals not only give children and young women a broader view of who a scientist can be but also serve as continued inspiration for working scientists. “I definitely take note when I see a movie and there is a scientist in it who is just portrayed as normal and relatable and not sort of this mad scientist, awkward scientist stereotype,” said the social psychologist Eva Pietri, citing Black Panther. “And it always makes me really excited.” It gives scientists like Pietri hope that STEM fields are on an upward trajectory when it comes to reducing gender bias. But there is still a long way to go, she says, especially for the biases that women of color face. “When we think of a woman, we tend to think of a white woman. When we think of Black individuals, we tend to think of a man,” Pietri said. “So when we think of gender bias in STEM, we’re not thinking about individuals who have identities beyond gender, and they become sort of invisible when thinking about this issue.” Indeed, she pointed to research showing that women of color face an “invisibility bias” that can lead to their work going unnoticed and having their ideas and words misattributed to others.36 In work from her lab, Pietri has found it is important that aspiring role models match ethnicity or both gender and ethnicity to be most effective for promoting women in STEM. “We have to think about multiple identities beyond gender because not all interventions are going to fit people the same,” she said. Across the “Draw a Scientist” and media studies, one thing is clear: the more children see a diversity of people in science, the less power traditional stereotypes will hold over what children

Q

28

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

think they can or cannot do. Fixing representation such that children, especially young girls, see themselves more represented in their STEM interests can dramatically change their future course.

I AM A SCIENTIST Scientists have long complained about inaccurate portrayals of both researchers and their scientific fields in the movies— from the lone mad scientist trope to the Indiana Jones–type who seems to be able to do anything, from spycraft to statistics. In January 2019, many took to the social media platform Twitter with a new meme, “I am a scientist in a movie,” often replacing “scientist” with their specific discipline. Some examples include: Hello, I’m a scientist in a movie I know everything about theoretical physics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, history, biology, linguistics, oh yeah, also I’m a hacker.37 Hello, I’m a biologist in a movie. I do all the experiments myself, the data analysis is instantaneous, and everything works on the first try. I speak in either technobabble or aphorisms. I never write grants.38 Hello. I’m a female scientist in a movie. I look like a swimsuit model, i have a PhD from Cal Tech in the exact subject that is plaguing the world in this movie, and i will watch as a former athlete saves the world.39

Q

29

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

Hello, I’m a female engineer in a movie. Oh no, silly me, that can’t be right as there is only one example—the awesome engineer in Serenity and I am not her. Nevertheless: I am lovely, super-competent and have almost no part in the main plot.40 Hi, I’m an Indian doctor in a movie. I will give you bad news. I won’t have a back story or more than 60 seconds on screen. You won’t see me again. I will be Dr. Patel. I will have an accent.41 Hello, I’m a female chemist in a movie. At the age of 23, I’m the world expert in “chemistry” (and probably something else like particle physics as well). I will say one smart sciencey thing and then spend the rest of the movie being hopelessly in love with the male protagonist.42 Hello, I’m a woman engineer in a movie. Ha ha just kidding. We don’t exist in movies.43

While humorous, the tweets also speak to the stereotypes perpetuated in TV and film through inaccurate representation. As one person said on Twitter in response: “This thread is really funny for the first few, then soul crushing and sad as one realizes how much public perception of scientists is based [on] tropes.”44 These portrayals leave a big imprint on society, making it difficult for young women to see themselves in science roles. Just a few years before the Twitter meme, one scientist came up with a way to highlight real-world women in science.

Q

30

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

In a 2016 blog post, Nabiha Saklayen shared her story of being told time and time again “you don’t look like a physicist.”45 She wrote: I realized that people, both men and women, were having a hard time accepting the juxtaposition between my appearance and profession. To them, the words I spoke didn’t match my appearance—I’m female, like to dress well, and look young for my age. None of those attributes fit the traditional image of a physicist.

Supporting her comments, research has found that the more “feminine” a female computer scientist appears, the less likely someone is to believe she is in fact a computer scientist.46 When people commonly think of physicists, they reference Albert Einstein or characters in the TV show The Big Bang Theory. At the time of the post, Saklayen pointed out that only 16 percent of physics faculty members were women. The blog post led Saklayen to Stephanie Fine Sasse, founder and director of the educational design studio the Plenary, and they teamed up to create the “I Am a Scientist” project.47 It shares the stories of twenty-two scientists, using real-world representation to inspire and empower students to pursue careers in STEM. For example, the developmental biologist Cassandra Extavour shares her story of growing up in the Caribbean singing and dancing and spending time with family and how being good at math and science in high school led her to consider leaving her comfort zone.

Q

31

Q

FIXING REPRESENTATION

She worked her way through college in developmental genetics and is now a “trailblazing queer woman of color in STEM.”48 Extavour’s and others’ stories are part of teacher toolkits that get students in the door but then helps keep them there with hands-on activities and curriculum.

Q

32

Q

2

FIXING SIGNALS

WHAT ARE

the signals that shape how people think about who

scientists are, where they work, and what they do? Social psychologists have been working to understand how signals can affect a person’s path in STEM. In computer science, which, among the STEM fields, sees some of the lowest numbers of women participating, stereotypes especially affect how welcome and included women feel. From the way an office or classroom is decorated to the way a role model dresses to the scientists portrayed on TV, social cues help shape who chooses to pursue specific fields.

REFLECTING ON AN EYE- OPENING INTERVIEW EXPERIENCE: SAPNA CHERYAN An experience early in my career would shape my ultimate research on gender disparities in STEM. I was in graduate

FIXING SIGNALS

FIGURE 2.1

Portrait of the social psychologist Sapna Cheryan, PhD.

school when I decided to interview for jobs for a summer internship. At that time, I was at Stanford, in the middle of Silicon Valley, and there was a lot of tech booming. I thought it would be fun to see what it’d be like to work in tech. I applied for jobs as a user researcher. I got a couple interviews, and I went to the very first interview. I remember walking in the door and walking past conference rooms

Q

34

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

named after Star Trek ships. The whole environment of the company looked kind of geeky; it fit my stereotype of a startup at the time. I had a really good interview. I got the job offer. It would’ve been really interesting; I would’ve worked on cell phones in the early 2000s. But I remember leaving that interview thinking, “I just don’t think I’m going to have a good summer if I work here. I don’t think I’m going to fit in with the people who are here. It doesn’t really feel like me.” I figured that if I didn’t get any other offers, I probably would take it, but if I got any other offers, I would probably pass. Then I went to my second interview, which was at Adobe, a graphic design company. They were just beautiful offices, in big high-rises, very bright and colorful. I remember walking into the lobby and being like, “Whoa. I could really see myself working at a place like this. I think I would have a really good summer. I think I would fit in and relate to the people who are here.” At both job interviews, I only met men, so it wasn’t that I would be working with more men or fewer men at one of the companies. At Adobe, I would have been working on something that I was less interested in, I had to commute further, and they were going to pay me less money. But I took that job anyway. Actually, I took the Adobe job and then negotiated my salary up to the one offered by the other company because thankfully I knew the research on gender gaps and pay [see “The Start of the Pay Gap” in chapter 4]. After that, I realized I had made a potentially lifechanging decision about where I was going to work based

Q

35

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

on what I assumed the culture of the company would be like just based on how the companies were decorated and designed. That was the moment I was like, “Oh, this might help explain why there are some gender disparities in computer science. It might be that students have this more geeky, startup culture type of image of computer science.” The question then became: can we actually change these stereotypes, maybe by using the stuff in the company or school environment, and get more women interested in computer science? As I started investigating this question, I became more aware of the types of physical environments young scientists often encounter and the profound effect they can have on their development. These physical environments can be office spaces, classrooms, or computer labs, or portrayed in media representations like the geeky apartment in CBS’s Big Bang Theory, with its prominently displayed action figures, gaming consoles, and life-size DNA model. I am not saying that all women do not like this geeky culture or that, for example, Star Trek is bad. There are many women who got into science because they loved Star Trek, just as there are many men who do not relate to this culture. I think that’s what’s so interesting about this: usually gender bias is overtly negative, like women are being mistreated in some way, but this is a different form of bias. There is nothing inherently mistreating about Star Trek posters or video games, or a soda can sculpture, but they still signal a social environment that more women than men feel like they can’t relate to, or they don’t belong in.

Q

36

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

Back at Stanford after my interviews, the very first study that we ran was in the Gates Computer Science Department. We borrowed a small classroom there, and when you’d walk up the stairs in between the first and second floors, there was a picture on the landing. I don’t know if it’s still there, but there was this photo that said, “The Men of Modern Mathematics.” It had one hundred black-and-white photos. I’d walk by that every day of running the study thinking it was exactly what we are trying to change, these kinds of signals. It’s not the only reason that women are underrepresented, but it’s definitely playing into the perceptions that women don’t belong in this field. —Sapna Cheryan, PhD (social psychologist)

CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT Drawing from her personal experience, the social psychologist Sapna Cheryan has designed a series of experiments to understand how an environment creates stereotypes that could be detrimental to women pursuing computer science—and ultimately to use that knowledge to change the prevailing cultural stereotypes of computer scientists. Her work has shown that seemingly small signals can make big gains in making young women feel more comfortable in computer science, a maledominated STEM field (see table 2.1). In an early experiment in 2009, Cheryan’s team recreated the exact experience she had in interviewing for a summer job using a room in the Gates Computer Science Department at

Q

37

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

TABLE 2.1

In numbers: women in computer science

Year

U.S. undergraduate degrees to women in computer science (%)

1970

13.6

1984

37

2021

18

By 2026, computer science research jobs are projected to grow by 19 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet women earned only 18 percent of computer science bachelor’s degrees in the United States in 2021, making the field overwhelmingly male. Source: Abby McCain, “Women In Technology Statistics [2022]: Tech Industry Challenges For Women,” Zippia, February 22, 2022, https://www.zippia.com/advice /women-in-technology-statistics/; Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, “Computer and Information Research Scientists,” in Occupational Outlook Handbook (Washington, DC: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology /computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm.

Stanford—the same one adorned outside with “The Men of Modern Mathematics.”1 The researchers first asked Stanford undergraduate students to list some objects they associate with computer science environments. The list included items like Star Trek and Star Wars posters, soda cans, electronics, and video games. Cheryan’s team then purchased items in those categories and arranged them in the room as decoration. They hung Star Trek posters on the wall, arranged video game boxes throughout the room, and even made a pyramid stack of soda cans. They then invited men and women undergraduates into the room and told them to ignore the stuff there, that they were just sharing the

Q

38

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

rooms with others. “We didn’t want them to think it had been stuff we had placed there,” Cheryan explained in an interview for this book. “We said, ‘please have a seat at this table and fill out this questionnaire.’ ” The questionnaire included questions about how interested they would be in majoring in computer science, how much they’d previously considered majoring in computer science, and how interested they would be in learning more programming. The research team then repeated the same questionnaire with a second set of students, but this time changed the decorations in the room. “Everything else was the same, but instead of a Star Trek poster, we put up a nature poster; instead of video games, we put out general interest stuff, like magazines and books; and we put pictures of art up instead of science fictionthemed decor,” Cheryan said. Once again, the researchers told the students they were sharing the room with someone else and should ignore the stuff in the room. “What we ended up finding was that the stuff in the room actually made a difference,” Cheryan said. “The women were significantly more interested in majoring in computer science when the stuff in the room was not associated with the traditional stereotype. Men’s interest in computer science was not significantly affected by which room they were in, but in subsequent studies, we sometimes found that men were drawn to the room with the traditional stereotypes.” The results suggested that a simple environmental intervention can be effective in getting women to express more interest in computer science. Since that study, Cheryan’s team has repeated similar experiments with many variations, including

Q

39

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

less labor-intensive setups in which participants are shown images of different setups or classrooms, including for high school students. In one study, the researchers showed high school students photos of two introductory computer science classrooms.2 One contained highly stereotypical objects (e.g., Star Trek posters), and one had more generic items (e.g., nature posters). They told students that both courses covered the same material, had the same amount of homework, a male teacher, and a 50:50 gender proportion. Students rated their interest and their “sense of belonging” in both courses. As they found with the undergraduate study, girls’ interest in the course was lower than the boys’ interest in the stereotypical classroom compared to the nonstereotypical classroom, while boys’ interest did not change as a result of the stereotypes. The researchers have even created classrooms in Second Life, a 3-D online environment where participants create avatars and walk through these classrooms.3 And across those experiments, they get very similar results: In the classrooms that don’t resemble the current stereotype, women are significantly more interested in majoring in computer science or taking an introductory computer science class than when the classrooms do resemble that stereotype.

HISTORY IN BRIEF: EARLY WOMEN COMPUTER SCIENTISTS Despite their underrepresentation in the field now, women throughout history have pioneered computer science, even

Q

40

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

before computers were a reality. They often served as human calculators in astronomy and related fields and also pioneered new techniques in mathematics and engineering. In fact, women accounted for around 30 to 50 percent of computer programmers during the 1960s, though few held leadership positions, and they were paid significantly less than men in similar roles.4 The magazine Cosmopolitan even published an article called “The Computer Girls” in 1967 about the promising future of women in programming. Now women account for only about 20 percent of computer

FIGURE  2.2

Early pioneering computer scientist Katherine

Johnson. Source: NASA Langley Research Center. “Katherine Johnson at Work, 1962 [Image].” NASA, August 6, 2017. http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature / katherine-johnson-at-work-1962. Courtesy of the NASA Langley Research Center.

Q

41

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

scientists. 5 Here are some notable computer scientists in history.

Nicole-Reine Etable de la Brière Lepaute (1723–1788) Astronomer and mathematician, known for working with a team of “human” computers to accurately predict the return of Halley’s Comet.6

Ada Lovelace (1815–1852) World’s first programmer, published an algorithm for the Analytical Engine, the first general computer invented by Charles Babbage.7

Maria Mitchell (1818–1889) First astronomy professor at Vassar College, computed the motions of the planet Venus.8

Anna Winlock (1857–1904) One of the first members of a female computer group called the “Harvard Computers,” created a complete catalog of the stars at the North and South Poles.9

Alice Lee (1858–1939) A mathematician and one of the first women to graduate from London University. She worked as a human computer in biology, including on research that debunked the myth that the link between cranial capacity and gender meant men had greater intelligence than women.10

Q

42

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

Edith Clarke (1883–1959) The first woman to work professionally in electrical engineering, creating and patenting a graphing calculator to solve equations using electrical current in power lines.11 Grace Hopper (1906–1992) Admiral in the U.S. Navy and one of the first programmers for the Harvard Mark I computer used in World War II.12 Mary Kenneth Keller (1913–1985) First American woman to earn a doctorate in computer science. She helped develop BASIC while a graduate student at Dartmouth, which previously had allowed only men to use its computer science center.13 Katherine Johnson (1918– 2020) One of the first African American women to work as a NASA scientist. She was part of a team of women who mastered complex calculations for the early space program and an early pioneer in using computers.14 Mildred “Milly” Koss (1928– 2012) The first programmer to attempt computer-based word processing, working with Grace Hopper to develop algorithms for graphic storage and retrieval.15 Margaret Hamilton (1936–) Programmed the onboard f light software for the Apollo mission computers and credited by NASA with coining the phrase “software engineering.”16

Q

43

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

RECOGNIZING IMPLICIT BIAS In 1995, Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji published a seminal paper in Psychological Review on a phenomenon they would call “implicit social cognition.”17 More widely called “implicit bias” now, they described the signature of implicit social cognition as occurring when “traces of past experience affect some performance, even though the influential earlier experience is not remembered in the usual sense.” This is distinct from “explicit” bias, the conscious attitudes and beliefs we have about a person or group. The same year, Banaji and Greenwald would publish another paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology looking specifically at the effects of implicit bias on judgments of fame.18 Calling to mind the Matthew and Matilda effects described in chapter 6 (“A Reinforcing Cycle of Misplaced Credit”), their work found that people used lower criteria for judging the fame of familiar male names compared to female names. They also found that the implicit gender bias in the fame judgments were not correlated with explicit expressions of sexism—meaning people were drawing upon stereotypes without consciously realizing it. Over time, researchers would use the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to get a snapshot of the unconscious mind and these implicit biases.19 The test relies on a simple idea: if two things have something in common, people will be more easily able to put them together. In an IAT, people might see ordinary names of men and women to classify as male or female with a click of a

Q

44

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

button on the left or right. But then they will also see words like “math and physics” or “poetry and drama,” to classify specific fields in sciences and arts using the same buttons. Like the famous Stroop test, which tests reaction time between incongruent and congruent information by asking someone to say the color of the word and not what the word says (for example, saying “red” when the word “blue” appears in a red font), the IAT compares speed and error rates with the pairing of concepts either being congruent or incongruent with stereotypes, whether based on gender, race, or other factors.20 As Banaji discussed in an article for the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, the IAT has revealed implicit biases in millions of individuals worldwide, including Banaji. She told the publication: “Discovering my own [race] bias was a transformative moment for me. I had assumed that my egalitarianism would hold up in all parts of my mind.”21 In 1998, the IAT became the first ever behavioral science experiment to be put online.22 While there are other measures of implicit bias, and the IAT has not avoided controversy in terms of its stability and predictive power across some contexts, 23 it is still a powerful tool to indirectly measure attitudes for many psychologists.24 Over the past two decades, data has shown a change in implicit gender bias, with a drop in association between men and science25 and a general trend toward neutrality for both explicit and implicit gender bias in society.26 Also, since then, a wealth of data has supported training interventions to make

Q

45

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

people more aware of their implicit biases (see “Intervening for Change” in chapter  4, “Case Study: Bias Training in Action” in chapter 5, and “Shifting Bias and Representation” in chapter 9). Seeing the ability of the science of memory to identify, understand, and change implicit bias is a hopeful sign for the future.

BROADENING THE VIEW “The reality is that the field is not that stereotypical,” Cheryan said. “Not everybody plays World of Warcraft. Computer science is a very diverse field. There are lots of people in it who do not fit a particular stereotype, but students don’t seem to know that.” So where does the stereotype that we see represented in these physical environments come from? Part of the answer may lie in long-held beliefs about brilliance and innate talent, which some studies, such as those by Andrei Cimpian, have linked to reduced participation of women in certain disciplines, such as physics and math. 27 Additionally, Cheryan said part of the answer lies in the media, especially in how computer scientists are portrayed in film and TV. She pointed to popular TV shows about computer scientists and engineers, such as The Big Bang Theory. “The whole point is to play up these very geeky stereotypes,” she said, with the male characters portraying engineers and the women scientists portraying biologists. “They’re basically reinforcing the same

Q

46

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

pattern we see where proportionally more women are in biology than in computer sciences and engineering.” The masculine view of computer science is similarly portrayed in the show Silicon Valley. “If you put the casts of Silicon Valley and The Big Bang Theory side-by-side, they actually look like the same casts, with three or four white guys and then one South Asian guy. They are wearing their hoodies and having problems dating, so it’s all the same male-oriented stereotypes about computer scientists,” Cheryan said. Research by Cheryan and others has shown that the more women see the field as masculine, the less interest they express in computer science. “The message of my work is really that we need to broaden these stereotypes, not replace them with new stereotypes. We need to make the image of computer science broader so that people don’t feel like they have to fit a very specific, narrow image to be in computer science,” she said. Cheryan and her team looked at ways to change the way students perceive computer scientists. They devised an experiment to expose students to different computer science peer role models.28 The researchers asked a group of undergraduates to list qualities they associate with computer scientists, such as: What movies would they like? What hobbies would they like? What books would they read? What clothing would they wear? They then asked for the same list for average college students. From those lists, the researchers generated features of people that either computer scientists or just average college students would like. And once again, they went out and purchased

Q

47

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

items to fit those lists, for example, articles like glasses, socks with sandals, and T-shirts with computer themes for the computer scientist, as well as articles like T-shirts, jeans, and flipflops for the average college student. Male and female undergraduate students in Cheryan’s lab became actors, dressed up as either the stereotypical computer scientist or the typical college student. Study participants would then have two-minute interactions with the actors, using scripted questions. The questions would start with: What is your name? Where are you from? What are you majoring in? An actor would then say computer science. And the participants would then ask questions such as: What are your hobbies? What movies do you like to watch? The actors in the stereotypical condition would list titles like Star Wars and Mystery Science Theater 3000. “They would basically embody the stereotype,” Cheryan said. “It was a complete caricature, based on stereotypes that undergraduates told us of what they thought computer scientists are like.” Despite that, however, the study participants did not think these were actors or fake; they thought they were real computer science students. When the actors were playing an average college student, they would still say they were a computer science major. But instead of saying stuff like Star Trek, they would say a television show like The Office and mention other items that students had previously listed as not being specifically associated with being a computer scientist. After the short two-minute interaction, the participants would all fill out a questionnaire about their interaction partners

Q

48

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

and their major. They would also answer questions like: How interested would you be in majoring in that field? Those women who interacted with a stereotypical computer science peer expressed less interest in majoring in computer science than those who interacted with a student who was still a computer science major but who dressed like and expressed the interests of an average college student. “What that signaled to us was that you can use peer role models as a way to get women interested in this field,” Cheryan said. This type of intervention is particularly powerful with social media and new media right now, as a variety of role models are working to attract a diversity of talent to the field. The more someone feels connected to someone in the field, the more similar that person feels to them, the more likely they are to feel a sense of connection to the field. And this process starts early. A 2021 study by Allison Master and colleagues (including Cheryan) found that children as young as six years old, and across racial and ethnic backgrounds and gender, endorse stereotypes that girls are less interested in computer science and engineering than boys. 29 Importantly, the more individual girls endorse this view, the less likely is their own interest and sense of belonging in those fields. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors wrote: “We suggest that interest stereotypes involving gender may predict and cause girls’ lower participation in computer science and engineering classes and activities.” Another approach to help with recruiting and belonging in science and math is a shift in thinking about the goals of research. Many studies have found that framing science as more

Q

49

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

of a communal undertaking can increase interest in science across genders, and in particular for women.30 In a study by the psychologist Elizabeth Brown and colleagues, for example, the researchers found that the feeling of helping others was an especially important predictor of student motivation in biomedicine.31 Like changing the environment, changing the motivation and goals that frame a research endeavor can be powerful signals of belonging in STEM fields. It’s important to recognize that gender stereotypes in science have arisen from multiple sources and psychological phenomena over time and therefore can be approached in many different ways, more numerous than what is presented here. And changing stereotypes is a cyclical process that can take time, as a more diverse science workforce is needed to serve as peer role models to attract new interest. In recent years, evidence of change has surfaced, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic (see more in chapter 7): Cheryan and Hazel Rose Marcus penned a story outlining how the pandemic changed the workplace, providing an opportunity to further root out masculine defaults.32 Presenting environments and people differently—within the media and in classrooms and workplaces—can help reframe gender norms. Importantly, the research can only look at patterns across groups, and so individuals of all genders will have varying interests and entry points into specific fields. Depicting broad and varied views of scientists will attract a broader set of individuals into fields like computer science.

Q

50

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

PUTTING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE: INCREASING INTEREST IN COMPUTER SCIENCE Women have made great gains in pursuing undergraduate degrees in STEM fields, with women now receiving about half of all science and engineering bachelor’s degrees. Yet in some fields the gains have been much slimmer. In computer science, engineering, and physics, women still earn less than 25 percent of undergraduate degrees.33 Research points to the critical role early life experiences play in shaping women’s interests in computer science and to interventions that can change the culture within these fields.34 In a 2017 study published in the journal Psychological Bulletin, Sapna Cheryan and colleagues identified three overarching factors to explain the gender gap in computer science, engineering, and physics relative to that in biology, chemistry, and mathematics. 35 The first is the masculine signals that make women feel less welcome than men. These include stereotypes that stem from pop culture and media portrayals. The second factor was a lack of early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics. Studies have shown that early exposure to programming, as early as first grade, can make a big difference. 36 Having positive early experiences programming a robot, for example, instills young girls with greater interest in pursuing computer science. Relatedly, experiences that foster confidence in programming abilities can help close the gender gap in computer science. Such self-efficacy comes both from positive

Q

51

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

experiences and from changing stereotypes about gender differences in capabilities. Such studies point the way toward interventions that promote gender equity across STEM fields. And some institutions have put these ideas to work directly to increase diversity in their computer science departments. In 2005, the computer science department at Harvey Mudd College began implementing new practices to attract and retain women in computer science. In 2005, only 10 percent of computer science degrees went to women. In about ten years, they boosted those numbers to 50 percent. A big part of the change came from examining what they valued in their students from the start. They determined that faculty believed that the most successful students were those who came in with prior programming experience. “That is something that I call a masculine default because the evidence shows that girls in the United States are less likely to get programming experience in high school than boys,” Cheryan said.37 “So by valuing people who came in with prior programming experience, they’re valuing more boys or men than women.” After recognizing this bias, Harvey Mudd sought to change its policies across the school, including splitting its intro computer science class into multiple sections based on prior programming experience. Students could self-select whether to join the sections for those with prior programming experience or the class for those without. The school did not value the different groups differently and designed the program such that both groups ended up in the same

Q

52

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

place. They would add extra guest lectures, for example, to the class with prior experience, while the group with no experience received extra programming hours. Many students who ended up succeeding came in with no prior programming experience, and over time that changed how faculty and others valued certain qualities in their students. Other changes at Harvey Mudd included offering summer research opportunities to first-year computer science students and giving each female first-year student, independent of their planned major, the opportunity to attend the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference. In a 2013 report, Harvey Mudd’s president Maria Klawe wrote: “The Hopper conference has proven to be a powerful confidence booster, encouraging females to take more CS classes and attracting more women to the CS major.” 38 The conference also undoubtedly helps students meet potential role models. Since implementing these changes, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded several grants to Harvey Mudd to share its successful practices with other institutions. Bucknell University and Northwestern University quickly replicated Harvey Mudd’s introductory computer science course. The course has also been adapted for the University of California–Riverside, Claremont Graduate University, and others; precollege versions for elementary, middle, and high schools have also been developed. At other institutions such as the University of British Columbia, increases in female participation in computer science have come from encouraging students who did well in

Q

53

Q

FIXING SIGNALS

a computer literacy course, of which about 60 percent of the students were female, to go on to take the regular introductory CS course. Similarly, introductory biology class instructors encouraged their students to take computer science courses because of computing’s increasing role in biology.39 The experiences at Harvey Mudd and other institutions show how systemically changing an institutional culture can pay dividends in building a talented and diverse pool of talent in computer science.

Q

54

Q

3

FIXING MENTORSHIP

WHAT ROLE

does mentorship play in scientists’ careers, and how

can the system improve to better support women in science? Historically, a lack of women in science has also meant a lack of female mentors to help guide and support the careers of future female scientists. Though more women have entered STEM fields in the twenty-first century, challenges remain, especially for women of color, for whom there are still few mentorship opportunities with same-race peers. Across STEM fields, researchers are rethinking traditional mentorship models and how to boost mentorship for women and people of color in science. These new approaches include moving away from relying on a single mentor and instead having a network of mentors, as well as giving scientists more tools to learn how to train others to be mentors.

FIXING MENTORSHIP

FIGURE  3.1 Portrait of the geneticist and bioethicist Krystal Tsosie, PhD candidate (2022).

PUSHING BACK AGAINST A CULTURE OF EXTRACTION: KRYSTAL TSOSIE I am a first-generation college student and a citizen of the Navajo Nation. My dad was part of the boarding school era,

Q

56

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

which was a very traumatic timeline frame for Indigenous children in the United States. They were forcibly removed from their home communities and displaced into nonIndigenous educational institutions that were meant to assimilate Native American children into the dominant culture and remove their cultural identity. So, my dad, at a very young age, was removed from his home community to a boarding school in Phoenix, and he was not allowed to speak Navajo; if someone spoke Navajo, they would put a bar of soap in his mouth. Once he graduated, my dad did very well in school, but there weren’t that many venues for higher education for Native Americans. It usually involved a term of service in the military, but my dad unfortunately had tuberculosis, and he wasn’t able to enlist. This was a real setback because the only means by which he could go to college was through military service. It’s no secret that a lot of resources were extracted from Indigenous lands, and Indigenous peoples were placed on reservations that were relatively resource poor, with few jobs available. Individuals often sought employment  in larger urban city centers. For my parents, when it came time for starting their family, that meant them moving our family from the Navajo Nation to Phoenix, Arizona. I am the youngest in my family, and there were sometimes six people living in our two-bedroom apartment in West Phoenix, which was a racially diverse, economically disadvantaged area. Although as a kid, I did not know we were disadvantaged; I had a very happy childhood.

Q

57

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

I attended an urban school, and most of the time, I was the only Native American kid in my classes, starting from kindergarten. I was fortunate that, even though I was a shy child, I had teachers who recognized the potential of my mathematical and scientific curiosity, and I was placed into gifted and honors classes very early on, from the fourth grade. I ended up attending the International Baccalaureate (IB) program at a wonderful local high school in Phoenix, and I was again very fortunate to have the support of my teachers. But it also became very apparent that I had a Native American label. I wasn’t the only Native American at the school, but I was definitely the only one in my IB program. I remember one time attending a Native American club there, and the other kids looked at me and asked, “Where are you from?” I said “Phoenix.” And they said, “No, where are you really from?” wanting to know what part of the reservation I was from, and I knew that “Phoenix” would not be a satisfactory answer. I was called an “apple”: red on the outside, white on the inside. These dynamics were something I was not used to. My parents had this very white-centered educational upbringing. Like many immigrant families, they believed that, in order for their children to succeed, they need to be monolingual with the dominant language. So they did not teach me or my siblings to speak Navajo. I had to learn the language as an adult, which is a huge detriment, especially when you consider the importance of language preservation now.

Q

58

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

That’s something that I’m trying to do better for my own children, to teach them from the beginning. In high school, I worked hard to be a competitive applicant for college because I knew that I needed scholarships to afford it. I graduated in the top 1 percent of my class, and I received full-ride scholarships to a number of institutions. I remember when all of our peers were comparing their college decisions and I announced I got a full-ride scholarship, a peer said, “Oh, it’s because you’re a Native American.” And I thought, “Wow, these are the kids who were stealing my homework to copy off of, and now he’s here, reducing my academic accomplishments to that of my skin color.” When you’re Native American, particularly Navajo, and you are a first-generation college student, your options for professions are perceived as being limited to one of four things: a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or teacher. These are the things that are considered academically rigorous; set you up for a good economic, sustainable future; and they are all important for building the community. A scientist is not one of those professions. In fact, due to the history of settlers studying Native Americans, researchers and scientists don’t really have a great reputation among Native Americans in general. And at the time I was deciding on a career path, there really weren’t many venues in which a Native American trained scientist could contribute back to the community. It’s unsurprising then that my initial pursuit was to become a doctor. This was also informed by my older sister’s

Q

59

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

experience. Her passion was nursing, and she is someone I idolized, so I wanted to pursue healthcare as well. As an undergraduate, I majored in biological sciences, microbiology, in particular, and I pursued research opportunities. My first research experience was with the NIH, and I was also fortunate to have a great research experience with the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, tied with a partner project at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute. Because I knew that medical school costs a lot of money, I was dead set on an MD/PhD route, so that I could have financial assistance while also pursuing research and medicine. I hated my first PhD program, in part because I felt singled out because of my Native status and in part because the medical practitioners there seemed disconnected and disenfranchised with the urban location of the institution and the community they were supposed to be serving. I also just had this heart-wrenching realization that, as one of the few Native Americans pursuing a PhD in biomedicine, specifically in cancer biology, that my research or innovations would likely not benefit my own people. Indigenous people struggle to get even basic prescription medications, so it’s unlikely for them to access to next experimental drug or the next advanced therapeutic. On top of all that, I lacked adequate mentorship. My first PhD program was a revolving door of earlier-stage investigators. I remember interviewing to rotate with an oncology researcher whose work I really respected, and I was instead greeted by someone in their lab. They explained I would work with a postdoc and not even get to see the principal

Q

60

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

investigator, and that would be the extent of my mentorship. My presence in the lab would essentially be extractive; rather than cultivate my career as an independent researcher, I was to be an automaton fulfilling the research desires of someone else, like a hazing ritual to an empty degree. That’s not what I wanted. I wanted a mentor who understood my motivations in being away from my home community for so many years. I wanted a mentor who understood that I wanted to pursue research questions that were going to be useful in some capacity toward Native Americans. I ended up leaving that PhD program after a year. —Krystal Tsosie, PhD candidate (geneticist and bioethicist)

BUILDING SUCCESS FROM MENTORS After leaving her PhD program, Krystal Tsosie would get a master’s degree in bioethics and then select a new PhD program that combined public health and epidemiology with genetics, a route she saw to working on topics that could benefit her Indigenous community back home. Through a decade of work toward her PhD, she has struggled to find mentors who have fully supported her goals. In early 2022 in an interview for this book, she said: “I have been a PhD student for a really long time. But it only has been within the last couple years that we’ve begun to understand that if we are going to train scholars of color, we must not simply

Q

61

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

train scholars who happen to be Black or brown or Indigenous lest we continue the same cycle of extractive research. Rather, we should be thinking more about how these scholars are going to advance science for their communities.” For her second PhD program, she was able to design an advisory committee of mentors who “really understood the struggle that I was having with my previous degree program.” These mentors included a Native American faculty member, as well as someone who worked with a tribal nation in the Southeast, among others. She also has met other mentors through a Summer internship for INdigenous peoples in Genomics (SING) workshop, which she attended and now helps facilitate. “I really had to look outside of my own long path to find good mentorship,” she said. Tsosie’s experience with mentorship is not a unique one for women in science or for Indigenous scientists. For Indigenous scientists, finding the right mentor can be particularly important in connecting their work to communal goals. Interviews conducted by the psychologist Jessi Smith and colleagues as part of a study on Native American student experience in STEM showed that Indigenous students are driven not just by a general drive to “help others” but a more specific commitment to help their tribal communities, and student support groups and mentorship can make a difference.1 Across conversations with scientists at all stages of their careers, the role of mentors consistently rises to the top. These mentors can be advisors, principal investigators, or role models, but mentors have an added distinction. A mentor’s relationship is beyond that of a teacher or role model; a mentor also

Q

62

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

provides direct professional and psychological support and growth.2 While mentors are important in every career, their role in science, and especially academic science, is particularly crucial, as it almost produces a “genealogy” between scientists and those who trained them. Trainees become almost singularly dependent on faculty for funding support, creating a hierarchical system that can make or break a career. In a 2020 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yinfang Ma and colleagues argue that mentorship is a scientist’s “most significant collaborative relationship.”3 They set out to describe the real effects of mentors on the success of their mentees. The positive effects include everything from publication success to membership into scientific societies to winning awards. Looking at “genealogical data” of 37,157 mentors and their protégés, who collectively have published more than 1 million papers in biomedicine, chemistry, math, and physics between 1960 and 2017, the researchers found that the more successful the mentor, the more successful their mentee. They estimate that protégés of “future prizewinning mentors” are 2.1 times more likely to become prizewinners and 1.4 times more likely to be elected to the National Academy of Science than protégés of matched non-prize-winning mentors. Strikingly, mentees who break off to follow their own research topics and who coauthor less frequently with their mentors succeed more than those who follow the same path as their mentors. If the success of a scientist depends in large part on her mentor, the question then becomes: How can scientists most

Q

63

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

effectively mentor one another, and what type of mentorship works best for women and historically underrepresented minorities in STEM?

GAINING POWER THROUGH MENTOR NETWORKS In the mid-1990s, Susan Lozier at Duke University created a group to mentor women in physical oceanography. MPOWIR—Mentoring Physical Oceanography Women to Increase Retention—works to provide mentoring opportunities for junior physical oceanographers beyond their individual home institutions. It has funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and others and includes the Pattullo Conference, an annual event to bring together early career and senior scientists. It is named after June Pattullo, the first woman to receive a PhD in physical oceanography. MPOWIR is just one of many professional groups designed to help provide more mentorship to women in STEM outside of formal advisor or other employment arrangements. Other groups include the Society of Women Engineers, 500 Women Scientists, ADVANCE, and Million Women Mentors, as well as programs like the National Girls Collaborative Project and Black Girls Who Code for younger women, among many others. Such groups can help foster the growth of a network of mentors for individual scientists, while providing broader resources and opportunities for women in STEM.

Q

64

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF IDENTITY Many women in science often cite a lack of female mentors as a barrier to their success. By acting as mentors, women in science can serve not only as guides but also as role models, creating a more welcoming environment and showing what is possible both for more junior scientists as well as peers (see related work in chapter 1). While the research on who can serve as the most effective role model presents mixed evidence, with some types of mentorship parings more effective for some outcomes than others, the body of work points toward the importance of mentors in shaping individual careers. One study on female mentorship in science found that assigning female engineering majors to female peer mentors led participants to feel “more belonging, motivation, and confidence in engineering, better retention in engineering majors, and greater engineering career aspirations” than did those who had a male mentor.4 In this field experiment with 150 undergraduate engineering majors, participants were randomly assigned a female or male peer mentor. The researchers, Tara C. Dennehy and Nilanjana Dasgupta, assessed the experience of the mentee for a year of the mentorship and for one year afterward. They found that the benefits of female-female peer mentoring, in creating more engagement for the mentees, endured after the intervention. A follow-up to this study in 2022 looked at the same participants’ experiences for each year in college through college graduation and one year after graduation, finding that “having a female peer mentor was associated with a significant improvement in participants’ psychological experiences in engineering,

Q

65

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

aspirations to pursue postgraduate engineering degrees, and emotional well-being.”5 In a 2011 study, Stacy Blake-Beard and colleagues found that having a mentor match a trainee’s gender and race was important to many students, especially women and people of color.6 The researchers collected data from some one thousand undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students actively participating in MentorNet’s online community. They saw no effect on grades from same-race or same-gender mentors in STEM fields, but those with matching gender or race reported receiving more help. In a 2020 study, Kaitlyn Atkins and colleagues looked at mentorship relationships within a scholarship program designed to increase the number of underrepresented minorities who go on to pursue PhDs.7 They found that students valued mentors with whom they shared identities, either in terms of shared demographics or shared values, as well as those who challenged them in their academic and research endeavors. Looking at the advisor-graduate student relationship, a 2018 study found that having an advisor of the same gender was correlated with the productivity of PhD students and their likelihood to stay in academic science.8 Across nearly twenty thousand PhD graduates and their advisors in U.S. chemistry departments, the study found that female students working with female advisors were “considerably more likely to become faculty themselves.” The researchers, Patrick Gaule and Mario Piacentini, concluded that the underrepresentation of women in science may be a self-perpetuating cycle caused in part by a lower availability of same-gender advisors.

Q

66

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

This topic came into the news in 2021 after the retraction of a paper in Nature that suggested that women in science would benefit more from male mentors than female ones.9 The study looked at publication impact based on citations for 3 million mentor-protégé pairs in STEM. The paper was met with a swift backlash, including new research posted quickly online in advance of publication.10 The paper received criticism for its methodologies, including use of computer algorithms to infer gender, as well as for the researchers equating coauthorship with mentorship. Others criticized the study for making a policy recommendation without challenging the systematic biases that led to this problem.11 Much remains to be explored in terms of optimal mentorship pairings, but it is clear that a sustainable mentorship structure that supports women in science is necessary. The question then becomes how to create such a structure to include women without overburdening the few women in science who act as mentors.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: MARINA SUAREZ ON REPRESENTATION IN MENTORSHIP At an exhibit on display at the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, New York, in 2021, the paleoclimatologist Marina Suarez ref lected on the importance of mentorship in her career:12 I would not have been able to get to my position without lots of great mentors. My PhD advisors Dr.  Luis

Q

67

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

Gonzalez and Dr. Greg Ludvigson helped me to overcome my fear of chemistry and complete my PhD. Having a Latino PhD advisor was the first time I recognized that having a person that was also Latino made a difference in our mentorship. Dr.  Gonzalez understood the kinds of challenges minority scientists face. Lastly, I can also say my peer mentors have helped—fellow students when I was a student and fellow faculty members. Especially my twin sister, who is also a geologist.

A MENTORSHIP SYSTEM RIPE FOR DISRUPTION Recent work looking at mentorship in STEM has converged on a few new ideas to improve the system. One highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report “Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine” is the idea of mentoring networks. The report explains: Simplistic, dyadic mentoring arrangements not only place undue expectations that a single relationship can support and enhance a range of research skills developments and anticipated career development outcomes, but also risk concentrating power over those outcomes in a single individual. As an alternative to the traditional single-mentoring model, mentoring networks or committee-based advising allows for a diversity of potential pathways for advice, sponsorship, support, and informal reporting of harassment.13

Q

68

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

Some have likened this concept to having a board, or constellation, of mentors, which both reduces reliance on a single relationship and also gives a trainee a more diverse pool of knowledge and backgrounds from which to draw. The NAS report also suggests similarly pooling funding sources, so that a trainee does not rely on only one person to financially support their research. “I don’t think any one person should be in control of your entire academic future,” said the cognitive neuroscientist Kristina Rapuano in an interview for this book (see “Getting to the Other Side of Sexual Assault” in chapter 8). “It creates an environment that’s really ripe for manipulative tactics, and anything that’s an interpersonal hurdle becomes magnified in that kind of environment.” Having a more diverse set of mentors can help act as a buffer, she says. In a 2020 study in Communications Earth and Environment, Paul R. Hernandez and colleagues identified exposure to geoscience careers via female role models, as well as introduction to a local female geoscientist mentor, as two key factors in successful mentorship programs for women in the geosciences.14 They also found: “Multiple mentors support motivation, resilience, and ultimately persistence.” Hernandez’s team randomly assigned 158 undergraduate female geoscience majors to one of three professional workshops: one that exposed them to a female career role model with no postworkshop interactions, one that also added training on how to grow their mentorship and overcome obstacles, and one that in addition to the other two components also included an introduction to a local female geoscientist. Based on pre- and

Q

69

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

postworkshop surveys and analysis, they found that the combination of the three activities in the third group was most effective in increasing “mentoring, motivation, and persistence” among the participants. The authors suggest that their findings could help inform future mentorship programming structures, showing that even a brief postworkshop follow-up email to a potential mentor makes a big difference in helping undergraduate women grow their mentorship networks. They also noted some limitations and future directions for the work: Despite inclusive recruitment efforts and holding half of the workshops at a minority serving institution, most of the undergraduate women who participated in our study were White and cisgender women, thereby preventing us from specifically testing whether this program can benefit women with other intersecting minority identities. Thus, the next step is to test whether this approach can ensure that everyone feels they belong in the geosciences.15

Traditionally, mentors have learned how to be effective by trial and error and through their own experiences as a mentee. Given its critical importance in the success of scientists, especially those underrepresented, mentorship itself also requires research-based practices. A growing body of work is pointing toward new ways to train mentors to be more effective and supportive for all students, including those from historically excluded groups.

Q

70

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

In a 2015 study, Christine Pfund and colleagues tested the efficacy of a research mentor training program in a series of workshops.16 The 195 participants reported high gains in confidence through the training, and 44 percent of them then took the same mentor training program back to their institutions, reaching more than five hundred mentors and even more mentees. Building confidence and competencies among mentors is only one part; mentors need to be effective in building confidence among their trainees. In a 2019 study, Elizabeth  A. Canning and colleagues found that professors who take a “fixed” mindset, believing their students to have abilities that cannot grow, have larger racial achievement gaps.17 Looking at 150 STEM professors and some 15,000 students, the researchers found that students were demotivated and had more negative experiences with faculty who had fixed versus growth mindsets. And in an analysis of six studies in 2018 by Aneeta Rattan and colleagues, students who perceived their professors as believing they had a high scientific aptitude reported a stronger sense of belonging in STEM than those who believed their faculty to have fixed mindsets.18 These findings were particularly powerful for women and minority students. In one of the studies, the researchers recruited 185 undergraduate students, 50 percent Black and 50 percent white, at a public state university in the U.S. Midwest that reported more than 30 percent historically underrepresented minorities in its undergraduate population in the year the research was conducted yet

Q

71

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

had low minority representation in introductory STEM courses. The students read an introduction from a professor in one of two randomly assigned conditions: one that included the line “I know that each and every one of you has the potential to perform at the highest level in this course” and one in which the professors said, “I know that only some of you have the potential to perform at the highest level in this course.”19 Writing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the authors said: “When a hypothetical professor conveyed the belief that not everyone possesses scientific aptitude, there was a majority-minority racial gap in students’ attraction to a STEM course, which mirrors the broader patterns of enrollment in STEM education nationally. . . . However, exposing students to the idea that their professor believes that everyone in the class possesses scientific aptitude eliminated the racial gap in attraction to a STEM course.” 20 In a 2021 interview for this book, Rattan said that after hearing about the results from this 2018 paper, many people express uncertainty, wondering about whether communicating a mindset of widespread potential is realistic. “And what I have been really floored by,” she said, “is that when I have presented that work in private industry—saying that for an incoming cohort of hires, you should communicate to all of them that they were hired and given the position they’ve been given because you see them as having high potential—I have received almost no pushback from private industry.” In another set of research, scientists have found that faculty mentors can be most helpful in STEM when they emphasize their communal goals—to help others—and show how this is

Q

72

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

accomplished through their research. Amanda Diekman and her colleagues found that study participants preferred hypothetical STEM advisors who enacted communal workplace behaviors.21 And in follow-up work, researchers found that when students believe their instructors have a growth mindset, compared to a fixed mindset, they were also more likely to believe STEM environments afforded communal goals, focused on helping others.22 This work highlights how mentors can help change stereotypical views of scientists while providing critical support. As more researchers investigate the factors that influence effective mentoring, the resulting data can inform a new generation of mentors, prepared to nurture and support the next generation of women scientists. For the geneticist Tsosie, her own experiences as a mentee have shaped how she wants to approach mentorship with students in the future. “I now understand that students have their own motives for pursuing research as an academic endeavor,” she said. “They have their own intrinsic drivers that motivate them to pursue a degree in research. As mentors, we have to be aware of what those drivers are, to cultivate them to contribute their research to society and their communities.”

GIVING WISE FEEDBACK In 1999, Geoffrey Cohen and colleagues described a “mentor’s dilemma”: the desire to provide candid and constructive feedback to mentees while not wanting to undermine their self-confidence and motivation to succeed.23 This is a push

Q

73

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

and pull felt not only within academic mentorship but also in reviews for job performance and stretching across disciplines and industries. It is particularly salient for women and underrepresented minorities in STEM who face a stereotype threat when doing tasks that are associated with stereotypes that they are less able to succeed in those tasks (see “A Rotating View of Gender Stereotypes” in chapter 1). Through two studies, Cohen and his team identified a  type of “wise” feedback that can help to overcome this dilemma. They compared Black and white students’ responses to critical feedback in one of three randomly assigned conditions: one in which the feedback was completely “unbuffered,” one that was “wise,” and one that was “positively buffered.” In the “wise” condition, the students received the same criticism as in the unbuffered but with an “explicit invocation of high standards” and an assurance of the student’s capacity to reach those standards. The “positive buffer,” by contrast, included praise of their performance balanced against the same critical feedback as in the other two conditions. In a second study, they had a condition that included the invocation of standards but without personal assurance.24 The researchers found that Black students responded less favorably to the unbuffered criticism than white students and that those Black students who received the “wise” feedback responded as positively as white students— eliminating any racial gap in motivation. The authors argued that the explicit invocation of high standards, accompanied by the assurance of the student’s personal capacity to reach those standards, was analogous to the strategy used by mentors, teachers, and

Q

74

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

academic intervention programs that “provide critical feedback while successfully addressing the concerns of minority students.”25 Researchers have since replicated this study with seventh graders, finding similar results with “wise feedback” for minority adolescents’ responses to critical feedback 26 and for ninth graders at risk of dropping out of high school,27 among other studies. Several institutions and programs now use this research to support more effective feedback in mentorship relationships both within and beyond STEM fields.28

PORTRAIT OF A MENTOR: JANET ANTWI ON PAYING IT FORWARD In early 2021, Janet Antwi was the only Black female science professor at her school, Ohio Dominican. Antwi taught organic chemistry and trained undergraduate students in her lab, which studied Leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease that kills thousands of people every year in developing regions across Africa, Asia, and South America. For Antwi, mentorship is “huge,” she said in an interview for this book. “I have actually gained a lot of mentees—not just students who learn the content of chemistry—but who keep in touch after graduation and with whom I build strong relationships.” These relationships, she said, include her writing reference letters for them, them sharing when they get into graduate programs, and her guiding them through career decisions. “It’s the best part of my job to share their

Q

75

Q

FIGURE 3.2

Portrait of the chemist Janet Antwi, PhD.

FIXING MENTORSHIP

successes,” she said, pointing to times her students share screenshots with her of their acceptance letters. Antwi moved from Ghana to the Bronx in New York City as a teenager. She attended a four-year math and science high school, where she received mentorship from teachers and discovered her love of chemistry. “That was it for me,” she said in a 2021 profile.29 “I loved the labs; it was exciting to see chemicals mixing, forming color changes, all so fascinating to me.” She said that she has been fortunate to find support throughout her career and is now working to pay it forward. At Ohio Dominican University, Antwi was teaching chemistry courses to about one hundred students every year. With a total student population of about 1,600 students, Ohio Dominican is a small teaching school. Women account for just over half the student population; white students account for about 55 percent; Black students 24 percent; and multiethnic, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islanders, and others round out the rest of the student population.30 Antwi has seen at first hand increasing efforts to recruit more people of color into STEM fields, but she says that once there, they need adequate support to stay there. She said that efforts to recruit and support underrepresented students must be intentional, providing both the opportunities and resources to succeed. After moving in late 2021 to a senior lecturer role at the Ohio State University, where she began as the only Black

Q

77

Q

FIXING MENTORSHIP

full-time faculty member in her division of twenty-two, Antwi continues to focus on mentorship alongside her research. “I enjoy getting to know my students,” she said in an interview, “and I hope my presence inspires minoritized students to aspire higher.”

Q

78

Q

4

FIXING RECRUITMENT

ARE WOMEN

overlooked for jobs for which they are qualified?

In a groundbreaking study, social psychologists showed that the difference between having a traditional male versus traditional female name as a job candidate on a résumé could mean the difference between getting a job or not. Believed to be the first study to quantify gender bias in science academia, the work shifted the discussion about women in science away from women choosing not to pursue STEM toward realizing that the sciences were subject to the same human biases and stereotypes seen in other parts of society. That work has also spurred new types of interventions, including research-based videos to make people more aware of pervasive gender bias and thus better able to combat it.

FIXING RECRUITMENT

FIGURE  4.1

Portrait of the social psychologist Corinne MossRacusin, PhD.

QUESTIONING THE DEPTHS OF BIAS: CORINNE MOSS- RACUSIN My parents were both clinical psychologists. They moved from California to New Haven, CT, for their doctoral internships, and that’s where my sister and I were raised. It’s sort of a fun fact that everyone in my immediate family is a clinical psychologist besides me—my parents, my sister, my

Q

80

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

husband, an uncle, a nephew. It’s the family business. I am the rebel social psychologist. I went to college thinking that I would be an English major, and I arrived at New York University with a naive sense of optimism and enthusiasm for figuring out my next steps. Very early in that process, the first or second week of my freshman year, September 11 took place. As a student in New York City, I was in a very unique situation of being evacuated and sent home for a time, and then being pretty close to the epicenter of not only the country, but also the world trying to grapple with this very large change in reality. On the ground, one thing that really struck me was the ways in which a strong level of patriotism arose overnight in response to those horrifying attacks, as well as the ways in which distrust of outgroup members seemed to explode. The levels of Islamophobia and anti-Arab prejudice and discrimination that we saw, firsthand in some cases, were really striking. I couldn’t turn away from it from a psychological lens. The experience was formative in raising questions like: How does an existential threat like this make folks cling more strongly to their in-groups? Another formative experience happened in my sophomore year of college when I was studying abroad in Paris. I was still taking classes in English and creative writing, and I was working at a literary agency, just trying to decide how to move forward. I needed to declare a major by the end of that semester. I now knew that I was interested in psychology but hadn’t yet figured out which track within that might be compelling to me.

Q

81

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

And then I had this very life-changing conversation with my boyfriend at the time. It was actually one of the first major fights of our relationship. He was a physics major, and he mentioned there was a woman in his class who he didn’t think had it scientifically and couldn’t really keep up. And he said some offhand comment like “Oh, she’s just here because she got the girl scholarship.” And I said, “What’s that?” And he said, “Well there’s this one scholarship that has to go to a girl so they found the best girl they could but she’s not as good as all the men in the class.” I can’t stress enough what a surprise it was to hear that because this was someone that I just had always thought of as seeing the world the same way that I did. He believed that this female-identified person was not, in his estimation, the most talented person in the class. Without a broader context for the structural impediments that people had faced differentially as a function of their gender all along, I think he was stuck on the manifestation of these inequalities— on the downsides of corrective action after an inequality has been instilled and reinforced and perpetuated by all these structural mechanisms. I was focused on the unfairness of those structures and systems to begin with. But I didn’t have language for that at the time, and neither did he. To me, it just felt sexist. I remember telling my friend the next day how we were up all night having this argument, and she said, “Oh, you guys were fighting about affirmative action.” Until then, I didn’t think of myself as really championing any particular cause. But that conversation solidified this

Q

82

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

burgeoning interest I had not only in stereotypes broadly but also in gender stereotypes more specifically and how different people respond to intervention efforts. I wanted to figure out what it was about this basically egalitarian person and what he’s been exposed to that he was looking at somebody who, by every indication, deserves to be in that room too with such a different set of evaluative tools or criteria or just wildly different perceptions. I couldn’t turn away from that question and really dug in to try to learn more. When we’re in a context that is traditionally viewed as masculine or male gender-typed, like science, those who do not identify as male are downgraded systematically. They’re viewed as less intelligent, less competent, with weaker analytic skills, and less likely to thrive. People are often less excited about working with them, hiring them, and promoting them, because we have this general overarching stereotype that those who identify as women are not going to be great at this work. And many women carry that into every interview and every classroom and every research lab as they’re trying to just focus on the science at hand. — Corinne Moss-Racusin, PhD (social psychologist)

USING SCIENCE TO STUDY BIAS AMONG SCIENTISTS When the social psychologist Corinne Moss-Racusin arrived at Yale University as a postdoc, after years of studying how stereotypes of women contribute to inequalities in various types

Q

83

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

of institutions, she decided to focus on one type of institution specifically: STEM academia. Working with the biologist Jo Handelsman and the psychologist Jack Dovidio, she wanted to dig into the question of why women were so underrepresented in academic science. Their work would send ripples across not only academia but all workplaces, showing the pervasive effects of gender stereotypes in hiring practices. At the time, Moss-Racusin remembered, there were hundreds of studies that demonstrated bias against women in various traditionally male contexts, as well as bias against men in stereotypically feminine domains. But when presented with these studies, academic scientists would say things like: “Those working in academic STEM fields are trained to be rigorous and objective and data-driven. And the whole beauty of academia is that anyone can succeed. It doesn’t matter what you look like or where you come from; you are judged on the content and strength of your ideas and not on anything about who you are personally.” Moss-Racusin thought: “ ‘That sounds like a beautiful world, but I’m just not sure that we live in it, because I firmly believe that scientists are people.’ I would joke with Jo [Handelsman] that we were doing the ‘scientists are human beings’ study, to test whether scientists demonstrate the same sorts of processes and biases that we observe in other communities.” Moss-Racusin was surprised no one had yet conducted studies specifically on hiring in STEM fields with STEM faculty participants, considering the extent of the problem. Just a couple of years earlier, in 2009, only 24 percent of STEM jobs were held by women, compared to 76 percent by men.1 Instead, she

Q

84

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

said researchers were focused on why smart women were not entering STEM and why they were leaving. There were also numerous studies looking at whether there is an intrinsic gender ability difference. And after research failed to support that idea (see later in this chapter, “Case Study: A Method That Fueled the Myth of Gender-Related Brain Differences”), researchers turned to “lifestyle choices,” the idea that women simply preferred other kinds of work. There was less research looking at the role played by institutional and societal bias. Were women not being hired into STEM careers because of such systemic barriers?

DESIGNING AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST To design an experiment to test whether women were facing institutional bias when trying to enter STEM jobs, MossRacusin and her colleagues recruited faculty from researchintensive universities across the country to rate the application materials for a student applying for a laboratory manager position. The student was randomly assigned either a common male name or common female name, but all other application materials were identical. Half the faculty believed the applicant to be a man, John, while half were told the student was a woman, Jennifer. “Any differences at all in our conditions or how the participants reacted to these two students was thus attributable solely to the student’s gender,” Moss-Racusin explained in an interview for this book. (Note that these were common white male and white female names, but later studies

Q

85

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

have replicated across race; see the section “Replicating the CV Study with a Focus on Intersectionality” later in this chapter.) Each faculty member read one or the other application, so that they had no idea the study was looking at gender. The research team told them that the student had actually applied to be a lab manager somewhere in the country over the course of the last year and that they were looking for a candid assessment of the student for a new mentoring program, which would be shared with the student. Using published scales from the literature, they were supposed to rate how competent the student was, how likely they would be to hire them for a lab manager position, and the extent to which they would be willing to mentor them for a career in science, as well as how much they would pay them for the lab manager position. In the seminal study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2012, Moss-Racusin’s team found that the female student was rated as inferior to the male student on virtually every dimension assessed.2 “She was rated as less competent. She was less likely to be hired for a lab manager job, less likely to be mentored by a faculty member, and given a lower starting salary than the identical male student. And the only difference between them was their gender,” she said. The effect sizes were substantial, Moss-Racusin said, with significant differences in how the faculty rated the male-labeled versus female-labeled applicants. The differences were so large, in fact, that Moss-Racusin remembers believing she had miscoded something when she first analyzed the data. She truly

Q

86

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

did not expect to see the same picture of bias repeatedly for each outcome. The other thing that happened as she analyzed the data was that she heard the voices of female scientists—voices saying things like, “I don’t know if maybe it was me. Do I deserve it? Maybe I wasn’t as good as the men in the room.” That persistent self-doubt, often associated with “imposter syndrome,” can plague every moment of a person’s career (see “When You Feel Like an Imposter” later in this chapter). “And it is a tragedy that so much mental and emotional and cognitive energy is being spent, not just by white women, but particularly by women of color and by people from various stigmatized and marginalized groups,” Moss-Racusin said. It’s clear, she said, from the research that stereotypes have systematically affected their careers. The constant self-doubt that has plagued so many individuals is part of a larger collective pattern of bias and stereotyping. Like when Moss-Racusin was surprised by her physicist boyfriend’s comment on the “girl scholarship,” it is not always obvious who will demonstrate bias. In the study, the faculty members were well-intentioned, educated individuals who had dedicated their lives to science careers and mentoring. “It’s not an evil cartoon of someone who’s delighting and thwarting the progress of smart women. It’s all of us. It’s you. It’s me. It’s anyone who thinks like a human being and has these schemas for different groups and is repeatedly exposed to these cultural stereotypes about who’s great at different kinds of work and who we expect to excel in different domains,” Moss-Racusin said (see “Recognizing Implicit Bias” in chapter 2).

Q

87

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE AN IMPOSTER The phenomenon Moss-Racusin described when talking about women’s inner voices expressing self-doubt is widely known as “imposter syndrome.” The phrase “imposter phenomenon” was first coined by the psychologists Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes in 1978 after observing highachieving women who felt that they were frauds or imposters within their careers.3 Others have characterized imposter syndrome as believing their achievements came about not through skill but through luck or hard work.4 Although experienced across genders and industries, research has shown that it is common among women in science.5 For example, in a study published in 2011, researchers surveyed more than 1,500 U.S. astronomy and astrophysics graduate students, asking them about mentorship and feelings related to imposter syndrome, among other questions. They found that the women surveyed were more likely than the men surveyed to show characteristics associated with imposter syndrome and less likely to attribute their successes to ability. Interestingly, students who reported that they had mentors were less likely to feel that they had arrived in their position through a mistake.6 Other research has found that women, and especially women in underrepresented groups, are more likely to feel like impostors in fields associated with “brilliance.” 7 The work was built on previous research that found that fewer women graduate with PhDs in fields that value brilliance over hard work, such as physics and mathematics (see

Q

88

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

“Broadening the View” in chapter 2). The researchers, led by Melis Muradoglu, found that the feeling of being an imposter was linked to a reduced sense of belonging. Workplaces that make an effort to emphasize belonging and inclusion can therefore help mitigate these imposter feelings.8

REPLICATING THE CV STUDY WITH A FOCUS ON INTERSECTIONALITY After the 2012 PNAS study established the pervasive biases surrounding the hiring and mentoring of the next generation of scientists, a slew of other studies sought to replicate the findings. Some eight years after the initial study, for example, Asia Eaton of Florida International University and colleagues looked at how both gender and race affect faculty ratings of a postdoctoral candidate in STEM. In the 2020 study, the researchers asked some 251 biology and physics professors to read one of eight identical curriculum vitae (CVs), rating them for competence, hireability, and likeability. All CVs were identical except the name, which was manipulated to reflect race (Asian, Black, Latinx, or white) and gender (male or female).9 For example, faculty in physics rated male-labeled candidates as more competent and hirable than the femalelabeled candidates. They also rated Asian and white candidates as more competent and hirable than Black and Latinx candidates. In biology, the faculty rated Asian candidates as

Q

89

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

more competent and hirable than Black candidates and as more hireable than Latinx candidates. They also found evidence of intersecting biases, with Black and Latina women being rated among the lowest candidates. Across departments, the faculty rated women as more likeable than men candidates across departments. Writing in the journal Sex Roles, the authors said, “Our results highlight how understanding the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in STEM requires examining both racial and gender biases as well as how they intersect.”10

RESEARCHING REACTIONS TO THE DATA The reactions to the 2012 PNAS study were swift and diverse, Moss-Racusin said. Within the scientific community, they ranged from those who said, “of course this is happening, we aren’t surprised,” to those who didn’t believe the results, saying, “it’s impossible to study humans, they are too variable,” to those who said, “wow, we can’t believe that we are observing these effects within the scientific community. What are we going to do?” The magnitude and diversity of the reactions was so powerful that it inspired a new set of experiments to study the reactions themselves. A key question was whether, after showing people the data on bias, they will want to address and work to solve the underlying problems. How did people perceive the data?

Q

90

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

Pulling from various media outlets that covered the initial study, Moss-Racusin’s research team gathered 831 written comments made by the public in response to the study.11 The researchers looked at the nature and frequency of positive responses, such as calls for social change, and negative responses, such as justifications for gender bias, as well as possible gender and professional differences among the commentators. Among a subset of 423 comments from which it was possible to code for the gender of the commentator, the researchers found that men were more likely to post negative comments about the study than women. After that study, Moss-Racusin’s team took to the lab for a more controlled study.12 There they asked study participants to read the abstract of the original 2012 PNAS study and rate the quality of the study in terms of competence and trustworthiness. Men rated it as significantly poorer science than did women. And the gap in assessments between women and men was even larger among STEM faculty. “We find that that only happens when the abstract or the science that they’re looking at finds gender bias,” Moss-Racusin said. “When it doesn’t, there is no difference between men and women.”

THE START OF THE PAY GAP One often-highlighted gender disparity in the modern workforce is the pay gap between men and women across many professions. In 2021, the Pew Research Center reported that the pay gap has remained pretty steady over the past fifteen

Q

91

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

years, with women earning about 84 percent of what men did on average in 2020.13 In STEM fields, the gap is wider, with the median earnings of women at about 74 percent of men’s median earnings in 2019.14 The overall gender pay gap came into sharper focus in March 2022, when a couple in Britain decided to highlight pay disparities on Twitter with @PayGapApp. Using publicly available data on pay in Britain, they would retweet anytime a company publicized support of International Women’s Day with a tweet showing the median hourly pay for women employed at the organization compared with that of men. The goal was to bring more transparency to salary data.15 In STEM fields, like many industries, the pay gap begins at recruitment. In a 2020 study, researchers surveying more than 550 engineering and computer science students at U.S. institutions found that women earned on average $4,000 less per year in their first jobs compared to men who had the same degrees and grade point averages. The researchers, led by Adina Sterling, concluded that a major explanation for this pay gap is the differences the students reported in their own confidence about their abilities.16 “So, there’s about a $4,000 per year initial difference,” said Corinne Moss-Racusin, whose 2012 PNAS study found the same initial pay gap that the real-world data showed. “That would amount to many thousands of dollars in lost pay in the first couple years alone if the students remain in this job. But we know most raises are based on a percentage

Q

92

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

of your current salary, so any initial difference, even if modest, will likely just widen and accumulate over time.” The alignment between the confidence gap in ability and the pay gap shows some of the real-world effects of cultural beliefs about and among scientists. The confidence gap may, for example, lead women to negotiate less for their salaries than men or cause hiring managers to evaluate women differently than men.17 Indeed, Moss-Racusin said that these differences can also amount to those who identify as women perceiving their worth as less than those who identify as men, which can feed into feelings of self-doubt. It is a difficult challenge to overcome, she said, as most people do not have all the information needed to compare themselves to other people. “You just have what’s externally available,” she said. “And that is often shrouded in secrecy or sort of this black box. So it becomes really common for folks from marginalized groups to doubt themselves, to wonder whether they are asking for more than they are worth.” In a 2021 paper in Perspectives in Psychological Science, June Gruber and some fifty-eight others cowrote that while the gap in hiring women in psychology has noticeably closed, there are still large gaps in financial compensation, estimated at between 68 to 99 percent, noting a wide variation across analyses. The authors discussed the benefits of training to make women more comfortable in negotiating for salaries; they also suggested there be more transparency in salary information and noted the need to hold institutions more accountable for gender pay gaps.18

Q

93

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: KRYSTAL TSOSIE ON TOKENIZING IN RECRUITMENT After graduating with my bachelor’s degree in microbiology, with a couple of publications and a couple of patents under my belt, I had the potential to apply to any institution in the United States. I wanted an institution that had a reputation for health disparities research, which was a top-ranked institution, and that also had a reputation for graduating medical doctors. But I also was really trying to ensure that I wasn’t just being recruited for my Native American status. And this brings up an interesting story. During one of my first interviews for a graduate program, one question I asked them was “Am I being recruited for my Native American status?” And they said, “No,” explaining that I had all of these credentials coming in and that I was a very qualified applicant. Then I went to a different interview weekend at a different institution, and the director of diversity came up to me and asked, “Oh, what part of Mexico are you from?” I said, “I come from Arizona.” Then he asked what part of Mexico my parents were from, and I explained that I am Native American. “Oh, you’re Native American!” he exclaimed. He immediately called over the program director, and, for the remainder of the entire three-hour event, they sequestered me alone at this roundtable away from the other fifty applicants. They were trying to sell me on their institution and told me all the reasons I should not select the first institution I interviewed with. I felt extremely

Q

94

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

targeted because of my Native status, which is the exact opposite of what I wanted. When I ultimately went to my graduate program (at the first institution where I interviewed), one of my comatriculants into the program, who was white and male, had also attended the same recruitment weekend where I was singled out. He had a conversation with the same recruiter, but in his case, he actually encouraged him to go to the other institution. So here was the same gentleman giving two different narratives to two different people based solely on ethnic minority status. —Krystal Tsosie, PhD candidate (geneticist and bioethicist)

INTERVENING FOR CHANGE While a body of research has demonstrated the pervasive gender bias facing those trying to work in STEM, the challenge comes in working to clear the pathway for women in science. A big part of the solution, Moss-Racusin said, comes from simply accepting the evidence that discrimination is happening. The same scientific method that helped establish the problem can pave the way for real change. One type of intervention thus involves changing how people think about the problem. In the same lab study of reactions to the original PNAS study, researchers exposed participants to the reality of gender bias: they asked some participants to read the original article, while they gave others the same article modified to show that the researchers found no evidence of bias. They

Q

95

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

wanted to test the extent to which knowledge of the reality of bias has an effect on men’s and women’s enthusiasm for STEM. The researchers found that knowing about the bias makes women less likely to go into STEM fields. Women who know about the bias report less sense of belonging in STEM and less desire to go into STEM. They anticipate encountering more discrimination. In that way, the bias has “teeth,” Moss-Racusin said, shaping individual decisions. But what about the reverse? The study shows the potential to encourage entry into STEM through interventions that reduce perceptions of bias. That does not mean pretending there is no problem, Moss-Racusin says; rather, it means devising creative interventions that increase a person’s sense of belonging. Working with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and a playwright from the Yale School of Drama, Moss-Racusin’s team has created VIDS, Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM.19 The work began with numerous focus groups in which female and male scientists shared how they felt gender had shaped their experiences. The research team also shared with the playwright key papers on bias in STEM. Based on the focus groups and data review, they developed a full-length play with a fictional science department and compelling characters—faculty, graduate students, undergraduates— illustrating what the social science literature is telling us about bias. They then hired actors and set up an entire film production, creating five-minute scenes; some were narrative, and some were structured like an interview. In a series of studies, the researchers have found that exposure to those videos reliably reduces gender bias over time, even

Q

96

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

six months later. Viewing a clip significantly reduces the extent to which participants are gender biased themselves while also increasing awareness of the problem. The videos also lead participants to be more likely to engage in work to reduce bias and promote parity in women’s representation. The work by Moss-Racusin and others has continued with a focus, as of early 2022, on intersectionality and gender fluidity and on understanding gender stereotypes and designing interventions to address them. The overall goal is to use the tools of science to help make the scientific community better. The body of work has begun succeeding in breaking through the “veneer of meritocracy” within academia, Moss-Racusin said, by providing scientific evidence that runs contrary to the strongly held traditional beliefs that the academy is a safe haven from bias. “It takes the right data to shatter some of those understandably cherished illusions,” she said. “And the types of data that my colleagues and I have provided over the years make it more feasible for folks to move from clinging to this beautiful fantasy, to then acknowledging that that is not the case and rolling up their sleeves and saying: What can we do to get closer to that ideal?”

CASE STUDY: A METHOD THAT FUELED THE MYTH OF GENDER- RELATED BRAIN DIFFERENCES Part of what drives gender bias in STEM is a belief that women have inferior math and analytical skills compared to men. This overarching stereotype that women are not good

Q

97

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

at math and science rears its head in societal conversations from time to time as justifications for bias. The infamous comments in 2005 of then Harvard president Larry Summers, then similarly by the Google software engineer James Damore in 2017, and in 2019 by the Nobel Prize winner James Watson are just a few examples of people citing biological or genetic differences between sexes as a reason why women are so underrepresented in the science and technology fields.20 These comments do not deny that the bias exists but rather seek to rationalize it through biology. The question then becomes: are there sex-related differences that make men better at math and science? “No matter how much we refute it with all different sorts of data, we just can’t seem to get away from that myth,” said Margaret McCarthy, a neuroscientist who studies sex differences and the brain, in an interview. Her work, which underscores the need to study sex differences in the context of medical research, has been used to try to support the idea of gender-related differences in aptitude. Some of the roots of the myth about aptitude differences in math and science comes from a time when among the mathematically gifted, boys outnumbered girls twelve to one, she said. Over the past twenty years, however, there have been interventions to identify girls early who are mathematically gifted and to foster those skills, dramatically dropping the ratio. Among several studies that present data to refute that there are sex-related brain differences that account for

Q

98

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

aptitude, there is a 2019 paper by Nicola Grissom and Teresa Reyes called “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off: Evaluating Gender and Sex Differences in Executive Function.” The review paper found “little support for significant gender or sex differences in executive function.” Executive function involves attention and focus, impulse control, decision making, and working memory, all of which are correlated with academic outcomes.21 Other papers show that boys and girls are equally equipped to mathematically reason at young ages, 22 and some show that there are no mean differences between boys and girls upon entry to school but that girls’ math performance decreases over the first six years of school.23 Some have used this evidence to point out that math skills tested at young ages are so basic that they may not be predictive of or relevant to later higher-order math skills.24 A body of research suggests, however, that cultural factors are at play, rather than biological ones.25 One early bias that crept into neuroscience that males were better at spatial learning than females was based in part on reliance on a specific methodology called the Morris water maze task, McCarthy said. In the traditional water maze set up, a rat or a mouse is thrown into a pool full of opaque water and has to find the platform beneath it; the dogma was that males are better at the Morris water maze than females.26 While in certain circumstances that was true, the results, it turns out, were highly contextual, as seen when scientists began changing the maze’s setup.27 Some researchers changed

Q

99

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

the position of the platform.28 The platform was in the middle of the water, which was convenient for male rodents, who tended to jump straight into the middle; the females would instead tended to start on the sides of the pool, more cautious about potential predators. Both the males and females would reach the platform, but the males would reach it faster.29 Others modified the maze experiment to make it less stressful for the animals by acclimating them first to the water, finding that doing that alone closed the gender gap.30 These studies showed that the male and female rats could both solve the problem but that they used different strategies to do so.

WHEN DOUBLE- BLIND REVIEW ISN’T ENOUGH The work by Corinne Moss-Racusin and others on gender bias in evaluating job applications raises the question of whether blinded review, wherein gender and other identifying information is stripped out from applications, would mitigate some of the biases at play. Julian Kolev and colleagues addressed this question head-on in a study that looked at innovative research grant proposals submitted to the Gates Foundation from 2008 to 2017.31 Despite blinded review, they reported that female applicants received significantly lower scores than male applicants. In the 2019 study, Kolev and colleagues described how the gender gap in application scores could not be explained by reviewer characteristics, proposal topics, or measures of

Q

100

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

applicant quality. Rather, they found, it was the result of different language choices between men and women. Women used narrower, topic-specific terms to describe their research fields, while men used broader, more sweeping language. The broader language was linked to higher proposal scores but interestingly was not linked to better research outcomes, suggesting that reviewers might be favoring broad descriptions that “reflect style more than substance.” The researchers suggested that making reviewers aware of this bias could help train them to be sensitive to different communication styles; increasing the number of women on review panels could also help mitigate this bias.32 They generally suggested that a focus on writing style and word choice can offer new ways for organizations to improve their selection processes. Importantly, blind reviews have yielded success in reducing bias in some areas of science, such as in reviewing proposals for observation time at telescopes (see “Making Telescope Time More Within Reach” in chapter 6). In an interview for this book, the psychologist Aneeta Rattan said that interventions like double-blind review are limited in their effectiveness because they do not get at the root implicit bias. “That’s an intervention that is actually trying to turn off the activation of bias, but bias is still there,” Rattan said. Addressing the bias head-on—in this case, training reviewers about the tendency to favor vaguer, more sweeping language, often used by men, over more specific proposal language—would have a stronger effect in reducing implicit bias itself and the need for double-blind review in the first place.

Q

101

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

BEYOND RECRUITMENT: OBSTACLES IMPEDING ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN SCIENTISTS As detailed in the 2020 documentary film Picture a Scientist, in the mid-1990s, a group of female science faculty at MIT signed a letter to the dean of science, laying out the systemic discrimination they had faced. Ultimately, their actions would lead to the formation of a committee and then a seminal report, “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT.” It was published publicly in 1999, three years after an initial committee report.33 The report documented how women joined the faculty with the belief that family responsibilities might impede their success relative to their male colleagues but found many more barriers as they progressed through tenure: being marginalized and undervalued, receiving fewer institutional resources, being excluded from professional opportunities, and receiving less credit in publications and through rewards. The report outlined several recommendations for solutions to address the gender-related inequities, including the following, among others: • Continuing to collect data equity each year through a standing committee while also raising community awareness of the problems • Seeking out women for influential positions within the university • Reviewing the compensation system, to ensure gender equity in pay

Q

102

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

• Replacing administrators who knowingly practice or permit discriminatory practices against women faculty • Intervening to prevent the marginalization of women faculty • Promoting integration and preventing isolation of junior women faculty • Addressing the maternity leave and childcare needs for junior women faculty • Placing senior women faculty on appropriate department search committees • Looking at women candidates within MIT for faculty hires and identifying and recruiting outstanding junior and senior women faculty from both within and outside of MIT34

In the 1999 report, Charles Vest, MIT’s president, remarkably said: “I have always believed that contemporary gender discrimination within universities is part reality and part perception. True, but I now understand that reality is by far the greater part of the balance.” Ultimately, the MIT report led to manifold changes, first at MIT, to make pay and resources more equitable for women, as well as the recruitment of more female science faculty. And the changes there had ripple effects across academia, leading to similar shifts across institutions. Despite the tremendous progress that has been made since then, however, women still grapple with a variety of obstacles that impede their advancement in STEM fields. In 2022, engineering faculty at the University of Melbourne documented an

Q

103

Q

FIXING RECRUITMENT

institution-wide initiative to recruit more women faculty in STEM fields and then to create more inclusive environments to help them succeed—showing both that the need still exists for such efforts and that new strategies are needed.35 Creating a welcoming workplace environment; giving visibility through publications, awards, and panels; and helping with family and life balance remain important tasks in creating a new culture for science, as discussed in the next several chapters.

Q

104

Q

5

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

HOW DOES

workplace culture affect the scientists who work

there, and what are some of the challenges faced by women and other underrepresented groups in science? Once women arrive in science positions, they often face a tax on their productivity that comes in the form of microaggressions and extra service work that take them away from their science. These experiences can have ripple effects, affecting job satisfaction, productivity, and mental health, while making it less likely that women will stay on their career track or advance in their careers. New models for workplace “civility” and bystander training, as well as new incentive and promotion structures that consider service work, are helping lead the way to healthier workplace environments.

FIGURE 5.1

Portrait of the social psychologist India Johnson, PhD.

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

BATTLING ADVERSITY AND WORKPLACE AGGRESSION: INDIA JOHNSON I’m originally from Indianapolis, Indiana, and I always excelled in school; I was one of those kids that got into the gifted program and took lots of honors and AP classes. My dad was in the military, so we moved around a lot until I was about twelve or thirteen, when my parents divorced, and we wound up back in Indiana. One of the things that always stood out in my memory was recognizing that teachers treated me differently when they realized that I was smart. At first, I didn’t understand why that was, but at some point, my father was very forthcoming, pointing out, “you’re one of maybe one or two Black kids in the class. And they probably have some expectations about how you’re going to behave. And then they have you do something academically, and they realize ‘Oh, she’s really, really bright.’ ” Those early experiences made me quite aware of the fact that race matters for these kinds of outcomes. As I grew older, I also remember my dad saying things like “if they don’t doubt you because you’re a woman, they’ll doubt you because you’re Black.” So I was always consciously aware of the fact that in these spaces, I was usually the only Black student or the only student of color. In high school, we had a study hall that was specifically geared toward low-income students, which sometimes overlapped with students of color. We had mentors and counselors there who would help with things like writing college essays, talking to us about schoolwork, and navigating the

Q

107

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

process of applying to college. This was important because I was in the first generation in my family to go to college. My mom didn’t know anything about the process, and I almost completely applied to college by myself; I didn’t even ask my mom for money for college applications. On top of all those things, when I was sixteen, I became a mother, right before I started my sophomore year of high school. But it was very important to me to kind of finish academically strong. I graduated still in the top of my class. When I started college at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, I was a mother of one and then pregnant with my second daughter. A lot of my professors realized I was a good student, and I think they probably thought that I was insane: I had my second daughter and then about a week later, I was back in my classes with the new baby in a car seat and stroller, working to make up what I had missed. So, I went through undergraduate school as a single mom of two, and also working about twenty to twenty-five hours. I started out thinking I wanted to study pre-med/biology. I knew I wanted to be a researcher in some form or fashion. I thought the idea of being able to contribute knowledge that would have a lasting effect, even after you’re gone, was awesome. I did a paid internship in between my senior year of high school and starting as a freshman in college, at a cancer center. I was making liposomes for use in a targeted cancer drug treatment, and it was the most boring experience I’ve ever had in my entire life. I remember actually falling asleep while making liposomes.

Q

108

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

When I started college that fall, I immediately changed my major to psychology, which was a subject I had always liked. I remember taking a required class called “How to be a savvy psychology major,” and there was a book that was written by the instructor of the class, which talked about all the different jobs you could get as a psychology major and then guided you toward the classes you would need to take for each. For someone who didn’t know anyone who had graduated from college, this was a godsend, because it really spelled out exactly what I could do to be successful. And so I picked “professor” as a path and started looking for an undergraduate research mentor. I remember going to the psychology department and trying to find a Black professor, to see if there was someone who did research that related to race at all. I didn’t see any faculty of color at all in the psychology department. But there was a professor named Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, who studied stereotyping and prejudice. I memorized parts of the papers that Leslie had published and spent some time thinking about them, trying to relate them to some of the concepts that I had come across, and then I emailed her. It was the start of what has become a beautiful friendship; we’re still friends to this day. I told her that I wanted to be a social psychologist, that I wanted to be a professor. And she believed me; she thought it was something that I could do, and she did everything in her power to make that possible. She was an amazing mentor in every way and made me kind of fall in love with

Q

109

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

mentoring, realizing how it can make such a difference in someone’s ability to be successful or not. A lot of times people will look at my story and be like, “Wow, my God, you were a teenage mom and able to go on and graduate from college and make it through a PhD program.” It was really hard, especially the finances. It was also hard leaving Indiana to do graduate school in Ohio. My parents were really reluctant about me moving away with my two children, to a city where I didn’t know anyone. I just assumed I could do it. Graduate school on the whole was a very positive experience, and in that time, I met my now husband. But it was hard; I definitely thought about quitting multiple times. The program trained me to think carefully about questions and think carefully about what we’re manipulating. But looking back, there were definitely moments where it was very isolating. There were people who didn’t necessarily understand the additional challenges of being a woman and a person of color. Sometimes those challenges came from people in my own lab saying things and naively not knowing how I might feel about those things. I remember a student in the lab who said she didn’t shop at a particular discount box store because “riff raff ” shops there; she kept saying “riff raff.” And I was like, “What do you mean riff raff? I shop there.” After graduate school, I got my first job at a teaching institution in North Carolina. I was not the only Black woman in my department; there was another Black woman about two years ahead of me on the tenure track. I think that

Q

110

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

made all the difference because I felt more like I could speak up if something wasn’t right. I knew that she would back me up, and I would back her up. And there were also people who were not persons of color but who were women, who also allied together. There was one time when students were not properly addressing us with “Professor” or “Doctor.” Part of this was because there were departments in which students were invited to call their professors by their first names, so there were no across-the-board standards. But even when we would push back individually and say, “I go by Professor Johnson or Dr. Johnson,” a lot of students would not use the title. As a department, we were able to institute departmental norms that we shared with all students who took psychology courses. It was a very simple and a minor thing, but at the same time, it was meaningful. When you’re the person that has to continually do the labor, with women and people of color more likely to be mistitled, it was good to have the support. During my first year of teaching, I had a student who got in my face and yelled at me. They actually came from around the desk, which is supposed to be a sacred barrier, right, and got in my face. The secretary was ready to call security. I told her it was OK and asked the student to have a seat. At some point in the forty-five-minute conversation that ensued, I said to the student, “I think maybe you’re having some challenges with what I’m asking of you because you’re not used to talking to someone who looks like me in my position of authority.” And she said, “No, I talk to people like you all the time. You look like my maid.”

Q

111

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

When you’re trying to attribute and explain experiences, it’s hard to try to zero in on what the sources of the experiences are. But that experience felt both gendered and racialized, and I felt like I got that a lot from students. I would ultimately earn tenure but then move back to Indiana for a new teaching position, also having twin daughters during that time. I was the first Black person hired in the history of the department. I came into the new position on a shortened tenure clock, and then in that first year, the pandemic hit. So that of course made things even crazier with online teaching and student evaluations. At one point, our department found ourselves without a chair. I certainly wasn’t going to volunteer, because it was only my second year at the institution, most of which was during the pandemic. And you wouldn’t think for a second that people in the department would get together and have a meeting without me, and then decide that they were going to email me and say that they want a Black woman to do the labor that they don’t want to do. But that is precisely what happened. They collectively decided that I would be the best option to be chair and wanted to see what I thought about it. I immediately pointed out that there were two white women who were full professors who had never chaired the department and had been there for many years. I asked them, “Why can’t one of you do it? I don’t even know where the Provost Office is.” They responded by saying, “We just don’t think that we’ll be good advocates for the department. We are confrontation averse and want to be able to be nice. You,

Q

112

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

however, we think would be great at being really assertive and being a great advocate. That’s why we all voted for you.” To this day, I don’t even think they understand the number of microaggressions folded into that. It was like they were saying, “We are nice white women, but you are a spirited, strong Black woman.” I was floored by that. I turned down the position and politely reminded them that women and people of color are less likely to make it to full professor because they’re asked to take on service responsibilities. I quoted Zora Neale Hurston about how Black women are often asked to do the labor that no one else wants to do. I just couldn’t believe that they would have a meeting without me privately but then publicly ask me if I wanted to do it and position it as “you would be better at this because you have to be assertive,” not realizing that being assertive is a necessity sometimes to survive in navigating a world that isn’t kind to Black women. —India Johnson, PhD (social psychologist)

A TAX ON PRODUCTIVITY When a scientist starts in a new position at a university or a company— or, for that matter, in any career path—a top priority is productivity. After all, without results, a scientist cannot publish, get funds, win awards, or gain invitations to conferences. But as the social psychologist India Johnson experienced, daily actions that insult and exclude women in the workplace— or that add invisible labor—add up to time lost doing science.

Q

113

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

These experiences highlight that it is not enough to get women interested in science and to keep them engaged on their path. Once they have arrived, they, like all workers, need a workplace that fosters productivity and engagement. Studies instead have shown that women often face an additional tax on productivity. In addition to gender harassment, which the 2018 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report defines as “verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender,”1 the tax includes a service burden that women disproportionately bear in the workplace.2 These “housework services” range from serving on diversity committees or mentoring students to organizing social events. As awareness grows about the harm created for women in science by limiting their ability to be productive and stay focused on science, so too do solutions, including new types of training and allyship.

THE EFFECTS OF A TOXIC WORKPLACE Many of the experiences Johnson described are microaggressions, actions or words that communicate hostile messages to the recipient, whether intentionally or not. The Harvard psychiatrist Chester Pierce coined the term “microaggressions” in the 1970s, defining it as “subtle, stunning, often automatic and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put-downs’ of Blacks by offenders.”3 The psychologist Derald Wing Sue and colleagues then expanded the definition in 2010 to include commonplace, daily

Q

114

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

exchanges aimed at members of marginalized groups, whether based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.4 In recent years, the word “microaggression” itself has come under scrutiny, with critics of it pointing out that “micro” implies that these acts are less serious than other forms of discrimination and bias, while “aggression” implies that the act was intentional.5 In their 2018 report on sexual harassment, NAS used the word “incivility” instead to describe these daily transgressions.6 These acts of microaggression or incivility are often rooted in the same stereotypes that lead to widespread implicit bias (see also “Recognizing Implicit Bias” in chapter 2).7 For example, the stereotype of a female secretary may manifest when a female scientist is asked to take notes in a meeting rather than a male one and irrespective of seniority. When gender based, these acts manifest as a form of sexual harassment, and for women of color, they can be even more commonplace. As an associate professor in psychology and consultant at tech companies, Johnson sees these microaggressions play out in many different scenarios. Women and people of color commonly complain of being interrupted in meetings and having their ideas not heard or attributed to someone else. While numerous studies have reported that more than half of working women report experiencing sexually harassing behavior at work, less than 20 percent of those women actually describe the experience as “sexual harassment.”8 Part of the challenge in understanding the scope of the problem lies in definitions, as gender-based harassment can include everything from microaggressions such as inappropriate jokes and speech interruptions to unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion.

Q

115

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

Microaggressions are especially difficult to study in part because they rely on self-reporting.9 Another challenge, Johnson said in an interview for this book, is that when someone suggests they have experienced incivility because of their identity, it “seems as if people just jump through multiple hoops to try to say that that’s not the case.” Companies will point out, for example, that men also experience interruptions or miscrediting of work. “The problem is that the minute you don’t affirm someone’s experiences, you have told them that their experiences don’t matter,” Johnson explained. “It’s the same as being in a relationship, when your partner tells you that doing something makes them really upset, and you tell them, no you’re mistaken.” Yet understanding microaggressions is critical to understanding how workplace environments affect job performance, productivity, and engagement. A body of work in management literature has identified workplace incivility as a major factor in job satisfaction, performance, engagement, and turnover, as well as a contributor to psychological distress.10 Furthermore, research on women in STEM fields has found that a hostile work climate leads to lower levels of “felt influence” and job satisfaction.11 In STEM fields, among the half of women who reported being discriminated against in a 2018 study by the Pew Research Center, about 20 percent report that this discrimination included “repeated small slights at work,” compared to 4 percent of men in STEM jobs and 16 percent of women in non-STEM jobs.12 The same study also found that women reported higher levels of gender-based discrimination when in STEM workplaces that

Q

116

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

were majority male compared to majority female or an even gender mix. In a 2018 study, researchers surveyed 4,800 students of color at a large, public U.S. university, finding that Black students in STEM majors were more likely to experience racial microaggressions than other students of color in STEM. Black women reported the highest rates of microaggressions.13 Writing in the International Journal of STEM Education, Meggan Lee and colleagues said that racial microaggressions “are not isolated incidents but are ingrained in the campus culture, including interactions with STEM instructors and advisers and with peers.” Microaggressions and sexual harassment can have mental health impacts as well. “I became continually vigilant. Every week, it seemed, I experienced microaggressions, or microinvalidations,” Johnson said. “I had an Apple watch looking at my pulse, and I realized, this is probably killing me.” Indeed, in a 2020 report by the Urban Institute, Frazier Benya from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called sexual harassment in the workplace a public health problem, noting its widespread effects on psychological well-being, including increased feelings of depression, stress, and anxiety.14 In addition to the negative effects microaggressions have on the victim, some research has also suggested that they affect those who witness incivility against others. In a 2016 study, researchers asked women majoring in STEM fields to complete a task with other students who were actually actors.15 In the task, each group member read and summarized a passage of scientific information. The female study participant would go last after seeing another woman give a summary. Some study participants

Q

117

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

were randomly assigned to hear men in the group react neutrally to the previous woman’s summary, while others heard reactions that were disapproving and unsupportive of the woman’s summary. The researchers found that women who witnessed these microaggressions compared to the control group reported lower intentions to pursue a career in STEM. Follow-up work from the same research team led by Denise Sekaquaptewa has focused on creating a set of videos that can both enable scientists to study the effects of microaggressions on victims and witnesses while also raising awareness about the effects.16 This work is thus consistent with the work of Sapna Cheryan and others about how environmental cues can impact gender participation in STEM fields (see chapter 2).17 Changing the norms can help create spaces that value and encourage women’s participation.18 There is also work showing that when faced with signals that reinforce stereotypes, women’s performance will suffer (see “A Rotating View of Gender Stereotypes” in chapter 1).19 Microaggressions can also have isolating effects and potentially lead to feelings of being gaslit, where the victim of the microaggressions may feel she is at fault. Although co-opted from the title of a 1938 play called Gas Light, the phrase “gaslighting” was not commonly used until recently. Defined as psychological abuse and manipulation over time that leads someone to question the validity of their own thoughts and sense of reality, it is now more commonly used to refer to misleading someone for personal advantage and is particularly prevalent in racial microaggressions against people of color. 20 In 2022, Merriam-Webster announced that “gaslighting” was its word of

Q

118

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

the year, noting a 1,740 percent increase in searches for the word on its website.21 Johnson has experienced gaslighting firsthand, as she explained in an interview for this book: “At some point, I thought I was going crazy, that it was me. But through eventually connecting with other women of color and allies outside my department, I realized that it wasn’t in my head; my colleagues were constantly invalidating my experiences.” Johnson eventually moved her office to a separate floor, away from her colleagues, to have some reprieve; she ultimately changed institutions. “My decision to leave my institution was directly a result of the culture in my department,” she said. “It was not a place where women of color, especially Black women, could thrive.”

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: INCIVILITY INCIDENCES ON INSTAGRAM A known effect of microaggressions is a feeling of isolation— feeling alone in experiencing these slights. Social media has increasingly become a place where people can share their experiences and connect to feel less alone, helping show how pervasive acts of incivility and discrimination are globally. Among the platforms people have created to foster community around these issues was an Instagram account created in 2020 by the filmmakers behind Picture a Scientist. Here is a small sampling from the entries that came in from anonymous viewers around the world, showing a range of microaggressions those in science have experienced: 22

Q

119

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

I work as a female engineer in a regulatory government position. I deal with men who bully me, discredit my competence, and circumvent me routinely by calling my boss when they want a different response. Luckily, I have had several bosses who have supported me without which I would have left this career. I still face more bias than my male peers. Even in the government, which is supposed to be merit based, I have not received promotions on par with male colleagues which has been a contributing factor for leaving a job. “Pretty girls like you will take away the jobs from us” or “How can you even finish your master’s degree with your brain?” or “Now after #metoo I cannot even say ‘hello’ without you reporting me” . . . These are just excerpts of the many passive-aggressive and sexually biased statements I have heard until graduating with a PhD. Being treated as a technician happened on more than one occasion, too, but the most common situation was that if I  stated an opinion, people in the room (including my female PI [principal investigator] at the time) would not notice/hear it until a male repeats the same thing 5 minutes later. I have had men in meetings ignore me and look to the nearest man to confirm everything I have said. I have had professors call me “little girl” and their assistant in a class full of men. I have been told my answers were wrong only to have a male student repeat them and be told they are right. I have been removed from leadership positions in

Q

120

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

safety reviews only to still be required to do all the work while a less qualified man took all the credit. And of course, I have been repeatedly accused of being loud, aggressive, not a team player, and not smiling enough. I have experienced a range of minor to severe discrimination as a woman in science. My postgraduate supervisor made me work on items that had no significance other than to further another student’s project, despite my confiding in him that I wanted to work on a project of significance in order to achieve a higher-level honor degree. I had to leave with a lesser degree than I wanted because of that. I have had experiences where I was intentionally excluded from meetings pertaining to my work duties and expectations, while my male colleagues were included in all meetings. . . . I was expected to be the note taker and answer phones when it was not my role. I have been ignored or talked over in meetings. I have been excluded from information pertaining to meetings and then put on the spot in order to humiliate me in front of colleagues. These experiences were reported and were swept under the rug. These experiences as well as others nearly made me leave science. I’m a computer scientist and in one of my first projects I felt very excluded. My peers were constantly leaving me out of meetings. They rewrote my paper sections without previously leaving comments and they weren’t in a position to do that kind of review. They assumed that my writing was wrong although I had more published works

Q

121

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

than them. They didn’t think that I was able to perform complex tasks well, so they exchanged them for easy ones without my consent. Luckily, my advisor was there for me and intervened. I felt so underestimated that I decided to leave the project. It was not worth it, and they were very unlikely to change their attitude.

TRAINING TO CREATE CIVILITY Mere awareness of the pervasiveness of workplace incivility against women and people of color in science is an important first step toward mitigating the problem. Once institutions and workplaces are aware of the problem, they can implement policies and training both to reduce harassment and to increase civility. Some helpful policies include tracking cultural change through climate surveys. That can help identify areas for improvement and give employees a safe way to give feedback. Another way within academia is regular town hall meetings for grad students and trainees only; that could be adapted to nonacademic environments as well. Overall, there needs to be a focus on collegial and civil behavior. Indeed, the 2018 NAS report suggests using “civilitypromotion programs” to help combat hostile workplaces.23 It builds on work by Lilia Cortina and others that shows the benefits of civility interventions that shift the focus of training away from discussing the behaviors employees should avoid and instead toward highlighting behaviors in which employees

Q

122

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

should engage.24 Best practices include mission statements and manuals that clearly state expectations of civility and a respectful workplace, training all employees on interpersonal skills, and interventions targeted toward having senior management model appropriate behavior. Indeed, many scientific societies and university departments now have codes of ethics to help lay out expectations for civility. For example, the department of sociology at Texas A&M University includes in its code of ethics a section on “mutual respect,” including: “As members of the department, we do not engage in demeaning, intimidating, or threatening behaviors that create a hostile professional or workplace environment and negatively affect the ability of others to actively participate in the departmental community.”25 A range of different types of training programs also have evolved to promote civility. One example is the Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) program. Launched by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the program was in response to employees reporting how incivility negatively affected their job satisfaction levels. CREW has now been used by more than 1,200 Veterans Affairs groups. It includes employees meeting regularly with coworkers to work on effective interpersonal interactions, guided by trained facilitators to “focus on creating a respectful and civil work environment.”26 Research has shown significant changes in civility at sites after implementing CREW.27 Researchers in Canada have examined the effects of a CREW-style intervention for 1,173 health care workers at district health authorities and hospitals in Nova Scotia and Ontario, respectively.28 They found improvements in social relationships,

Q

123

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

burnout, turnover intention, attitudes, and management trust after the six-month intervention. Such interventions offer a promising path forward for improved training in STEM settings both within and beyond academia. But even if behavioral standards can be reset, workplaces must still consider training on what to do when misbehavior occurs. A lot of promising work has been done in the area of bystander training.

TRAINING TO CREATE ALLIES The premise of bystander training is to create a culture of support rather than silence.29 Confronting negative behaviors on the spot not only helps avoid more harmful behaviors down the line but also can help signal safety to the person being harassed, said the social psychologist Eva Pietri in an interview for this book. Pietri pointed to a 2020 study by Laura Hildebrand, Margo Monteith, and colleagues that started with an example from the sports world of a witness to a microaggression speaking up: “In a 2016 Olympic interview, the interviewer incorrectly described Andy Murray as ‘the first person ever to win two Olympic tennis gold medals.’ Murray, a white man, immediately corrected the interviewer, stating that Venus and Serena Williams, two Black women, ‘have won about four [gold medals] each.’ . . . Even though the interviewer’s mistake did not personally affect him, Murray did not ignore it. Instead, he confronted.”30 The interviewer’s comments may have had the unintended consequence of making the Williams sisters or other Black Q

124

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

women feel invisible or like they didn’t belong. By confronting the interviewer, Murray transitioned from a bystander, someone merely witnessing the incivility, to an ally—someone who can help signal safety and belonging for the targeted individuals. Across three studies and more than one thousand participants, Hildebrand and colleagues found that confrontations, when affirmed by bystanders, can serve as a safety cue. In two of the experiments, they found that when Chinese American and white women witnessed anti-Asian and sexist remarks, respectively, a lone confronter was not enough; however, when other people in the group affirmed the confrontations, it signaled safety. A third experiment extended the results, showing that affirmed confrontations can serve as safety cues for white women witnessing sexism and for Black women witnessing racism. Increasingly, universities and other groups are creating bystander training programs to encourage a supportive workplace culture. In 2017, for example, the Association for Women Geoscientists, Earth Science Women’s Network, and the American Geophysical Union teamed together to create bystander training workshops with funding from the National Science Foundation. A key goal is empowering individuals to become active bystanders, and their model is being adopted for other STEM fields.31 Other groups doing bystander training include Hollaback, StepUp, and others.32 These bystander trainings extend beyond confrontation over incivility and microaggressions to include other forms of sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual advances and assault. While a bystander who confronts a microaggression can become an ally, allyship can come in other forms as well, Q

125

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

including someone advocating for a particular policy or change who is not from the targeted marginalized group. They can then also become someone trusted to rely on in the future. As a Latina in STEM, Pietri has experienced the power of allyship many times, noting its importance in helping create a welcoming environment. She points to a model of allyship developed by the psychologist Leslie Ashburn-Nardo that lays out the steps to confronting prejudice, including: • Notice the instance of bias • Interpret it as an emergency and something you need confront • Feel responsible to do something and confront • Identify an appropriate response • Take action33

“I have had situations where I had a white male colleague, whom I didn’t really have an opinion of, very clearly calling out something to agree with me,” Pietri said. “And I was so grateful that I felt backed up. This is an ally. This is a person whom I can trust in the future.”

CASE STUDY: BIAS TRAINING IN ACTION Many people think of diversity, equity, and inclusion training in the workplace as a box-checking exercise. And while they certainly can feel that way, research has shown that training focused on explicit and implicit biases can be highly effective in creating healthier workplace environments.

Q

126

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

One example of a successful training program at universities is through the Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI).34 Their “Breaking the Bias Habit” workshops have shown real results in creating more welcoming climates for women in academic STEM departments. In a 2015 study conducted at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, researchers, led by Molly Carnes, found that a 2.5-hour department-level WISELI workshop that showed gender bias as a changeable habit helped lead to changes in faculty members’ awareness of their own biases, as well as their motivation to promote gender equity. 35 Some of the effects persisted for three months after the workshop. They also found that three months after the workshop, faculty reported more action to promote gender equality in their own departments compared to faculty in control departments, but only when at least 25 percent of faculty attended the workshop. Their findings suggest that the intervention’s effectiveness thus depends in part on a high level of participation within a department. Community-wide engagement is key, again highlighting the need to move beyond merely individual actions. A 2021 study led by Jennifer Sheridan also explored the benefits of the Breaking the Bias Habit workshop at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in the College of Engineering.36 The researchers found significant increases in faculty awareness of implicit bias in the workplace, as well as improved department workplace climates. They also found that after the workshop, women and faculty of color in the

Q

127

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

college reported that their departments were engaging in explicit discussions of potential biases in their processes more often.

WHO MAKES FOR A GOOD ALLY? In addition to the work that the social psychologists Eva Pietri and India Johnson have done on role models in STEM fields (see “Role Models for Multiple Identities” in chapter 1), they have also looked at who makes for an effective ally. An ally, Pietri says, is someone who can play a major role in signaling safety for someone in the workplace, even if they come from different backgrounds.37 In one study, for example, the endorsement of a white female scientist as an ally for a Black female scientist provided an important signal to Black women, who may initially be wary of white allies.38 With about four hundred Black female participants, they tested whether having endorsement of a white female ally by someone else increased perceptions of allyship. Writing in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations in 2020, they said that the research “practically demonstrates that ally endorsement can be used to signal identity-safety and potentially attract a greater number of Black women to STEM environments.” Another group of researchers looked at how men can be effective allies to women in STEM fields, especially given men’s relative overrepresentation in many fields. 39 Across three studies, the researchers, led by Charlotte Moser, found

Q

128

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

that male allies are “uniquely helpful in reducing the negative effects of underrepresentation.” One finding was that women who were shown a male ally were significantly less likely to anticipate workplace hostility and isolation compared with women who were shown a female ally or a control with no ally. These studies may raise the question of whether a white woman showing allyship to a Black woman or a man showing allyship to a woman could be perceived as benevolent racism or sexism. For the gender research, Moser and colleagues noted that “women were more likely to anticipate respect from their coworkers when they were presented with a male ally. This indicates that the male ally was not perceived as wanting to help women out of a patriarchal need to protect women, but rather was perceived as an empowering figure.”

THE HIDDEN HOUSEWORK IN THE WORKPLACE In addition to incivility, there is another less nefarious yet still problematic tax on productivity for women in the workplace: service tasks. Sometimes these tasks can take the form of a microaggression, for example, when a Black woman is assigned to a diversity task force without volunteering for it, or in Johnson’s example earlier in this chapter of being volunteered by others to chair her department. Pietri said that a major feature of these types of microaggressions is that they are often hard to evaluate and can be

Q

129

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

perceived as a form of tokenism. “Why is it that all the women of color keep being asked to teach the diversity course? Am I being treated differently than, say, my white male colleague who’s at a similar career stage as me?” All these experiences create an extra burden, and it’s not easy to speak up, she said, particularly for women of color who might experience additional backlash. They are just one part of the larger service burden experienced by women and minorities, all of which takes up precious time that could be spent in the pursuit of science. A 2017 paper entitled “Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?” takes a look at this problem in detail.40 Cassandra Guarino and colleagues took data from a web-based national survey of 19,000 faculty members at 143 colleges and universities about how faculty members spend their time, including on both internal and external “service.” Within academia, internal service could include faculty recruitment, evaluation, and promotion; student admissions and scholarships; and internal awards, among other activities. For nonadministrators, this work receives no additional compensation and carries less weight than research and teaching. External service could include work for professional societies and on external award committees and publication reviews but generally are of little career value to individual scientists. Guarino and colleagues found that women performed a little more than half an hour more of service per week, controlling for rank, race, and discipline. Female full professors reported significantly more time spent on service than male

Q

130

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

full professors, about 1.4 more service activities per year than their male counterparts. A study in 2011 by Joya Misra and colleagues found even more gender-related differences in earlier-career professors. They found that while both male and female associate professors worked similar amounts of time overall, about sixty-four hours per week, men spent 7.5 hours more per week on their research than did women.41 “Even if these differences in research time occurred only during semesters, not during summer or holiday breaks, this would mean that men spent in excess of two hundred more hours on their research each year than women,” they wrote.42 At the same time, women associate professors spent more time teaching and mentoring students, as well as in being engaged in other service activities—an amount that the researchers calculated as roughly 220 more hours over two semesters than men at the same rank. In follow-up work in 2021, the same research team found that white women compared to white men perceive that their departments have less equitable workloads and commitment to workload equity. They also found that women of color perceive that their work is less likely to be recognized through departmental reward systems than work from white men. The researchers suggested that having transparent workload criteria and consistent workload assignment practices could reduce these perceptions.43 While it’s clear that this gender gap in service work exists, the causes are less clear. Is it a result of a woman preferring this type of work, or is it rooted in stereotypes? Or is there something else at play?

Q

131

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

In other work, Misra and colleagues found that both men and women faculty members express a preference for research, finding service work an imposition on their time.44 Yet they also found that women felt more pressure, especially early in their careers, to pursue service work. In a 2017 study, KerryAnn O’Meara and colleagues asked faculty to record work activities in a diary over four weeks. Like other studies, they found that women faculty members spend more time on campus service and that men spend more time on research. Importantly, they also found that women received 3.4 more requests for new work activities than men and that men and women received different kinds of work requests.45 Writing in the American Educational Journal, the researchers said: “Receiving new requests would perhaps not be so harmful for women, if those requests were primarily to become more engaged in research activities or to pull women more into research conversations and communities.” However, they found that the new work requests were different for women than for men, with women receiving more requests to be engaged in teaching, student advising, and service than men. One possible reason the authors posit is rooted in the implicit biases toward other women as “helpful and communal and . . . expectations that women will play organizational housekeeping roles”46 (see “How Parents’ Gender Attitudes Influence Their Daughters” in chapter 1). The authors also suggest that solutions can come from clear expectations of workloads. That could include campus dashboards that show minimum, average, and high teaching, advising, and campus service workloads, to increase awareness among

Q

132

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

faculty. Potential interventions include required rotations for time-intensive service roles, fair distribution of advising loads, and adequate credit to faculty for these processes.47 A novel program at Stanford University School of Medicine aims to address both work-life conflicts and “work-work” conflicts created by service burdens. One aspect of this Academic Biomedical Career Customization program includes a timebanking system that rewards extra service by allowing doctors to trade in service hours for both academic support activities, such as manuscript editing or grant writing, and home-support activities like house cleaning or childcare—with all services provided by the university.48 In an analysis of the pilot program, which ran from 2013 to 2014, researchers led by Magali Fassiotto found that it led to increased perceptions of a culture of flexibility and increased institutional satisfaction.49 They also found that those who participated received 1.3 more awards, on average, compared with a matched set of nonparticipants. Also, in 2021, a large university decided to elevate a common service activity for women in academia, work on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis announced that as of 2022, it would give a new option for promotion and tenure based on demonstrating excellence “across an array of integrated scholarly activities aligned with diversity, equity and inclusion.”50 The university created a list of minimum standards and what could constitute excellence under the new policy. While service was part of the university’s previous tenure policy, professors often found it difficult to make their case for DEI activities. The hope is that these more targeted efforts will

Q

133

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

create a more direct path that reduces the hidden service burden for underrepresented individuals in science, leveling DEI work up to other activities in scholarship for advancement. The goal for all of this work is to reduce or eliminate the double tax of productivity for women in science incurred by uncivil workplaces and increased service burdens. Only once that tax is limited can women more fully focus on science and the activities that will help advance their careers.

WHAT’S TENURE GOT TO DO WITH IT? Tenure remains an important goal for academic scientists. It is the ultimate promotion, traditionally giving professors academic freedom and freedom of speech by protecting them from being fired even if they have controversial or nontraditional research. Indeed, the modern concept of tenure in U.S. higher education dates back to 1940, when the American Association of University Professors made a statement that holds that “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.”51 In 2021 and early 2022, tenure was in the news, with some high-profile cases of women and people of color being denied tenure given the controversies surrounding their work, including the journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones,52 the social psychologist Michael Kraus,53 and the ethnic studies scholar Lorgia

Q

134

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

García Peña.54 At the same time, research has emerged about the gender gap remaining in tenure positions. For example, a 2021 study looked at gender parity in the geosciences. 55 Analyzing a dataset of more than 2,500 tenured and tenure-track geoscience faculty members from sixty-two universities, researchers found that women make up only 27 percent of all geoscience faculty positions in the universities represented. They found that as academic rank increases, the percentage of women shrinks, with women comprising 46 percent of assistant professors, 34 percent of associate professors, and 19 percent of full professors across the geosciences.56 The 2021 study was motivated by a 2018 study that found that the number of women pursuing PhDs in the geosciences had increased over the past forty years. 57 The question was then whether these women were being promoted to higherranking positions. The authors of the paper, all women pursuing PhDs in the geosciences, developed a new metric, called a “fractionation factor,” to show the rate of attrition for women compared to men along each phase of the tenure track. Inspired by a concept in geochemistry that looks at the proportion of isotopes relative to one another in an element, the fractionation factor shows the fraction of women compared to men in the pool of faculty across ranks. At all career stages from 1999 to 2015, even though the number of women in geoscience faculty positions rose, women had a higher attrition rate, advancing less often than

Q

135

Q

FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

men. At the same time, the researchers found that in 2020 the rate was about equal, showing some progress. Once cancer biologist (who chose to remain anonymous in an interview for this book) called the process of getting tenure a “rat race” to the top: “We are all running—to get tenure, to get a grant, to publish high impact papers. We run and we run, sometimes forgetting the very objective of why we chose this profession.” And not reaching the finish line to tenure can have profound effects on academic scientists.

Q

136

Q

6

FIXING VISIBILITY

WHY ARE

women not as visible in science through traditional

career-enhancing activities such as publications, funding, awards, and conference appearances? Advancing in science can feel like a “winner-takes-all” exercise, with those who have early successes then continuing to succeed and gain visibility, leaving others behind. Women are often among those left behind, because of many of the same underrepresentation, implicit bias, and social factors affecting other trends in science. Across disciplines, research is elucidating why women get disproportionately less credit for their work and how opportunities for advancement and visibility can be more equitable, including through transparent authorship policies, greater diversity on selection committees, and formal gender policies for conference lineups, among other solutions.

FIXING VISIBILITY

FIGURE 6.1

Portrait of the social psychologist Aneeta Rattan, PhD.

MAKING BIAS MORE VISIBLE TO LIGHT THE WAY FOR ADVANCEMENT: ANEETA RATTAN I grew up in Florida at a time where there were not many people of South Asian descent there. When you grow up extremely underrepresented, you never have the choice of not

Q

138

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

noticing that you’re different. I knew that people might treat me differently because of my differences. My parents were both immigrants to the United States. My dad is from India, and my mom is Indian, but she grew up in Kenya as part of the diaspora. They were extraordinarily focused on education as a means of social mobility. Both of my parents have exceptional stories of how they ended up being able to become doctors. So I grew up very much with parents who emphasized that there are many people who have had aptitude but who don’t get a chance and that if you have chances, you have to take them. And if you can give other people chances, you have to give them because there’s so much potential out there. As someone of Indian origin, there are stereotypes that my group must be higher achieving in some domains but then undesirable in other domains. So growing up, I had an eye toward a lot of the structural or contextual aspects of our experiences. I was an undergraduate who entered university thinking I would be pre-med but ended up declaring an English major for my first couple of years at Columbia University. I decided to take my science requirement as an intro to psychology course, like many people did. I just completely fell in love with the topic. I ended up shifting from being an English major to being a psychology major with a concentration in English. I realized there is a whole field that lets me think this way that I think we should all be thinking.

Q

139

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

And then I got lucky. In my social psychology class, we had a few graduate students come and speak to us about their research. They asked for volunteers to pair with them as mentors. A few of the people were working with Carol Dweck [of fixed-versus-growth-mindset fame] because she was still at Columbia at the time. I really wanted to do research on motivation, and the graduate students who agreed to work with me— despite the fact that I was a thirdyear undergrad with zero experience and zero knowledge about psychology—were just the most exceptional mentors I could have had. Bonita London and Rainer Romero Canyas were the first people to ever make me understand that being a professor is a job that people have. They were the first people who made me realize that I could do experimental research on the kinds of social problems I cared about. Throughout my time as an undergraduate, I volunteered and worked in different side jobs, and many of them were oriented around the interest I have in equity. A core belief of mine is that education is one of the levers for equity that we have in society, though of course it isn’t enough alone. I used to joke that I spent more of my time on my part-time job—which was running a small organization dedicated to after-school SAT prep for kids in underserved high schools in Manhattan—than on my campus studies. I could see that the students we were tutoring simply did not have the infrastructure that they needed. At the same time, I took Carol Dweck’s class on mindset, and I felt like some of the issues she was talking about were visible in the experience of my students.

Q

140

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

Also, when learning about mindsets for the first time, I had the full-blown experience of being someone with a fixed mindset. I had gone to a private school that I experienced as having a very fixed mindset, which was a contrast to my parents, who have such a growth mindset. I remember looking around in the classroom and thinking, “Oh, my God, am I the only dumb one who didn’t realize there’s another belief out there?” And so simultaneously, I was taking this course and then watching these students who had the most extraordinary structural barriers in their private lives, as well as in their schooling, prevent them from having what they would need to be the kind of learners that they had every potential and ability to be. Together, these experiences really focused me on wanting to study motivation, but in a way that acknowledges the broader dynamics of inequality that exist. That’s what I hoped to study once I started dreaming of doing a PhD. I had worked in many different jobs while an undergraduate, so I was realistic about what work is like. It’s rare to find complete meritocracy anywhere. I was fortunate to have these mentors who helped shepherd me through the process of applying for and then doing the PhD, through the key moments where inequities come to be most at the fore, which I think placed me in an extremely privileged position. When I became a faculty member, I shifted from being in this supportive, equity-focused research world in my social psychology program into a business world, where there were questions raised about the validity of my work. I joined my department at a time when there were multiple people who

Q

141

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

studied bias, and there were at least a couple of other racialminority women in the group at the time. As a result, I felt really supported in my perspective despite the challenges and barriers some people put in my path. I also felt responsible for speaking out when I encountered difficult situations. I am a scholar of speaking out, studying the confrontation of overt biases. So I felt like anytime I heard scholars at my institution or elsewhere expressing bias, for example, saying I needed to “smile more” in a performance review, I felt it was my responsibility to explain why that was problematic—that evaluations have to be grounded in fact and performance criteria. Teacher ratings are very important at most institutions, and I have seen many women and racial-minority women driven away by such issues. I remember when I first started teaching, students would write things in my evaluations like “I wish we had the man professor.” To deal with this, I knew I couldn’t rely on my colleagues who had stereotypesmoothed paths to success in teaching. Instead, I went and spoke to people all across the field who had had terrible teaching experiences to start. They gave me great guidance, saying, “The problem you have is that you are a nonmatch; none of your stereotypes match. The person who you actually are is someone who does not embody their stereotypes enough for your students.” They gave me sage advice that was tough to take—to either embody stereotypes that I do not believe in and that are not fit to me or to essentially withdraw my identities from the room to the degree that I could. It was difficult advice

Q

142

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

to hear, but it was absolutely the right advice for me to get at that moment. I paired that with a lot of other learning and development, including watching other people teach for hours upon hours. But what I believe made a difference were these behaviors that helped students cope with the fact that I am not the person they want to see at the front of the classroom. That has improved over the years. I do still have students saying, “Oh, when I saw you were our professor, I was so disappointed, but I cannot believe how good your class was,” as though that is a compliment. This past fall, I taught an elective on diversity for the first time, an elective that I created. So many of my  students shared that “this was the first space we have had to talk about these issues of bias, but they come up all the time in work,” or “this is the first time I have been able to ask a question that is core to how I will function as a leader, touching on these really difficult topics.” Working with business leaders, I see the overall trend changing, but it’s highly variable. What has shifted broadly is that managers and leaders are more aware that they need to speak in the language of diversity, belonging, and safety. But I think that the degree to which they really want to understand these issues, and they really want to make changes, is highly variable. My research perspective starts from the place of thinking that biases are the status quo and also taking a contextual perspective. So, if someone is in a very secure position or in a position of power, they have probably gone through

Q

143

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

an acculturation experience of adapting to the context effectively to end up in that position. In the moments when I am shocked or disappointed by how things in academia can go so severely wrong, I often see a lot of rationalization that arises from people’s intense desire to maintain their belonging to their groups, such as their departments, or their identities, such as their roles as senior faculty members. In academia, it’s relatively more common now for people to understand and know that by making this career choice, they are opting into the possibility that people will exhibit bias toward them in a variety of different ways. And that’s not fair. It’s not right. I don’t agree with it. But I think that when you go in with that recognition, you also can switch the question from “Will I experience bias?” to “How am I going to handle bias?” Bias is an objective reality, and we know the moments where it’s often most acute in academia and in science. And so, if you are opting into academic science, you will have to face some of these biases, but it’s not the only option. I think this is one of the reasons that many women feel so sad about the state of science, because they feel like all else being equal, they would never leave science. But the level of bias they experience might be so great they decide it’s not worth it to be here. That’s a valid decision at the individual level. But it points to a structural issue that we all have to fix, and that is what continues to motivate my research and perspective. —Aneeta Rattan, PhD (social psychologist at a business school)

Q

144

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

A REINFORCING CYCLE OF MISPLACED CREDIT Although the social psychologist Aneeta Rattan chose to take an academic path with a clear understanding that she would encounter bias and not a meritocracy, that is not the experience for everyone. Many individuals enter a career aware that they will face obstacles but optimistic that they will be spared the worst and that ultimately, if they work hard and do their best, they will succeed. This is a traditional viewpoint underpinning much of modern work culture, including in science: that of a meritocracy, that those with the strongest work will achieve the greatest success. However, decades of social psychology research, including work highlighted in earlier chapters, have revealed the many biases and social constructs that shape all human endeavors. As a human endeavor, science is no exception. As Rattan noted, bias is the status quo. And those biases manifest at many critical stages of a scientist’s career as they seek to rise through the ranks: in teaching evaluations, conference panel participation, grant funding, publications, and awards. When it comes to the challenges facing female scientists to advance and become more visible in their fields, two concepts from the social sciences emerge: the Matthew effect and the Matilda effect.1 The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage shows that success begets success; essentially, early fame helps predict continued recognition. At the same time, the Matilda effect shows that the work of women is often credited to their

Q

145

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

male co-collaborators. Together, the two concepts create a difficult cycle to break in light of historic underrepresentation of women in science. The origin of the Matthew effect concept itself demonstrates some of these powers at play. Coined by the sociologist Robert Merton in 1968, the initial idea came from Harriet Zuckerman, Merton’s future wife, who interviewed Nobel laureates in the early 1960. 2 A key theme that emerged in Zuckerman’s interviews was that well-known scientists get disproportionately higher visibility for their contributions to science, while relatively unknown ones get disproportionately less visibility for comparable contributions. One laureate in physics said: “The world is peculiar in this matter of how it gives credit. It tends to give the credit to already famous people.” 3 Based on those interviews, Merton wrote the “The Matthew Effect in Science” in 1968—with himself as the only author.4 Yet in an ironic nod to the Matilda effect, he later acknowledged Zuckerman’s contributions: “It is now [1973] belatedly evident to me that I drew upon the interview and other materials of the Zuckerman study to such an extent that, clearly, the paper should have appeared under joint authorship.”5 A key part of the Matthew effect is the idea that in joint scientific collaborations, the more eminent scientist will get disproportionate credit. Building on this work, in 1980, the statistician Steven Stigler coined his “Stigler’s law of eponymy,” stating: “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.”6 In giving credit to Merton’s underlying work, he highlighted the irony of naming the law after himself.

Q

146

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

Over the last several decades, many studies and researchers have documented how the Matthew effect influences scientists’ successes throughout their career. In a 2018 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Thijs Bol and colleagues show that the Matthew effect helps concentrate funding in the hands of a small number of successful scholars.7 Analyzing data from a €2 billion Dutch granting program for early career scientists, Bol and colleagues examined review scores and funding decisions of grant proposals submitted by recent PhDs. The researchers found that those who won funding just above the threshold for winning accumulated more than twice as much research funding in the following eight years as nonfunding winners who fell just below the threshold. Their research suggested that the early funding itself was an asset in acquiring funding and not based on achievements enabled from the early funding. The researchers also found that those who failed to win funding were less likely to apply for future grants, creating a reinforcing cycle— all based on a small difference in review scores. They wrote: “This raises the question of whether . . . the distribution of smaller grants across a larger number of scientists could reduce inequality and improve meritocracy without sacrificing efficiency.” The Matthew effect phenomenon is intensified in the context of women and people of color in science, as they are historically underrepresented and often receive less credit for their work relative to their male colleagues, vis-à-vis the Matilda effect (see more in “History in Brief: The Matilda Effect” in this chapter).8

Q

147

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

A 2013 paper extended the Matilda effect in science-toscience communication: Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick found that both men and women rated abstracts from male authors as having significantly greater scientific quality than abstracts from female authors and that both men and women preferred the male authors as possible future collaborators, mirroring the effects of implicit biases seen in hiring and other practices (see chapter 4).9 The Matthew and Matilda effects, combined, amplify the challenges for women, wherein well-known male scientists will often receive disproportionately higher visibility and recognition for their work than female scientists. The causes of these effects are largely rooted in explicit and implicit biases that have pervaded society, but awareness and understanding of them can go a long way toward creating the structural changes needed to make advancement in science more equitable.

THE BIAS BEHIND ABUSIVE TEACHER EVALUATIONS A wealth of research has documented the gender, race, and other biases that often cloud the student evaluations of teaching. As Aneeta Rattan noted earlier in this chapter, these evaluations often focus on features that do not affect the performance of a teacher, such as how often the person smiles, and often relate back to how the teacher conforms to stereotypes the students have in mind when they see their teachers.10 For women and especially women of color, those

Q

148

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

biases can have a marked effect on the evaluations, which are an important metric for advancement in academic science. Noting that more than 16,000 higher education institutions use student evaluations at the end of the teaching period, Troy Hefferman did a review analysis, showing that these evaluations are influenced by the background of the students and teachers as well as “other aspects not associated with course quality or teaching effectiveness.” He also noted that evaluations often include abusive comments, most frequently directed toward women and those from marginalized groups. Hefferman wrote: “This study demonstrates that at best SETs [student evaluations of teaching] disadvantage women, and at worst, see women academics placed in untenable positions.”11 A 2022 study by Kathy Tangalakis and colleagues in the Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practices found that this abuse was more rampant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when teaching was virtual.12 Looking at more than 22,000 scores and more than eight thousand comments from evaluations from both 2019 (pre-COVID, during inperson instruction) and 2020 (during remote teaching) at an Australian university, they found that while there were no differences in scores between male and female lecturers, there was a marked difference in the comments. Negative comments, while overall in the minority, were disproportionately targeted at female academics, irrespective of the students’ gender. And during remote learning, male students made 30  percent more negative comments about female

Q

149

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

lecturers’ teaching style. Comments about the domestic environment while teaching online were directed only toward the female lecturers, such as: “It was distracting when her child would interrupt her.”13 In their study, Tangalakis and colleagues suggest that universities create guides and training for people reading the student evaluation data to make them aware of the known gender bias, as well as using implicit gender bias training for students, among other potential solutions. They also discuss the value of mental health resources for the lecturers on the receiving end of negative comments so that they too are aware of these common biases. In the paper, Hefferman also points to research suggesting focus groups or student interviews would be a more equitable way of gaining information.

HISTORY IN BRIEF: THE MATILDA EFFECT First described by the science historian Margaret Rossiter in 1993, the Matilda effect is named after the suffragette Matilda Joslyn Gage. In 1883, she wrote “Woman as an Inventor,” saying: “No assertion in reference to woman is more common than that she possesses no inventive or mechanical genius, even the United States census failing to enumerate her among the inventors of the country. But, while such statements are carelessly or ignorantly made, tradition, history, and experience alike prove her possession of these faculties in the highest degree.”14

Q

150

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

FIGURE  6.2 Matilda Joslyn Gage’s “Woman as an Inventor” (1883) outlined women’s many contributions to innovation, and the social science phenomenon known as the Matilda Effect would be named for Gage. Source: Matilda Joslyn Gage, “Woman as an Inventor,” North American Review 136, no. 318 (May 1883): 478–89, https://www.jstor.org/stable /25118273. Courtesy of Matilda Joslyn Gage, The North American Review via JSTOR.

Gage then detailed many inventions created by women but noted how, lacking political power and freedom, women were not recognized as inventors to the same extent as men. Rossiter’s 1993 paper thus referenced this work in defining the Matilda effect, whereby male scientists receive credit for work done by women.15 Since then, dozens of papers on gender discrimination in science have cited the Matilda effect.

Q

151

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

Some notable historic examples of misplaced scientific credit include: Alice August Ball In 1915, Ball became the first woman and first African American master’s graduate at the University of Hawaii and would then become the first African American chemistry professor, also at the University of Hawaii. In 1916, she developed a novel method, the “Ball Method,” to isolate the active ingredient from the oil of a chaulmoogra tree. This ingredient could then be mixed with water and injected into the bloodstream to treat leprosy. She died when she was twenty-four before being able to implement her work.16 However, Arthur L. Dean, a chemist and president of the University of Hawaii, would publish her findings under his name. Until the 1940s, the treatment Ball developed would be the most effective cure for leprosy, but she did not receive credit for her work until the year 2000. The state of Hawaii now celebrates “Alice Ball Day” every four years, on February 29.17 Lise Meitner An Austrian-born physicist, Meitner worked with Otto Hahn on the research that would lead to the discovery of nuclear fission. Meitner was Berlin University’s first female professor but years later would have to flee Nazi Germany in 1938 to escape persecution as a Jew. Hahn reportedly bribed a border guard with his mother’s diamond ring to help Meitner escape to Sweden.18

Q

152

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

In 1938, Hahn and his collaborator Fritz Strassmann unexpectedly created barium while working with uranium samples but had no idea how it had happened. Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch then showed how a uranium atom might be split to create barium, a pivotal discovery in understanding nuclear fission— describing the process in a letter to the editor in Nature and then detailing to Hahn how to purify the uranium to confirm that the fission of uranium led to barium, which he did successfully.19 Hahn published the findings but did not include Meitner as a  coauthor, perhaps because she was a Jewish woman.20 Despite their long and close collaboration, Hahn would receive the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944 and become renowned for the discovery of nuclear fission. Meitner would be recognized for her contributions decades later, with the element meitnerium (number 109) named in her honor in 1997.21 Rosalind Franklin An X-ray crystallographer at the University of Cambridge, Franklin took the photo, called Photo 51, that revealed the helical structure of DNA. When they published their seminal paper on the structure of DNA in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick, who were also researchers at the University of Cambridge, failed to credit and acknowledge the pivotal contribution Franklin’s photo made to the work. Franklin then passed away before the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Watson, Crick, and Maurice Wilkins in 1962.22

Q

153

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

In an opening ceremony in 2000 for the Franklin-Wilkins building at King’s College, Watson said: “Without the two of them [Franklin and Wilkins], Francis Crick and I could not have made our discovery.” And Crick said: “It is important to remember that all the really relevant experimental work on the X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA fibres was done by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins and their co-workers.”23 These are but a few examples of the Matilda effect in history. In an interview with the Smithsonian Magazine for a 2019 story, Rossiter explained that she hoped that in naming the phenomenon, it would lead to change: “You need to name it. It will stand larger in the world of knowledge than if you just say it happened.”24

ADAPTING AUTHORSHIP TO REFLECT CONTRIBUTIONS Authorship in science is often a proxy for productivity and success. The often-quoted mantra “publish or perish” refers to the straight line that connects how frequently a scientist publishes to their success. Yet authorship is also often at the center of controversy, with some practices making it unclear who actually was responsible for the work— enabling the Matthew and Matilda effects to persist. While responsible conduct in research training requires that authorship be based on fair credit, it can often get complicated,

Q

154

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

especially when large, distributed, or interdisciplinary teams are involved.25 The stereotype of a scientist working alone on a discovery reflects a myth more than reality, with most modern research projects involving the expertise and work of many; even in this book, where studies are often referenced by their first author, that author is often one of a large team working on the same project whose work builds on the work of many. Traditionally, the first author is the person who contributes most to the work, although that varies widely by publication and discipline, and there can be multiple “first” coauthors; sometimes, authors are listed alphabetically.26 Despite changes in authorship practices to account for different types of contributions, the gender gap in publishing persists, and some research has noted it has even increased as more women have entered academia.27 Indeed, various studies have extensively documented evidence of gender differences in publications, including that women publish fewer articles throughout their careers and that their work acquires fewer citations.28 In a 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Junming Huang and colleagues reconstructed the full publishing careers of about 1.5 million scientists for whom they were able to identify gender and whose publishing careers ended between 1955 and 2010. Across eighty-three countries and thirteen major disciplines, Huang and colleagues found that women account for 27 percent of authors, and they noted that in 1955 women represented only 12 percent of all active authors, steadily rising to 35 percent by 2005.29 Notably, they found that while the yearly productivity and impact were nearly indistinguishable among men and women,

Q

155

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

there were significant gaps in total impact and productivity across countries and disciplines. Male scientists published on average 13.2 papers during their career, while female authors published 9.6, resulting in a 27 percent gender gap in total productivity; the gap was even larger, they found, among highly productive authors, those who are training the next generation of scientists (see related work in “When Work and Family Collide” in chapter  7). In addition, male scientists received 30  percent more citations for their publications than female scientists. Huang and colleagues wrote, “Paradoxically, the gradual increase in the fraction of women in science is accompanied by a steady increase in both the productivity and impact gender gaps.”30 They concluded that the gaps are rooted in gender-specific dropout rates and subsequent career lengths. A 2022 study in Nature Physics found that women are significantly undercited relative to men in contemporary physics.31 They found this gap was driven primarily by male authors and authors with less familiarity about the subjects being covered, harking back to the Matthew effect, where familiarity helps fuel more success. The authors, led by the physicist Erin Teich, call for conscious behavioral changes at both the individual and institutional levels. And this study is but one example of the citation gap.32 In a 2021 study in Science Advances, researchers pointed to gender disparities also in perceptions of credit, with female researchers perceiving they received less credit than deserved in authorship. Surveying about 5,500 researchers about their authorship experiences, Chaoqun Ni and colleagues reported that more than half of respondents reported some type of

Q

156

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

authorship disagreement but that women were more likely to experience disputes in how authors should be named than men in the same discipline and at the same career stage.33 Ni and colleagues pointed to solutions as well, writing that scientific societies and universities were well positioned to develop guidelines around authorship decisions. Increased standardization and enforcement of the standards could help prevent authorship disagreements. They also pointed out that authorship is not always included in misconduct guidelines, and therefore universities should open more avenues for graduate students and postdoctoral workers to communicate authorship concerns. The researchers also pointed toward the power imbalance that still exists in science between senior researchers, who remain largely male and often make authorship decisions, and those who report to them. Their research revealed that male researchers favored “a more hierarchical construct of laboratory structure,” while female researchers favored “more inclusive arrangements.” Concluding, they wrote: “Acknowledgment of these gendered differences and increased dialogue in the distribution of authorship may serve to mitigate potential disputes within research teams.”34 Authorship guidelines can be valuable in helping mitigate against disputes. For example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has put forward standards widely adopted by many international biomedical journals to help structure authorship decisions.35 However, such guidelines, even when they exist, are not always explicitly used by researchers. In a 2020 study, Sarah Schroter and colleagues found that 57 percent of surveyed biomedical authors across ninety-three

Q

157

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

countries used authorship criteria to determine eligibility, with 80 percent of respondents saying that the decisions made were fair.36 They wrote that authorship questions were more likely to be discussed early and perceived as fairer when institutions frequently encouraged use of their authorship guidelines, compared to infrequent encouragement. Some journals are moving toward a model in which individual contributions are noted, rather than just a standard listing of authors. In a 2022 study, Myriam Baum and colleagues describe changes that can be implemented in psychology manuscripts, for example, from the title page to in-text citations to the bibliography, to make specific contributions more clearly credited.37 In addition, Schroter and colleagues also pointed to the implementation of publication ethics training, such as those being set up by the Committee on Publication Ethics to educate and support editors and publishers, as well as institutions, in good ethical practice in scientific publication.38 This again moves toward thinking about authorship practices as part of the larger research culture.

CASE STUDY: CHANGING GENDER GAPS IN CITATIONS At the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience in 2020, the editor in chief announced a new tool to help address a gender bias in publications. In a published Q&A, the neuroscientist Brad Postle explained that the tool originated from his attending a virtual conference, in which colleagues used tools

Q

158

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

from data science and graph theory to quantify the systemic bias of citation practices in neuroscience journals: “Papers authored by men are cited far in excess of the proportion of men who are actively publishing in the field.”39 As the new editor in chief of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Postle then decided to ask the research scientists Jacqueline Fulvio and Ileri Akinnola to apply the same analyses to the journal, and they found that the same patterns were true. He therefore set out to create a new tool, called the “gender citation balance index” (GCBI). While the use of the tool was voluntary at the time, the hope was that authors will use it to estimate the potential gender biases in their own citation practices. And, depending on a manuscript’s GCBI, reviewers were being encouraged to suggest to authors relevant citations from an underrepresented author category for potential inclusion in their revision.

REBALANCING CONFERENCE PANEL PARTICIPATION Like publications, conference presentations are central ways through which scientists gain visibility throughout their careers, including demonstrating impact in their field in order to be promoted. And like publications, conference panels have traditionally skewed male because of many of the same historic trends and biases. The same Matthew effect has been in play, with conference organizers often turning to well-known scientists first in considering whom to invite to speak.

Q

159

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

In a 2018 paper in PNAS, Christine L. Nittrouer and colleagues found that women were underrepresented relative to men as university colloquium speakers across six disciplines and fifty top U.S. universities.40 They also found that women do not decline speaking invitations at greater rates or devalue scientific talks relative to men, addressing the question of whether women are less interested in speaking opportunities. A 2019 analysis in Nature of five scientific disciplines over nine years found that four of the five fields made some progress in diversifying the speakers at their key conferences, with large positive increases in female participation.41 In addition, the ratio of women to men among invited speakers exceeded the overall ratio of senior women in all five fields. The fields studied were neuroscience, artificial intelligence, chemistry, geology, and microbiology, with chemistry being the field that showed the least progress. Another study in Nature in 2019 found that the numbers were far worse for people of color.42 Looking at some 39,000 speakers for the annual fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Heather Ford and colleagues found that U.S. scientists from minority racial and ethnic populations were the least likely to be invited or assigned to speak at key scientific conferences, with the gap most severe for women of color—suggesting an intersectional bias. Using websites and social media platforms, many groups have catalogued the so-called manel phenomenon, publicly calling out the lack of women on panels at scientific conferences. One popular website, BiasWatchNeuro, began in 2015 when the neuroscientist Yael Niv noticed that none of the twenty-one

Q

160

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

scientists scheduled to speak at a conference on deep brain stimulation were women.43 The site calculates gender ratios among conference speakers relative to the proportion of female scientists in the conference’s particular field and has now flags bosses not only for conference speakers but also publications, awards, and other career-advancing activities.44 Such awareness raising has been a key step in gaining more equity for women in science, with some researchers publicly declining speaking invitations for events without a diversity of speakers, such as NIH Director Frances Collins and Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome.45 Much of the challenge related to conferences has come from the Matthew effect, with panel organizers pulling from scientists well-known in their fields or known to them personally. So, a key solution has come in the form of database resources that make it easier to find qualified female scientists. For example, the group 500 Women Scientists started “Request a Woman Scientist,” a database of thousands of scientists globally.46 Developing speaker policies and making those policies visible also help mitigate against speaker bias.47 In addition, having more underrepresented individuals serving on program planning committees and as session chairs can help address the diversity gap. Indeed, in Nittrouer and colleagues’ study, they found that “committees with female chairs sponsored talks in which 49% of colloquium speakers were women, whereas those with male chairs sponsored talks in which 30% of colloquium speakers were women.”48 Having more balanced panels not only helps women gain career-advancing visibility through conferences but can also

Q

161

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

boost women’s participation and feelings of belonging at a conference. For a study in The Lancet: Diabetes and Endocrinology, Victoria Salem and colleagues looked at female participation in the UK Society for Endocrinology’s annual conference.49 They found that emailing the conference organizing team with a request to invite more female society members to chair sessions was linked not only to higher numbers of female chairs compared to the previous year’s conference but also to an increase in female audience participation at those sessions. But as will be discussed in chapter 8, speaker representation is not the only challenge women face in navigating conferences, which often straddle their work and personal lives.

EQUITY IN EARNING AWARDS Another important area in which bias impedes the advancement of women scientists is in the distribution of awards and grants. Prizes can put scientists on the radar for everyone from peers and tenure committees to the press and grant-giving agencies, thus feeding into the Matthew effect, where success begets success. Yet data has illuminated a persistent gender gap in award winners, as well as potential solutions to address the gap. Since the Nobel Prize was first awarded in 1901, women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Physics, or Physiology or Medicine twenty-three times out of 631, some 3.65 percent of the total (with Marie Curie winning twice, once for Physics and once for Chemistry). 50 In 2018, the Nobel Prize in Physics went to Donna Strickland, who was the first

Q

162

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

FIGURE 6.3

In Numbers: Nobel Laureates, 1901–2021.

Since the Nobel Prize was first awarded in 1901, women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Physics, or Physiology or Medicine twenty-three times out of 631, some 3.6 percent total (with Marie Curie winning twice, once for Physics and once for Chemistry). Source: “Nobel Prizes and Laureates,” 2022, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/.

female recipient in fifty-five years, for her work on a laser system for studying biological systems.51 In 2020, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna for their groundbreaking work on the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR. In an interview from National Geographic’s 2019 book Women, Doudna said that early in her career she wanted to be seen in a genderneutral way but that her views changed over time as she witnessed bias against women, mostly unintentional, around her. “That has made me much more aware of the importance of being very open about the challenges that women face.”52

Q

163

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

In a 2018 study in Nature, Per Lunnemann and colleagues conducted a statistical analysis showing that the gender distribution of Nobel Prizes includes a bias against women.53 They pointed out that the number of women receiving Nobel Prizes in the fifteen years before the study was the same as the number of female laureates in the hundred years of the prize’s history, writing that “even women that resist the leaky pipeline” do not have equal chances as men to be awarded a Nobel Prize. For other awards, while women have been increasingly winning more relative to past trends, studies still show the numbers lagging relative to the number of women researchers and that the awards that women receive tend to be less prestigious than those given to men. A Nature analysis found that while female biomedical scientists were winning prizes in 2017 at approximately five times the rate of five decades earlier, the awards given to females came with less money, public attention, and career-promoting potential.54 In a 2021 study in Quantitative Science Studies looking at 141 top science awards, Lokman Meho and colleagues found that women’s annual average share of award winning increased from 6 percent from 2001–2005 to 19 percent from 2016–2020.55 To achieve parity with men relative to professorial positions, women would need to increase their share of awards by nearly 50 percent, the researchers wrote. They also found large differences between STEM fields, with awards to women in life and biological sciences rising more in proportion with the number of female professors compared to computer science, for example. Part of the disparity, they wrote, is caused by “demographic inertia”—with a lag in awards potentially attributable to the low

Q

164

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

numbers of female professors in the past—but bias still plays a large role. Pointing to a number of studies, Meho and colleagues say that an awareness of bias is the first step toward reducing gender bias in research awards. One study mentioned, by Mary Anne Holmes and colleagues in 2020, recommends additional steps such, as forming canvassing committees to look for potentially overlooked nominees, providing implicit bias training to selection committees, and working to ensure that selection committees focus on the criteria for the award rather than on personal information.56 Another study found that award committees were most vulnerable to pro-male bias when the committee members believed that gender bias was no longer a problem— again pointing to the potential for training.57 Others have pointed toward the composition of selection committees, with women often underrepresented on selection panels. Having a broad representation on selection panels can help mitigate against potential bias.58 Some awards, such as the Abel Prize in mathematics and the Kavli Prizes, have reportedly reached gender parity for their selection committees. 59 Appointing award committees that are not solely composed of previous award recipients could also help. A 2021 study in PNAS points toward a different intervention that could help women get into the competitive field of awards in the first place. Based on research that shows that women are less likely to enter such competitions than men, Joyce He and colleagues tested whether asking students to opt out of a competition rather than opt in would result in more participation among females.60

Q

165

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

The researchers found that the opt-out system, which defaulted to a participant enrolling in the competition, led to roughly equal numbers of women and men competing compared to the opt-in system, which resulted in lower levels of female participation. Additionally, they found that the increase in female participation under the opt-out system did not result in negative effects on performance or well-being. They also found in a follow-up study that evaluators of the competitors from the first study did not penalize those who participated in the opt-out versus opt-in system. Such innovative studies show the potential for the translation of research findings into the real world.

MAKING TELESCOPE TIME MORE WITHIN REACH For astronomers and astrophysicists, having access to space telescopes is of vital importance to their world. The physicist Vera Rubin, a pioneer in the study of dark matter, famously broke the gender barrier in the mid-1960s at the Palomar Observatory, which previously did not allow women telescope time, the reason being that there was only one bathroom available; women could only work there if they snuck in under their husbands’ names.61 While telescope time is now open for women, reserving the time involves a competitive proposal process, especially for the large space telescopes like Hubble, which are expensive to run. After several reports documented a gender bias in the selection of proposals for telescope time for both U.S.

Q

166

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

and European-based telescopes,62 NASA switched to a double-blind review process, following the recommendations of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which runs the Hubble Institute.63 Nature reported that these changes for the Hubble telescope resulted in reversing a seventeen-year trend of committees awarding telescope time to men more than women, with the success rates between women and men shrinking.64 In 2019, NASA adopted the new double-blind process, whereby neither the proposer nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity in deciding who gets telescope time. The system is designed to reduce systemic biases both on the basis of gender and race or ethnicity. NASA also noted, in a nod to the Matthew effect, the desire to reduce bias against researchers who do not hold prestigious positions or who have not received NASA grants in the past. Following this switch to double-blind review, NASA reported both an increase in the percentage of women earning time and an increase in the success rate of early-career investigators gaining telescope time.65 Following NASA’s switch, other groups followed suit, with astronomy observatories, particle physics centers, and computing facilities worldwide adopting double-blind review for instrument time. Anonymizing proposals requires that applicants remove investigator names, gender pronouns, and language that identifies previously published research. (For related work, see “When Double-Blind Review Isn’t Enough” in chapter 4.)

Q

167

Q

FIXING VISIBILITY

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: BEN BARRES ON GENDER BIAS In a 2006 commentary in the journal Nature, Ben Barres reflected on his scientific career as a transgender man.66 He detailed his own path in discovering the role of gender in science, saying that it was only at age fifty that he realized the many barriers still impeding women and minorities in academia. “When it comes to bias, it seems that the desire to believe in a meritocracy is so powerful that until a person has experienced sufficient career-harming bias themselves they simply do not believe it exists.” Barres, who passed away in 2017, shared a few of his personal experiences in the article: As an undergrad at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), I was the only person in a large class of nearly all men to solve a hard math problem, only to be told by the professor that my boyfriend must have solved it for me. I was not given any credit. I am still disappointed about the prestigious fellowship competition I later lost to a male contemporary when I was a PhD student, even though the Harvard dean who had read both applications assured me that my application was much stronger (I had published six high-impact papers whereas my male competitor had published only one). Shortly after I changed sex, a faculty member was heard to say, “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s.”

Q

168

Q

7

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

WHAT MAKES

work-life balance especially challenging for women

in science? Society’s vision of the ideal worker is often rooted in dated gender roles that have produced systemic barriers to women advancing. The ideal worker who puts in long hours in the office, the lab, and on the road at conferences and events does not fit the needs of many working women. And the COVID19 pandemic exacerbated these challenges for women, including around childcare and work conditions. In exposing the thin boundaries between women’s personal and professional lives, the pandemic underscored the need for more flexible and safe options both in the workplace and at conferences and events.

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

FIGURE 7.1

Portrait of the geoscientist Katharine Huntington, PhD.

BALANCING THE PRESSURES OF BEING A MOM AND A SCIENTIST: KATHARINE HUNTINGTON I grew up expecting I would probably be a college science professor, which is a very strange thing. It seemed normal to me though. My dad was a political science professor, and my mom was an earth science teacher.

Q

170

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

My rebellion consisted of doing physics in college initially and then actually majoring in economics. But I realized quickly that I only liked the more quantitative parts of economics and switched to double majoring in geology, and I stuck with geoscience for my career. My research ended up converging on geochemistry, tectonics, and paleoclimatology. I’m really interested in the processes that shape Earth’s surface and its broad characteristics over vast timescales of geologic time, and today. I grew up in a small college town but also lived on and off in Italy, when my father taught study-abroad programs. Living overseas helped build my curiosity about different cultures, while the experience of struggling in another culture and language gave me great empathy for people who came from different places into the United States not knowing English. I was an A student in college, but what I was most passionate about were my extracurricular activities, including running a volunteer English as a-Second Language Program for Hispanic immigrant women and their children. I also did a lot of work with Habitat for Humanity. And so when it came to graduating and deciding what to do next, I was really torn. I thought about wanting to continue in the service, nonprofittype work, and I saw pursuing science as a really selfish thing. I ultimately decided I could pursue the geosciences and reconcile it with my desire to engage and lift people up as a teacher. I did not have the words at the time, but the ideas of equity and inclusion and diversity were what I cared deeply about.

Q

171

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

My undergraduate advisor encouraged me to apply for graduate school and talked me through the steps. I ended up going to MIT straight out of undergrad, and I remember thinking that I was an admissions mistake. I think I’ve always sort of had this sense that there wasn’t any other option than to be perfect at school. So I just felt like if I can’t be perfect, I can’t really belong here, even if on paper; I shouldn’t have felt that way. For the big exam in June of my second year in grad school, I remember freaking out about it at Christmas time. I left vacation with my family early because I thought I needed to go home and study for this thing that was six months later. I ended up being completely overprepared and doing great, and only then started thinking, “maybe I do belong here.” I started to realize that my ongoing struggles with impostor syndrome had a lot to do with gender. In my grad program, about one-third of the students were women. There weren’t any women postdocs that I knew. There were two women professors in a building that was eighteen floors. And then there was the sexism. At the first conference I ever went to, I remember having an argument with a postdoc from another institution, and he said, “Women have weapons; no one will pay attention to what you’re saying; it’s about how you look.” This was a conference with maybe five women scientists out of over a hundred participants, and that struck me. This was my introduction to the field. Almost fifteen years later, I got invited to give a keynote at that same conference, which I hadn’t been to since then. I agreed to it and decided to start my talk with the NAS

Q

172

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

iceberg infographic [see more in the introduction, “Fixing a Broken System”] that shows the different types of harassment women experience in science, and I said, “Hi, everyone, it’s wonderful to see people from all different countries and places and genders. This was not what it looked like when I first attended this conference. But now I’m excited that the field is really recognizing and embracing this need for inclusion.” After my science talk, I was posing for a picture with some research group colleagues, who included my male former PhD advisor and generations of his former students, who happened to all be women. A senior male scientist yells across the room, “How can I get a picture with the harem?” He then walked over and put his arm physically around me and pushed his face up against mine. I put my hand up and pushed him away. He was dragged away by spectators. It was so disgusting. That same year at another conference, there was a sexist joke at the beginning of a session that shook up the room. I felt this awful mix of vulnerability and anger and felt physically ill. And coming out of that room when it happened, I asked, “How do I get in the leadership of this society? I’m going to change this.” I also ended up writing an open letter with a colleague who’s a senior male. Sexist nonsense and racist and ableist and xenophobic stuff too still come up all the time. The difference is now that I am a leader in my field and in that professional society, I’m in a great position to stand up to it. It’s still draining, but also incredibly rewarding to see the change that’s happening.

Q

173

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

One of the things I’ve loved most about my career is the people. Throughout my time at MIT and then later at Caltech for my postdoc, I had some really great mentors. I often describe my PhD experience as “soul crushing.” But the graduate students luckily banded together; we knew the only way we would get out of it alive is to support each other. So, we had really good peer mentoring. Actually, the thing that’s led most to my success and happiness, including now as a faculty member, is having a peer mentoring group. The UW ADVANCE program at the University of Washington had a workshop on setting up peer mentoring groups.1 I was invited to join a group and got a couple people I met at orientation to join too. We have had some form of that group with a core of about eight women, each from a different department, which has met up every other week for about fourteen years. In our group, we have talked about many classic things of being a woman in science and academia, including imposter syndrome [see “When You Feel Like an Imposter” in chapter 4], not getting recognized for your own work, having bullies, etc. But the biggest one is parenting. I got pregnant with my first child the summer after I started my faculty position. For years, my existence was largely defined by the physical effects of having children. Being a parent is a full-time job in and of itself. My first pregnancy was difficult. He was a preemie and in the hospital for a month, and I had a tough time physically too. By the time he was six months old, I had lost twenty pounds below my healthy weight. I was so unhealthy, stressed

Q

174

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

out, and sleep deprived that I decided to start taking a morning off a week, just to take care of myself; the pressure I put on myself was high. It then took us a long time to have a second child, and the process was physically difficult, emotionally draining, and expensive, with multiple medical appointments a week. After a miscarriage, we were fortunate that we ended up having a second child, which was something we really wanted. But the first ten years of my life as a professional scientist were greatly defined by becoming a mother. When the [COVID-19] pandemic started, I had a fouryear-old and a nine-year-old, and my husband and I both took partial leave. He’s been a really amazing partner. They say that the best choice you can make as a woman in science who wants to have kids is your partner. And I chose wisely. Yet it does not matter what he does, I’m always going to be the one feeling torn and guilty based on the pressure I have put on myself and the societal expectations that I personally have internalized. The mommy guilt is real, and it’s something that men and women tend to experience differently. Though it’s certainly not across the board that everyone feels it who happens to identify as a woman, or mother, or parent of a particular gender. I tell people all the time how grateful I am that I get to have the most fun, creative science job where I can pursue things that I find exciting and meaningful, with the flexibility to have this rich life outside of work. But being a parent, especially in the pandemic, has meant battling the feelings

Q

175

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

of failing—failing your kids, failing your students, failing in the time devoted to your research. The pressure of being a mom and a scientist—while also feeling very much responsible and obligated to do a lot of work in the equity space and mentoring space—takes its toll. You’re going to make some people angry and let others down. A lot of people who need support come to cry on your shoulder. It’s all a balancing act, and it’s gotten easier in some ways. I’ve gotten more selfish with my time and am easing up on the perfectionism. The more I focus on the science I love and on what matters to my health and family, the more the impostor syndrome fades. More people are stepping up to make the field more inclusive. As a white woman in a tenured endowed professorship, I am privileged to be a person now in power. While I still feel a lot of pressure, I know I can use my power to improve things for others. —Katharine Huntington, PhD (geoscientist)

SHIFTING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL The geoscientist Katharine Huntington is not alone in her struggles as a woman scientist and a parent, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps one of the biggest modern shifts in how people think about work and their identities came with the pandemic.

Q

176

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

Many people left their jobs to seek more fulfilling and flexible work, in what has been called the “Great Resignation,” and at the same time, the pandemic seemed to exacerbate the gender gap, as women tended to bear the brunt of childcare responsibilities, as many schools and childcare facilities were closed or operating at reduced capacity.2 More than 1 million women left the workforce between January 2020 and February 2022.3 In dissolving what remained of the boundaries between work and life, it laid bare the myth that they were ever separate in the first place rather than an integrated part of individual identity. For women in academia, the effects were acute, influencing their publication productivity, work conditions, student evaluations, and mental health, especially for those with young children.4 An October 2020 survey of some nine hundred female STEM faculty by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) quantified some of these effects, noting that a little more than half of women mentioned having problems managing boundaries between work and family life since the start of the pandemic and that about three-quarters of those surveyed reported negative effects on their work.5 Other studies have shown similar trends for women scientists during the pandemic.6 Many of the effects were further compounded, the NAS report said, for women of color, who in many cases were facing additional expectations as underrepresented faculty members, in terms of providing emotional care like mentoring.7 The pandemic not only put a spotlight on racial inequities but also intersected with events such as the murder of George Floyd,

Q

177

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

which led to widespread protests in the summer of 2020. During this time, some organizations focused discussion on Black faculty, raising visibility around scientists of color, and grassroots organizations emerged to help support Black academics and educate allies coping with these events.8 By illuminating the remaining challenges for equity in science, the COVID-19 pandemic time period has enabled some reflection, with a call for change in the workplace. Alternative models for workplace culture and practices are necessary for women scientists to advance and feel safe in the workplace and at work events while navigating childcare and other challenges associated with motherhood.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: INDIA JOHNSON ON THE DAYCARE BURDEN I got a lot of scholarships to go to undergraduate school, but I lived on my own and had to make sure I could afford to pay my bills, including my daughters’ daycare. Eventually, I realized I needed to take out loans to help with that financial gap, because I didn’t want my grades to suffer; I thought that it was really important for my grades to be as strong as possible in order to get into graduate school. I got full funding to go to the Ohio State, but the finances were still challenging. My oldest child was old enough to be in kindergarten, but my second oldest was still daycare age. Trying to figure out how to pay for childcare for her was insane. There were some options for subsidized childcare, and I talked to multiple people about

Q

178

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

navigating it and figuring out how to apply for reimbursement. I spent the first two weeks of school paying daycare out of pocket, and it was probably like around $200 a week. It started getting to the point where I didn’t know how I was going to be able to continue to go to school, and then I found out that I actually wasn’t eligible for subsidized care, because I already had a bachelor’s degree. It was the first time that I thought that I had made a mistake when I came to graduate school. I wound up talking to the director of the daycare, and she was sympathetic, like “this is a teenage mom who’s trying to go to graduate school, trying to figure out how to take care of her kids.” She found out about another funding mechanism that might be helpful that I could use, and it worked out. I still had to take out additional student loans, as I couldn’t cover all of it. So even though I was in a graduate program that was well funded, it was very challenging as a mom. —India Johnson, PhD (social psychologist)

WHEN WORK AND FAMILY COLLIDE For many women in academia, becoming a parent might mean a change in their career path. In a 2019 study of full-time STEM professionals after the birth or adoption of their first child, Erin Cech and Mary Blair-Loy found that nearly one-half of new mothers compared to nearly one-quarter of new fathers leave full-time STEM employment after having children.9 And the

Q

179

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

same forces could explain similar trends observed in the tech industry.10 While many European countries offer paid parental leave, the United States does not have universal paid leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 guarantees workers up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave without risking their jobs, and in October 2020, federal workers, including those working as scientists, were given up to twelve weeks of paid leave. An analysis of parental leave policies at U.S. and Canadian universities found that about 60 percent of institutions have some form of paid parental leave, with an average duration of 14.2 weeks for women and 11.6 weeks for men.11 Some European countries are showing the way with new models for parental leave, such as Iceland, where mothers and fathers receive a total of twelve months of paid leave, two months of which they can transfer as they like between each other.12 Such policies can lead to a more equitable distribution of childcare responsibilities while giving time and space to new mothers.13 Many universities now also offer short-term family leave to care for infants, as well as allow part-time work and for assistant professors to stop their tenure clocks.14 The tenure clock is a timeline for an assistant professor to make their case for achieving tenure (see “What’s Tenure Got to Do with It?” in chapter 5); the parental leave policies are meant to remove any penalty that might be incurred by new parents taking time off to care for their children. But those policies only tell part of the story: Even when women are able to stop their tenure clocks, research has shown

Q

180

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

that there is still a large gender-based productivity gap. A 2016 study by Heather Antecol found that there is no empirical evidence that shows that gender-neutral tenure clock stopping policies help women.15 These policies, they found, actually increased male tenure rates, while women’s tenure rates decreased. They concluded: “Men are more likely to be productive while their tenure clock is stopped and women are much less able to do so, yet they are treated equally under these policies.” In a 2021 study in Science Advances, Allison Morgan and colleagues found that parenthood can explain the productivity gap between tenure-track men and women at research-intensive institutions.16 Looking at 3,064 tenure-track faculty at U.S. and Canadian institutions, they reported that ten years after the birth of their child, female computer science faculty produce on average 17.6 fewer papers than fathers, “a gap that would take roughly 5 years of work for mothers to close.” They also found that this effect is the most severe in the years immediately following parenthood. So, if parental leave time does not help women close the productivity gap, what will? The answer seems to lie in childcare, flexible work arrangements, and other types of support for mothers. While Morgan and colleagues’ research indicated broad support for paid gender-neutral parental leave policies, showing them as a key factor in choosing a position, they also pointed toward childcare benefits as a potentially underutilized tool for retention and recruitment of women in academic positions.17 They noted that nearly 40 percent of those they surveyed had children before their first faculty position. Providing funding and support for

Q

181

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

childcare, as well as robust health care options, could help retain early-career parents. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for childcare support for women in science. In the October 2020 NAS survey, 90 percent of the women faculty surveyed were handling the majority of childcare demands, with about 9 percent saying they shared childcare demands equally with their spouse. Nearly three-quarters of responding faculty with children reported a negative effect from increased childcare demands during the pandemic, while about 13 percent reported positive effects such as shorter commutes and having more family time together. Some faculty pointed to greater support from their academic institutions in providing childcare, schooling, and funding as ways they could have helped during the pandemic. Childcare support can also come in the form of more flexibility. This theme emerged from Cech and Blair-Loy’s work on attrition of parents in STEM fields. They wrote that flexible caregiver policies may provide STEM professionals with the “schedule control” they need to manage their childcare responsibilities while remaining engaged in their careers. They also highlighted the need for ramp-up policies to enable part-time STEM workers to more easily transition back to full-time work. But at the heart of all of these challenges is the culture of science and work itself—moving away from thinking about the “ideal worker” to instead embracing what else ideal work could look like.18 The organizational psychologist Aneeta Rattan noted in an interview for this book that changes like these will not occur until society fundamentally changes not only how it views the ideal worker but also how it views women compared

Q

182

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

to men in caregiving roles. “Structurally, the solutions are far more challenging,” she said. “Because structurally, of course, the solutions involve having men take on equal workload in the home.” Those changes are happening very slowly as conversations rage on about the work-life balance. In 2020 and 2021, the world increasingly saw the barriers come down between people’s work and private lives, literally through Zoom calls in private homes, sometimes with children interrupting along the way.19 In that way, the pandemic helped humanize workers and further change how society thinks about work-life balance.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE AUTHOR ON PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS IN HIRING When my older daughter was about eight months old, I applied for a contract writing position with a federal science agency. The hiring managers, both women, asked about a gap in my resume, and I was transparent in saying something like, “Well, I’ve had a baby, and I’ve taken some time off, but I have ten years of experience and I’m ready to get back into writing.” They then started asking all of these questions, which I’m sure were legal, but were questionable, like: “What kind of hours would you be doing for this? With a little baby, we wouldn’t want you getting your work done at two in the morning or something.” I felt uncomfortable, especially as working hours should not be relevant for a contract position. There was this whole very awkward exchange that left me feeling

Q

183

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

that I didn’t get it. And I did not get the position and will never really know why. —Lisa M. P. Munoz (author)

This story was relayed to the psychologist Aneeta Rattan, whose research team has been working to understand whether and how presumptions about women’s family responsibilities shape fair hiring practices. “I just love that story,” Rattan said, “because it exactly illustrates the psychology we’re trying to capture, which is the idea that for women, regardless of whether they have children or not, the salience of the possibility that they will be having children can become an impediment to their hiring or potentially even their progression in organizations.” Working in 2020 and 2021 with Ezgi Ozgumus, who at the time was a graduate student at the London Business School, Rattan and colleagues ran a series of studies to look at this topic of what they call “maternity salience”—the activation of a set of biases about how women will handle family obligations in the work setting. While there are laws and policies in many countries surrounding the types of questions employers can ask potential employees about family, their work shows those policies do not necessarily lead to more equitable treatment. In a series of studies, not yet published as of January 2022, the researchers ask participants from the business school or, in some cases, experienced hiring managers recruited online to rate male or female candidates applying to a highly demanding position, as well as their likelihood of asking

Q

184

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

them improper but legal questions about home life; they also included reminders about the illegality of asking certain questions. Across the studies, they found that participants, both male and female, were less likely to ask the female applicant compared to male applicant these home-related questions. “So, they apply the policy, but then in applying the policy, that leaves them with less certainty and less confidence about the hiring decision,” Rattan said. “That kind of uncertainty can be very toxic, especially for hiring decisions when you’re choosing amongst multiple qualified alternative candidates.” Their early research underscores the complexity of these issues, showing that one policy alone is often not enough to change the underlying conditions for women, which are shaped by the stereotype-driven assumption about women and motherhood. “This is far more complicated than simply passing a policy and then telling people: remember, it’s not okay to ask about personal life,” Rattan said. Rattan says that short-term solutions could include better training for hiring managers to ask better questions, such as “Will you be able to complete your work in a timely manner?” if the concern, as in the author’s story, is about not wanting work done at odd times. However, ultimately, the problem will only truly be addressed once there is no longer the assumption that women will be the ones whose work is disrupted because of demands in the home, she said. “There is also a piece of it that has to do with workplaces realizing that the ideal worker who is unbothered by their home condition is no longer realistic,” she said. “People are

Q

185

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

going through quite a lot in order to maintain the idea that there is an ideal worker who can show up at work, work all of their hours, and never need time away for their own health for caregiving, regardless of whom that caregiving is for, or simply because of things like burnout and mental health challenges that arise.” The conversations that are happening around these topics, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, are encouraging and the next step toward structural change.

WHEN WORK FEELS LIKE FAMILY BUT ISN’T In the tech world, companies have worked to create cultures that make their workers feel like they are part of a family or a greater good. Reminiscent of the early days at IBM, when all the “company men” were encouraged to contribute to the company’s mission, modern tech companies lead with big visions to create a company culture.20 In modern times, companies have further tried to create a community of work and loyalty, including incentivizing long work hours, by offering perks to stay on campus such as food, gyms, and on-site health care. Some workers at these companies may therefore wrap much of their identity into the workplace, as described in a 2021 op-ed by Emi Nietfeld, a software engineer at Google until 2019.21 Nietfeld describes in the New York Times article how what started as a dream job turned into a nightmare when a supervisor began harassing her, including making

Q

186

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

inappropriate comments about her appearance and asking to be set up with her friends. Because of the corporate culture in place, she did not feel she could speak out, for fear of biting the hand that fed her, so to speak. When she did report the harassment, she faced retaliation in addition to the discomfort of seeing the offending supervisor daily, despite the fact that Google investigators found he violated company policies. She eventually left Google, realizing it was not the dream job she once thought. In the article, she said, “I learned the hard way that no publicly traded company is a family.” Her story speaks to some of the unique challenges facing women in feeling safe in the workplace (see “Fixing Reporting” in chapter 8). It also speaks to shifts in how people think about ideal work and their place in it.

NAVIGATING TRAVEL DEMANDS Especially before the COVID-19 pandemic, attending conferences has been a critical cornerstone in advancing careers in science. Conferences are a key avenue for researchers to share their work, meet peers, and create connections for collaborations and professional development. That often means traveling several times a year to speak, give a poster presentation, or be an audience member at an event. While navigating these events can be a burden to all scientists, the burden is especially high for women, who face challenges both with family care and potential harassment. But the risk of not attending

Q

187

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

is also high, as collaboration is ranked highly in promotion considerations. Professional societies have begun to enact policies and put in place structures to better support women at conferences and events, including antiharassment policies and childcare options. And the COVID-19 pandemic offered alternatives that might prove valuable to women in science even after the pandemic, such as virtual or hybrid events that reduce the need to travel and keep women in safer spaces. Pre-COVID-19, women academics with caregiving responsibilities would struggle to attend conferences at all, often limiting the duration of their stays or restricting travel to locations closer to home, as noted in a 2020 study by Emily Henderson.22 Some universities, as well as conferences and societies, have begun to offer funding and support for dependent care travel, which can make it easier to bring children to conferences while also acting as a signal to researchers that their careers can be compatible with having a family.23 In addition, conferences are adding family-friendly features such as childcare and breastfeeding rooms. In a study looking at best practices for family-friendly conferences, the political scientist Angela Bos and colleagues, who are all moms, point to the importance of drop-in daycare options at conferences, including during evening networking events, as well as easily accessible locations for nursing and storage of breastmilk. 24 They also recommend considering working parents in creating conference schedules and programming, with steps such as reducing the overall number of days a conference runs and offering a virtual presentation to those who cannot travel.

Q

188

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

Virtual options became much more prevalent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, with many scientific conferences canceled in lieu of virtual meetings.25 And those virtual meetings have evolved to include spaces for people to network in addition to hearing and sharing scientific presentations. Even as some conferences returned to in-person meetings in late 2021, societies have made the events more accessible, recognizing the benefits of virtual meetings, for parents especially.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: JENNIFER DOUDNA ON BEING A MOM AT A CONFERENCE Both my husband and I are faculty members. And we did a fair amount of traveling in those days [when I had my son], pre COVID, of course. We just decided early on that we would integrate our son into our work trips; we had many trips where one or the other of us would go to a meeting or a conference, or occasionally even on a trip, to give a seminar and brought my son along, even when he was quite young. It often meant that you couldn’t really fully attend the meeting, and you had to deal with childcare issues. And I can remember what could have been some embarrassing moments of my son running down the aisles of a lecture hall. But I think it passed a really important message not only to people attending but also to my son over time that I did matter, that my career mattered, and I loved him; I was a mom, and I was really happy to be his mom. But I also had my passions about my work. And I wasn’t going to hide that or be embarrassed about

Q

189

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

it; I was just going to integrate it into my life. I think that is an important message we can pass on to our trainees. —Jennifer Doudna, PhD, Nobel laureate (biochemist)26

COMBATING CONFERENCE HARASSMENT Conferences, while critical to advancement in science, can also be a breeding ground for uncivil conduct in social gatherings. Many scientific societies now have antiharassment policies in place, but the problem is pervasive; one Twitter thread in 2019 documented the wide-ranging experiences of numerous women at academic conferences, while recent cases have exposed a dark side of social networking at conferences for women.27 In their 2017 study of harassment in the workplace in astronomy and planetary science, Kathryn Clancy and colleagues found that 11 percent of their survey respondents reported skipping attending at least one professional event, such as a class, meeting, conference, or fieldwork opportunity, because they felt unsafe attending.28 Indeed, several high-profile cases have been reported of sexual misconduct occurring at scientific conferences, including a case of sexual assault by a curator of the American Museum of Natural History at an anthropology meeting in Italy and several reports of sexual assault against psychologists at a neuroscience conference (see “In Their Own Words: Kristina Rapuano on Conference Drinking Culture” in this chapter).29 Many professional societies that organize scientific conferences have stepped up efforts to create safer spaces for event

Q

190

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

attendees, driving change by codifying and reinforcing expectations for civility within the scientific community. This often starts with a strong code of ethics for a society’s membership that extends to conference participation and lays out clear guidelines for ethical behavior. An early leader in such efforts was the Ada Initiative, which started in 2011 to create an “open source” conference antiharassment policy, which was then adopted at numerous technology events.30 The 2018 NAS report on sexual harassment points to several steps societies can take to strengthen their codes of conduct, including having or strengthening statements on sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination in their codes of conduct; providing ways to report misconduct; and requiring members to acknowledge, in writing, during conference registration their rules and codes of conduct relating to sexual harassment.31 Still, a 2019 study showed that less than one-quarter of U.S. and Canadian biology conferences studied had codes of conduct to help protect against discrimination and abuse.32 Among the codes of conduct that did exist, 43 percent did not mention sexual misconduct, 17  percent did not mention “identity-based discrimination,” and 26 percent did not include a way to report violations. The authors, led by Alicia Fox, wrote: “Having a code is a crucial basis for enforcement of positive behavioral norms. However, simply having a code is not enough to produce cultural change and inclusivity at conferences.”33 The codes must be clear, accessible, and enforceable, with consequences for violations and protections against retaliation, including for bystanders who want to report wrongdoing (see more on reporting in “Fixing Reporting,” chapter 8).

Q

191

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

In a blog post about developing a policy regarding appropriate behavior and sexual misconduct for the National Society of Black Physicists, the physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein also emphasized that it is not enough to announce an anti–sexual harassment statement at the opening of a conference but that there also be a formal written policy for reference should an incident be reported.34 She also says that “alcohol consumption or use of other intoxicating substances is neither an excuse nor an invitation for harassment.” Research has linked alcohol consumption by perpetrators and survivors to sexual assault and harassment.35 One study specifically links heavy drinking among male coworkers with a higher likelihood of gender harassment toward female coworkers.36 In a survey of sexual and gender-based harassment at scientific meetings, about one-third of respondents said that in response to being harassed at meetings, they avoid social events, crowded areas, and events where alcohol is served.37 In concert with their codes of conduct, some scientific societies have implemented new policies to eliminate or help limit alcohol consumption at events. For example, the Geological Society of America did not serve alcohol during its poster sessions at its November 2020 conference. Other societies have limited alcohol at events using drink tickets. Overall, the research suggests that, like many issues related to gender discrimination and bias in science, awareness and accountability can go a long way toward reducing incivility at scientific conferences and events. It is important to note too that conferences can also be a place for positive change, by, for example, holding panels on sexual harassment and mental health.

Q

192

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: KRISTINA RAPUANO ON CONFERENCE DRINKING CULTURE In 2018, nine female students brought a suit against Dartmouth College for turning a blind eye to sexual misconduct by three male Dartmouth professors. The case was settled in 2020 for $14 million, after the current and former students alleged that the professors perpetuated a “party culture” while still being promoted and awarded tenure.38 The lawsuit also pointed out that the college granted tenure to these professors but not to qualified female scientists.39 The survivors of the harassment have spoken out about how a culture of drinking at conferences helped fuel toxic situations. The cognitive neuroscientist Kristina Rapuano said she was surprised to discover the conference culture of drinking (see “Getting to the Other Side of Sexual Assault” in chapter 8): The drinking culture at Dartmouth was definitely a persistent and pervasive act, but conferences were really the breeding ground. Everything would escalate, much, much more at conferences, I think facilitated by the fact that we were removed from the campus environment and kind of like free to do whatever. It came as quite a shock to me the first time I went to a conference with these people because I had been to conferences before coming to graduate school, and I always was at the conference physically and participating by going to talks. And I just remember being so surprised and kind

Q

193

Q

FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE

of shocked by the absence of these professors and getting texts saying like “We’re at this bar, come here. Leave the talk and come to this bar.” Suddenly I’m like I want to see this talk but it’s also my adviser asking me to go to the bar at 11 AM. So, it becomes an all-day drinking event and then all night. And then the next day, you don’t feel like you can go to the conference and then it kind of just perpetuates the cycle. So, yes, it was actually quite a bit of a shock to see how much that escalated at conferences.

Q

194

Q

8

FIXING REPORTING

HOW CAN

workplaces create safe environments for reporting

sexual misconduct and harassment without jeopardizing career advancement? Those who experience sexual harassment in the lab, field, or office can face significant challenges in reporting the behavior to their workplace, ranging from fears of retaliation and not knowing how to follow the procedures to concerns about whether the offenders will be held accountable. Institutional reform is necessary to make it not only easy to report but also easier to share the findings of investigations with funding agencies and other institutions considering potential offenders for jobs. Against a backdrop of Title IX (a U.S. law to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex; see more in “History in Brief: Applying Title IX to Sexual Harassment” in this chapter) and new technology platforms, these reforms must balance confidentiality and privacy concerns against accountability while finding ways to signal safety and trust to all workers.

FIXING REPORTING

FIGURE 8.1

Portrait of the cognitive neuroscientist Kristina Rapuano,

PhD.

GETTING TO THE OTHER SIDE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT: KRISTINA RAPUANO I have always been interested in what makes individuals individuals. Growing up and observing the world around me, I saw the stark differences in individual personalities and interests, even in a place, like where I grew up, that was very

Q

196

Q

FIXING REPORTING

homogeneous; everyone was in a similar environment going to the same school, but everyone was super different. In high school, I was a good student but not the best. Science was one area where I did well. I really loved chemistry and had two wonderful chemistry teachers. One of them noticed that it was when the class got challenging that I really excelled. And she pointed this out to me and said, “You know, you’re good at this.” And so, I took note, and I still had those interests about what makes individuals individuals. The merging of the biological side of things with the psychological questions I had led me to pursue neuroscience and the brain. Going into college, I had no idea what to expect. I come from a blue-collar family with no advanced degrees. I was going off into my own world, and I had no idea of what I was getting myself into. After undergraduate school, I did a postbaccalaureate research program at the NIH [National Institutes of Health], where I got support for applying to grad school, and I had the flexibility to explore my research interests. I decided to go to Dartmouth for graduate school. It had stood out to me as a rigorous program—particularly for the type of research I wanted to focus on— and it seemed like a collaborative environment. At the start, I think I just assumed it would be similar to my research experience at the NIH. That meant having an advisor who would teach me or guide me toward the resources I needed to accomplish a task and whom I could reach out to if I got stuck or had questions. I like that level of autonomy. I thrive in a more

Q

197

Q

FIXING REPORTING

hands-off environment. So, that’s what I thought it was going to be like. Before I got to Dartmouth, some of the current graduate students tried to warn me that my to-be advisor was extremely hands off, and I remember thinking, “Oh, that’s great.” But then, I quickly realized he was not actually “hands off ”; he was just completely absent and basically had no motivation or interest in working with me until there was a personal interest. There was a correlation early on between attention to advising and socializing. He would basically try to encourage us to go out to the bar, go to trivia, and other environments that involved a lot of drinking. I don’t think I really realized the gender disparity at that point. I didn’t really recognize that there were these invisible boundaries. It was a gradual shift where I realized that my gender identity became more visible. I remember in my second or third year at Dartmouth, a guest speaker, a tenured professor, came and did a talk about the “leaky pipeline”— or the gradual loss of women in science; it was to create visibility around that topic. And that was the first time that I had actually seen some of the data on gender disparities in science and psychology, and it was actually very striking. What was also striking was when my advisor made a comment about it to a male student interested in attending like “Oh, that’s a woman’s thing.” And I thought, “If anything, it’s a man’s issue because they’re the ones who are holding the power.” It felt so wrong. Before then, I had not

Q

198

Q

FIXING REPORTING

identified as a “woman in science”—I identified as a scientist who also happened to be a woman; I didn’t really know what that meant. I did know that there was something wrong. Socialadvising boundaries were being blurred, especially with the high level of drinking, but I didn’t actually think that there was any danger physically in that dynamic. I thought it was more like manipulation, like an abuse of power. After I experienced what I experienced [the conference and the sexual assault], I didn’t even see reporting as an option. I knew there was just no way I would be able to get through the program if I rocked the boat, even a little bit. When you have an advisor who is in control of your entire picture, you lean toward going with the flow that they’re laying out for you. So I tried to keep my head down and kept thinking, “I just need to get on the other side of this; I need to power through.” I also put a lot of blame on myself. In my fifth year, everything changed. A first-year graduate student in the program was publicly harmed at a conference, leading to a watershed moment. People started to talk about their own experiences—this was the moment that other women in the department, including myself, realized we were not alone. That was the moment I realized I needed to come forward with my own story; that something needed to change; that this cycle would continue to perpetuate unless we shared our stories and put an end to it. I was fortunate in having the social support of the other women who came forward—having people to talk to

Q

199

Q

FIXING REPORTING

about the experience and knowing that others had gone through something similar. I cannot imagine what it would have been like for anyone to do it on their own, to summon that amount of bravery and courage required to report on your own. I remember early on in the process, with the Title IX office, being in a larger room, almost like a classroom. We [the women making the complaint] were set up around at least two large tables put together, and the Title IX coordinator was at the end of the table at the front of the room walking us through the procedure. We did not share our stories directly in that meeting; we actually just went there to ask questions. We didn’t have a lot of confidence in the process going in, but we knew it was the first step we needed to take, just to get the ball rolling. One thing I remember from that day, which I was very thankful for, was that we had a number of allies join the meeting. They included men who had noticed things and been around things but who did not know the concrete facts. We were so glad to have those allies in the room to speak up when some of us weren’t able to. In that moment, I felt like I lost my voice; I felt so weighed down and so heavy that if I opened my mouth, I would have completely fallen apart. I remember sitting there and feeling so deeply grateful for these allies. At the end of the day, the Title IX office is like the police policing itself: It’s not really independent of the institution; the coordinator is necessarily tied to the interests of the institution that’s paying their salary.

Q

200

Q

FIXING REPORTING

Our Title IX investigation, the internal investigation, concluded something like eight months or even close to a year after it started—after hours and hours of painful interviews and reporting. And then at the end, there was a committee that was formed to give a recommendation of whether to terminate professors involved. But before they could actually execute those recommendations—which was for them all to be fired—all three of these professors were allowed to step down and retire or resign. And I thought, “Why did we just waste the last year doing this if that was what the outcome was going to be?” —Kristina Rapuano, PhD (cognitive neuroscientist)

MOVING REPORTING FROM MERE COMPLIANCE The cognitive neuroscientist Kristina Rapuano is one of nine women who sued Dartmouth College for their handling of sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct by three professors. In 2020, the university settled the case for $14 million.1 While Rapuano briefly left the United States to get away from her advisor following her sexual assault—pursuing a research fellowship abroad for six months— she returned to Dartmouth College and completed her PhD under a different advisor and subsequently transitioned to a postdoctoral position at Yale University in 2018. While she is proud of what the Dartmouth lawsuit accomplished, it has been a tough path; she never intended to be a

Q

201

Q

FIXING REPORTING

champion for women in science, she said in an interview for this book. She just wanted to pursue her science. And while Rapuano stayed in academia after her assault to help effect change, she recognizes and respects the decision of women who choose to leave in the face of sexual harassment and discrimination. “I think some of the worst advice I got was ‘You need to stay, because science needs people like you,’ ” Rapuano said. “If you feel like you have the energy to stay and fight, then that’s great. But it’s easy for someone else to say that than when you’re in the situation.” Ultimately, the road to reporting sexual harassment is a long and hard one, highlighting the many challenges that still face women in holding others accountable for sexual misconduct even with Title IX policies in place in the United States. A 1972 U.S. law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding, Title IX spurred universities—and ultimately other businesses as well— to put in place reporting procedures for sexual discrimination and harassment (see “History in Brief: Applying Title IX to Sexual Harassment” in this chapter).2 While the law has opened new doors for women in all fields, including STEM, Rapuano’s case and countless others illustrate the obstacles still plaguing the reporting process. One of the biggest obstacles, Rapuano said, is the instinct and tendency for the institutions to support faculty members, even in the face of wrongdoing. Those faculty members often remain in their positions during an investigation, making it difficult for students who were harassed to remain in their programs. A related obstacle is the power dynamic at play, in which

Q

202

Q

FIXING REPORTING

faculty members wield enormous power over those in their departments. This dynamic often means that those who have experienced sexual harassment or assault do not choose to step forward in the first place for fear of retaliation, let alone to remain after reporting. In addition, the university often enables offenders to resign or retire during the investigations, creating a system in which faculty can move to new institutions and victimize others. Institutions are moving toward change, but the change is too slow, given the many cases that have come to light in the early twenty-first century alone. And while the biggest player in reporting, Title IX is just one part of the reporting landscape, which can also include workplace climate surveys to capture unreported incidents and new reporting mechanisms to other institutions and groups, as well as social media and other outlets for harassment survivors.

HISTORY IN BRIEF: APPLYING TITLE IX TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT Enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments, Title IX bans discrimination on the basis of sex for any education program or activity that receives federal funding. Developed before the phrase “sexual harassment” was even in use, the law only began to be applied to cases of sexual harassment in 1977.3 In 1977, a group of students at Yale surveyed women about their experiences, finding a “steady drumbeat of complaints” about professors having sex with students in return for

Q

203

Q

FIXING REPORTING

improved grades or other advancement.4 After asking the university to implement a central grievance system and being denied, they ultimately took their case to court. The case, Alexander v. Yale, would be dismissed from court, but the court still upheld the argument that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination under Title IX. Over the next several years, Yale and hundreds of other universities instituted grievance procedures. Although highly publicized Title IX cases were seen for years in the arena of sports participation and scholarships, more recently cases have come to light in the sciences. These have included, among many others, high-profile cases against the following: • The astronomer Geoffrey Marcy, who resigned from the University of California, Berkeley, and was fired by San Francisco State University in 2015 after the press made public a University of California investigation about Marcy’s behavior.5 • The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, who resigned from the University of California, Irvine, in 2018, after the university found him guilty of sexual harassment.6 • The biologist David Sabatini, who was fired from Howard Hughes Medical Institute, resigned from the Whitehead Institute in 2021 and was subsequently fired, and resigned from a tenured position at MIT after being placed on administrative leave, following an investigation related to sexual harassment during

Q

204

Q

FIXING REPORTING

his work at the Whitehead Institute.7 As of early 2022, Sabatini had filed a lawsuit against the Whitehead.8 • The neuroscientists Todd Heatherton, Paul Whalen, and Bill Kelley, whose case was featured in the short film The Scientists Versus Dartmouth (see “In Their Own Words: Kristina Rapuano on Conference Drinking Culture” in chapter 7) and who were the subject of an investigation at Dartmouth that led to a $14 million settlement.9 • The geologist David Marchant, who was fired by Boston University in 2019 and whose name was removed from a glacier in Antarctica in 2018.10

Both Ayala and Marcy were ejected by the National Academy of Sciences, which revised its bylaws in 2019 to allow members to be removed who violate the organization’s code of conduct.11 In 2022, a new lawsuit was brought by three graduate students against Harvard University for their handling of a sexual harassment case against an anthropology professor.12

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: ANONYMOUS ON ANONYMOUS REPORTING I once refused to accept a last-minute dinner invitation with a visiting professor on a Monday night. The professor responded: “I didn’t ask you to have a child . . . it’s not like you were raped.” It was like being slapped across the

Q

205

Q

FIXING REPORTING

face. “How could an accomplished senior professor say these words,” I thought as I stormed out of the office, upset that I did not have a fitting reply at the tip of my tongue. Did I need my tenure that badly that I couldn’t lash back? I hated myself. To this day, it’s imprinted in my memory, because I didn’t do anything right away. When I mustered up the strength to say that was inappropriate, he said something like “Why can’t you take the joke?” which is the standard go-to statement. So I walked out, and it kept playing in my head. I knew it was not right. I decided to file an anonymous complaint. The Title IX office actually came back to me and said, “Look, this is a very serious allegation you’re making. We would like to, you know, reveal your identity.” And I said no, because he was a person who could influence my future career. That is the whole point of an anonymous report, to protect us from retaliation. The office then said they could not act on it as an anonymous complaint. Later in my career, at a dinner with another professor, I learned of a problem a junior faculty member had with the same individual. Initially, this professor told the person not to do anything but then said: “I thought of you and instead said if I were you, I wouldn’t say anything about the problem. But if you decide to go ahead and call your harasser out, I’m going to be supportive of you.”  This is what I wanted to hear years back. If somebody who was a senior professor had told me that, I would not have felt so alone. —Anonymous, PhD (cancer biologist)

Q

206

Q

FIXING REPORTING

OVERCOMING THE POWER DYNAMIC TOWARD CULTURAL CHANGE One of the biggest challenges facing reporting sexual harassment is that it has often been viewed by institutions as a compliance issue tangential to the scientific process rather than part of it. In science, if lab equipment is faulty or a professor is fraudulently reporting data, swift action is taken. Why should harassment be treated differently? Rather than an issue of compliance, reporting should be part of the culture, wherein how someone treats others must be considered as part of the scientific process. Therefore, part of the goal must be dismantling the power hierarchy that so often prevents women like Rapuano from stepping forward. As discussed in chapter 3, “Fixing Mentorship,” academic STEM has traditionally been dominated by a model wherein a single principal investigator or academic advisor can wield a lot of power over students and early-career scientists. This power dynamic can act to suppress reporting of sexual harassment.13 Current hierarchical structures in academia are based on the number of years in a position rather than on competence. One potential change could involve shifting metrics of competence and research integrity to include sexual harassment. No matter what the hierarchy in place, however, if sexual harassment occurs and there is a power disparity, the person affected by the harassment— as well as bystanders who witness the harassment—may be reticent to come forward for fear of blowback on their career.14 Indeed, as discussed in chapter 5, “Fixing Environments,” studies have shown that sexual

Q

207

Q

FIXING REPORTING

harassment is underreported in the workplace.15 And studies have also shown that retaliation is common.16 It thus becomes important to create safe avenues for even informal reporting that can help normalize discussions of harassment in the workplace and enable workplaces to address their overall culture without having to rely on single cases. A 2020 report by the Urban Institute on sexual harassment in the STEM workplace points to the value in organizations providing a “designated, confidential, and well-trained office or person to listen to concerns and provide resources to employees.”17 These ombudsmen (ombuds) can surface important issues in an organization without breaching confidentiality. Argonne National Laboratory put in place an organizational ombuds office after a 2017 workplace survey indicated that one-quarter of its employees were afraid to speak up about concerns such as harassment. Surveys of workplace climate can be a useful tool not only in identifying underreported sexual harassment but also in normalizing discussions about the issue. The surveys can open the door to community-led approaches to reporting harassment. For example, at the University of Bergen, designated ambassadors have organized small department-level discussions that give students the opportunity to voice concerns. Survivors of sexual harassment have also taken to social media to talk about their experiences, fueled in part by the #MeToo movement. This has included anonymous sites, such as the Instagram story-sharing wall that the film Picture a Scientist started (see “In Their Own Words: Incivility Incidences on Instagram” in chapter 5).

Q

208

Q

FIXING REPORTING

There are also community resources available on many campuses and in many regions. For Kristina Rapuano and others at Dartmouth, WISE Support was a helpful resource. “It’s a domestic crisis organization in the region, and they actually have an office on campus that is independent from the institution,” she explained. “We actually negotiated in our lawsuit settlement for Dartmouth to provide additional funding to support WISE.”

THE POWER OF THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) started as a way to protect trade secrets, becoming popular with private industries in the 1970s with the rise of new technology companies.18 Widely used today to protect proprietary information, they are also used, intentionally or not, to silence workers from speaking up against wrongdoing. The #MeToo movement in 2017 in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein case shed a light on how NDAs can squelch reporting of sexual harassment. Although some people have maintained that NDAs can help survivors of sexual harassment maintain confidentiality and privacy,19 their widespread use can create confusion among those who want to report wrongdoing. In the tech sector, where a significant number of women and people leave careers in tech and computer science after experiencing harassment and discrimination, having clear reporting mechanisms for wrongdoing is critical.20

Q

209

Q

FIXING REPORTING

In 2021, California passed a law, the Silenced No More Act, to protect workers who speak out against wrongdoing even if they have signed NDAs.21 In parallel, companies like Apple were asked to add language to their NDAs to help extend sexual harassment protections to also include racial harassment: “Nothing in this agreement prevents you from discussing or disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment or discrimination or any other conduct that you have reason to believe is unlawful.” Apple declined to make that change, with the issue to appear before shareholders as of fall 2021.22

BUILDING A ROBUST, TRANSPARENT SYSTEM Part of the reporting challenge comes from the opacity that often accompanies institutional policies and processes, as well as a lack of resources. Oftentimes, the driving force in the creation of these policies, at least in the United States, is compliance with Title IX. Having a fully resourced Title IX office where people know they can report sexual harassment should be a cornerstone of institutional reporting. However, the scene in the 2021 Netflix show The Chair, with the lone Title IX officer working in a small office with unclear processes, is all too relatable to some.23 In their 2014 study of sexual harassment in the field, Kathryn Clancy and colleagues reported that only 20 percent of those who experienced harassment or assault were aware of

Q

210

Q

FIXING REPORTING

a mechanism to easily report being harassed at the time. 24 Despite codes of conduct in place at home institutions, awareness of these policies in the field was low, they found. Creating a transparent reporting process for sexual harassment, whether in the field, lab, or office, that then translates into swift action is necessary to build institutional trust—to signal to women that the organization values civility and will hold offenders accountable. That was a key finding in the Urban Institute report about sexual harassment in the STEM workplace, which was the result of a 2019 meeting convened with the American Geophysical Union, the National Women’s Law Center, and Rockefeller Family Fund.25 Part of building transparency means finding ways to report regularly through the aggregation of anonymized information. This can help build institutional trust while still protecting the privacy of those involved, especially the person reporting the harassment. Microsoft, for example, publishes annual reports that aggregate discrimination and harassment complaints. 26 Those practices can be extended to universities and institutions, which can aggregate Title IX and other data, reflecting overall reporting and outcomes. The Maryland Higher Education Commission, for example, requires state schools to report on incidents of sexual assault and misconduct.27 This transparency must extend beyond the institution to include funding agencies and other parties, such as other institutions who may be considering hiring someone who is the subject of a Title IX case—an issue that has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of several high-profile cases.

Q

211

Q

FIXING REPORTING

BALANCING PRIVACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY In a 2021 article in Vice, Hannah Critchfield details a disturbing pattern in academia known as “passing the harasser,” in which a professor who is accused of sexual misconduct at one school quietly resigns and takes up a new job, without the new institution necessarily aware of the past behavior.28 Critchfield takes readers through the case of the entomologist Daniel Howard, who was found in violation of Augustana University’s Title IX policy but was able to get a position at the University of New Hampshire while the investigation was still ongoing. Even attempts by those filing the Title IX complaint to report the case to the University of New Hampshire were met with resistance, given the confidentiality protections that many schools cite in their rationale to not report offenders to other institutions during reference checks. Critchfield details case after case of this pass-the-harasser phenomenon, in which known sexual harassers are able to continue advancing their careers at other institutions. The pattern is troubling for a number of reasons. First, it underscores how often those who perpetrate sexual harassment are repeat offenders. Indeed, a 2018 study of more than 300 cases of student-faculty sexual harassment cases found that 53 percent of cases involved professors who had been previously accused of harassment.29 Additionally, the pass-the-harasser pattern highlights how protection of individuals in a workplace has been sacrificed to support confidentiality. While privacy is a concern for both those reporting sexual harassment and those being accused, it

Q

212

Q

FIXING REPORTING

can also be weaponized to hide misbehavior and to allow it simply to continue elsewhere. Finally, it shows how often professors are given the opportunity to resign or retire while still in the middle of an investigation, as seen in the Dartmouth case with Kristina Rapuano and others. “I felt like they should have had a window of time where they wouldn’t have been allowed to step down if they wanted to,” Rapuano said. “I was furious that they were allowed to step down on their own. If they’re always going to be allowed to retire or resign, and then potentially move to new institutions, what was the point of the investigation?” In response to pass-the-harasser cases, several universities have created new reference check policies. The University of Wisconsin, for example—which had settled a Title IX case involving a professor who then went to work at the University of Colorado, Boulder—now requires its campuses to share faculty personnel files that document sexual harassment with employers seeking reference checks.30 The University of California, Davis, and the University of Illinois, among others, now ask faculty hires to sign waivers that allow the universities to request information about misconduct from previous academic employers.31 At the heart of many of these cases, especially in STEM, is a reluctance of institutions to lose out on the chance to hire professors with substantial funding behind them. This “follow the money” approach leads to other potential solutions for holding sexual harassers accountable for their actions. In 2018, in the wake of the National Academy of Sciences report on sexual harassment and congressional testimony, the

Q

213

Q

FIXING REPORTING

National Science Foundation (NSF) announced that it would require any grant awarded to notify the agency of “any findings or determinations that an NSF-funded principal investigator or co-principal investigator committed harassment, including sexual harassment or sexual assault” and also if a principal investigator or co–principal investigator was placed on administrative leave related to a sexual harassment investigation.32 This policy can help curb the pass-the-harasser phenomenon because it prevents faculty from getting new funding if they move institutions. Importantly, however, the policy still relies on transparent reporting by the institutions themselves, which could still be a hurdle. Both before and after the NSF policy, in 2016 and 2019, federal lawmakers have attempted to pass legislation that would require higher education institutions that receive any federal funding to report any sexual harassment in violation of Title IX to federal grant-awarding agencies.33 The bill did not pass the U.S. House of Representatives and had yet to be reintroduced as of early 2022. And even as institutions started to implement new policies to improve the pass-the-harasser problem, in 2020 the U.S. Department of Education passed new Title IX regulations, limiting the law’s reach to incidents that occur within an education program, which would exclude most off-campus cases, such as those at conferences or in the field. In 2021, those guidelines were under reconsideration.34 While clear and robust reporting mechanisms that hold those involved accountable are critical for addressing the issue of sexual harassment, they still represent only a small part of

Q

214

Q

FIXING REPORTING

the solution. As Clancy and colleagues explained in their 2014 paper, reporting itself can retraumatize the victim, making the decision to report even more harrowing.35 It can also affect others in the workplace. Solving the problem requires large-scale cultural change that ultimately starts with prevention but also requires institutions to openly discuss cases when they are reported—helping create a safer and more trusting community for science to thrive.

Q

215

Q

9

FIXING SCIENCE

SO, WHAT

now? How can science make science more diverse,

inclusive, and welcoming for women now? As documented in the previous chapters, discrimination and bias against women are still rampant even as women have more opportunities in science than in previous times and as efforts ramp up to address inequities. Progress requires not only targeted interventions but also society-wide changes in how people think about gender at home and in the workplace. Much of that work starts where this book started: representation, that is, the creation of new pictures of who scientists are. As more women continue to enter and stay in the sciences, making an impact, broader pictures will form. Interventions that accelerate our seeing a greater diversity of scientists in action while surfacing and reframing biases are important parts of changing the culture of science. Ultimately, creating a new culture for science will also require a fundamental

FIGURE 9.1

Portrait of the paleontologist Ellen Currano, PhD.

FIXING SCIENCE

shift in how scientists think about the scientific process and what it means to be a good scientist.

DEFYING STEREOTYPES THROUGH NEW PICTURES: ELLEN CURRANO I grew up in Chicago in a middle-class family, with wonderful parents who are both college-educated and who very much value education. I had this incredible childhood, and as a foster parent now, I especially appreciate how idyllic my childhood was. And so, I am very privileged in that way. I had the most amazing first-grade teacher, and we had this big unit on dinosaurs. It included a rock opera song about dinosaurs. I don’t remember most of the words, but it was a very formative experience. I became dinosaur obsessed; I had dinosaur-themed bed sheets and everything. My parents would take me to the Field Museum in Chicago to see the dinosaurs there. I was such a tomboy as a kid, partially because I had this vision that if I wanted to be a paleontologist, I couldn’t wear dresses. I didn’t see any paleontologists wearing dresses. I would watch the documentaries, and inevitably, it was all bearded men digging up fossils. If you asked me to draw a paleontologist when I was a child, I would have drawn a bearded man. But I was still going to be one. So, I went all through elementary school and high school wanting to be a paleontologist. I went to a small all-girls high school. I have had a number of conversations with friends of

Q

219

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

mine who are women and who are scientists who also went to all-girls high schools. We discuss how we didn’t experience things like “Oh, you’re a girl. You’re not supposed to be good at science and math” during those four years when you’re thirteen to seventeen and the world feels like it’s ending all the time. My best friend from high school, whom I still keep in very good touch with, had a dream to be a microbiologist [and she succeeded]. So, we had the support to know we could be scientists, but we did know we would have to break ground to do it. In college, I took both biology and geology classes and realized that I liked geology far more than I liked biology, and that I liked thinking about big-picture questions, such as how climate has changed through time. I realized I could not fully answer those questions with dinosaurs. Around that time, I was applying for summer internships, and I got an internship at the Smithsonian, getting matched with the paleobotanist there, Scott Wing, the person who studies fossil plants. He took me out into the field in northwestern Wyoming, and we dug up plant fossils. So, as a junior in college, I finally got to go out in the field with a bearded man, a wonderful sometimes-bearded man. I was like, “Oh my god, this is amazing,” and I asked Scott, “How do you do this for a living?” He became a very important person in my life and still is an important person in my life, including mentoring me through going to grad school. I worked with him in grad school as well and then was lucky

Q

220

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

enough to get a job as a professional paleontologist after finishing grad school. My interests are looking at how plants respond to climate change, and I work especially on plants from after the dinosaurs died, from about 66 million years ago to about 40 million years ago. This is the warmest time interval in Earth’s “recent” history. Looking at the size and the shape of different fossil leaves in Wyoming and working with geochemists, we can reconstruct what climate was like. As a high schooler, I think it was exciting to think about breaking ground, especially as the rebel of my family. And all the way through grad school, it was like: anything’s possible, “let’s tear things down.” But after I left grad school, it became a lot less exciting. The sexism became apparent. The most basic example was getting invited to a “visioning in paleontology” meeting, sitting down in the room, looking around, and seeing there were five women and thirty men. Then I remember starting my first faculty position a year after I finished my PhD and being the youngest among only three female faculty, only one of whom was in a tenuretrack position. And there were a number of occasions when I worked up the courage to actually say something at a faculty meeting, and no one would say anything. And then one of the men in the room would say pretty much the same thing, and others would say, “Wow, what a great idea!” As an early professional, I was often the only woman on the field team. This would lead to various uncomfortable situations, like when we were working on the side of a cliff

Q

221

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

all day, and I had to navigate how to go to the bathroom. For some field expeditions, we would be out for a month or longer at a time, which means that as a woman, you will probably have your period at some point. And I remember having to navigate feeling embarrassed about wrappers and trying to hide them. As I advanced in my career, I went from situations of being in all-male field crews to the person leading field teams. I have since been on a lot of all-female research teams, which are different. You can then have conversations with young women about what to do when you have your period in the field. And there is less of a machismo factor of “oh, I need to be able to carry a huge backpack full of fossils.” On the all-female crews, we all pitch in, and if we have to take two trips to carry the stuff out, we take two trips. If it takes us four hours to dig a giant hole in the ground as opposed to two hours, who cares? When I was an assistant professor in a male-dominated department, I remember being passed over for opportunities and awards and watching my female friends get passed over for opportunities. In particular during that time, there were some big documentaries and articles coming out about paleontology—and there were essentially no women in them. I knew women who had been interviewed for some of the projects, but they did not make it into the final cuts. Around that time, I went out to dinner with Lexi Jamieson Marsh, a filmmaker whom I had been friends with for a number of years. I was venting like, “being a woman in science sucks, and no one listens to me.” And Lexi had very

Q

222

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

similar experiences from the filmmaking side, with few opportunities for women behind the camera. She was venting like, “I want to tell stories that are important, stories that need to be told, but there’s no opportunities.” At one point, I said, “Maybe if I just had a beard, people would listen to me.” This idea was not original to me; I have heard many women say similar things. But Lexi and I spent a good bit of time joking around about that. I then went home from dinner and went to bed, whereas Lexi, who is this incredible creative talent, continued spinning things. At two o’clock in the morning, she wrote me an email saying, “What if we actually did this? Would you be willing to put on a beard, and let me film you out in the field, and we could talk about your experiences? And do you think that there are other women in paleontology who would also agree to do this?” That was the start of the Bearded Lady Project. It happened that the next summer I was going out in the field, the senior scientists on the project were women. Enough of them said yes that we were able to craft the core, filming out in the field and getting our first set of bearded portraits. As more people heard about the project, we had so many people who wanted to take part in it. We had a lot of people who came from other fields, who would ask things like “when are you going to do the bearded ladies of astronomy?” With all the bearded lady portraits that we did, we gave the subjects no direction; it was up to them what they wanted to wear or hold. Each person was themselves, but then they put the beard on. We then wanted people to think about how

Q

223

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

that changes how they view that person. How does it change our views of who is competent to do science? It was playing with the brain over what stereotypes shape what a scientist does and what they look like. In the course of the project, I learned a lot from Lexi about film and representation, including how only one in four onscreen experts at the time was a woman. I had never seen a female paleontologist in all the documentaries I had watched, and then Lexi really opened my eyes to the world of fiction as well. So, I started to think about TV shows and films. Are there any women in STEM careers? If there are, then who are they? —Ellen Currano, PhD (paleobotanist)

ACCELERATING GENERATIONAL CHANGE WITH ACTION As a city girl growing up in Chicago, the paleobotanist Ellen Currano found her inspiration to become a field paleontologist through nature documentaries and adventure films. Books were also a powerful medium for transporting her into her dream future. Seeing those possibilities is especially important for young people who may not have as many educational opportunities as she had, Currano said in an interview for this book. “I was fortunate and privileged to have parents who knew about paleontology as a career and then to have the financial support to pursue this, in many ways, frivolous career,” she said. “Though I

Q

224

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

cannot speak for them, I think for girls whose parents might not have the same education level and not have the same economic stability, seeing more female role models in science represented, fictionally or in the real world, would be even more important.” Now as a professor of paleontology, Currano finds herself in a position of power, where she can choose who is in the room or the field. While she has long advocated for women in science, her view has broadened to include other voices as well, including people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Like many of the current generation of female faculty in STEM fields, including others featured in this book, Currano views it as her responsibility to effect change for future generations—whether through her work in mentorship or her work on The Bearded Lady Project film and book. As described in a 2022 article in Scientific American by Ann Finkbeiner that shines a light on astronomers, the new generation of women scientists are both scientifically and “culturally ambitious.”1 Building on the tremendous progress brought upon both within science and broader society over the last decade, modern women scientists are working on multiple fronts to fix the systems that were not initially designed for them but that are now more open to them than they were historically—using their voices and banding together to effect change. One way this next generation is making change visible is through films and storytelling. The mere act of seeing something or someone in new ways and hearing people’s stories goes a long way toward change. The more aware people individually and collectively become of bias, the better able they are to

Q

225

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

combat it. Social scientists continue to use those principles to craft effective interventions that match societal realities, while institutions continue to grapple with and work to reimagine systems that no longer work for the modern worker of any gender and scientists across disciplines continue to create new avenues for innovation and change.

SEEING CHANGE ACROSS FOUR CENTURIES OF PALEONTOLOGY In the summer of 2021, the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, New York, had a special exhibit on display: “Daring to Dig: Women in American Paleontology.”2 It walked visitors through the often-overlooked contributions of women to paleontology from the 1600s to the present day. One of the most striking features was seeing how women’s roles changed each century and then by decade: Moving clockwise around the room, the first set of female paleontologists were all wives of scientists, often illustrating their husbands’ work; the next group of female paleontologists consisted of wealthy heiresses who could invest in fossil collection and exploration; then women took teaching roles in the science; and finally, slowly, women began working as professional paleontologists. Seeing this change over time makes it easier to appreciate the work of modern women in paleontology—as well as the accelerated pace of change in recent decades. In the 1700s, the beginning of modern paleontology, women paleontologists generally did not receive pay or credit for their work. They were not allowed to work as professional

Q

226

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

scientists, universities and scientific societies would not admit them, and few scientific journals would publish work by women. Therefore, the early female trailblazers in paleontology were naturalists, illustrators, and hobbyists. In the early nineteenth century, Mary Anning famously collected and sold fossils to help support her family after her father died. When she was just twelve years old, she and her brother found the skeleton of an ichthyosaur, a dolphin-like reptile. And when she was twenty-four years old, she discovered an almost-complete skeleton of a longnecked marine reptile called a plesiosaur. While she was able to sell the specimens, she received no scientific credit for their discovery or for most of her other remarkable discoveries. In the 1900s, professional paleontology began to open up to women. The positions were usually low pay and limited to teaching, and many institutions would not hire married women. Women of color had even fewer opportunities. Winifred Goldring, who received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Wellesley College in Massachusetts, developed public exhibits for the New York State Museum, where she worked for forty years. Becoming one of the most prominent American paleontologists of the time, she was the first woman to serve as state paleontologist of New York and as president of the Paleontological Society. She famously rode in a motorcycle sidecar (see figure 9.2) and carried a pistol in the field, and she would criticize her meager pay. The Association for Women Geoscientists and the Paleontological Society now give an award in her honor, the Winifred

Q

227

Q

FIGURE 9.2

Winifred Goldring in a motorcycle sidecar during field research (likely mid-1920s).

Source: Photo by E. J. Stein. Courtesy of New York State Museum, Albany, NY.

FIXING SCIENCE

Goldring Award, to outstanding women doing paleontology graduate work. Despite social barriers, wealthier women who pursued paleontology had more opportunity to work in the field— even making their own clothes, learning to shoot guns, and recruiting other women to join them on expeditions. World War I and the growing demand for oil for automobiles in the early 1900s gave women new opportunities to work in the oil industry—as scientists discovered that microfossils could aid in the discovery of oil. Since the mid-twentieth century, women’s participation in paleontology has risen dramatically across all subdisciplines. But like all women in science, they have had to work disproportionately to overcome systemic barriers in the academy, lab, field, and workforce. Seeing the current faces of paleontology on the walls of the exhibit was inspiring: women like the paleoclimatologist Marina Suarez, who credits her Latino PhD advisor with helping her overcome her fear of chemistry (see “In Their Own Words: Marina Suarez on Representation in Mentorship” in chapter 3); the paleontologist and science writer Riley Black, whose fossil discoveries are in museums across the United States and who uses her blog to share her experiences as a transgender woman in paleontology; and the micropaleontologist and science communicator Lisa White, who, as a person of color in geoscience, has overcome feelings of exclusion to rise as a leader, working as a director of education at the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Q

229

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

These are but a few of the exceptional scientists working to pave the way for the paleontology of the future—a far cry from their humble but inf luential beginnings more than three hundred years ago.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: KATHARINE HUNTINGTON ON THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE GEOSCIENCES A lack of diversity is an existential threat to the geosciences. Excellence in our field requires it. Some of the most important questions that influence society really have to do with the geosciences. And professional societies and institutions have the opportunity and are in a position to change who is a geoscientist. If geoscientists are going to be both relevant and able to achieve the breakthroughs that need to happen both for the curiosity-based science side and for practical uses such as for sustainability, we need to have all hands on deck. The creativity of all of humanity has to be harnessed. It’s also the right thing to do. —Katharine Huntington, PhD (geoscientist)

SHIFTING BIAS AND REPRESENTATION Some of the most successful interventions born out of social science have come from training sessions that help make people

Q

230

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

more aware of their own biases and that reframe how people, and young women in particular, think of a typical scientist. The Video Interventions for Diversity in Science (VIDS) work featured in chapter 4 is a good example, wherein viewing even short clips that discuss gender bias can make people more aware of their biases while also significantly reducing those biases. At the same time, the VIDS intervention speaks to the complexity of the issue. In drawing attention to the bias, it reduced women’s sense of belonging in STEM unless they had the opportunity to reflect on how bias can be overcome and improved, or learned about a positive female scientist role model.3 These complexities were likewise illustrated in a study by Jessica Cundiff and Susan Murray, in which an on-campus theatrical performance depicting women’s experiences of bias in STEM seemed to do more harm than good, including reducing a sense of belonging in STEM among women who viewed the performance. The authors said that might have been the case because the play did not provide additional resources or opportunity for follow-up discussion.4 While the evidence on many interventions is mixed, the research does point toward a promising pathway, using the observations to date about ways to make them more effective—a process that will take time and go through various iterations, like all things in science. Indeed, said the VIDS researcher Corinne Moss-Racusin in an interview for this book, the work speaks to the power of using the tools of science to improve the scientific community: “We can use the tools we’ve been trained

Q

231

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

in, to try to make our communities more fair and the work coming out of them more excellent as a result.” The social psychologist Eva Pietri sees strong promise in continuing to build off the foundation created by VIDS and other experimental research that uses both data and stories to highlight examples of gender bias in STEM. She sees film as a tool for change. Pietri remembers herself having the experience of feeling changed by a film. In graduate school, she would attend documentary screenings hosted by a Latino graduate student association she belonged to, which included a film about ethnic studies in Arizona. “I don’t remember the name of the film, but I remember being so moved, and thinking ‘Oh, my gosh, we have to understand these [ethnic issues] better,’” she recalled in an interview for this book. “So, I thought early on about how film can really change attitudes, but I didn’t appreciate yet that it could be an empirical question that we should ask and think about until I started to do the VIDS work.” Pietri’s work now addresses that empirical question head on, including through a novel collaboration with filmmakers (including this book’s author) to see whether the film Picture a Scientist could serve as an intervention for positive change. The timing of the research was significant, with the film released virtually during the spring of 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person diversity and bias training was not possible. Thus, their work was able to explore whether watching a film in an online screening could have similar effects to those researchers have found from in-person formats with trained facilitators (see “Case Study: Bias Training in Action” in chapter 5). What also made the study unique was

Q

232

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

the wide international reach of the film: across more than forty countries in more than 1,300 screenings at universities, companies, and professional societies, leading to more than 155,000 unique film viewings from April  2020 to May  2021. These screenings often included a panel discussion with scientists from the film or scientists at the institution hosting the screening talking about gender bias and discrimination. The goal of the Picture a Scientist studies, led by Pietri and Moss-Racusin, was to see whether those who viewed the film changed their attitudes or awareness about bias and whether that was linked to intended or future behaviors. In the first study, 2,756 participants, who included students, professors, corporate scientists, and others, participated in a survey after they watched the film in an online screening, and then about half of them followed up with a second survey six weeks later.5 What the researchers found generally was that the more viewers felt engaged in the film—measured through reported feelings such as empathy, perspective taking, and anger—the more likely they were to seek information about gender bias and discrimination. Furthermore, the more viewers sought new information, the more likely they were, six weeks after watching the film, to increase their awareness of gender bias and intend to help address unfair treatment and gender disparities.6 The second study included 1,255 participants who had either watched the film or were planning to watch the film, with a follow-up survey three weeks later. The goal was to compare measures of awareness of gender bias and intended behaviors between those who had not watched the film but intended to and those who had. The researchers found that those who had

Q

233

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

viewed the film reported higher awareness of gender bias and stronger intentions to address this bias through personal actions and new policies than those who had not. They also found that those who had not initially watched Picture a Scientist but then watched it during the three weeks between surveys reported increased awareness of gender bias, intentions to confront incivility, and intentions to create welcoming organizational climates.7 Overall, the studies suggested that films like Picture a Scientist and the workshops and panel discussions around them, even if online, can act as effective interventions to affecting beliefs and behaviors. Pietri said she sees a dual effect in these types of interventions, both for shifting attitudes and in exposing people to female role models through the women scientists featured in the film, especially for people who may not have diverse role models in their everyday lives. “I get teary eyed thinking about the impact of videos and films, both in changing attitudes and also in inspiring people to feel seen,” she said.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: SHARON SHATTUCK ON DISCOVERING A NEW WAY OF SEEING I’ve always been drawn to the sciences, ever since I was a little kid. I grew up collecting rocks and minerals, and I had a little mini microscope. My mom is a pathologist, so she did a lot of microscope work. And my dad was a landscape architect. I grew up walking in the woods with my dad and having dad point to different trees and plants and say, “That’s an

Q

234

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

arborvitae.” I was getting familiar with the plants, and they didn’t feel like just lumps of green to me. In college, I knew I was going to do some sort of science; there was no question. When I was at the end of my freshman year, a friend of mine was going to this residential biological research station called the University of

FIGURE  9.3

Portrait of the ecologist and filmmaker Sharon

Shattuck.

Q

235

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

Michigan Biological Station, where you stay there and take an intensive field course—in our case, field ecology. My friend said, “You should do it with me,” and I said, “Why not?” I was up there and remember thinking, “I found my people.” I loved tromping around in the woods in a pair of Carhartts with some Felco pruners. Once you learn how ecosystems work and you really understand a place deeply—you can tell what the pH of the soil is or infer what happened in glacial times or what might happen to a bog in the future—it becomes a powerful, new way of seeing. After college, I got a job at the Field Museum in Chicago, where I was a research assistant to a botanist and forest ecologist for about a year and a half. That’s when I found out about Radiolab, the science radio show. I wondered, “Can I use my science and combine that with storytelling somehow?” It was a big turn. I really loved and still love field work, but I wanted to do more communication. I applied to grad programs for documentary film and journalism and ended up going to NYU. In my journalism program at NYU, I had to decide whether to take the news path or the documentary path. I wanted to be a documentary filmmaker. Documentary films have a point of view. Every single story I tell is filtered through this lens of the scientific method. Once you are trained to think like

Q

236

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

a scientist, you can’t not think like a scientist. I am always thinking, “What’s the data?” I made my first feature, From This Day Forward, as a personal memoir of me growing up with my dad, who is transgender. My parents stayed married, so I wanted to explore how they made that work. It came out around the time the show Transparent came out, so it was part of a movement of awareness about seeing transgender people as normal people. My film was on PBS and then Netf lix, and people were doing screenings all around the country. I would get emails from people who said, “I’ve never met a transgender person, this was my first introduction, and it was really helpful. I appreciated meeting your dad.” It wasn’t an activist film; it was literally “here is my family.” Yet that can be activism, just seeing into someone’s life. I am really interested in allowing people to see things in a new way, to see things more deeply and to appreciate the small things in new ways—just like I learned from forest ecology and botany. I’m on this endless quest to showcase the small things and the underdogs—to make them more visible, whether trees and plants, transgender people, wrongfully convicted people, or women and underrepresented groups in science. —Sharon Shattuck, ecologist and filmmaker (From This Day Forward, Picture a Scientist, the Animated Life series)

Q

237

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

TELLING NEW STORIES OF SCIENCE “If you can see it, you can be it.” In Dallas, Texas, visitors to NorthPark in 2021 could see that concept on a whole new level, through more than one hundred bright orange, lifesize statues of women in STEM-related careers.8 Through the exhibit and other efforts, the If/Then She Can project is aiming to show young girls new pictures of scientists to inspire their own pursuits in STEM. The exhibit featured women in STEM across disciplines, such as the biomathematician Neha Murad, who works to combat the view that math is too hard by showing how math is all around us, and the astrophysicist Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil, who discusses fighting stereotypes about her hijab to “live beyond the labels.”9 In a 2021 profile, Dorothy Tovar, a microbiologist and If/ Then She Can ambassador, said that she was not convinced that others would feel inspired by her story.10 A Black woman who is the daughter of Caribbean immigrants, Tovar now embraces being a mentor and role model, discussing her passion for health equity: “I hope that my story shows others that our texture, and sometimes messy colors, is what makes our successes beautiful and truly ours.”11

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: A NEW PHASE FOR INDIGENOUS WOMEN SCIENTISTS I have been invited to speak to a number of high school and middle school students who are attending schools on Q

238

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

Native American reservations. I am a role model for them, and that makes me happy. At the same time, I am cognizant that I am still at an early stage in my science career. With so few Native American female scientists, we are targeted at such an early stage to serve as advocates for our communities. That is both an honor and another added pressure. But we have to remember that we’re advancing something here. Being the first is always a hard position to be in, but we do it because we love it. And we love our people. And this is how things are changed. This is how things improve. We do the hard parts, so that the people who come after us don’t have as difficult a time as we did. I am really excited to see what the next group of Indigenous scientists looks like. I truly think that they are going to advance in the field in ways that we only wish that we could, and I am so happy to be ushering in that new stage. —Krystal Tsosie, PhD candidate (geneticist and bioethicist)

NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS: BEYOND BINARY The research surrounding the gender gap in STEM fields is constantly evolving—both building out translational applications while building new foundations based on previously underidentified needs. One of the fundamental areas of research underlying new directions in psychological study is gender itself. In a 2021 paper in American Psychology, Moss-Racusin (see “Questioning the Depths of Bias” in chapter 4) outlined where Q

239

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

the field of the psychology of gender is heading, discussing not only the work to be done in looking at the full gender identity continuum and the role of intersectionality but also noting previous work in these areas that has not received sufficient attention in the literature.12 For example, she highlighted work that has shown how in measuring the gender of study participants as binary, researchers have erased individual identity categories, leading to misrepresentation and preventing the ability to generalize results across various groups.13 “Many researchers have often defaulted to falsely dichotomizing gender, including me even at times in the past,” MossRacusin said in a 2022 interview, “which has resulted in ignoring the experiences of people all along the gender continuum, especially those who identify as gender nonbinary folks. It’s important because it speaks to a lot of gaps in the existing literature, and a lot of overgeneralizations that have probably been harmful to those who don’t identify in a dichotomous way.” Her lab and others have been working to do the early-stage foundational work for understanding the implications of these gaps for studying and mitigating the effects of stereotypes. This foundational work includes basic questions, such as “What is the stereotype for a nonbinary person?” Likewise, the field is increasingly realizing the importance of intersectionality in studying inequity in the workplace (see “Intersecting Identities” in chapter 1). It has become clear, MossRacusin said, that gender bias does not exist in a vacuum from race, socioeconomic status, sexuality, and other intersecting identities. “Everyone is a member of many groups simultaneously, and a lot of the empirical results that we had that we

Q

240

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

thought were just about reactions to ‘women’ are really about reactions to privileged white women,” she explained. “And those patterns play out differently for women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of different socioeconomic statuses, different sexualities, and so forth. The really necessary and exciting work right now is taking steps back to genuinely and fundamentally take an intersectional approach to this type of research.”

PORTRAIT OF CHANGE: MAÏ YASUÉ WITH PERSPECTIVE ON COMMUNITY- BASED EFFORTS Maï Yasué is one of many people working to effect change for women and minoritized groups in STEM fields. Working in a university equity and inclusion office, she has brought a community-based approach to these issues, shaped by her research career in zoology, geography, and social science. Growing up in Vancouver, the daughter of Japanese immigrants, Yasué spent a lot of time as a child in nature, foraging for mushrooms, fishing and interacting with animals—whether with her many pets, on TV through the National Geographic Channel, or on hikes through the woods. As an adult, she still immerses herself in the natural world, living on a small, forested island with her family, as well as five chickens, three ducks, two rabbits, and some fish. Her graduate school field research, including getting a master’s degree, PhD, and doing postdoctoral work, took her around the world, from bird conservation projects in Thailand to marine fisheries reserves work in the Philippines.

Q

241

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

FIGURE  9.4

Portrait of the zoologist and geographer Maï

Yasué, PhD.

After seeing racism and sexism firsthand as a faculty member, Yasué ultimately left her faculty position to apply her skills and experiences toward creating more equity in academia. She remembers being shocked to hear from others that they viewed social justice as independent of education. “I thought of myself as being a really good educator, and thinking about inclusion had been central to what I do as an educator,” she said in an interview for this book. “I

Q

242

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

realized that if I wanted to get anything done or anything changed, I had to do it.” Yasué sees parallels in the community-based approach she took in her research and the approach she is taking now to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts: Whether I’m working in environmental issues or social justice issues, it’s all about trying to engage people in self-transcendent motivation, self-transcendent values, which are values that go beyond your own individualistic needs. I want to do things for future generations; I want to do things for other people’s social justice goals; and I want to do things for others. So the question becomes, how do you get communities who are engaging in destructive farming practices to be intrinsically motivated to make changes? How do you get faculty members who have been teaching in a certain way or who have been running their departments in a certain way to make changes? Departments are like small-scale communities. Creating social change must come from fostering intrinsic motivation. It doesn’t work if you just tell the farmers or faculty what to do. The last thing leaders at a university want to do is tell departments what to do, because it’ll cause a lot of social upheaval. Instead, we have to try to figure out how to create seeds of this sort of social change. And that’s what I am working on. There are so many different places to start, and the important thing is to not feel frozen. You can start anywhere.

Q

243

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

You can start with creating affinity spaces for BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] students and faculty. What can we do right now to create some bubble wrap around people as they navigate a university that wasn’t created for them? The system wasn’t created for many different groups of people—students with dyslexia, LGBTQ+ students, Indigenous students, first-generation university goers, and on. These groups often feel very isolated in their departments, and when they try to implement DEI changes, they often feel gaslit [see “The Effects of a Toxic Workplace” in chapter 5]. But if you bring people together, it creates a greater sense of collective self-efficacy, that we are able to do something together. Even if we can’t fix the system right away, we can create these networks of protection and mentorship to support and help those students or faculty and staff, making it more likely they will stay in the system. I am also always thinking about ways to bring together formal or informal leaders. One thing that worked well in my research with the communities of the Philippines was to have one community visit another community that already has a protected area in place. Then those leaders can talk to each other and hear the experiences of other fishers, which really counts much more than hearing from someone from an environmental NGO. It’s the same thing working in equity issues—where we can share between departments to draw from each other. That’s really powerful.

Q

244

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS BOOK This book, similar to the training and films discussed herein, in and of itself is a double-edged sword. In discussing the many barriers facing women in science, it threatens to discourage women even as it encourages action. Like many of the interventions discussed, it is important to view this book as a starting point, a resource that will hopefully lead to more discovery, reflection, and, ultimately, action. Compiled here are some highlights from each chapter, some with a “pro tip”— something especially noteworthy to take away and potentially build upon in your own journeys. Chapter 1: STEM representation matters at all phases of a women’s career but especially early in childhood. Research has found that effective role models can go beyond matching an individual’s gender identity to thinking about multiple identities and across different facets of society. Chapter 2: Stereotypes themselves are not necessarily the problem; the problem lies in their narrowness. Broadening the image of a scientist will bring in more people and create more belonging. Chapter 3: The classic one-on-one mentorship model needs to be retired. Making a scientist’s career less dependent on a single person for success (a principal investigator, advisor, etc.) and instead built upon a constellation of mentors, will help create a more equitable power balance while building a more robust support system for the individual. Q

Pro tip from this chapter: Mentors who give “wise”

feedback—that is, feedback that includes an explicit evocation

Q

245

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

of high standards paired with an assurance of the individual’s capacity to reach those standards—have a more positive effect on their mentees across a variety of settings. Chapter 4: Biases in the recruitment of scientists are pervasive but malleable. While interventions that expose gender bias may make women feel less of a sense of belonging, they can reduce bias among individuals and over time, providing a potential path forward. Q

Pro tip from this chapter: Simply switching to gender-

blind review is not enough, as research has shown it does not work in all environments; instead, the changes need to be more systemic, including training of recruitment committees to recognize bias and creating a broad representation of individuals on the committees. Chapter 5: Workplaces can be especially toxic for women and women of color. Training to promote civility and encourage allyship can help create a new workplace culture for scientists. Q

Pro tip from this chapter: Targeted workshops can

create more awareness of gender bias in departments and help faculty members create change but are only fully effective when there is a high level of participation in the department—underscoring the importance of widespread social engagement. Chapter 6: Women in science often receive less credit for their work than their male counterparts, making their career advancement more challenging. Transparent policies that directly address gender bias in publications, conferences, and

Q

246

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

awards can move the needle but require recognition of the problems first. Q

Pro tip from this chapter: Research has found that

women are often less likely to opt in to competing for awards, so systems that alternatively rely on opting out might have promise in real-world settings. Chapter 7: Modern workplaces were built on foundations that did not include women and that did not provide adequate resources for balancing work with personal lives. Promoting f lexible work and daycare options, changing norms of the ideal worker, and creating safe spaces need to extend beyond office walls to include conferences, events, and other settings critical to the success of scientists. Chapter 8: Women still do not feel safe reporting sexual harassment at work and in the field. Institutional reform must include more transparency and accountability among institutions while protecting the privacy of those reporting. Q

Pro tip from this chapter: Reporting policies that are

tied to funding rather than the institution can help break the ugly “pass-the-harasser” phenomenon by removing some power from a repeat harasser who is trying to carry their funding with them to a new employer. Chapter 9: Although the research is complex on the best solutions to gender inequity in science, change is possible. A new generation of women scientists is leading the way, reframing biases, creating new representation and role models, and creating interventions that are already having an impact.

Q

247

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

Q

Pro tip: Interventions such as films and short videos,

paired with discussion about ways to address and mitigate gender bias, appear to be very effective in reframing the bias and leading to positive action. This is a way too to shift the work from being primarily the responsibility of the women who are affected to other diverse groups of individuals, including men who may not have previously understood the extent of the problems. One additional point: While this book aims to bring greater discussion and action to gender inequities in science, with a focus on women in science, this is not to the exclusion of other genders. Ultimately, science benefits from bringing diverse teams together to solve complex problems, and research has shown that gender-diverse teams produce more novel and high-impact scientific ideas than samegender teams.14

SHIFTING THE NARRATIVE A potential reason why media is so effective in setting up cultural expectations of who is and can be a scientist is because of the power of storytelling in showing the world in new ways, as Sharon Shattuck described (see “In Their Own Words: Sharon Shattuck on Discovering a New Way of Seeing”). Research has shown how narrative storytelling can change how people position and see themselves.15 The same tools can also shift how people think about solutions to bias and discrimination against women in STEM.16 Much of that change will need to come

Q

248

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

from within the scientific community—and not just from women but from all people working toward equity. In an interview for this book, the social psychologist Aneeta Rattan said she and others like to distinguish between “fix-thewomen” and “fix-the-system” solutions. Many quick solutions that have rolled out over the years have been fix-the-women approaches, she said: “Like oh, there aren’t enough women here. Let’s get more women. Oh, women aren’t winning grants, let’s train them and how to write grants based on how the men write grants . . . but none of those solutions really actually fix the system.” Moreover, those types of solutions, she said, can send negative signals to women about whether they belong in STEM (see chapter 2). Instead, the focus, Rattan said, should be on solutions that fundamentally challenge scientists to face both implicit and explicit biases. “What training are PIs getting about explicit and implicit bias? It should be their responsibility to ensure that master’s and PhD candidates do not exhibit bias.” It’s also, she said, about shifting incentives: “Which PIs are being prevented from applying for research funding if they have allowed their lab to become a context in which gender bias occurs? Which men are losing tenure privileges because they have never been able to effectively mentor a Black student or a woman?” Fix-the-system approaches require challenging the value systems that have underpinned the culture of science for hundreds of years. Gone are the days when significant scientific discoveries come from a lone scientist working in isolation. Modern scientific discoveries are a team effort, often bringing together students or early-career scientists, junior faculty or staff, and

Q

249

Q

FIXING SCIENCE

senior researchers, from across multiple disciplines. With great advances stemming from the work of many, how a scientist behaves within their community becomes germane to both the scientific process and what makes for a good scientist, perhaps as central as an individual researcher’s knowledge and technical skills. The picture of a scientist now therefore is not just about how a person looks or what their background is. The picture must also include how that person treats others, bringing out the best within the scientific community to positively affect society, making it a healthier place for women in science now and into the future.

Q

250

Q

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to the many scientists who lent their voices to this book, showing courage and candor by sharing their experiences and insights. Without them, this book would not be possible. I would also like to thank my wonderful consulting scientists, the social psychologists Eva Pietri and Sapna Cheryan, whose expert feedback enriched the book. Big thanks as well to neuroscientist extraordinaire Sadie Witkowski and molecular biologist and technical editor Jennifer Davis for their skilled editorial assistance. Thank you Miranda Martin, my editor, who first envisioned what this book could be and deftly guided me through the process of writing a book for the first time. The filmmakers Ian Cheney, Sharon Shattuck, and Manette Pottle have my gratitude for helping to jumpstart this project, along with the team at the Science Communication Lab’s Wonder Collaborative.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thomas Harry Gunawan, thank you for your beautiful illustrations. The imagery helps bring the personalities in the book to life in a way mere words cannot. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their inspiration and support. That includes my superstar scientist sisters: Miriam, an ecologist, who never hesitated to share interesting new studies she read as I was writing the book, and Robyn, a civil engineer who inspired me to go into science and engineering in the first place. Thank you to my parents, Sherry and Sheldon Pinsker, who have always told me I can do and be anything in this world. I am especially grateful to my husband, Peter, for his unwavering commitment to the book—including being a sounding board for many rounds of brainstorming, as well as for his understanding during my weekend writing marathons. And to my amazing daughters—Amelia, my aspiring astrobiologist, and Audrey, my aspiring author-illustrator—who inspire me every day to work toward making the world better for all women.

Q

252

Q

NOTES

INTRODUCTION: FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM 1. Asmeret Asefaw Berhe et  al., “Scientists from Historically Excluded Groups Face a Hostile Obstacle Course,” Nature Geoscience 15, no. 1 ( January 2022): 2–4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00868-0. 2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, ed. Paula A. Johnson, Sheila E. Widnall, and Frazier F. Benya (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2018), https://doi.org/10.17226/24994.

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION 1. David Wade Chambers, “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist: The Drawa-Scientist Test,” Science Education 67, no. 2 (1983): 255–65, https://doi.org /10.1002/sce.3730670213. 2. Margaret Mead and Rhoda Métraux, “Image of the Scientist Among High-School Students,” Science, August 30, 1957, https://doi.org/10.1126 /science.126.3270.384. 3. Lyda Hill Foundation and Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, “Portray Her: Representations of Women STEM Characters in Media,”

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Mount Saint Mary’s University, 2021, https://seejane.org/research-informs -empowers/portray-her/. David I. Miller et al., “The Development of Children’s Gender-Science Stereotypes: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Decades of U.S. Draw-A-Scientist Studies,” Child Development 89, no. 6 (2018): 1943–55, https://doi.org/10 .1111/cdev.13039. Miller et  al., “The Development of Children’s Gender-Science Stereotypes.” Yukiko Maeda and So Yoon, “A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R),” Educational Psychology Review 25, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 69–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012 -9215-x. David I. Miller and Diane F. Halpern, “Can Spatial Training Improve Long-Term Outcomes for Gifted STEM Undergraduates?,” Learning and Individual Differences 26 (August 1, 2013): 141–52, https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012. Sapna Cheryan et al., “Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?,” Psychological Bulletin 143, no. 1 ( January 2017): 1–35, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052. Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 5 (November 1995): 797–811, https://doi.org /10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.797. Chad E. Forbes and Toni Schmader, “Retraining Attitudes and Stereotypes to Affect Motivation and Cognitive Capacity Under Stereotype Threat,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, no. 5 (November 2010): 740–54, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020971. Margaret R. Tarampi, Nahal Heydari, and Mary Hegarty, “A Tale of Two Types of Perspective Taking: Sex Differences in Spatial Ability,” Psychological Science 27, no. 11 (November 2016): 1507–16, https://doi.org/10.1177 /0956797616667459. Shannon E. Holleran et al., “Talking Shop and Shooting the Breeze: A Study of Workplace Conversation and Job Disengagement Among STEM Faculty,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 2, no. 1 ( January 2011): 65–71, https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610379921. Michael Inzlicht and Talia Ben-Zeev, “Do High-Achieving Female Students Underperform in Private? The Implications of Threatening

Q

254

Q

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Environments on Intellectual Processing,” Journal of Educational Psychology 95, no. 4 (December 2003): 796–805, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663 .95.4.796. Denise Sekaquaptewa and Mischa Thompson, “Solo Status, Stereotype Threat, and Performance Expectancies: Their Effects on Women’s Performance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39, no. 1 ( January 1, 2003): 68–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5. Kimberle Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, article 8 (1989). Jennifer L. Berdahl and Celia Moore, “Workplace Harassment: Double Jeopardy for Minority Women,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 2 (March 2006): 426–36, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426. Also see Asia A. Eaton et al., “How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates,” Sex Roles 82, no. 3 (February  1, 2020): 127–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w; and chapter 4, this volume. Kimberly E. Chaney, Diana T. Sanchez, and Jessica D. Remedios, “Dual Cues: Women of Color Anticipate Both Gender and Racial Bias in the Face of a Single Identity Cue,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 24, no.  7 (October  2021): 1095–113, https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220 942844. Deborah Joy Carter, “Double Jeopardy: Women of Color in Higher Education,” Educational Record 68 (1988): 98–103, https://doi.org/10.1002 /2017JE005256. E. A. Cech and T. J. Waidzunas, “Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM,” Science Advances 7, no. 3 ( January 15, 2021): eabe0933, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933. Nilanjana Dasgupta, “Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model,” Psychological Inquiry 22, no. 4 (October 1, 2011): 231–46, https://doi.org/10.1080 /1047840X.2011.607313; Nilanjana Dasgupta and Shaki Asgari, “Seeing Is Believing: Exposure to Counterstereotypic Women Leaders and Its Effect on the Malleability of Automatic Gender Stereotyping,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, no. 5 (September 1, 2004): 642–58, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003; and Jane G. Stout et al., “STEMing

Q

255

Q

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION

21.

22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

the Tide: Using Ingroup Experts to Inoculate Women’s Self-Concept in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM),” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no.  2 (February  2011): 255–70, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385. India R. Johnson et al., “Exploring Identity-Safety Cues and Allyship Among Black Women Students in STEM Environments,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2019): 131–50, https://doi.org/10.1177/036168 4319830926. Evava S. Pietri, India R. Johnson, and Ezgi Ozgumus, “One Size May Not Fit All: Exploring How the Intersection of Race and Gender and Stigma Consciousness Predict Effective Identity-Safe Cues for Black Women,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 74 ( January 1, 2018): 291–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021. Pietri, Johnson, and Ozgumus, “One Size May Not Fit All.” Evava  S. Pietri et  al., “Maybe She Is Relatable: Increasing Women’s Awareness of Gender Bias Encourages Their Identification with Women Scientists,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 42, no. 2 ( June 1, 2018): 192–219, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317752643. Alice H. Eagly, Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987), https://doi.org/10.4324 /9780203781906. Alice H. Eagly and Sabine Sczesny, “Editorial: Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions,” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles /10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01965. Alice H. Eagly et al., “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A CrossTemporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018,” American Psychologist 75, no. 3 (2020): 301–15, https://doi.org/10.1037 /amp0000494. Linda L. Carli et al., “Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, no. 2 ( June 1, 2016): 244– 60, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021,” National Science Foundation, 2021, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321 /report/field-of-degree-women. Erin McPherson, Bernadette Park, and Tiffany A. Ito, “The Role of Prototype Matching in Science Pursuits: Perceptions of Scientists That Are Inaccurate and Diverge from Self-Perceptions Predict Reduced Interest

Q

256

Q

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

in a Science Career,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44, no. 6 ( June 1, 2018): 881–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217754069. David I. Miller, A. H. Eagly, and M. C. Linn, “Women’s Representation in Science Predicts National Gender-Science Stereotypes: Evidence from 66 Nations,” Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 3 (2015): 631–44, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005. Alyssa Croft et al., “The Second Shift Reflected in the Second Generation: Do Parents’ Gender Roles at Home Predict Children’s Aspirations?,” Psychological Science 25, no. 7 ( July 1, 2014): 1418–28, https://doi.org/10.1177 /0956797614533968. Lindsey Hildebrand et al., “Does My Daughter Like Math? Relations Between Parent and Child Math Attitudes and Beliefs,” Developmental Science (2022): e13243, https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13243. Rebecca S. Bigler and Lynn S. Liben, “A Developmental Intergroup Theory of Social Stereotypes and Prejudice,” in Advances in Child Development and Behavior, ed. Robert Kail, Advances in Child Development and Behavior 34 (San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic, 2006), 39–89, https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2; Dario Cvencek, Andrew  N. Meltzoff, and Anthony  G. Greenwald, “Math-Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children,” Child Development 82, no. 3 ( June 2011): 766–79, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x; Jacquelynne  S. Eccles, “Understanding Women’s Educational and Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 18, no. 4 (December 1, 1994): 585–609, https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x. Kathy K. Previs, “Gender and Race Representations of Scientists in Highlights for Children: A Content Analysis,” Science Communication 38, no. 3 ( June 1, 2016): 303–27, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016642248. “Watching Gender: How Stereotypes in Movies and on TV Impact Kids’ Development,” Common Sense Media, 2021, https://www.commonsense media.org/research/watching-gender. Valerie Purdie-Vaughns and Richard P. Eibach, “Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities,” Sex Roles 59, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 377–91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4; Jessica D. Remedios and Samantha H. Snyder, “Intersectional Oppression: Multiple Stigmatized Identities and Perceptions of Invisibility, Discrimination, and Stereotyping,” Journal of Social Issues 74, no. 2 (2018): 265–81, https://doi.org

Q

257

Q

1. FIXING REPRESENTATION

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

/10.1111/josi.12268; Amanda K. Sesko and Monica Biernat, “Prototypes of Race and Gender: The Invisibility of Black Women,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, no. 2 (March 1, 2010): 356–60, https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016. suffering (@DenaturedEnzym), “Hello, I’m a scientist in a movie I know everything about theoretical physics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, history, biology, linguistics, oh yeah, also I’m a hacker,” Twitter, January 5, 2019, 3:00 PM, https://twitter.com/DenaturedEnzym/status/1081641713 461088256. Erez Lieberman Aiden (@erezaterez), “Hello, I’m a biologist in a movie. I do all the experiments myself, the data analysis is instantaneous, and everything works on the first try. I speak in either technobabble or aphorisms. I never write grants,” Twitter, (tweet), January 3, 2019, 1:32 PM, https://twitter.com/erezaterez/status/1080894799434170369. Don’t Shoot Me I’m Only The Piano Player (@michaellevine2), replying to @_roryturnbull, “Hello. I’m a female scientist in a movie. I look like a swimsuit model, i have a PhD from Cal Tech in the exact subject that is plaguing the world in this movie, and i will watch as a former athlete saves the world,” Twitter, January 4, 2019, 8:24 AM, https://twitter.com/michaell evine2/status/1081179478620061696. Dr Nina Baker (@ninabake2), replying to @michaellevine2 and @_rory turnbull), “Hello, I’m a female engineer in a movie. Oh no, silly me, that can’t be right as there is only one example—the awesome engineer in Serenity and I am not her. Nevertheless: I am lovely, super-competent and have almost no part in the main plot,” Twitter, January  16, 2019, 7:27 AM, https://twitter.com/ninabake2/status/1085513811820343296. Joyce (@jsekharan), “Hi, I’m an Indian doctor in a movie. I will give you bad news. I won’t have a back story or more than 60 seconds on screen. You won’t see me again. I will be Dr. Patel. I will have an accent,” Twitter, January 3, 2019, 7:49 PM, https://twitter.com/jsekharan/status/108098 9574392758272. Tara Kahan (@tfkahan), replying to @Chemjobber, “Hello, I’m a female chemist in a movie. At the age of 23, I’m the world expert in ‘chemistry’ (and probably something else like particle physics as well). I will say one smart sciencey thing and then spend the rest of the movie being hopelessly in love with the male protagonist,” Twitter, January 3, 2019, 10:07 PM, https://twitter.com/tfkahan/status/1081024405805912065.

Q

258

Q

2. FIXING SIGNALS

43. Dr. Geeky Girl Engineer, P.E. (@gkygirlengineer), “Hello, I’m a woman engineer in a movie. Ha ha just kidding. We don’t exist in movies,” Twitter, January 3, 2019, 11:49 PM, https://twitter.com/gkygirlengineer/status /1081050033204744194. 44. Dr. David Zigler (@ZiglerLab), “This thread is really funny for the first few, then soul crushing and sad as one realizes how much public perception of scientists is based tropes,” Twitter, January 3, 2019, 7:37 PM, https://twitter.com/ZiglerLab/status/1080986635884363776. 45. Nabiha Saklayen, “I (Don’t) Look like a Physicist,” Medium (blog), June 2, 2016, https://medium.com/@nsaklayen/i-dont-look-like-a-physicist-edcf 2549967e. 46. Sarah Banchefsky et al., “But You Don’t Look Like a Scientist! Women Scientists with Feminine Appearance Are Deemed Less Likely to Be Scientists,” Sex Roles 75, no. 3 (August 2016): 95–109, https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11199-016-0586-1. 47. “Vision. Every Student Deserves a Chance to See Themselves in Science,” I Am a Scientist, 2021, https://www.iamascientist.info/vision. 48. “Cassandra Extavour, PhD, Developmental Biologist,” I Am a Scientist, 2021, https://www.iamascientist.info/cassandra-extavour.

2. FIXING SIGNALS 1. Sapna Cheryan et  al., “Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (December 2009): 1045–60, https://doi .org/10.1037/a0016239. 2. Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan, and A. Meltzoff, “Computing Whether She Belongs: Stereotypes Undermine Girls’ Interest and Sense of Belonging in Computer Science,” Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (2016): 424–37, https://doi.org/10.1037/EDU0000061. 3. Sapna Cheryan, A. Meltzoff, and Saenam Kim, “Classrooms Matter: The Design of Virtual Classrooms Influences Gender Disparities in Computer Science Classes,” Computers & Education 57, no. 2 (September 2011): 1825–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004. 4. David Alan Grier, When Computers Were Human, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), http://archive.org/details/whencomputers wer00davi.

Q

259

Q

2. FIXING SIGNALS

5. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021.” 6. Grier, Computers. 7. Claire Lisa Evans, Broad Band: The Untold Story of the Women Who Made the Internet (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2018); Denise W. Gürer, “Pioneering Women in Computer Science,” Communications of the ACM 38, no. 1 ( January 2, 1995): 45–54, https://doi.org/10.1145/204865.204875; Erika Smith, “Recognizing a Collective Inheritance Through the History of Women in Computing,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 15, no. 1 (2013), https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1972; “History of Women in IT: 6 Female Pioneers in Computer Science,” Purdue University Global, April  19, 2018, https://www.purdueglobal.edu/blog/information-techno logy/history-women-information-technology-6-female-computer-science -pioneers/. 8. Debra Michals, “Biography: Maria Mitchell,” National Women’s History Museum, 2015, https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/bio graphies/maria-mitchell; Maria Mitchell Association, “About Maria Mitchell,” 2022, https://www.mariamitchell.org/about-maria-mitchell. 9. Evangeline Holland, “Edwardian Women in STEM: The Harvard Computers,” Edwardian Promenade (blog), September 12, 2016, https://www .edwardianpromenade.com/women/edwardian-women-harvard-compu ters/; Grier, Computers. 10. Leila McNeill, “The Statistician Who Debunked Sexist Myths About Skull Size and Intelligence,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 14, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/alice-lee-statistician -debunked-sexist-myths-skull-size-intelligence-180971241/; J. J. O’Conner and E. F. Robertson, “Alice Elizabeth Lee,” MacTutor (University of St Andrews), September 2021, https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Bio graphies/Lee/. 11. National Inventors Hall of Fame, “Edith Clarke: Graphical Calculator,” 2022, https://www.invent.org/inductees/edith-clarke. 12. Evans, Broad Band; Gürer, “Pioneering Women”; “History of Women in IT.” 13. Gürer, “Pioneering Women.” 14. “History of Women in IT.” 15. Gürer, “Pioneering Women.” 16. “History of Women in IT;” “Margaret Hamilton,” Computer History Museum (CHM), 2017, https://computerhistory.org/profile/margaret

Q

260

Q

2. FIXING SIGNALS

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

-hamilton/; Robert McMillan, “Her Code Got Humans on the Moon— and Invented Software Itself,” Wired, October  13, 2015, https://www .wired.com/2015/10/margaret-hamilton-nasa-apollo/. A. G. Greenwald and M. R. Banaji, “Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes,” Psychological Review 102, no.  1 ( January 1995): 4–27, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4. Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald, “Implicit Gender Stereotyping in Judgments of Fame,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, no. 2 (1995): 181–98, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181. Greenwald and Banaji, “Implicit Social Cognition”; Anthony G. Greenwald, Debbie  E. McGhee, and Jordan  L.  K. Schwartz, “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 6 ( June 1998): 1464–80, https://doi .org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464. J. R. Stroop, “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 18, no. 6 (1935): 643–62, https://doi.org/10.1037 /h0054651. Jennifer Viegas, “Profile of Mahzarin R. Banaji,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 26 (May 28, 2019): 12590–92, https://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.1908069116. Tonya  R. Moon, “Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT),” Project Implicit, 2011, https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html. Frederick L. Oswald et al., “Predicting Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: A Meta-Analysis of IAT Criterion Studies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105, no.  2 (2013): 171–92, https://doi.org/10.1037 /a0032734.Keith Payne, Laura Niemi, and John M. Doris, “How to Think about ‘Implicit Bias,’” Scientific American, March 27, 2018, https://www .scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-think-about-implicit-bias/. John T. Jost, “The IAT Is Dead, Long Live the IAT: Context-Sensitive Measures of Implicit Attitudes Are Indispensable to Social and Political Psychology,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 28, no. 1 (February 1, 2019): 10–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418797309. Tessa E. S. Charlesworth and Mahzarin R. Banaji, “Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes III: Long-Term Change in Gender Stereotypes,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 13, no. 1 ( January 1, 2022): 14– 26, https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988425. Tessa E. S. Charlesworth and Mahzarin R. Banaji, “Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: I. Long-Term Change and Stability From 2007

Q

261

Q

2. FIXING SIGNALS

27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33. 34. 35.

to 2016,” Psychological Science 30, no. 2 (February 1, 2019): 174–92, https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797618813087. Kirsten Weir, “Brilliance and Bias,” Monitor on Psychology, October 1, 2021, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/10/lab-brilliance-bias. Sapna Cheryan, Benjamin J. Drury, and Marissa Vichayapai, “Enduring Influence of Stereotypical Computer Science Role Models on Women’s Academic Aspirations,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 37, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 72–79, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312459328. Allison Master, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Sapna Cheryan, “Gender Stereotypes About Interests Start Early and Cause Gender Disparities in Computer Science and Engineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 48 (November 30, 2021): e2100030118, https://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.2100030118. Emily K. Clark, Melissa A. Fuesting, and Amanda B. Diekman, “Enhancing Interest in Science: Exemplars as Cues to Communal Affordances of Science,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 46, no.  11 (2016): 641–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12392. Amanda B. Diekman et al., “Malleability in Communal Goals and Beliefs Influences Attraction to Stem Careers: Evidence for a Goal Congruity Perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101, no. 5 (November 2011): 902–18, https://doi .org/10.1037/a0025199. Amanda  B. Diekman, Erica  S. Weisgram, and Aimee L. Belanger, “New Routes to Recruiting and Retaining Women in STEM: Policy Implications of a Communal Goal Congruity Perspective,” Social Issues and Policy Review 9, no. 1 (2015): 52–88, https://doi.org /10.1111/sipr.12010. Elizabeth R. Brown et al., “From Bench to Bedside: A Communal Utility Value Intervention to Enhance Students’ Biomedical Science Motivation,” Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no.  4 (November  1, 2015): 1116–35, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000033. Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Rose Markus, “Rooting Out the Masculine Defaults in Your Workplace,” Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2022, https://hbr.org /2022 /10 /rooting -out -the -masculine -defaults -in -your -workplace. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021.” Cheryan et al., “Ambient Belonging.” Cheryan et al., “Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced?”

Q

262

Q

3. FIXING MENTORSHIP

36. Allison Master et al., “Programming Experience Promotes Higher STEM Motivation Among First-Grade Girls,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 160 (August 1, 2017): 92–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017 .03.013. 37. Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Rose Markus, “Masculine Defaults: Identifying and Mitigating Hidden Cultural Biases,” Psychological Review 127, no. 6 (2020): 1022–52, https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209. 38. Maria Klawe, “Increasing Female Participation in Computing: The Harvey Mudd College Story,” Computer 46, no. 3 (March 2013): 56–58, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.4. 39. Klawe, “Increasing Female Participation in Computing.”

3. FIXING MENTORSHIP 1. Jessi L. Smith et al., “Giving Back or Giving Up: Native American Student Experiences in Science and Engineering,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 20, no. 3 (2014): 413–29, https://doi.org/10.1037 /a0036945. 2. Gloria Crisp and Irene Cruz, “Mentoring College Students: A Critical Review of the Literature Between 1990 and 2007,” Research in Higher Education 50, no. 6 (September 1, 2009): 525–45, https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11162-009-9130-2. 3. Yifang Ma, Satyam Mukherjee, and Brian Uzzi, “Mentorship and Protégé Success in STEM Fields,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 25 ( June 23, 2020): 14077–83, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915516117. 4. Tara C. Dennehy and Nilanjana Dasgupta, “Female Peer Mentors Early in College Increase Women’s Positive Academic Experiences and Retention in Engineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 23 ( June 6, 2017): 5964–69, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613117114. 5. Deborah J. Wu, Kelsey C. Thiem, and Nilanjana Dasgupta, “Female Peer Mentors Early in College Have Lasting Positive Impacts on Female Engineering Students That Persist Beyond Graduation,” Nature Communications 13, no. 1 (November 11, 2022): 6837, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467 -022-34508-x. 6. Stacy Blake-Beard et al., “Matching by Race and Gender in Mentoring Relationships: Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize,” Journal of Social Issues 67, no. 3 (2011): 622–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x.

Q

263

Q

3. FIXING MENTORSHIP

7. Kaitlyn Atkins et al., “‘Looking at Myself in the Future’: How Mentoring Shapes Scientific Identity for STEM Students from Underrepresented Groups,” International Journal of STEM Education 7, no.  1 (August 18, 2020): 42, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3. 8. Patrick Gaule and Mario Piacentini, “An Advisor Like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-Graduate Careers in Science,” Research Policy 47, no.  4 (May 1, 2018): 805–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.011. 9. Bedoor AlShebli, Kinga Makovi, and Talal Rahwan, “RETRACTED ARTICLE: The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance,” Nature Communications 11, no. 1 (November 17, 2020): 5855, https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41467-020-19723-8. 10. Kristen Lindquist et al., “Flawed Data and Unjustified Conclusions Cannot Elevate the Status of Women in Science,” PsyArXiv, November 25, 2020, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qn3ae; Patricia Mabry et al., “Why MANtoring Is Not the Solution. A Rebuttal to ‘The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance,’” PsyArXiv, December 22, 2020, https://doi .org/10.31234/osf.io/xqjs4. 11. Viviane Callier, “Paper Recommends Women Avoid Female Mentors, Drawing Outrage,” The Scientist, November 24, 2020, https://www.the -scientist.com/news-opinion/paper-recommends-women-avoid-female -mentors-drawing-outrage-68185. 12. “Daring to Dig: Women in American Paleontology,” Museum of the Earth, https://www.museumoftheearth.org/daring-to-dig. 13. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 14. Paul R. Hernandez et al., “Inspiration, Inoculation, and Introductions Are All Critical to Successful Mentorship for Undergraduate Women Pursuing Geoscience Careers,” Communications Earth & Environment 1, no. 1 (August 13, 2020): 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-0005-y. 15. Hernandez et al., “Inspiration, Inoculation, and Introductions.” 16. Christine Pfund et al., “Building National Capacity for Research Mentor Training: An Evidence-Based Approach to Training the Trainers,” CBE Life Sciences Education 14, no. 2 ( June 1, 2015): ar24, https://doi.org /10.1187/cbe.14-10-0184. 17. Elizabeth A. Canning et al., “STEM Faculty Who Believe Ability Is Fixed Have Larger Racial Achievement Gaps and Inspire Less Student

Q

264

Q

3. FIXING MENTORSHIP

18.

19. 20. 21.

22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

Motivation in Their Classes,” Science Advances, February 2019, https://doi .org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734. Aneeta Rattan et al., “Meta-Lay Theories of Scientific Potential Drive Underrepresented Students’ Sense of Belonging to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM),” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115, no. 1 ( July 2018): 54–75, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000130. Rattan et al., “Meta-Lay Theories of Scientific Potential.” Rattan et al., “Meta-Lay Theories of Scientific Potential.” Melissa A. Fuesting and Amanda B. Diekman, “Not by Success Alone: Role Models Provide Pathways to Communal Opportunities in STEM,” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no. 2 (February 2017): 163–76, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857; “Corrigendum,” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no. 4 (April 2017): 584, https://doi.org/10.1177 /0146167217698161. Melissa A. Fuesting et al., “Growing STEM: Perceived Faculty Mindset as an Indicator of Communal Affordances in STEM,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117, no. 2 (August 2019): 260–81, https://doi.org /10.1037/pspa0000154. Geoffrey L. Cohen, Claude M. Steele, and Lee D. Ross, “The Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, no. 10 (October 1999): 1302–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258011; David Scott Yeager et al., “Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust: Wise Interventions to Provide Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide,” Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 143, no. 2 (April 2014): 804–24, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033906. Cohen et al., “The Mentor’s Dilemma.” Cohen et al., “The Mentor’s Dilemma.” Yeager et al., “Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust.” Andrew J. Thayer et al., “Wise Feedback as a Timely Intervention for At-Risk Students Transitioning into High School,” ed. Erin Dowdy, School Psychology Review 47, no. 3 (September 1, 2018): 275–90, https://doi .org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0021.V47-3. University of Colorado Denver, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, “Wise Feedback and Assessment,” August 6, 2020, https://clas.ucdenver .edu/inclusive-pedagogy/modules/wise-feedback-and-assessment; University of Wisconsin La Crosse, “Offer ‘Wise’ Feedback—CATL Instructor’s Guide to Inclusive Excellence,” CATL Instructor’s Guide to Inclusive Excellence, 2021, https://www.uwlax.edu/catl/guides/ie/demonstrate

Q

265

Q

3. FIXING MENTORSHIP

-high-belief/offer-wise-feedback/; Amanda Gustafson, “Wise Feedback for Academic Growth,” Augusta University, Academic Success Center, December 18, 2018, https://www.augusta.edu/academicsuccess/documents /resourcepage/wise-feedback-for-academic-growth-ppt.pptx. 29. Amgen Foundation Inc., “Using Chemistry to Solve Biological Problems,” Amgen Scholars, 2021, https://amgenscholars.com/using-chemistry -to-solve-biological-problems/. 30. College Factual, “Ohio Dominican University Diversity: ODU Demographics & Diversity Report,” 2021, https://www.collegefactual.com/col leges/ohio-dominican-university/student-life/diversity/.

4. FIXING RECRUITMENT 1. David Beede et al., “Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, August 3, 2011, https://www.commerce.gov/data -and-reports/reports/2011/08/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation. 2. Corinne  A. Moss Racusin et  al. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 41 (October 9, 2012): 16474–9, https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1211286109. 3. Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Ament Imes, “The Imposter Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 15, no. 3 (1978): 241–47, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006. 4. Joe Langford and Pauline Rose Clance, “The Imposter Phenomenon: Recent Research Findings Regarding Dynamics, Personality, and Family Patterns and Their Implications for Treatment,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 30, no. 3 (1993): 495–501, https://doi.org /10.1037/0033-3204.30.3.495. 5. Rachel Paterson and Ijeoma Favour Vincent-Akpu, “Impostor Syndrome with Women in Science,” in Science by Women: Stories from Careers in STEM, ed. Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2022), 83–98, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83032-8_7. 6. Rachel Ivie and Arnell Ephraim, “Women and Imposter Syndrome in Astronomy,” in STATUS: A Report on Women in Astronomy (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, January  2011), https://www.aip.org /statistics/reports/women-and-imposter-syndrome-astronomy.

Q

266

Q

4. FIXING RECRUITMENT

7. Melis Muradoglu et  al., “Women—Particularly Underrepresented Minority Women—and Early-Career Academics Feel Like Impostors in Fields That Value Brilliance,” Journal of Educational Psychology 114, no. 5 (2022): 1086–1100, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000669. 8. Mennatalla Ibrahim, “Women Feel Like Imposters in Disciplines That Value ‘Brilliance,’” Science Careers, August 13, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1126 /science.caredit.abl9325. 9. Asia A. Eaton et al., “How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates,” Sex Roles 82, no. 3 (February 1, 2020): 127–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w. 10. Eaton et al., “How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM.” 11. Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Aneta K. Molenda, and Charlotte R. Cramer, “Can Evidence Impact Attitudes? Public Reactions to Evidence of Gender Bias in STEM Fields,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 39, no. 2 ( June 1, 2015): 194–209, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314565777. 12. Ian M. Handley et al., “Quality of Evidence Revealing Subtle Gender Biases in Science Is in the Eye of the Beholder,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 43 (October 27, 2015): 13201–6, https://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.1510649112. 13. Amanda Barroso and Anna Brown, “Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Held Steady in 2020,” Pew Research Center, May 25, 2021, https://www.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/. 14. Richard Fry, Brian Kennedy, and Cary Funk, “STEM Jobs See Uneven Progress in Increasing Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Diversity,” Pew Research Center, April 1, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021 /04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and -ethnic-diversity/. 15. Amanda Holpuch, “Twitter Bot Highlights Gender Pay Gap One Company at a Time,” New York Times, March 9, 2022, https://www.nytimes .com/2022/03/09/business/pay-gap-international-womens-day-twitter .html. 16. Adina D. Sterling et al., “The Confidence Gap Predicts the Gender Pay Gap Among STEM Graduates,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 48 (December 1, 2020): 30303–8, https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.2010269117.

Q

267

Q

4. FIXING RECRUITMENT

17. Corey Binns, “What’s Behind the Pay Gap in STEM Jobs?,” Stanford Graduate School of Business, February 19, 2021, https://www.gsb.stanford .edu/insights/whats-behind-pay-gap-stem-jobs. 18. June Gruber et al., “The Future of Women in Psychological Science,” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 16, no.  3 (May  2021): 483–516, https://doi.org/10.1177/17456 91620952789. 19. Corinne A. Moss-Racusin et al., “Reducing STEM Gender Bias with VIDS (Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM),” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 24, no. 2 ( June 2018): 236–60, https://doi.org /10.1037/xap0000144. 20. Scott Jaschik, “What Larry Summers Said,” Inside Higher Ed, February 18, 2005, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/18/what-larry -summers-said; Daisuke Wakabayashi, “Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech,” New York Times, September 5, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women -engineer-fired-memo.html; Meilan Solly, “DNA Pioneer James Watson Loses Honorary Titles Over Racist Comments,” Smithsonian Magazine, January  15, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news /dna-pioneer-james-watson-loses-honorary-titles-over-racist-comments -180971266/. 21. Nicola M. Grissom and Teresa M. Reyes, “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off: Evaluating Gender and Sex Differences in Executive Function,” Neuropsychopharmacology 44, no. 1 ( January 2019): 86–96, https://doi.org /10.1038/s41386-018-0179-5. 22. Alyssa J. Kersey et al., “No Intrinsic Gender Differences in Children’s Earliest Numerical Abilities,” npj Science of Learning 3, no. 1 ( July 6, 2018): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0028-7. 23. Roland G. Fryer Jr. and Steven D. Levitt, “An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics,” Working Paper 15430, NBER Working Group Series (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2009), https://doi.org/10.3386/w15430. 24. Jon Hamilton, “Math Looks the Same in the Brains of Boys and Girls, Study Finds,” Shots Health News from NPR, November 8, 2019, https:// www.npr.org /sections /health -shots /2019 /11 /08 /777187543 /math -looks -the-same-in-the-brains-of-boys-and-girls-study-finds. 25. Hamilton, “Math Looks the Same in the Brains of Boys and Girls”; Nicole  M. Else-Quest, Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia  C. Linn,

Q

268

Q

4. FIXING RECRUITMENT

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

“Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 1 ( January 2010): 103–27, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053; Gijsbert Stoet and David  C. Geary, “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education,” Psychological Science 29, no. 4 (April 1, 2018): 581–93, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719. Richard Morris, “Developments of a Water-Maze Procedure for Studying Spatial Learning in the Rat,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods 11, no. 1 (May 1, 1984): 47–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(84)90007-4. Margaret M. McCarthy et al., “Sex Differences in the Brain: The Not So Inconvenient Truth,” Journal of Neuroscience 32, no. 7 (February 15, 2012): 2241–47, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5372-11.2012. Robin L. Roof and Donald G. Stein, “Gender Differences in Morris Water Maze Performance Depend on Task Parameters,” Physiology & Behavior 68, no. 1–2 (December 1, 1999): 81–86, https://doi.org/10.1016 /s0031-9384(99)00162-6. José M. Cimadevilla et al., “Sex Differences in the Morris Water Maze in Young Rats: Temporal Dimensions,” Psicothema 16, no. 4 (2004): 611– 14, https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3040.pdf. Jason Beiko et al., “Contribution of Sex Differences in the Acute Stress Response to Sex Differences in Water Maze Performance in the Rat,” Behavioural Brain Research 151, no. 1–2 (May 5, 2004): 239–53, https://doi .org/10.1016/j.bbr.2003.08.019. Julian Kolev, Yuly Fuentes-Medel, and Fiona Murray, “Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation,” Working Paper 25759, NBER Working Group Series (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2019), https:// doi.org/10.3386/w25759. Holly Else, “Male Researchers’ ‘Vague’ Language More Likely to Win Grants,” Nature News, May  1, 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles /d41586-019-01402-4. Members of the First and Second Committees on Women Faculty in the School of Science, “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT: How a Committee on Women Faculty Came to Be Established by the Dean of the School of Science, What the Committee and the Dean Learned and Accomplished, and Recommendations for the Future,” MIT Faculty Newsletter, March  1999, http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women .html#The%20Study.

Q

269

Q

4. FIXING RECRUITMENT

34. Members of the First and Second Committees on Women Faculty in the School of Science, “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT.” 35. Marilys Guillemin, Elaine Wong, and Georgina Such, “How We Boosted the Number of Female Faculty Members at Our Institution,” Nature 609, no. 7926 (September 7, 2022): S28–29, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022 -02829-y.

5. FIXING ENVIRONMENTS 1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 2. Cassandra M. Guarino and Victor M. H. Borden, “Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?,” Research in Higher Education 58, no. 6 (September 1, 2017): 672–94, https://doi.org /10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2. 3. Anthony D. Ong and Anthony L. Burrow, “Microaggressions and Daily Experience,” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 12, no.  1 ( January  2017): 173–75, https://doi .org/10.1177/1745691616664505. 4. Derald Wing Sue and Lisa Beth Spanierman, Microaggressions in Everyday Life, 2nd ed. (Wiley, 2020). 5. Tiffany Jana, Michael Baran, and Janina Edwards, Subtle Acts of Exclusion: How to Understand, Identify, and Stop Microaggressions (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2020). 6. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 7. Denise Sekaquaptewa, “Gender-Based Microaggressions in STEM Settings,” National Center for Institutional Diversity (NCID) Currents 1, no. 1 (2019): 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.101. 8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 9. Scott O. Lilienfeld, “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 12, no. 1 ( January 1, 2017): 138– 69, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391. 10. Afzalur Rahim and Dana M. Cosby, “A Model of Workplace Incivility, Job Burnout, Turnover Intentions, and Job Performance,” Journal of Management Development 35, no. 10 ( January 1, 2016): 1255–65, https://doi.org

Q

270

Q

5. FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0138; Irsan Tricahyadinata et al., “Workplace Incivility, Work Engagement, and Turnover Intentions: Multi-Group Analysis,” ed. Gabriela Topa, Cogent Psychology 7, no. 1 (December 31, 2020): 1743627, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1743627. Isis H. Settles et al., “The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30, no.  1 (March  1, 2006): 47–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006 .00261.x. Pew Research Center, “Half of Women in STEM Jobs Say They Have Been Discriminated Against at Work,” January  8, 2018, https://www .pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem -often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/ps_2018-01-09_stem_0-04/. Meggan J. Lee et al., “ ‘If You Aren’t White, Asian or Indian, You Aren’t an Engineer’: Racial Microaggressions in STEM Education,” International Journal of STEM Education 7, no.  1 (September  14, 2020): 48, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00241-4. Jenny  R. Yang and Batia Katz, “Promising Practices for Addressing Harassment in the STEM Workplace: How to Lead in Today’s Environment,” Urban Institute, Washington, DC, April 15, 2020, https://www .urban.org/research/publication/promising-practices-addressing-harass ment-stem-workplace. Jennifer LaCosse, Denise Sekaquaptewa, and Jill Bennett, “STEM Stereotypic Attribution Bias Among Women in an Unwelcoming Science Setting,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, no. 3 (September 1, 2016): 378– 97, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316630965. Sekaquaptewa, “Gender-Based Microaggressions.” Sapna Cheryan et  al., “Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (December 2009): 1045–60, https://doi .org/10.1037/a0016239. Neil A. Lewis, Denise Sekaquaptewa, and Lorelle A. Meadows, “Modeling Gender Counter-Stereotypic Group Behavior: A Brief Video Intervention Reduces Participation Gender Gaps on STEM Teams,” Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal 22, no. 3 ( July 2019): 557– 77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09489-3. Sekaquaptewa, “Gender-Based Microaggressions.” Paige L. Sweet, “How Gaslighting Manipulates Reality,” Scientific American, October 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1022-56.

Q

271

Q

5. FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

21. Merriam-Webster, “Word of the Year 2022,” November 28, 2022, https:// www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-of-the-year. 22. Stories from Science. https://www.instagram.com/pas_sciencestories/. 23. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 24. Lilia M. Cortina et al., “Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations: Evidence and Impact,” Journal of Management 39, no. 6 (September 2013): 1579–1605, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835. 25. Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, “Code of Ethics,” College of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University, December  10, 2014, https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2019/12/Socio logy_Code_of_Ethics.pdf. 26. National Center for Organization Development, “Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW),” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, October 24, 2017, https://www.va.gov/ncod/crew.asp. 27. Katerine Osatuke et al., “Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide Organization Development Intervention at Veterans Health Administration,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 45, no. 3 (September 1, 2009): 384–410, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309 335067. 28. Michael  P. Leiter et  al., “The Impact of Civility Interventions on Employee Social Behavior, Distress, and Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology 96, no.  6 (November  2011): 1258–74, https://doi.org/10.1037 /a0024442. 29. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 30. Laura K. Hildebrand, Celine C. Jusuf, and Margo J. Monteith, “Ally Confrontations as Identity-Safety Cues for Marginalized Individuals,” European Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 6 (May 27, 2020): 1318–33, https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2692. 31. Erika Marin-Spiotta et al., “ADVANCEGeo Partnership: Empowering Geoscientists to Transform Workplace Climate Through Bystander Intervention and Research Ethics Training,” in Fall Meeting, vol. 2019 (American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO)/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Astrophysics Data System (ADS), 2019), abstract #ED31B-03, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMED31B. .03M.

Q

272

Q

5. FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

32. Association for Women Geoscientists (AWG), “ADVANCEGeo Partnership,” 2021, https://awg.org/AdvanceGeo. 33. Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Kathryn A. Morris, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, “The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Organizations,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 7, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 332–42, https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.34251671. 34. Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI), “Workshops & Lectures,” https://wiseli.wisc.edu/workshops/. 35. Molly Carnes et al., “The Effect of an Intervention to Break the Gender Bias Habit for Faculty at One Institution: A Cluster Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Academic Medicine 90, no. 2 (February 2015): 221–30, https:// doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552. 36. Jennifer Sheridan et al., “Improving Department Climate Through Bias Literacy: One College’s Experience,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 27, no. 2 (2021): 87–106, https://doi.org/10.1615 /JWomenMinorScienEng.2021032729. 37. Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, “What Can Allies Do?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination, ed. Adrienne  J. Colella and Eden  B. King (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 373–86, https://doi.org/10.1093 /oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.27. 38. India R. Johnson and Evava S. Pietri, “An Ally You Say? Endorsing White Women as Allies to Encourage Perceptions of Allyship and Organizational Identity-Safety Among Black Women,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, December 2020, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220975482. 39. Charlotte E. Moser and Nyla R. Branscombe, “Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality-Supportive Men Reduce Negative Underrepresentation Effects Among Women,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, August 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748. 40. Guarino and Borden, “Faculty Service Loads and Gender.” 41. Joya Misra et al., “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work,” Academe, January/ February 2011, https://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work. 42. Misra et al., “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.” 43. Joya Misra et al., “Gendered and Racialized Perceptions of Faculty Workloads,” Gender & Society 35, no. 3 (April 14, 2021): 358–94, https://doi.org /10.1177/08912432211001387. 44. Misra et al., “The Ivory Ceiling.” 45. KerryAnn O’Meara et al., “Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions

Q

273

Q

5. FIXING ENVIRONMENTS

46. 47. 48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

That Shape Them,” American Educational Research Journal 54, no.  6 (December 2017): 1154–86, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716767. O’Meara et al., “Asked More Often.” O’Meara et al., “Asked More Often.” Sarah Berg, “Working Overtime? At Stanford, Physicians Bank the Time for Later,” American Medical Association, March 13, 2018, https://www .ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/working-overtime -stanford-physicians-bank-time-later. Magali Fassiotto et  al., “An Integrated Career Coaching and TimeBanking System Promoting Flexibility, Wellness, and Success: A Pilot Program at Stanford University School of Medicine,” Academic Medicine 93, no. 6 ( June 2018): 881–87, https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.00000000 00002121. Colleen Flaherty, “The DEI Pathway to Promotion,” Inside Higher Ed, May 14, 2021, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/14/iupui -creates-path-promotion-and-tenure-based-dei-work. Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” AAUP, July 10, 2006, https://www.aaup .org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure. Katie Robertson, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Denied Tenure at University of North Carolina,” New York Times, May 20, 2021, https://www.nytimes .com/2021/05/19/business/media/nikole-hannah-jones-unc.html. Isaac Yu and Kedia Sanchita, “SOM Tenure Denial Sparks Debate on Diversity in Academia,” Yale Daily News, February  23, 2022, https:// yaledailynews.com/blog/2022/02/23/som-tenure-denial-sparks-debate -on-diversity-in-academia/. Graciela Mochkofsky, “Why Lorgia García Peña Was Denied Tenure at Harvard,” New Yorker, July 27, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/news /annals -of -education /why -lorgia -garcia -pena -was -denied -tenure -at -harvard. Jennifer Chu, “Study Highlights Long Road Toward Gender Parity in the Geosciences,” MIT News, July 16, 2021, https://news.mit.edu/2021 /gender-parity-geosciences-0716. Meghana Ranganathan et al., “Trends in the Representation of Women Among US Geoscience Faculty from 1999 to 2020: The Long Road Toward Gender Parity,” AGU Advances 2, no. 3 (2021): e2021AV000436, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021AV000436.

Q

274

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

57. Rachel E. Bernard and Emily H. G. Cooperdock, “No Progress on Diversity in 40 Years,” Nature Geoscience 11, no. 5 (May 2018): 292–95, https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6.

6. FIXING VISIBILITY 1. Robert K. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science 159, no. 3810 ( January 5, 1968): 56–63, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56; Margaret W. Rossiter, “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science,” Social Studies of Science 23, no. 2 (May 1, 1993): 325–41, https://doi.org/10.1177/03063129 3023002004. 2. Robert  K. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,” Isis 79, no. 4 (December 1988): 606–23, https://www.jstor.org/stable/234750. 3. Harriet Zuckerman, “Nobel Laureates: Sociological Studies of Scientific Collaboration,” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1965. 4. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science.” 5. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science, II.” 6. Stephen M. Stigler, “Stigler’s Law of Eponymy,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 39, no. 1 Series II (April 1980): 147–57, https://doi .org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.x. 7. Thijs Bol, Mathijs de Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt, “The Matthew Effect in Science Funding,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 19 (May 8, 2018): 4887–90, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719 557115. 8. Rossiter, “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” 9. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Carroll J. Glynn, and Michael Huge, “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest,” Science Communication 35, no. 5 (October 2013): 603–25, https://doi.org/10 .1177/1075547012472684. 10. Amani El-Alayli et al., “Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly from Academically Entitled Students,” Sex Roles 79, nos. 3–4 (2018): 136–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6. 11. Troy Heffernan, “Sexism, Racism, Prejudice, and Bias: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Research Surrounding Student Evaluations of Courses and Teaching,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47,

Q

275

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

12.

13.

14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

no. 1 ( January 2, 2022): 144–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021 .1888075. Kathy Tangalakis et al., “The Impact of Teaching from Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Student Evaluations of Female Academics,” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 19, no.  1 (March 7, 2022): 160–75, https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.1.10. Dianne Hall et  al., “Gender Bias in Student Surveys on Teaching Increased with Remote Learning. What Can Unis Do to Ensure a Fair Go for Female Staff?,” The Conversation, March 7, 2022, http://theconversation .com/gender-bias-in-student-surveys-on-teaching-increased-with-remote -learning-what-can-unis-do-to-ensure-a-fair-go-for-female-staff-178418. Matilda Joslyn Gage, “Woman as an Inventor,” North American Review 136, no. 318 (May 1883): 478–89, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118273. Rossiter, “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Kristina Balce, “The Silencing of Alice Augusta Ball,” Science Creative Quarterly (SCQ), June 4, 2020, https://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-silencing-of -alice-augusta-ball/. Balce, “The Silencing of Alice Ball.” Mike Sutton, “Hahn, Meitner, and the Discovery of Nuclear Fission,” Chemistry World, November 5, 2018, https://www.chemistryworld.com /features/hahn-meitner-and-the-discovery-of-nuclear-fission/3009604 .article. Science History Institute, “Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann,” December 7, 2017, https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-pro file/otto-hahn-lise-meitner-and-fritz-strassmann. Timothy J. Jorgensen, “Lise Meitner—the Forgotten Woman of Nuclear Physics Who Deserved a Nobel Prize,” The Conversation, February 7, 2019, http://theconversation.com/lise-meitner-the-forgotten-woman-of-nuclear -physics-who-deserved-a-nobel-prize-106220. Adrian Dingle, “Meitnerium in Tribute,” Nature Chemistry 9, no.  8 (August 2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2833. Beryl Lieff Benderly, “Rosalind Franklin and the Damage of Gender Harassment,” Science.org, August 1, 2018, https://www.science.org/content /article/rosalind-franklin-and-damage-gender-harassment. “The Future,” King’s College London, https://kingscollections.org /exhibitions/archives/dna/further-work/future. Susan Dominus, “Women Scientists Were Written Out of History. It’s Margaret Rossiter’s Lifelong Mission to Fix That,” Smithsonian Magazine,

Q

276

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30. 31.

32.

33.

October  2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/unheral ded-women-scientists-finally-getting-their-due-180973082/. Elise Smith et al., “Researchers’ Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams,” Science and Engineering Ethics 26, no. 4 (August 1, 2020): 1995–2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948 -019-00113-3. Michaela Panter, “The Ethics of Manuscript Authorship: Best Practices for Attribution,” American Journal Experts Scholar, https://www.aje.com /arc/ethics-manuscript-authorship/. Liz Allen, Alison O’Connell, and Veronique Kiermer, “How Can We Ensure Visibility and Diversity in Research Contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) Is Helping the Shift from Authorship to Contributorship,” Learned Publishing 32 (2019): 71–74, https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210; Junming Huang et  al., “Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality in Scientific Careers Across Countries and Disciplines,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 9 (March 3, 2020): 4609–16, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117; Marcia  K. McNutt et  al., “Transparency in Authors’ Contributions and Responsibilities to Promote Integrity in Scientific Publication,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 11 (March 13, 2018): 2557– 60, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115. Mina Cikara, Laurie Rudman, and Susan Fiske, “Dearth by a Thousand Cuts? Accounting for Gender Differences in Top-Ranked Publication Rates in Social Psychology,” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 2 (2012): 263– 85, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01748.x. Huang et al., “Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality”; “Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality.” Huang et al., “Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality.” Erin G. Teich et al., “Citation Inequity and Gendered Citation Practices in Contemporary Physics,” Nature Physics 18, no. 10 (October 2022): 1161– 70, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01770-1. Claudia Lopez Lloreda, “Women Researchers Are Cited Less Than Men. Here’s Why—and What Can Be Done About It,” Science Careers, October 13, 2022, https://www.science.org/content/article/women-researchers -cited-less-men-heres-why-what-can-done. Chaoqun Ni et  al., “The Gendered Nature of Authorship,” Science Advances 7, no. 36 (September 1, 2021): 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv .abe4639.

Q

277

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

34. Ni et al. “The Gendered Nature of Authorship.” 35. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), “Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors,” http://www.icmje.org/recom mendations /browse /roles -and -responsibilities /defining -the -role -of -authors-and-contributors.html. 36. Sara Schroter et al., “Awareness, Usage, and Perceptions of Authorship Guidelines: An International Survey of Biomedical Authors,” BMJ Open 10, no. 9 (September 1, 2020): e036899, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen -2020-036899. 37. Myriam A. Baum et al., “The First Author Takes It All? Solutions for Crediting Authors More Visibly, Transparently, and Free of Bias,” British Journal of Social Psychology (2022): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso .12569. 38. Schroter et al., “Awareness, Usage, and Perceptions of Authorship Guidelines,” e036899. 39. MIT Press, “A Q&A with Dr. Brad Postle, New Editor in Chief of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,” February 23, 2021, https://mitpress .mit .edu /blog /qa -dr -brad -postle -new -editor -chief -journal -cognitive -neuroscience. 40. Christine L. Nittrouer et al., “Gender Disparities in Colloquium Speakers at Top Universities,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 1 ( January 2, 2018): 104–8, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708414115. 41. Holly Else, “How to Banish Manels and Manferences from Scientific Meetings,” Nature 573, no. 7773 (September 10, 2019): 184–86, https://doi .org/10.1038/d41586-019-02658-6. 42. Heather L. Ford et al., “Women from Some Under-Represented Minorities Are Given Too Few Talks at World’s Largest Earth-Science Conference,” Nature 576, no. 7785 (December 2019): 32–35, https://doi.org/10 .1038/d41586-019-03688-w. 43. Apoorva Mandavilli, “Female Scientists Turn to Data to Fight Lack of Representation on Panels,” New York Times, September 5, 2016, https:// www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/gender-bias-scientific-conferences .html. 44. “About BWN,” BiasWatchNeuro, August 10, 2021, https://biaswatchneuro .com/about-bwn/. 45. Francis S. Collins, “The NIH Director—Statements: Time to End the Manel Tradition,” National Institutes of Health (NIH), June  12, 2019,

Q

278

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

46. 47.

48. 49.

50.

51. 52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/time -end-manel-tradition; Else, “How to Banish Manels and Manferences.” “About Us,” gage, https://gage.500womenscientists.org/about. Jennifer L. Martin, “Ten Simple Rules to Achieve Conference Speaker Gender Balance,” PLOS Computational Biology 10, no. 11 (November 20, 2014): e1003903, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003903. Nittrouer et al., “Gender Disparities.” Victoria Salem et al., “Scientific Medical Conferences Can Be Easily Modified to Improve Female Inclusion: A Prospective Study,” Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 9, no. 9 (September 1, 2021): 556–59, https://doi.org /10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00177-7. Calculated from: “All Nobel Prizes,” NobelPrize.org, https://www .nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes; “Nobel Prize Facts,” NobelPrize.org, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts. “Donna Strickland—Facts—2018,” NobelPrize.org, https://www.nobel prize.org/prizes/physics/2018/strickland/facts/. “Strength in Stubbornness: A 2020 Nobel Winner Reflects on Her Career,” National Geographic, October 12, 2020, https://www.nationalgeo graphic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/10/strength-in-stubbornness -a-2020-nobel-winner-reflects-on-her-career. Per Lunnemann, Mogens H. Jensen, and Liselotte Jauffred, “Gender Bias in Nobel Prizes,” Palgrave Communications 5, no. 46 (May 7, 2019): 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3. Yifang Ma et al., “Women Who Win Prizes Get Less Money and Prestige,” Nature 565, no. 7739 ( January 16, 2019): 287–88, https://doi.org/10 .1038/d41586-019-00091-3. Lokman I. Meho, “The Gender Gap in Highly Prestigious International Research Awards, 2001–2020,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no.  3 (November 5, 2021): 976–89, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00148. Mary Anne Holmes, LaToya Myles, and Blair Schneider, “Diversity and Equality in Honours and Awards Programs—Steps Towards a Fair Representation of Membership,” Advances in Geosciences 53 (May 18, 2020): 41–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-53-41-2020. Isabelle Régner et al., “Committees with Implicit Biases Promote Fewer Women When They Do Not Believe Gender Bias Exists,” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no.  11 (November  2019): 1171–79, https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41562-019-0686-3.

Q

279

Q

6. FIXING VISIBILITY

58. Holmes, Myles, and Schneider, “Diversity and Equality in Honours and Awards Programs.” 59. Clare Watson, “Women Less Likely to Win Major Research Awards,” Nature, published ahead of print (September 13, 2021), https://doi.org/10 .1038/d41586-021-02497-4. 60. Joyce C. He, Sonia K. Kang, and Nicola Lacetera, “Opt-Out Choice Framing Attenuates Gender Differences in the Decision to Compete in the Laboratory and in the Field,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 42 (October 19, 2021): e2108337118, https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.2108337118. 61. Marina Koren, “An Influential Female Astronomer Is Getting Her Due,” The Atlantic, January 9, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive /2020/01/vera-rubin-observatory/604624/. 62. Ferdinando Patat, “Gender Systematics in Telescope Time Allocation at ESO,” arXiv:1610.00920 [physics.soc-ph] (preprint, October 4, 2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00920; I. Neill Reid, “Gender-Correlated Systematics in HST Proposal Selection,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 126, no. 944 (October 2014): 923–34, https://doi.org /10.1086/678964. 63. Alexandra Witze, “NASA Changes How It Divvies Up Telescope Time to Reduce Gender Bias,” Nature 571, no.  7764 ( July  3, 2019): 156–156, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02064-y. 64. Clare Watson, “Following NASA’s Lead, Researchers Are Targeting Gender Bias in Instrument Time,” Nature Index, February  2, 2021, https:// www.natureindex.com/news-blog/following-nasa-lead-researchers-target ing-gender-bias-science-instrument-time. 65. Dana Bolles, “Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR),” NASA, 2012, https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review. 66. Ben A. Barres, “Does Gender Matter?,” Nature 442, no. 7099 ( July 2006): 133–36, https://doi.org/10.1038/442133a.

7. FIXING WORK- LIFE BALANCE 1. University of Washington, “Advancing Women Faculty,” 2023, https:// advance.washington.edu/node/1438. 2. Andrea Hsu, “As the Pandemic Recedes, Millions of Workers Are Saying ‘I Quit,’” NPR, June 24, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/100 7914455/as-the-pandemic-recedes-millions-of-workers-are-saying-i-quit;

Q

280

Q

7. FIXING WORK-LIFE BALANCE

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

“Gender Differences in the Economic and Social Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Women In Academia (WIA) Report (blog), July 8, 2020, https:// www.wiareport.com/2020/07/gender-differences-in-the-economic-and -social-impact-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/. Matt Gonzales, “Nearly 2 Million Fewer Women in Labor Force,” Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), February  17, 2022, https://www.shrm .org /resourcesandtools /hr -topics /behavioral -comp etencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/over-1-million-fewer -women-in-labor-force.aspx. Jillian Kramer, “The Virus Moved Female Faculty to the Brink. Will Universities Help?,” New York Times, October 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes .com/2020/10/06/science/covid-universities-women.html. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Eve Higginbotham and Maria Lund Dahlberg, eds., The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2021), 194, https://doi.org /10.17226/26061. Jian Gao et al., “Potentially Long-Lasting Effects of the Pandemic on Scientists,” Nature Communications 12 (October 26, 2021): 6188, https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26428-z; Flaminio Squazzoni et al., “Gender Gap in Journal Submissions and Peer Review During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Study on 2329 Elsevier Journals,” PLOS One 16, no. 10 (October 20, 2021): e0257919, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal .pone.0257919. Higginbotham and Dahlberg, eds., The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 194. Academics for Black Survival and Wellness, “Academics for Black Survival and Wellness,” Academics for Black Lives, 2021, https://www.aca demics4blacklives.com; Black AF In STEM, 2023, https://www.black afinstem.com; Sarah Sloat, “Black Birders Week Responds to Racism with a Celebration of Black Naturalists,” Inverse, June 2, 2020, https:// www.inverse.com/science/black-birders-week. Erin A. Cech and Mary Blair-Loy, “The Changing Career Trajectories of New Parents in STEM,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no.  10 (March  5, 2019): 4182–87, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810 862116. Alexandra Samuel, “Silicon Valley Needs to Change How It Treats Working Mothers,” The Verge, November  7, 2017, https://www.theverge.com

Q

281

Q

7. FIXING WORK-LIFE BALANCE

11. 12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

/2017/11/7/16617736/tech-gender-gap-stem-jobs-maternity-leave-hiring -training. Allison C. Morgan et al., “Paid Parental Leave at US and Canadian Universities,” 2018, https://aaronclauset.github.io/parental-leave/. Ragnar Tómas, “Parental Leave Extended to Twelve Months,” Iceland Review, December 18, 2019, https://www.icelandreview.com/politics/paren tal-leave-extended-to-twelve-months/. Kendall Powell, “The Parenting Penalties Faced by Scientist Mothers,” Nature 595, no. 7868 ( July 20, 2021): 611–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 -021-01993-x. Heather Antecol, Kelly Bedard, and Jenna Stearns, “IZA DP No. 9904: Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies?,” IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series, April 2016, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/9904/equal-but -inequitable-who-benefits-from-gender-neutral-tenure-clock-stopping -policies. Antecol, Bedard, and Stearns, “IZA DP No. 9904.” Allison C. Morgan et al., “The Unequal Impact of Parenthood in Academia,” Science Advances 7, no. 9 (February 24, 2021): eabd1996, https:// doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1996. Morgan et al., “The Unequal Impact,” eabd1996. Ellen Ernst Kossek, Matthew Perrigino, and Alyson Gounden Rock, “From Ideal Workers to Ideal Work for All: A 50-Year Review Integrating Careers and Work-Family Research with a Future Research Agenda,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 126 (April 1, 2021): 103504, https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103504. Lisa M. P. Munoz, “What I Learned About the Gender Gap from One Zoom Call,” OneZero (blog), June 10, 2020, https://onezero.medium.com /what-i-learned-about-the-gender-gap-from-one-zoom-call-2c9dabb 2a6e9. “A Culture of Think,” IBM Corporation, August 10, 2017, http://www-03 .ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/think_culture/. Emi Nietfeld, “After Working at Google, I’ll Never Let Myself Love a Job Again,” New York Times, April 7, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021 /04/07/opinion/google-job-harassment.html. Emily F. Henderson, “Sticky Care and Conference Travel: Unpacking Care as an Explanatory Factor for Gendered Academic Immobility,”

Q

282

Q

7. FIXING WORK-LIFE BALANCE

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Higher Education 82 (October 1, 2021): 715–30, https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10734-020-00550-1. Tien Nguyen, “For Academic Parents, Work Travel Can Be Costly—but Some Universities Are Stepping Up Their Support,” Science Careers, September 4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.aaz3871. Angela  L. Bos, Jennie Sweet-Cushman, and Monica  C. Schneider, “Family-Friendly Academic Conferences: A Missing Link to Fix the ‘Leaky Pipeline’?,” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7, no. 3 ( July 3, 2019): 748– 58, https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1403936; CI_Jamie, “Our Babies Aren’t Always Welcome at Academic Conferences; Why It Matters and Why It Doesn’t Have to (Angela  L. Bos, Jennie Sweet-Cushman & Monica Schneider),” Conference Inference (blog), May  19, 2019, https:// conferenceinference.wordpress.com/2019/05/19/guest-post-our-babies -arent-always-welcome-at-academic-conferences-why-it-matters-and -why-it-doesnt-have-to-angela-l-bos-jennie-sweet-cushman-and-monica -schneider/. Giuliana Viglione, “How Scientific Conferences Will Survive the Coronavirus Shock,” Nature 582, no. 7811 ( June 2, 2020): 166–67, https://doi.org /10.1038/d41586-020-01521-3. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), “When You Picture a Scientist, Who Do You See? A Panel Conversation on Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in STEM,” Choice, March 24, 2021, https://www .choice360.org/webinars/when-you-picture-a-scientist-who-do-you-see/. Sara Custer, “Twitter Responses Show Sexual Harassment Is Rife at Academic Conferences,” Times Higher Education, May 21, 2019, https://www .timeshighereducation.com/blog/twitter-responses-show-sexual-harass ment-rife-academic-conferences. Kathryn B. H. Clancy et al., “Double Jeopardy in Astronomy and Planetary Science: Women of Color Face Greater Risks of Gendered and Racial Harassment,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 122, no.  7 (2017): 1610–23, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JE005256. Ann Gibbons, “Museum Curator Resigns After Investigations of Sexual Misconduct,” ScienceInsider, December 5, 2016, https://www.science.org /content /article /museum -curator -resigns -after -investigations -sexual -misconduct. “Ada Initiative 2011–2015,” Ada Initiative (blog), 2015, https://adainitiative .org/; Sherry  A. Marts, “The Open Secret of Sexual Harassment at

Q

283

Q

7. FIXING WORK-LIFE BALANCE

31. 32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

Meetings,” American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), May 1, 2017, https://www.asaecenter.org:443/en/resources/articles/an_plus/2017/ may/the-open-secret-of-sexual-harassment-at-meetings. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. Alicia J. Foxx et al., “Evaluating the Prevalence and Quality of Conference Codes of Conduct,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 30 ( July 23, 2019): 14931–36, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.18194 09116. Foxx et al., “Evaluating the Prevalence and Quality of Conference Codes of Conduct.” Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, “A Conference Sexual Harassment Policy,” Medium (blog), November  8, 2017, https://medium.com/@chanda/a -conference-sexual-harassment-policy-ca4e338e412e. Antonia Abbey, “Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault: A Common Problem Among College Students,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol suppl. no.  14 (March 2002): 118–28, https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118. Samuel B. Bacharach, Peter A. Bamberger, and Valerie M. McKinney, “Harassing Under the Influence: The Prevalence of Male Heavy Drinking, the Embeddedness of Permissive Workplace Drinking Norms, and the Gender Harassment of Female Coworkers,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12, no. 3 ( July 2007): 232–50, https://doi.org/10.1037/1076 -8998.12.3.232. Sherry A. Marts, “Open Secrets and Missing Stairs: Sexual and GenderBased Harassment at Scientific Meetings,” S*Marts Consulting, https:// smartsconsulting.com/digital-products/open-secrets-and-missing-stairs -sexual-and-gender-based-harassment-at-scientific-meetings. Nora Doyle-Burr, “Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Against Dartmouth Say They Hope to Change Culture of Abuse,” Concord Monitor, November 16, 2018, https://www.concordmonitor.com/Students-Say-Dartmouth-Failed-to -Adequately-Respond-to-Reports-of-Sexual-Assault-and-Misconduct -21599597. “Settlement in Dartmouth Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Gets Final Approval,” Valley News, July  16, 2020, https://www.vnews.com/Judge -issues-final-approval-in-Dartmouth-lawsuit-35253759; Lauren Adler, “Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Settlement Unique for Class Size,” The Dartmouth, February 20, 2020, https://www.thedartmouth.com/article /2020/02/sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-settlement-unique-for-class-size.

Q

284

Q

8. FIXING REPORTING

8. FIXING REPORTING 1. Nora Doyle-Burr, “Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Against Dartmouth Say They Hope to Change Culture of Abuse,” Concord Monitor, November 16, 2018, https://www.concordmonitor.com/Students-Say-Dartmouth-Failed-to -Adequately-Respond-to-Reports-of-Sexual-Assault-and-Misconduct -21599597. 2. U.S. Congress, “Education Amendments Act of 1972,” Pub. L. No. Title IX, 1681–1688 20 (2015), https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix. 3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 4. Ann Olivarius, “Title IX: Taking Yale to Court,” The New Journal, April 18, 2011, https://thenewjournalatyale.com/2011/04/title-ix-taking -yale-to-court/. 5. Alexandra Witze, “Berkeley Astronomer in Sexual Harassment Case to Resign,” Nature, October 14, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18582. 6. Rodrigo Pérez Ortega, “National Academy of Sciences Ejects Biologist Francisco Ayala in the Wake of Sexual Harassment Findings,” ScienceInsider, June 24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1563. 7. Allison DeAngelis, “Leaked Emails Reveal a Top MIT Professor and Biotech Founder Has Been Placed on Leave Following a Sexual Harassment Investigation,” Business Insider, August  20, 2021, https://www .businessinsider.com /mits -david -sabatini -on -leave -following -sexual -harassment-investigation-2021-8; Meredith Wadman, “HHMI Fires Prominent Biologist for Sexual Harassment,” ScienceInsider, August 21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm0579. 8. Jeremy C. Fox, “MIT Professor Sues After He Was Forced to Resign from Institute Following Sexual Harassment Allegations,” Boston Globe, October 20, 2021, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/20/metro/mit -professor-sues-after-he-was-forced-resign-institute-following-sexual -harassment-allegations/. 9. Lauren Adler, “Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Settlement Unique for Class Size,” The Dartmouth, February 20, 2020, https://www.thedartmouth.com /article/2020/02/sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-settlement-unique-for-class -size. 10. Elizabeth Culotta, “Antarctic Glacier Gets New Name in Wake of Sexual Harassment Finding,” ScienceInsider, September 18, 2018, https://doi .org/10.1126/science.aav4670.

Q

285

Q

8. FIXING REPORTING

11. Pérez Ortega, “National Academy of Sciences Ejects Biologist.” 12. Anemona Hartocollis, “A Lawsuit Accuses Harvard of Ignoring Sexual Harassment by a Professor,” New York Times, February 8, 2022, https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/harvard-sexual-harassment-lawsuit .html. 13. Chai R. Feldblum and Victoria A. Lipnic, “Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, June 2016, https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study -harassment-workplace; Halley Norman, “Why We Hear About It, and Why We Don’t: Power Dynamics and Sexual Harassment Reporting in US State Legislative Bodies,” Political Science Honors Projects no. 82, Macalester College, May 1, 2019, https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu /poli_honors/82. 14. Lilia M. Cortina and Jennifer L. Berdahl, “Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Decade of Research in Review,” in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume I—Micro Approaches (London: SAGE, 2008), 469–97, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448. 15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women. 16. Feldblum and Lipnic, “Select Task Force.” 17. Jenny  R. Yang and Batia Katz, “Promising Practices for Addressing Harassment in the STEM Workplace: How to Lead in Today’s Environment,” Urban Institute, April 15, 2020, https://www.urban.org/research /publication /promising -practices -addressing -harassment -stem -work place. 18. E. J. Dickson, “What, Exactly, Is an NDA?,” Rolling Stone, March 19, 2019, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/nda-non-disclo sure-agreements-809856/. 19. Martin Areva, “How NDAs Help Some Victims Come Forward Against Abuse,” Time, November 28, 2017, https://time.com/5039246/sexual-harass ment-nda/. 20. Allison Scott, Freada Kapor Klein, and Uriridiakoghene Onovakpuri, “Tech Leavers,” Kapor Center for Social Impact (KCSI), April 27, 2017, https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/. 21. Kari Paul, “California Companies Can No Longer Silence Workers in Victory for Tech Activists,” The Guardian, October 8, 2021, https://www .theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/08/california-companies-can-no -longer-silence-workers-in-victory-for-tech-activists.

Q

286

Q

8. FIXING REPORTING

22. Zoe Schiffer, “Apple Refuses to Make NDA Concessions for Workplace Harassment and Discrimination,” The Verge, September 8, 2021, https:// www.theverge .com /2021 /9 /8 /22661536 /apple -shareholder -resolution -change-nda-harassment-discrimination. 23. Sarah Vincent, “ ‘The Chair’ Was Uncomfortable to Watch as a Recent College Grad. And That’s the Point,” America Magazine, September 17, 2021, https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2021/09/17/sandra -oh-chair-netflix-recent-graduate-241450. 24. Kathryn B. H. Clancy et al., “Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault,” PLOS One 9, no. 7 ( July 16, 2014): e102172, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172. 25. Yang and Katz, “Promising Practices.” 26. Ruchika Tulshyan, “More Companies Need Transparency on SexualHarassment Cases,” Seattle Times, April  17, 2019, https://www.seattle times.com/opinion/more-companies-need-transparancy-on-sexual-harass ment-cases/; Yang and Katz, “Promising Practices.” 27. Maryland Congress, “2020 Maryland Statutes: Education: Division III— Higher Education: Title 11—Maryland Higher Education Commission: Subtitle 6—Sexual Assault Policy: §11–601—Written Policies,” 2018, https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2020/education/division-iii/title -11/subtitle-6/section-11-601/. 28. Hannah Critchfield, “A Professor Was Accused of Sexual Harassment and Resigned. At His Next University, It Happened Again,” Vice, October 27, 2021, https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxgyp/how-universities -pass -along -professors -accused -of -sexual -harassment -and -harm -stu dents. 29. Nancy Chi Cantalupo and William Kidder, “A Systematic Look at a Serial Problem: Sexual Harassment of Students by University Faculty,” Utah Law Review 2018 ( June 30, 2018): 671–786, https://ssrn.com/abstract =2971447. 30. Yang and Katz, “Promising Practices.” 31. Critchfield, “A Professor Was Accused of Sexual Harassment.” 32. National Science Foundation (NSF), “NSF Announces New Measures to Protect Research Community from Harassment,” September 19, 2018, https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=296610. 33. “H.R.5328—116th Congress (2019–2020): Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act,” December 5, 2019, https://www.congress.gov /bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5328.

Q

287

Q

8. FIXING REPORTING

34. Joseph  R. Biden, “Executive Order on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” March  8, 2021, https://www .whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive -order-on-guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-discri mination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including-sexual-orientation-or-gender -identity/. 35. Clancy et al., “Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE).”

9. FIXING SCIENCE 1. Ann Finkbeiner, “Women Are Creating a New Culture for Astronomy,” Scientif ic American, April  2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificameri can0422-32. 2. “Daring to Dig: Women in American Paleontology,” Museum of the Earth, https://www.museumoftheearth.org/daring-to-dig. 3. Evava S. Pietri et al., “Addressing Unintended Consequences of Gender Diversity Interventions on Women’s Sense of Belonging in STEM,” Sex Roles 80, no. 9 (May 1, 2019): 527–47, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018 -0952-2. 4. Jessica  L. Cundiff and Susan  L. Murray, “Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Assessing a Gender Bias Literacy Intervention for Potential Positive and Negative Outcomes,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 26, no.  6 (2020): 511–40, https://doi.org/10.1615 /JWomenMinorScienEng.2020032359. 5. Evava Pietri, Arispa Weigold, Lisa M. P. Munoz, and Corinne A. MossRacusin, “Can Films Impact Sexism in STEM? Examining This Possibility with the Popular Documentary Picture a Scientist,” PsyArXiv, December 8, 2021. doi:10.31234/osf.io/bjq8w. 6. Pietri et al., “Can Films Impact Sexism in STEM?” 7. Pietri et al., “Can Films Impact Sexism in STEM?” 8. Cheryl Hill, “#IfThenSheCan—the Exhibit Gives Little Girls Something to Shoot For,” Dallas Morning News, May 23, 2021, https://www .dallasnews .com /business /2021 /05 /23 /ifthenshecan -the -exhibit -gives -little-girls-something-to-shoot-for/; “#IfThenSheCan—the Exhibit,” If/Then, https://ifthenexhibit.org/. 9. “AAAS If/Then® Ambassadors Program,” https://www.ifthenshecan.org /ambassadors/; “Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil,” If/Then® Collection, https://www

Q

288

Q

9. FIXING SCIENCE

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

.ifthencollection.org/burcin; “Neha Murad,” If/Then® Collection, https:// www.ifthencollection.org/neha. “A Story Full of Texture and Color: One Scholar’s Work to Inspire Women in Science,” Amgen Scholars, https://amgenscholars.com/a-story -full -of -texture -and -color -one -scholars -work -to -inspire -women -in -science/. “A Story Full of Texture and Color.” Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, “Psychology of Gender: Addressing Misconceptions and Setting Goals for the Field,” American Psychologist 76, no. 9 (2021): 1429–41, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000930. Charlotte Chuck Tate, Jay N. Ledbetter, and Cris P. Youssef, “A TwoQuestion Method for Assessing Gender Categories in the Social and Medical Sciences,” Journal of Sex Research 50, no. 8 (November 1, 2013): 767–76, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.690110. Yang Yang et  al., “Gender-Diverse Teams Produce More Novel and Higher-Impact Scientific Ideas,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 36 (September 6, 2022): e2200841119, https://doi.org/10 .1073/pnas.2200841119. Alison Jane Sheridan, Jennifer May Rindfleish, and Sue-Ellen Kjeldal, “Sensemaking in the Gendered Academy: The Role of Storytelling in Effecting Change,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference—Management: Pragmatism, Philosophy, Priorities (Lindfield, Australia: ANZAM: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 2006), 1–18, https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2353; Sohad Murrar and Markus Brauer, “Entertainment-Education Effectively Reduces Prejudice,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21, no. 7 (October 1, 2018): 1053–77, https:// doi.org/10.1177/1368430216682350. Evava S. Pietri et al., “Seeing What’s Possible: Videos Are More Effective Than Written Portrayals for Enhancing the Relatability of Scientists and Promoting Black Female Students’ Interest in STEM,” Sex Roles 84, no. 1 ( January 1, 2021): 14–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01153-x.

Q

289

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbey, Antonia. “Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault: A Common Problem Among College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Supplement, no. 14 (March 2002): 118– 28. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118. Adler, Lauren. “Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Settlement Unique for Class Size.” The Dartmouth, February 20, 2020. https://www.thedartmouth.com /article /2020/02 /sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-settlement-unique-for-class -size. Allen, Liz, Alison O’Connell, and Veronique Kiermer. “How Can We Ensure Visibility and Diversity in Research Contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) Is Helping the Shift from Authorship to Contributorship.” Learned Publishing 32 (2019): 71– 74. https://doi.org /10 .1002/ leap.1210. AlShebli, Bedoor, Kinga Makovi, and Talal Rahwan. “RETRACTED ARTICLE: The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance.” Nature Communications 11, no. 1 (November 17, 2020): 5855. https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41467-020-19723-8. Antecol, Heather, Kelly Bedard, and Jenna Stearns. “IZA DP No. 9904: Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies?” IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series, April 2016. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/9904 /equal-but

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-inequitable-who-benefits-from-gender-neutral-tenure-clock-stopping -policies. Areva, Martin. “How NDAs Help Some Victims Come Forward Against Abuse.” Time, November 28, 2017. https://time.com /5039246/sexual-harass ment-nda/. Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie. “What Can Allies Do?” In The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination, ed. Adrienne J. Colella and Eden B. King, 373–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093 /oxfordhb /9780199363643.013.27. Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, Kathryn A. Morris, and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Organizations.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 7, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 332–42. https://doi.org /10.5465 /amle.2008 .34251671. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). “When You Picture a Scientist, Who Do You See? A Panel Conversation on Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in STEM.” Choice, March 24, 2021. https:// www.choice360.org/webinars/when-you-picture-a-scientist-who-do-you -see/. Atkins, Kaitlyn, Bryan M. Dougan, Michelle S. Dromgold-Sermen, Hannah Potter, Viji Sathy, and A. T. Panter. “ ‘Looking at Myself in the Future’: How Mentoring Shapes Scientific Identity for STEM Students from Underrepresented Groups.” International Journal of STEM Education 7, no. 1 (August 18, 2020): 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3. Bacharach, Samuel  B., Peter  A. Bamberger, and Valerie  M. McKinney. “Harassing Under the Influence: The Prevalence of Male Heavy Drinking, the Embeddedness of Permissive Workplace Drinking Norms, and the Gender Harassment of Female Coworkers.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12, no. 3 (July 2007): 232–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076 -8998.12.3.232. Balce, Kristina. “The Silencing of Alice Augusta Ball.” The Science Creative Quarterly (SCQ), June 4, 2020. https://www.scq.ubc.ca /the-silencing-of -alice-augusta-ball/. Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Anthony G. Greenwald. “Implicit Gender Stereotyping in Judgments of Fame.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, no. 2 (1995): 181– 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181. Banchefsky, Sarah, Jacob Westfall, Bernadette Park, and Charles M. Judd. “But You Don’t Look Like a Scientist! Women Scientists with Feminine

Q

292

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appearance Are Deemed Less Likely to Be Scientists.” Sex Roles 75, no. 3 (August 2016): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1. Barres, Ben A. “Does Gender Matter?” Nature 442, no. 7099 (July 2006): 133– 36. https://doi.org/10.1038/442133a. Barroso, Amanda, and Anna Brown. “Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Held Steady in 2020.” Pew Research Center, May 25, 2021. https://www.pewresearch .org/fact-tank /2021 /05 /25 /gender-pay-gap-facts/. Baum, Myriam A., Moritz N. Braun, Alexander Hart, Véronique I. Huffer, Julia A. Meßmer, Michael Weigl, and Lasse Wennerhold. “The First Author Takes It All? Solutions for Crediting Authors More Visibly, Transparently, and Free of Bias.” British Journal of Social Psychology (2022): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111 / bjso.12569. Beede, David, Tiffany Julian, David Langdon, George McKittrick, Beethika Khan, Mark Doms, and Office of the Chief Economist. “Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, August 3, 2011. https://www.commerce.gov/data-and-reports/reports/2011/08/women -stem-gender-gap-innovation. Beiko, Jason, Rebecca Lander, Elizabeth Hampson, Francis Boon, and Donald Peter Cain. “Contribution of Sex Differences in the Acute Stress Response to Sex Differences in Water Maze Performance in the Rat.” Behavioural Brain Research 151, no. 1– 2 (May 5, 2004): 239–53. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.bbr.2003.08.019. Benderly, Beryl Lieff. “Rosalind Franklin and the Damage of Gender Harassment.” Science.org, August 1, 2018. https://www.science.org/content /article /rosalind-franklin-and-damage-gender-harassment. Berdahl, Jennifer L., and Celia Moore. “Workplace Harassment: Double Jeopardy for Minority Women.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 2 (March 2006): 426– 36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426. Berg, Sarah. “Working Overtime? At Stanford, Physicians Bank the Time for Later.” American Medical Association, March 13, 2018. https://www .ama-assn.org/practice-management /physician-health /working-overtime -stanford-physicians-bank-time-later. Berhe, Asmeret Asefaw, Rebecca T. Barnes, Meredith G. Hastings, Allison Mattheis, Blair Schneider, Billy M. Williams, and Erika Marín-Spiotta. “Scientists from Historically Excluded Groups Face a Hostile Obstacle Course.” Nature Geoscience 15, no. 1 (January 2022): 2–4. https://doi.org/10 .1038/s41561-021-00868-0.

Q

293

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernard, Rachel E., and Emily H. G. Cooperdock. “No Progress on Diversity in 40 Years.” Nature Geoscience 11, no. 5 (May 2018): 292– 95. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6. Biden, Joseph R. “Executive Order on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” White House, March 8, 2021. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room /presidential-actions/2021 /03 /08/exe cutive-order-on-guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-dis crimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including-sexual-orientation-or-gender -identity/. Bigler, Rebecca S., and Lynn S. Liben. “A Developmental Intergroup Theory of Social Stereotypes and Prejudice.” In Advances in Child Development and Behavior, ed. Robert Kail, 34:39– 89. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2. Binns, Corey. “What’s Behind the Pay Gap in STEM Jobs?” Stanford Graduate School of Business, February  19, 2021. https://www.gsb.stanford .edu /insights/whats-behind-pay-gap-stem-jobs. Blake-Beard, Stacy, Melissa L. Bayne, Faye J. Crosby, and Carol B. Muller. “Matching by Race and Gender in Mentoring Relationships: Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize.” Journal of Social Issues 67, no. 3 (2011): 622–43. https:// doi.org/10.1111 /j.1540-4560.2011.01717. x. Bol, Thijs, Mathijs de Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt. “The Matthew Effect in Science Funding.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 19 (May 8, 2018): 4887– 90. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.1719557115. Bolles, Dana. “Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR).” NASA Science, 2012. https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review. Bos, Angela L., Jennie Sweet-Cushman, and Monica C. Schneider. “FamilyFriendly Academic Conferences: A Missing Link to Fix the ‘Leaky Pipeline’?” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7, no. 3 (July 3, 2019): 748– 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1403936. Brown, Elizabeth R., Jessi L. Smith, Dustin B. Thoman, Jill M. Allen, and Gregg Muragishi. “From Bench to Bedside: A Communal Utility Value Intervention to Enhance Students’ Biomedical Science Motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 4 (November 1, 2015): 1116– 35. https:// doi.org/10.1037/edu0000033. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Computer and Information Research Scientists.” In Occupational Outlook Handbook [Internet]. Washington, DC: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment

Q

294

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Projections. https://www.bls.gov/ooh /computer-and-information-techno logy/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm. Callier, Viviane. “Paper Recommends Women Avoid Female Mentors, Drawing Outrage.” The Scientist, November 24, 2020. https://www.the-scientist.com /news-opinion/paper-recommends-women-avoid-female-mentors-drawing -outrage-68185. Canning, Elizabeth A., Katherine Muenks, Dorainne J. Green, and Mary C. Murphy. “STEM Faculty Who Believe Ability Is Fixed Have Larger Racial Achievement Gaps and Inspire Less Student Motivation in Their Classes.” Science Advances, February 2019. https://doi.org /10.1126/sciadv .aau4734. Cantalupo, Nancy Chi, and William Kidder. “A Systematic Look at a Serial Problem: Sexual Harassment of Students by University Faculty.” Utah Law Review 2018 (June 30, 2018): 671– 786. https://ssrn.com/abstract =2971447. Carli, Linda L., Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, and Elaine Kim. “Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, no. 2 (June 1, 2016): 244– 60. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0361684315622645. Carnes, Molly, Patricia G. Devine, Linda Baier Manwell, Angela ByarsWinston, Eve Fine, Cecilia E. Ford, Patrick Forscher, et al. “The Effect of an Intervention to Break the Gender Bias Habit for Faculty at One Institution: A Cluster Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Academic Medicine 90, no. 2 (February 2015): 221– 30. https://doi.org /10.1097/ACM.00000 00000000552. Carter, Deborah Joy. “Double Jeopardy: Women of Color in Higher Education.” Educational Record 68 (1988): 98–103. https://doi.org /10.1002 /2017 JE005256. Cech, Erin A., and T. J. Waidzunas. “Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM.” Science Advances 7, no. 3 (January 15, 2021): eabe0933. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933. Cech, Erin A., and Mary Blair-Loy. “The Changing Career Trajectories of New Parents in STEM.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 10 (March 5, 2019): 4182–87. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.1810862116. Chambers, David Wade. “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist: The Draw-aScientist Test.” Science Education 67, no. 2 (1983): 255– 65. https://doi.org /10.1002/sce.3730670213. Chaney, Kimberly E., Diana T. Sanchez, and Jessica D. Remedios. “Dual Cues: Women of Color Anticipate Both Gender and Racial Bias in the

Q

295

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Face of a Single Identity Cue.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 24, no.  7 (October  2021): 1095–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302209 42844. Charlesworth, Tessa E. S., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. “Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: I. Long-Term Change and Stability from 2007 to 2016.” Psychological Science 30, no. 2 (February 1, 2019): 174– 92. https://doi .org/10.1177/0956797618813087. Charlesworth, Tessa E. S., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. “Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes III: Long-Term Change in Gender Stereotypes.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2022): 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988425. Cheryan, Sapna, Benjamin J. Drury, and Marissa Vichayapai. “Enduring Influence of Stereotypical Computer Science Role Models on Women’s Academic Aspirations.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 37, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 72– 79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312459328. Cheryan, Sapna, and Hazel Rose Markus. “Masculine Defaults: Identifying and Mitigating Hidden Cultural Biases.” Psychological Review 127, no. 6 (2020): 1022–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209. ———. “Rooting Out the Masculine Defaults in Your Workplace.” Harvard Business Review, October 21, 2022. https://hbr.org/2022/10/rooting-out-the -masculine-defaults-in-your-workplace. Cheryan, Sapna, A. Meltzoff, and Saenam Kim. “Classrooms Matter: The Design of Virtual Classrooms Influences Gender Disparities in Computer Science Classes.” Computers & Education 57, no. 2 (September 2011): 1825– 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004. Cheryan, Sapna, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, and Claude M. Steele. “Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (December 2009): 1045– 60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239. Cheryan, Sapna, Sianna A. Ziegler, Amanda K. Montoya, and Lily Jiang. “Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?” Psychological Bulletin 143, no. 1 (January 2017): 1– 35. https://doi.org/10.1037 / bul0000052. Cikara, Mina, Laurie Rudman, and Susan Fiske. “Dearth by a Thousand Cuts? Accounting for Gender Differences in Top-Ranked Publication Rates in Social Psychology.” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 2 (2012): 263– 85. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1540-4560.2012.01748.x.

Q

296

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chu, Jennifer. “Study Highlights Long Road Toward Gender Parity in the Geosciences.” MIT News, July 16, 2021. https://news.mit.edu /2021 /gender -parity-geosciences-0716. Chuck Tate, Charlotte, Jay  N. Ledbetter, and Cris  P. Youssef. “A TwoQuestion Method for Assessing Gender Categories in the Social and Medical Sciences.” Journal of Sex Research 50, no. 8 (November 1, 2013): 767– 76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.690110. CI_Jamie. “Our Babies Aren’t Always Welcome at Academic Conferences; Why It Matters and Why It Doesn’t Have to (Angela L. Bos, Jennie Sweet-Cushman & Monica Schneider).” Conference Inference (blog), May 19, 2019. https://conferenceinference.wordpress.com /2019/05/19/guest -post-our-babies-arent-always-welcome -at-academic-conferences-why -it-matters-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-angela-l-bos-jennie-sweet-cushman -and-monica-schneider/. Clance, Pauline Rose, and Suzanne Ament Imes. “The Imposter Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 15, no. 3 (1978): 241–47. https:// doi.org/10.1037/ h0086006. Clark, Emily K., Melissa A. Fuesting, and Amanda B. Diekman. “Enhancing Interest in Science: Exemplars as Cues to Communal Affordances of Science.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 46, no.  11 (2016): 641– 54. https://doi.org/10.1111 /jasp.12392. Cimadevilla, José M., Nélida M. Conejo, Rubén Miranda, and Jorge  L. Arias. “Sex Differences in the Morris Water Maze in Young Rats: Temporal Dimensions.” Psicothema 16, no.  4 (2004): 611–14. https://www .psicothema.com /pdf /3040.pdf. Clancy, Kathryn B. H., Katharine M. N. Lee, Erica M. Rodgers, and Christina Richey. “Double Jeopardy in Astronomy and Planetary Science: Women of Color Face Greater Risks of Gendered and Racial Harassment.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 122, no. 7 (2017): 1610– 23. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2017JE005256. Clancy, Kathryn B. H., Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford, and Katie Hinde. “Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault.” PLOS One 9, no.  7 (July  16, 2014): e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371 /journal.pone.0102172. Cohen, Geoffrey L., Claude M. Steele, and Lee D. Ross. “The Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide.”

Q

297

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, no. 10 (October 1999): 1302– 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258011. Collins, Francis S. “The NIH Director—Statements: Time to End the Manel Tradition.” National Institutes of Health (NIH), June 12, 2019. https:// www.nih.gov/about-nih /who-we-are /nih-director/statements /time-end -manel-tradition. Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American Association of University Professors. “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” July 10, 2006. https://www.aaup.org /report /1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure. “Corrigendum.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no. 4 (April 2017): 584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217698161. Cortina, Lilia M., and Jennifer L. Berdahl. “Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Decade of Research in Review.” In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, vol. 1: Micro Approaches, 469–97. London: SAGE, 2008. https://doi.org/10.4135 /9781849200448. Cortina, Lilia M., Dana Kabat-Farr, Emily A. Leskinen, Marisela Huerta, and Vicki J. Magley. “Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations: Evidence and Impact.” Journal of Management 39, no. 6 (September 2013): 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835. Crisp, Gloria, and Irene Cruz. “Mentoring College Students: A Critical Review of the Literature Between 1990 and 2007.” Research in Higher Education 50, no. 6 (September 1, 2009): 525–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162 -009-9130-2. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, Article 8 (1989). Critchfield, Hannah. “A Professor Was Accused of Sexual Harassment and Resigned. At His Next University, It Happened Again.” Vice, October 27, 2021. https://www.vice.com/en /article/epxgyp/how-universities-pass-along -professors-accused-of-sexual-harassment-and-harm-students. Croft, Alyssa, Toni Schmader, Katharina Block, and Andrew Scott Baron. “The Second Shift Ref lected in the Second Generation: Do Parents’ Gender Roles at Home Predict Children’s Aspirations?” Psychological Science 25, no. 7 (July 1, 2014): 1418– 28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614 533968.

Q

298

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Culotta, Elizabeth. “Antarctic Glacier Gets New Name in Wake of Sexual Harassment Finding.” ScienceInsider, September 18, 2018. https://doi.org /10.1126/science.aav4670. Cundiff, Jessica L., and Susan L. Murray. “Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Assessing a Gender Bias Literacy Intervention for Potential Positive and Negative Outcomes.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 26, no. 6 (2020): 511–40. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScien Eng.2020032359. Custer, Sara. “Twitter Responses Show Sexual Harassment Is Rife at Academic Conferences.” Times Higher Education, May 21, 2019. https://www .timeshighereducation.com / blog /twitter-responses-show-sexual-harass ment-rife-academic-conferences. Cvencek, Dario, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Anthony G. Greenwald. “MathGender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children.” Child Development 82, no. 3 (June 2011): 766– 79. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1467-8624.2010 .01529.x. Dasgupta, Nilanjana. “Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model.” Psychological Inquiry 22, no. 4 (October 1, 2011): 231–46. https://doi.org/10.1080 /1047840X .2011.607313. Dasgupta, Nilanjana, and Shaki Asgari. “Seeing Is Believing: Exposure to Counterstereotypic Women Leaders and Its Effect on the Malleability of Automatic Gender Stereotyping.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, no. 5 (September 1, 2004): 642– 58. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jesp .2004.02.003. DeAngelis, Allison. “Leaked Emails Reveal a Top MIT Professor and Biotech Founder Has Been Placed on Leave Following a Sexual Harassment Investigation.” Business Insider, August 20, 2021. https://www.business insider.com /mits-david-sabatini-on-leave-following-sexual-harassment -investigation-2021-8. Dennehy, Tara C., and Nilanjana Dasgupta. “Female Peer Mentors Early in College Increase Women’s Positive Academic Experiences and Retention in Engineering.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 23 (June 6, 2017): 5964– 69. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.1613117114. Dickson, E. J. “What, Exactly, Is an NDA?” Rolling Stone, March 19, 2019. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/nda-non-disclosure -agreements-809856/.

Q

299

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Diekman, Amanda B., Emily K. Clark, Amanda M. Johnston, Elizabeth R. Brown, and Mia Steinberg. “Malleability in Communal Goals and Beliefs Influences Attraction to Stem Careers: Evidence for a Goal Congruity Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101, no. 5 (November 2011): 902–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199. Diekman, Amanda B., Erica S. Weisgram, and Aimee L. Belanger. “New Routes to Recruiting and Retaining Women in STEM: Policy Implications of a Communal Goal Congruity Perspective.” Social Issues and Policy Review 9, no. 1 (2015): 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1111 /sipr.12010. Dingle, Adrian. “Meitnerium in Tribute.” Nature Chemistry 9, no. 8 (August 2017): 830. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2833. Dominus, Susan. “Women Scientists Were Written Out of History. It’s Margaret Rossiter’s Lifelong Mission to Fix That.” Smithsonian Magazine, October 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com /science-nature /unhe ralded-women-scientists-finally-getting-their-due-180973082/. Doyle-Burr, Nora. “Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Against Dartmouth Say They Hope to Change Culture of Abuse.” Concord Monitor, November  16, 2018, https://www.concordmonitor.com /Students-Say-Dartmouth-Failed-to -Adequately-Respond-to -Reports-of-Sexual-Assault-and-Misconduct -21599597. Eagly, Alice H. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987. https://doi.org /10. 4324 /978020 3781906. Eagly, Alice  H., C. Nater, D.  I. Miller, M. Kaufmann, and S. Sczesny. “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018.” American Psychologist 75, no. 3 (2020): 301–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494. Eagly, Alice H., and Sabine Sczesny. “Editorial: Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019). https://www.frontiersin.org /articles /10.3389/fpsyg .2019.01965. Eaton, Asia A., Jessica F. Saunders, Ryan K. Jacobson, and Keon West. “How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology PostDoctoral Candidates.” Sex Roles 82, no.  3 (February  1, 2020): 127–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w. Eccles, Jacquelynne S. “Understanding Women’s Educational and Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related

Q

300

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Choices.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 18, no. 4 (December 1, 1994): 585– 609. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049. x. El-Alayli, A., A. A. Hansen-Brown, and M. Ceynar. “Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly from Academically Entitled Students.” Sex Roles 79, no. 3–4 (2018): 136–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199 -017-0872-6. Else, Holly. “How to Banish Manels and Manferences from Scientific Meetings.” Nature 573, no. 7773 (September 10, 2019): 184–86. https://doi.org/10 .1038/d41586-019-02658-6. ———. “Male Researchers’ ‘Vague’ Language More Likely to Win Grants.” Nature News, May  1, 2019. https://www.nature.com /articles/d41586-019 -01402-4. Else-Quest, Nicole M., Janet Shibley Hyde, and Marcia C. Linn. “CrossNational Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A MetaAnalysis.” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 1 (January 2010): 103– 27. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0018053. Evans, Claire Lisa. Broad Band: The Untold Story of the Women Who Made the Internet. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2018. http://www.worldcat.org /oclc /1022846353. Fassiotto, Magali, Caroline Simard, Christy Sandborg, Hannah Valantine, and Jennifer Raymond. “An Integrated Career Coaching and TimeBanking System Promoting Flexibility, Wellness, and Success: A Pilot Program at Stanford University School of Medicine.” Academic Medicine 93, no.  6 (June  2018): 881– 87. https://doi.org /10.1097/ACM.0000000000 002121. Feldblum, Chai R., and Victoria A. Lipnic. “Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace.” Washington, DC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, June 2016. https://www.eeoc.gov/select -task-force-study-harassment-workplace. Finkbeiner, Ann. “Women Are Creating a New Culture for Astronomy.” Scientific American, April  2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0422-32. Flaherty, Colleen. “The DEI Pathway to Promotion.” Inside Higher Ed, May 14, 2021. https://www.insidehighered.com /news /2021 /05 /14 /iupui -creates-path-promotion-and-tenure-based-dei-work. Forbes, Chad E., and Toni Schmader. “Retraining Attitudes and Stereotypes to Affect Motivation and Cognitive Capacity Under Stereotype Threat.”

Q

301

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, no. 5 (November 2010): 740– 54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020971. Ford, Heather L., Cameron Brick, Margarita Azmitia, Karine Blaufuss, and Petra Dekens. “Women from Some Under-Represented Minorities Are Given Too Few Talks at World’s Largest Earth-Science Conference.” Nature 576, no. 7785 (December 2019): 32– 35. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 -019-03688-w. Fox, Jeremy C. “MIT Professor Sues After He Was Forced to Resign from Institute Following Sexual Harassment Allegations.” Boston Globe, October 20, 2021. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/20/metro/mit-professor -sues-after-he-was-forced-resign-institute-following-sexual-harassment -allegations/. Foxx, Alicia J., Rebecca S. Barak, Taran M. Lichtenberger, Lea K. Richardson, Aireale J. Rodgers, and Evelyn Webb Williams. “Evaluating the Prevalence and Quality of Conference Codes of Conduct.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 30 (July 23, 2019): 14931– 36. https:// doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.1819409116. Fry, Richard, Brian Kennedy, and Cary Funk. “STEM Jobs See Uneven Progress in Increasing Gender, Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” Pew Research Center, April 1, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021 /04 /01 /stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and -ethnic-diversity/. Fryer, Roland G. Jr., and Steven D. Levitt. “An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics.” NBER Working Group Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, October  2009. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15430. Fuesting, Melissa A., and Amanda B. Diekman. “Not by Success Alone: Role Models Provide Pathways to Communal Opportunities in STEM.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no.  2 (February  2017): 163– 76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857. Fuesting, Melissa A., Amanda B. Diekman, Kathryn L. Boucher, Mary C. Murphy, Dana L. Manson, and Brianne L. Safer. “Growing STEM: Perceived Faculty Mindset as an Indicator of Communal Affordances in STEM.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117, no. 2 (August 2019): 260–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000154. Gage, Matilda Joslyn. “Woman as an Inventor.” North American Review 136, no. 318 (May 1883): 478–89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118273. Gao, Jian, Yian Yin, Kyle R. Myers, Karim R. Lakhani, and Dashun Wang. “Potentially Long-Lasting Effects of the Pandemic on Scientists.” Nature

Q

302

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Communications 12 (October 26, 2021): 6188. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467 -021-26428-z. Gaule, Patrick, and Mario Piacentini. “An Advisor like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-Graduate Careers in Science.” Research Policy 47, no. 4 (May 1, 2018): 805–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.011. Gibbons, Ann. “Museum Curator Resigns After Investigations of Sexual Misconduct.” ScienceInsider, December 5, 2016, https://www.science.org /content /article/museum-curator-resigns-after-investigations-sexual-mis conduct. Gonzales, Matt. “Nearly 2 Million Fewer Women in Labor Force.” Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), February 17, 2022. https:// www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/ behavioral-competencies/glo bal-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/over-1-million-fewer-women-in-labor -force.aspx. Greenwald, Anthony G., and M. R. Banaji. “Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes.” Psychological Review 102, no.  1 (January 1995): 4– 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4. Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan L. K. Schwartz. “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 6 (June 1998): 1464–80. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464. Grier, David Alan. When Computers Were Human. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. http://archive.org/details/whencomputer swer00davi. Grissom, Nicola M., and Teresa M. Reyes. “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off: Evaluating Gender and Sex Differences in Executive Function.” Neuropsychopharmacology 44, no. 1 (January 2019): 86– 96. https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41386-018-0179-5. Gruber, June, Jane Mendle, Kristen A. Lindquist, Toni Schmader, Lee Anna Clark, Eliza Bliss-Moreau, Modupe Akinola, et  al. “The Future of Women in Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 16, no. 3 (May 2021): 483– 516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620952789. Guarino, Cassandra M., and Victor M. H. Borden. “Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?” Research in Higher Education 58, no. 6 (September 1, 2017): 672– 94. https://doi.org /10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2. Guillemin, Marilys, Elaine Wong, and Georgina Such. “How We Boosted the Number of Female Faculty Members at Our Institution.” Nature 609,

Q

303

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

no. 7926 (September 7, 2022): S28– 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022 -02829-y. Gürer, Denise W. “Pioneering Women in Computer Science.” Communications of the ACM 38, no. 1 (January 2, 1995): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1145 /204865.204875. Hall, Dianne, Kate Kelly, Kathy Tangalakis, and Natalie Kon-yu. “Gender Bias in Student Surveys on Teaching Increased with Remote Learning. What Can Unis Do to Ensure a Fair Go for Female Staff?” The Conversation, March 7, 2022. http://theconversation.com /gender-bias-in-student -surveys -on-teaching-increased-with-remote -learning-what-can-unis -do-to-ensure-a-fair-go-for-female-staff-178418. Hamilton, Jon. “Math Looks the Same in the Brains of Boys and Girls, Study Finds.” Shots Health News from NPR, November 8, 2019. https://www.npr .org /sections / health-shots /2019 /11 /08 /777187543 /math-looks -the -same -in-the-brains-of-boys-and-girls-study-finds. Handley, Ian M., Elizabeth R. Brown, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, and Jessi L. Smith. “Quality of Evidence Revealing Subtle Gender Biases in Science Is in the Eye of the Beholder.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 43 (October 27, 2015): 13201–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112. Hartocollis, Anemona. “A Lawsuit Accuses Harvard of Ignoring Sexual Harassment by a Professor.” New York Times, February 8, 2022. https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/harvard-sexual-harassment-lawsuit.html. He, Joyce C., Sonia K. Kang, and Nicola Lacetera. “Opt-out Choice Framing Attenuates Gender Differences in the Decision to Compete in the Laboratory and in the Field.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 42 (October 19, 2021): e2108337118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas .2108337118. Heffernan, Troy. “Sexism, Racism, Prejudice, and Bias: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Research Surrounding Student Evaluations of Courses and Teaching.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47, no. 1 (January 2, 2022): 144–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888075. Henderson, Emily F. “Sticky Care and Conference Travel: Unpacking Care as an Explanatory Factor for Gendered Academic Immobility.” Higher Education 82 (October 1, 2021): 715– 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020 -00550-1. Hernandez, Paul R., Amanda S. Adams, Rebecca T. Barnes, Brittany Bloodhart, Melissa Burt, Sandra M. Clinton, Wenyi Du, Heather Henderson, Ilana Pollack, and Emily  V. Fischer. “Inspiration, Inoculation, and

Q

304

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introductions Are All Critical to Successful Mentorship for Undergraduate Women Pursuing Geoscience Careers.” Communications Earth & Environment 1, no. 1 (August 13, 2020): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247 -020-0005-y. Higginbotham, Eve, and Maria Lund Dahlberg, eds. The Impact of COVID19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10 .17226/26061. Hildebrand, Laura K., Celine C. Jusuf, and Margo J. Monteith. “Ally Confrontations as Identity-Safety Cues for Marginalized Individuals.” European Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 6 (May 27, 2020): 1318– 33. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2692. Hildebrand, Lindsey, Tasha Posid, Corinne A Moss-Racusin, Laura Hymes, and Sara Cordes. “Does My Daughter Like Math? Relations Between Parent and Child Math Attitudes and Beliefs.” Developmental Science (2022): e13243. https://doi.org/10.1111 /desc.13243. Hill, Cheryl. “#If ThenSheCan—The Exhibit Gives Little Girls Something to Shoot For.” Dallas Morning News, May 23, 2021. https://www.dallasnews .com / business /2021 /05 /23 / ifthenshecan -the - exhibit-gives -little -girls -something-to-shoot-for/. Holland, Evangeline. “Edwardian Women in STEM: The Harvard Computers.” Edwardian Promenade (blog), September 12, 2016. https://www .edwardianpromenade.com/women/edwardian-women-harvard-computers/. Holleran, Shannon E., Jessica Whitehead, Toni Schmader, and Matthias R. Mehl. “Talking Shop and Shooting the Breeze: A Study of Workplace Conversation and Job Disengagement Among STEM Faculty.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 2, no. 1 (January 2011): 65– 71. https://doi .org/10.1177/1948550610379921. Holmes, Mary Anne, LaToya Myles, and Blair Schneider. “Diversity and Equality in Honours and Awards Programs— Steps Towards a Fair Representation of Membership.” Advances in Geosciences 53 (May 18, 2020): 41–51. https://doi.org/10.5194 /adgeo-53-41-2020. Holpuch, Amanda. “Twitter Bot Highlights Gender Pay Gap One Company at a Time.” New York Times, March 9, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com /2022/03 /09/ business/pay-gap-international-womens-day-twitter.html. Hsu, Andrea. “As the Pandemic Recedes, Millions of Workers Are Saying ‘I Quit.’ ” NPR, June 24, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021 /06/24 /1007914455 /as-the-pandemic-recedes-millions-of-workers-are-saying-i-quit.

Q

305

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Huang, Junming, Alexander J. Gates, Roberta Sinatra, and Albert-László Barabási. “Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality in Scientific Careers Across Countries and Disciplines.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 9 (March 3, 2020): 4609–16. https://doi.org/10 .1073 /pnas.1914221117. Ibrahim, Mennatalla. “Women Feel Like Imposters in Disciplines That Value ‘Brilliance.’ ” Science Careers, August 13, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science .caredit.abl9325. If/Then. “#If ThenSheCan—The Exhibit.” https://ifthenexhibit.org/. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). “Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.” http://www.icmje.org/recommenda tions/ browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and -contributors.html. Inzlicht, Michael, and Talia Ben-Zeev. “Do High-Achieving Female Students Underperform in Private? The Implications of Threatening Environments on Intellectual Processing.” Journal of Educational Psychology 95, no. 4 (December 2003): 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4 .796. Ivie, Rachel, and Arnell Ephraim. “Women and Imposter Syndrome in Astronomy.” STATUS: A Report on Women in Astronomy. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, January 2011. https://www.aip.org/statistics /reports/women-and-imposter-syndrome-astronomy. Jana, Tiffany, Michael Baran, and Janina Edwards. Subtle Acts of Exclusion: How to Understand, Identify, and Stop Microaggressions. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2020. Jaschik, Scott. “What Larry Summers Said.” Inside Higher Ed, February 18, 2005. https://www.insidehighered.com /news/2005 /02/18/what-larry-sum mers-said. Johnson, India R., and Evava S. Pietri. “An Ally You Say? Endorsing White Women as Allies to Encourage Perceptions of Allyship and Organizational Identity-Safety Among Black Women.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, December 2020, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220975482. Johnson, India R., Evava S. Pietri, Felicia Fullilove, and Samantha Mowrer. “Exploring Identity-Safety Cues and Allyship Among Black Women Students in STEM Environments.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2019): 131–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319830926. Jorgensen, Timothy J. “Lise Meitner—the Forgotten Woman of Nuclear Physics Who Deserved a Nobel Prize.” The Conversation, February 7, 2019.

Q

306

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://theconversation.com /lise-meitner-the-forgotten-woman-of-nuclear -physics-who-deserved-a-nobel-prize-106220. Jost, John T. “The IAT Is Dead, Long Live the IAT: Context-Sensitive Measures of Implicit Attitudes Are Indispensable to Social and Political Psychology.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 28, no. 1 (February 1, 2019): 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418797309. Kersey, Alyssa J., Emily J. Braham, Kelsey D. Csumitta, Melissa E. Libertus, and Jessica F. Cantlon. “No Intrinsic Gender Differences in Children’s Earliest Numerical Abilities.” npj Science of Learning 3, no. 1 (July 6, 2018): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0028-7. King’s College London. “The Future.” Nonprofit. https:// kingscollections .org/exhibitions/archives/dna /further-work /future. Klawe, Maria. “Increasing Female Participation in Computing: The Harvey Mudd College Story.” Computer 46, no. 3 (March 2013): 56–58. https://doi .org/10.1109/ MC.2013.4. Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, Carroll J. Glynn, and Michael Huge. “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest.” Science Communication 35, no. 5 (October 2013): 603–25. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1075547012472684. Kolev, Julian, Yuly Fuentes-Medel, and Fiona Murray. “Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation.” NBER Working Group Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2019. https://doi.org /10.3386/w2 5759. Koren, Marina. “An Influential Female Astronomer Is Getting Her Due.” The Atlantic, January 9, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive /2020/01 /vera-rubin-observatory/604624/. Kossek, Ellen Ernst, Matthew Perrigino, and Alyson Gounden Rock. “From Ideal Workers to Ideal Work for All: A 50-Year Review Integrating Careers and Work-Family Research with a Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 126 (April 1, 2021): 103504. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103504. Kramer, Jillian. “The Virus Moved Female Faculty to the Brink. Will Universities Help?” New York Times, October 6, 2020. https://www.nytimes .com /2020/10/06/science/covid-universities-women.html. LaCosse, Jennifer, Denise Sekaquaptewa, and Jill Bennett. “STEM Stereotypic Attribution Bias Among Women in an Unwelcoming Science

Q

307

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Setting.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, no.  3 (September  1, 2016): 378– 97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316630965. Langford, Joe, and Pauline Rose Clance. “The Imposter Phenomenon: Recent Research Findings Regarding Dynamics, Personality, and Family Patterns and Their Implications for Treatment.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 30, no. 3 (1993): 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1037 /0033-3204.30.3.495. Lee, Meggan J., Jasmine D. Collins, Stacy Anne Harwood, Ruby Mendenhall, and Margaret Browne Huntt. “ ‘If You Aren’t White, Asian, or Indian, You Aren’t an Engineer’: Racial Microaggressions in STEM Education.” International Journal of STEM Education 7, no. 1 (September 14, 2020): 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00241-4. Leiter, Michael P., Heather K. Spence Laschinger, Arla Day, and Debra Gilin Oore. “The Impact of Civility Interventions on Employee Social Behavior, Distress, and Attitudes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96, no.  6 (November 2011): 1258– 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024442. Lewis, Neil A., Denise Sekaquaptewa, and Lorelle A. Meadows. “Modeling Gender Counter-Stereotypic Group Behavior: A Brief Video Intervention Reduces Participation Gender Gaps on STEM Teams.” Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal 22, no. 3 (July 2019): 557– 77. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09489-3. Lilienfeld, Scott  O. “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 138–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391. Lindquist, Kristen, June Gruber, Jessica L. Schleider, Jennifer Beer, Eliza Bliss-Moreau, and Lauren Weinstock. “Flawed Data and Unjustified Conclusions Cannot Elevate the Status of Women in Science.” PsyArXiv, November 25, 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234 /osf.io/qn3ae. Lopez Lloreda, Claudia. “Women Researchers Are Cited Less Than Men. Here’s Why— and What Can Be Done About It.” Science Careers, October 13, 2022. https://www.science.org/content /article/women-researchers -cited-less-men-heres-why-what-can-done. Lunnemann, Per, Mogens H. Jensen, and Liselotte Jauffred. “Gender Bias in Nobel Prizes.” Palgrave Communications 5, no. 46 (May 7, 2019): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3. Lyda Hill Foundation and Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. “Portray Her: Representations of Women STEM Characters in Media.” Mount Saint Mary’s University, 2021. https://seejane.org/research-informs-empo wers/portray-her/.

Q

308

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ma, Yifang, Satyam Mukherjee, and Brian Uzzi. “Mentorship and Protégé Success in STEM Fields.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 25 (June 23, 2020): 14077–83. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915516117. Ma, Yifang, Diego F. M. Oliveira, Teresa K. Woodruff, and Brian Uzzi. “Women Who Win Prizes Get Less Money and Prestige.” Nature 565, no.  7739 (January  16, 2019): 287– 88. https://doi.org /10.1038/d41586-019 -00091-3. Mabry, Patricia, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Corinne Moss-Racusin, Lora Park, Franco Pestilli, Aneeta Rattan, Susanne Ressl, et al. “Why MANtoring Is Not the Solution. A Rebuttal to ‘The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance.’ ” PsyArXiv, December 22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234 /osf.io /xqjs4. Maeda, Yukiko, and So Yoon. “A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R).” Educational Psychology Review 25, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x. Mandavilli, Apoorva. “Female Scientists Turn to Data to Fight Lack of Representation on Panels.” New York Times, September 5, 2016. https:// www.nytimes.com /2016/09/06/science/gender-bias-scientific-conferences .html. Marin-Spiotta, Erika, Rebecca T. Barnes, Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, Meredith Galanter Hastings, Allison Mattheis, Blair Schneider, Billy M. Williams, and Christine Fabian Bell. “ADVANCEGeo Partnership: Empowering Geoscientists to Transform Workplace Climate Through Bystander Intervention and Research Ethics Training.” Fall Meeting (2019): abstract #ED31B-03. San Francisco, CA: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO)/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Astrophysics Data System (ADS). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu /abs/2019AGU FMED31B..03M. Martin, Jennifer L. “Ten Simple Rules to Achieve Conference Speaker Gender Balance.” PLOS Computational Biology 10, no.  11 (November  20, 2014): e1003903. https://doi.org/10.1371 /journal.pcbi.1003903. Marts, Sherry A. “Open Secrets and Missing Stairs: Sexual and GenderBased Harassment at Scientific Meetings.” S*Marts Consulting. https:// smartsconsulting.com /digital-products /open-secrets-and-missing-stairs -sexual-and-gender-based-harassment-at-scientific-meetings. ———. “The Open Secret of Sexual Harassment at Meetings.” American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), May 1, 2017. https://www

Q

309

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.asaecenter.org:443/en/resources/articles/an_plus/2017/may/the-open-secret -of-sexual-harassment-at-meetings. Master, Allison, Sapna Cheryan, and A. Meltzoff. “Computing Whether She Belongs: Stereotypes Undermine Girls’ Interest and Sense of Belonging in Computer Science.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (2016): 424– 37. https://doi.org/10.1037/ EDU0000061. Master, Allison, Sapna Cheryan, Adriana Moscatelli, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. “Programming Experience Promotes Higher STEM Motivation Among First-Grade Girls.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 160 (August 1, 2017): 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013. Master, Allison, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Sapna Cheryan. “Gender Stereotypes About Interests Start Early and Cause Gender Disparities in Computer Science and Engineering.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 48 (November 30, 2021): e2100030118. https://doi.org/10 .1073 /pnas.2100030118. McCain, Abby. “Women in Technology Statistics [2022]: Tech Industry Challenges for Women.” Zippia, February 22, 2022. https://www.zippia .com /advice/women-in-technology-statistics/. McCarthy, Margaret  M., Arthur  P. Arnold, Gregory  F. Ball, Jeffrey  D. Blaustein, and Geert J. De Vries. “Sex Differences in the Brain: The Not So Inconvenient Truth.” Journal of Neuroscience 32, no. 7 (February 15, 2012): 2241–47. https://doi.org/10.1523 / JNEUROSCI.5372-11.2012. McMillan, Robert. “Her Code Got Humans on the Moon— and Invented Software Itself.” Wired, October 13, 2015. https://www.wired.com /2015 /10 /margaret-hamilton-nasa-apollo/. McNutt, Marcia K., Monica Bradford, Jeffrey M. Drazen, Brooks Hanson, Bob Howard, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Véronique Kiermer, et al. “Transparency in Authors’ Contributions and Responsibilities to Promote Integrity in Scientific Publication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 11 (March 13, 2018): 2557–60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115. McPherson, Erin, Bernadette Park, and Tiffany A. Ito. “The Role of Prototype Matching in Science Pursuits: Perceptions of Scientists That Are Inaccurate and Diverge from Self-Perceptions Predict Reduced Interest in a Science Career.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44, no. 6 (June 1, 2018): 881– 98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217754069. Mead, Margaret, and Rhoda Métraux. “Image of the Scientist Among HighSchool Students.” Science, August 30, 1957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science .126.3270.384.

Q

310

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Meho, Lokman I. “The Gender Gap in Highly Prestigious International Research Awards, 2001– 2020.” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no.  3 (November 5, 2021): 976–89. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss _ a _00148. Members of the First and Second Committees on Women Faculty in the School of Science. “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT: How a Committee on Women Faculty Came to Be Established by the Dean of the School of Science, What the Committee and the Dean Learned and Accomplished, and Recommendations for the Future.” Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1999. http:// web.mit.edu /fnl /women /women.html#The%20Study. Merton, Robert K. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159, no. 3810 (January 5, 1968): 56– 63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56. ———. “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property.” Isis 79, no. 4 (December 1988): 606– 23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/234750. Miller, David I., A. H. Eagly, and M.C. Linn. “Women’s Representation in Science Predicts National Gender-Science Stereotypes: Evidence from 66 Nations.” Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 3 (2015): 631–44. https:// doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005. Miller, David  I., and Diane  F. Halpern. “Can Spatial Training Improve Long-Term Outcomes for Gifted STEM Undergraduates?” Learning and Individual Differences 26 (August 1, 2013): 141–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .lindif.2012.03.012. Miller, David I., Kyle M. Nolla, Alice H. Eagly, and David H. Uttal. “The Development of Children’s Gender-Science Stereotypes: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Decades of U.S. Draw-A-Scientist Studies.” Child Development 89, no. 6 (2018): 1943–55. https://doi.org/10.1111 /cdev.13039. Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis. “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.” Academe, February 2011. https://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work. Misra, Joya, Alexandra Kuvaeva, Kerryann O’meara, Dawn Kiyoe Culpepper, and Audrey Jaeger. “Gendered and Racialized Perceptions of Faculty Workloads.” Gender & Society 35, no. 3 (April 14, 2021): 358– 94. https:// doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001387. Mochkofsky, Graciela. “Why Lorgia García Peña Was Denied Tenure at Harvard.” New Yorker, July 27, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com /news /annals - of- education / why -lorgia -garcia -pena -was - denied -tenure - at -harvard.

Q

311

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moon, Tonya R. “Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT).” Project Implicit, 2011. https://implicit.harvard.edu /implicit /takeatest.html. Morgan, Allison C., Samuel F. Way, Mirta Galesic, Daniel B. Larremore, and Aaron Clauset. “Paid Parental Leave at US and Canadian Universities,” 2018. https://aaronclauset.github.io/parental-leave/. Morgan, Allison C., Samuel F. Way, Michael J. D. Hoefer, Daniel B. Larremore, Mirta Galesic, and Aaron Clauset. “The Unequal Impact of Parenthood in Academia.” Science Advances 7, no. 9 (February 24, 2021): eabd1996. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1996. Morris, Richard. “Developments of a Water-Maze Procedure for Studying Spatial Learning in the Rat.” Journal of Neuroscience Methods 11, no.  1 (May 1, 1984): 47– 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(84)90007-4. Moser, Charlotte  E., and Nyla  R. Branscombe. “Male Allies at Work: Gender-Equality Supportive Men Reduce Negative Underrepresentation Effects Among Women.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, August 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748. Moss-Racusin, Corinne A. “Psychology of Gender: Addressing Misconceptions and Setting Goals for the Field.” American Psychologist 76, no. 9 (2021): 1429–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000930. Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no.  41 (2012): 16474–9, https://www.pnas.org/doi/full /10.1073/pnas.1211286109. Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., Aneta K. Molenda, and Charlotte R. Cramer. “Can Evidence Impact Attitudes? Public Reactions to Evidence of Gender Bias in STEM Fields.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 39, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): 194– 209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314565777. Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., Evava S. Pietri, Erin P. Hennes, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Gina Roussos, and Jo Handelsman. “Reducing STEM Gender Bias with VIDS (Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM).” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 24, no. 2 (June 2018): 236– 60. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000144. Munoz, Lisa M. P. “What I Learned About the Gender Gap from One Zoom Call.” OneZero (blog), June 10, 2020. https://onezero.medium.com /what -i-learned-about-the-gender-gap-from-one-zoom-call-2c9dabb2a6e9. Muradoglu, Melis, Zachary Horne, Matthew  D. Hammond, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Andrei Cimpian. “Women—Particularly Underrepresented Minority Women— and Early-Career Academics Feel Like Impostors in

Q

312

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fields That Value Brilliance.” Journal of Educational Psychology 114, no. 5 (2022): 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000669. Murrar, Sohad, and Markus Brauer. “Entertainment-Education Effectively Reduces Prejudice.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21, no. 7 (October 1, 2018): 1053– 77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216682350. Museum of the Earth. “Daring to Dig: Women in American Paleontology.” July 2021. https://www.museumoftheearth.org/daring-to-dig. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Paula A. Johnson, Sheila E. Widnall, and Frazier F. Benya, eds. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994. National Center for Organization Development. “Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW).” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, October 24, 2017. https://www.va.gov/ncod /crew.asp. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019.” National Science Foundation, March 8, 2019. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs /nsf19304 /data. ———. “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021.” National Science Foundation, 2021. https://ncses.nsf .gov/pubs/nsf21321 /report /field-of-degree-women. National Geographic Staff. “Strength in Stubbornness: A 2020 Nobel Winner Reflects on Her Career.” National Geographic, October 12, 2020. https:// www.nationalgeographic.co.uk /science-and-technology/2020/10/strength -in-stubbornness-a-2020-nobel-winner-reflects-on-her-career. National Science Foundation (NSF). “NSF Announces New Measures to Protect Research Community from Harassment.” September 19, 2018. https://www.nsf.gov/news/news _ summ.jsp?cntn _ id=296610. Nguyen, Tien. “For Academic Parents, Work Travel Can Be Costly—but Some Universities Are Stepping Up Their Support.” Science Careers, September 4, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.aaz3871. Ni, Chaoqun, Elise Smith, Haimiao Yuan, Vincent Larivière, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. “The Gendered Nature of Authorship.” Science Advances 7, no. 36 (September 1, 2021): 1– 7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe4639. Nietfeld, Emi. “After Working at Google, I’ll Never Let Myself Love a Job Again.” New York Times, April 7, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com /2021 /04 /07/opinion /google-job-harassment.html.

Q

313

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nittrouer, Christine  L., Michelle  R. Hebl, Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Rachel C. E. Trump-Steele, David M. Lane, and Virginia Valian. “Gender Disparities in Colloquium Speakers at Top Universities.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 1 (January 2, 2018): 104–8. https:// doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.1708414115. Norman, Halley. “Why We Hear About It, and Why We Don’t: Power Dynamics and Sexual Harassment Reporting in US State Legislative Bodies.” Macalester College, May 1, 2019. Political Science Honors Projects. https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu /poli _ honors/82. Nosek, Brian A., Frederick L. Smyth, N. Sriram, Nicole M. Lindner, Thierry Devos, Alfonso Ayala, Yoav Bar-Anan, et al. “National Differences in Gender—Science Stereotypes Predict National Sex Differences in Science and Math Achievement.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, no. 26 (June 30, 2009): 10593– 97. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.0809921106. O’Conner, J. J., and E. F. Robertson. “Alice Elizabeth Lee.” MacTutor (University of St Andrews), September 2021. https://mathshistory.st-andrews .ac.uk / Biographies/ Lee/. Olivarius, Ann. “Title IX: Taking Yale to Court.” New Journal, April 18, 2011. https://thenewjournalatyale.com /2011 /04 /title-ix-taking-yale-to-court/. O’Meara, KerryAnn, Alexandra Kuvaeva, Gudrun Nyunt, Chelsea Waugaman, and Rose Jackson. “Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions That Shape Them.” American Educational Research Journal 54, no.  6 (December 2017): 1154–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716767. Ong, Anthony D., and Anthony L. Burrow. “Microaggressions and Daily Experience.” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 12, no. 1 (January 2017): 173– 75. https://doi.org /10.1177/1745691616664505. Osatuke, Katerine, Scott C. Moore, Christopher Ward, Sue R. Dyrenforth, and Linda Belton. “Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide Organization Development Intervention at Veterans Health Administration.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 45, no. 3 (September 1, 2009): 384–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309335067. Oswald, Frederick L., Gregory Mitchell, Hart Blanton, James Jaccard, and Philip Tetlock. “Predicting Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: A MetaAnalysis of IAT Criterion Studies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105, no. 2 (2013): 171– 92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734.

Q

314

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Panter, Michaela. “The Ethics of Manuscript Authorship: Best Practices for Attribution.” American Journal Experts. https://www.aje.com /arc /ethics -manuscript-authorship/. Patat, Ferdinando. “Gender Systematics in Telescope Time Allocation at ESO.” Preprint, October 4, 2016. Physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00920. Paterson, Rachel, and Ijeoma Favour Vincent-Akpu. “Impostor Syndrome with Women in Science.” In Science by Women: Stories from Careers in STEM, ed. Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi, 83–98. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83032-8_7. Payne, Keith, Laura Niemi, and John  M. Doris. “How to Think About ‘Implicit Bias.’ ” Scientific American, March 27, 2018. https://www.scientific american.com /article/ how-to-think-about-implicit-bias/. Paul, Kari. “California Companies Can No Longer Silence Workers in Victory for Tech Activists.” The Guardian, October 8, 2021. https://www .theguardian.com /technology/2021 /oct /08/california-companies-can-no -longer-silence-workers-in-victory-for-tech-activists. Pérez Ortega, Rodrigo. “National Academy of Sciences Ejects Biologist Francisco Ayala in the Wake of Sexual Harassment Findings.” ScienceInsider, June 24, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1563. Pew Research Center. “Half of Women in STEM Jobs Say They Have Been Discriminated against at Work.” January 8, 2018. https://www.pewresearch .org /social-trends /2018 /01 /09 /women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds -over-workplace-equity/ps _ 2018-01-09_ stem _0-04/. Pfund, Christine, Kimberly  C. Spencer, Pamela Asquith, Stephanie  C. House, Sarah Miller, and Christine  A. Sorkness. “Building National Capacity for Research Mentor Training: An Evidence-Based Approach to Training the Trainers.” CBE Life Sciences Education 14, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): ar24. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14–10– 0184. Pietri, Evava  S., Erin  P. Hennes, John  F. Dovidio, Victoria  L. Brescoll, April  H. Bailey, Corinne  A. Moss-Racusin, and Jo Handelsman. “Addressing Unintended Consequences of Gender Diversity Interventions on Women’s Sense of Belonging in STEM.” Sex Roles 80, no. 9 (May 1, 2019): 527–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0952-2. Pietri, Evava S., India R. Johnson, Sana Majid, and Charles Chu. “Seeing What’s Possible: Videos Are More Effective Than Written Portrayals for Enhancing the Relatability of Scientists and Promoting Black Female Students’ Interest in STEM.” Sex Roles 84, no. 1 (January 1, 2021): 14– 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01153-x.

Q

315

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pietri, Evava S., India R. Johnson, and Ezgi Ozgumus. “One Size May Not Fit All: Exploring How the Intersection of Race and Gender and Stigma Consciousness Predict Effective Identity-Safe Cues for Black Women.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 74 (January 1, 2018): 291– 306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021. Pietri, Evava S., India R. Johnson, Ezgi Ozgumus, and Alison I. Young. “Maybe She Is Relatable: Increasing Women’s Awareness of Gender Bias Encourages Their Identification with Women Scientists.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 42, no. 2 (June 1, 2018): 192– 219. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0361684317752643. Pietri, Evava, Arispa Weigold, Lisa M. P. Munoz, and Corinne A. MossRacusin. “Can Films Impact Sexism in STEM? Examining This Possibility with the Popular Documentary ‘Picture a Scientist.’ ” PsyArXiv, December 8, 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234 /osf.io/ bjq8w. Powell, Kendall. “The Parenting Penalties Faced by Scientist Mothers.” Nature 595, no. 7868 (July 20, 2021): 611–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 -021-01993-x. Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda. “A Conference Sexual Harassment Policy.” Medium (blog), November 8, 2017. https://medium.com /@chanda /a-con ference-sexual-harassment-policy-ca4e338e412e. Previs, Kathy K. “Gender and Race Representations of Scientists in Highlights for Children: A Content Analysis.” Science Communication 38, no. 3 (June 1, 2016): 303– 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016642248. Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie, and Richard P. Eibach. “Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple SubordinateGroup Identities.” Sex Roles 59, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 377– 91. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4. Purdue University Global. “History of Women in IT: 6 Female Pioneers in Computer Science,” April 19, 2018. https://www.purdueglobal.edu / blog / information -technology / history -women -information -technology - 6 -female-computer-science-pioneers/. Rahim, Afzalur, and Dana M. Cosby. “A Model of Workplace Incivility, Job Burnout, Turnover Intentions, and Job Performance.” Journal of Management Development 35, no. 10 (January 1, 2016): 1255– 65. https://doi.org/10 .1108/ JMD-09-2015-0138. Ranganathan, Meghana, Ellen Lalk, Lyssa M. Freese, Mara A. Freilich, Julia Wilcots, Margaret  L. Duffy, and Rohini Shivamoggi. “Trends in the Representation of Women Among US Geoscience Faculty from 1999 to

Q

316

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2020: The Long Road Toward Gender Parity.” AGU Advances 2, no. 3 (2021): e2021AV000436. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021AV000436. Rattan, Aneeta, Krishna Savani, Meera Komarraju, Megan Morrison, Carol Boggs, and Nalini Ambady. “Meta-Lay Theories of Scientific Potential Drive Underrepresented Students’ Sense of Belonging to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115, no.  1 (July  2018): 54– 75. https://doi.org/10.1037 /pspi0000130. Régner, Isabelle, Catherine Thinus-Blanc, Agnès Netter, Toni Schmader, and Pascal Huguet. “Committees with Implicit Biases Promote Fewer Women When They Do Not Believe Gender Bias Exists.” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no. 11 (November 2019): 1171– 79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562 -019-0686-3. Reid, I. Neill. “Gender-Correlated Systematics in HST Proposal Selection.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 126, no.  944 (October 2014): 923– 34. https://doi.org/10.1086/678964. Remedios, Jessica D., and Samantha H. Snyder. “Intersectional Oppression: Multiple Stigmatized Identities and Perceptions of Invisibility, Discrimination, and Stereotyping.” Journal of Social Issues 74, no. 2 (2018): 265–81. https://doi.org/10.1111 /josi.12268. Robertson, Katie. “Nikole Hannah-Jones Denied Tenure at University of North Carolina.” New York Times, May 20, 2021. https://www.nytimes .com /2021 /05 /19/ business/media /nikole-hannah-jones-unc.html. Roof, Robin L., and Donald G. Stein. “Gender Differences in Morris Water Maze Performance Depend on Task Parameters.” Physiology & Behavior 68, no. 1–2 (December 1, 1999): 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9384(99) 00162-6. Rossiter, Margaret W. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science 23, no. 2 (May 1, 1993): 325–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312 93023002004. Saklayen, Nabiha. “I (Don’t) Look Like a Physicist.” Medium (blog), June 2, 2016. https://medium.com /@nsaklayen /i-dont-look-like-a-physicist-edcf 2549967e. Salem, Victoria, Jordan McDonagh, Elizabeth Avis, Pei Chia Eng, Sue Smith, and Kevin G. Murphy. “Scientific Medical Conferences Can Be Easily Modified to Improve Female Inclusion: A Prospective Study.” Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 9, no. 9 (September 1, 2021): 556–59. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00177-7.

Q

317

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Samuel, Alexandra. “Silicon Valley Needs to Change How It Treats Working Mothers.” The Verge, November 7, 2017. https://www.theverge.com /2017/11 /7/16617736 /tech-gender-gap -stem-jobs-maternity-leave -hiring -training. Schiffer, Zoe. “Apple Refuses to Make NDA Concessions for Workplace Harassment and Discrimination.” The Verge, September 8, 2021. https:// www.theverge.com/2021/9/8/22661536/apple-shareholder-resolution-change -nda-harassment-discrimination. Schroter, Sara, Ilaria Montagni, Elizabeth Loder, M. Eikermann, Elke Schäffner, and Tobias Kurth. “Awareness, Usage, and Perceptions of Authorship Guidelines: An International Survey of Biomedical Authors.” BMJ Open 10, no. 9 (September 1, 2020): e036899. https://doi.org/10.1136 / bmjopen-2020-036899. Science History Institute. “Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann.” December 7, 2017. https://www.sciencehistory.org/ historical-profile/otto -hahn-lise-meitner-and-fritz-strassmann. Scott, Allison, Freada Kapor Klein, and Uriridiakoghene Onovakpuri. “Tech Leavers.” Oakland, CA: Kapor Center for Social Impact (KCSI), April 27, 2017. https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/. Sekaquaptewa, Denise. “Gender-Based Microaggressions in STEM Settings.” National Center for Institutional Diversity (NCID) Currents 1, no. 1 (2019): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.101. Sekaquaptewa, Denise, and Mischa Thompson. “Solo Status, Stereotype Threat, and Performance Expectancies: Their Effects on Women’s Performance.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39, no. 1 (January 1, 2003): 68– 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5. Sesko, Amanda K., and Monica Biernat. “Prototypes of Race and Gender: The Invisibility of Black Women.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, no. 2 (March 1, 2010): 356– 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009 .10.016. “Settlement in Dartmouth Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Gets Final Approval.” Valley News. July  16, 2020, sec. Cops-Fires-Courts. https://www.vnews .com / Judge-issues-final-approval-in-Dartmouth-lawsuit-35253759. Settles, Isis H., Lilia M. Cortina, Janet Malley, and Abigail J. Stewart. “The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30, no. 1 (March 1, 2006): 47– 58. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.

Q

318

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sheridan, Alison Jane, Jennifer May Rindfleish, and Sue-Ellen Kjeldal. “Sensemaking in the Gendered Academy: The Role of Storytelling in Effecting Change.” Lindfield, NSW, Australia: ANZAM: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 2006. https:// hdl.handle.net /1959.11 /2353. Sheridan, Jennifer, Eve Fine, Manuela Romero, Carmen Juniper Neimeko, Molly Carnes, Christine Bell, You-Geon Lee, and Casey Stockstill. “Improving Department Climate Through Bias Literacy: One College’s Experience.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 27, no. 2 (2021): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1615 / JWomenMinorScienEng .2021032729. Sloat, Sarah. “Black Birders Week Responds to Racism with a Celebration of Black Naturalists.” Inverse, June  2, 2020. https://www.inverse.com /science/ black-birders-week. Smith, Elise, Bryn Williams-Jones, Zubin Master, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Adèle Paul-Hus, Min Shi, Elena Diller, Katie Caudle, and David  B. Resnik. “Researchers’ Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.” Science and Engineering Ethics 26, no. 4 (August 1, 2020): 1995– 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948 -019-00113-3. Smith, Erika. “Recognizing a Collective Inheritance Through the History of Women in Computing.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 15, no. 1 (2013). https://doi.org/10.7771 /1481-4374.1972. Smith, Jessi L., Erin Cech, Anneke Metz, Meghan Huntoon, and Christina Moyer. “Giving Back or Giving Up: Native American Student Experiences in Science and Engineering.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 20, no. 3 (2014): 413– 29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003 6945. Solly, Meilan. “DNA Pioneer James Watson Loses Honorary Titles Over Racist Comments.” Smithsonian Magazine, January 15, 2019. https://www . smithsonianmag . com /smart-news /dna -pioneer-james -watson -loses -honorary-titles-over-racist-comments-180971266/. Squazzoni, Flaminio, Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Daniel García-Costa, Mike Farjam, and Bahar Mehmani. “Gender Gap in Journal Submissions and Peer Review During the First Wave of the COVID19 Pandemic. A Study on 2329 Elsevier Journals.” PLOS One 16, no. 10 (October 20, 2021): e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371 /journal.pone.0257919.

Q

319

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Steele, Claude M., and Joshua Aronson. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 5 (November 1995): 797–811. https://doi.org /10 .1037//0022-3514.69.5.797. Sterling, Adina D., Marissa E. Thompson, Shiya Wang, Abisola Kusimo, Shannon Gilmartin, and Sheri Sheppard. “The Confidence Gap Predicts the Gender Pay Gap Among STEM Graduates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no.  48 (December  1, 2020): 30303– 8. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.2010269117. Stigler, Stephen M. “Stigler’s Law of Eponymy.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 39, no. 1, series II (April 1980): 147–57. https://doi.org /10.1111 /j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775. x. Stoet, Gijsbert, and David C. Geary. “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.” Psychological Science 29, no. 4 (April 1, 2018): 581–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797 617741719. Stout, Jane G., Nilanjana Dasgupta, Matthew Hunsinger, and Melissa A. McManus. “STEMing the Tide: Using Ingroup Experts to Inoculate Women’s Self-Concept in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no. 2 (February 2011): 255– 70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385. Stroop, J. R. “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 18, no. 6 (1935): 643– 62. https://doi.org /10.1037 / h0054651. Sue, Derald Wing, and Lisa Beth Spanierman. Microaggressions in Everyday Life. 2nd ed. Wiley, 2020. Sutton, Mike. “Hahn, Meitner, and the Discovery of Nuclear Fission.” Chemistry World, November 5, 2018. https://www.chemistryworld.com /features / hahn-meitner-and-the-discovery-of-nuclear-fission /3009604 .article. Sweet, Paige  L. “How Gaslighting Manipulates Reality.” Scientific American, October 1, 2022. https://doi.org /10.1038 /scientific american 1022-56. Tangalakis, Kathy, Kate Kelly, Natalie KonYu, and Dianne Hall. “The Impact of Teaching from Home During the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Student Evaluations of Female Academics.” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 19, no.  1 (March  7, 2022): 160– 75. https://doi.org /10 .53761 /1.19.1.10.

Q

320

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tarampi, Margaret  R., Nahal Heydari, and Mary Hegarty. “A Tale of Two Types of Perspective Taking: Sex Differences in Spatial Ability.” Psychological Science 27, no.  11 (November  2016): 1507–16. https://doi.org /10.1177/0956797616667459. Teich, Erin G., Jason Z. Kim, Christopher W. Lynn, Samantha C. Simon, Andrei A. Klishin, Karol P. Szymula, Pragya Srivastava, et al. “Citation Inequity and Gendered Citation Practices in Contemporary Physics.” Nature Physics 18, no. 10 (October 2022): 1161– 70. https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41567-022-01770-1. Thayer, Andrew J., Clayton R. Cook, Aria E. Fiat, Meghanne N. BartlettChase, and Jessie M. Kember. “Wise Feedback as a Timely Intervention for At-Risk Students Transitioning Into High School.” Ed. Erin Dowdy. School Psychology Review 47, no. 3 (September 1, 2018): 275– 90. https://doi .org/10.17105 /SPR-2017-0021.V47-3. Tómas, Ragnar. “Parental Leave Extended to Twelve Months.” Iceland Review, December  18, 2019. https://www.icelandreview.com /politics /parental-leave-extended-to-twelve-months/. Tricahyadinata, Irsan, Hendryadi Suryani, Saida Zainurossalamia ZA, and Sukisno Selamet Riadi. “Workplace Incivility, Work Engagement, and Turnover Intentions: Multi-Group Analysis.” Ed. Gabriela Topa. Cogent Psychology 7, no. 1 (December 31, 2020): 1743627. https://doi.org /10.1080 /23311908.2020.1743627. Tulshyan, Ruchika. “More Companies Need Transparency on SexualHarassment Cases.” Seattle Times, April 17, 2019. https://www.seattletimes .com /opinion /more-companies-need-transparancy-on-sexual-harassment -cases/. University of Colorado Denver, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. “Wise Feedback and Assessment.” August  6, 2020. https://clas.ucdenver.edu /inclusive-pedagogy/modules/wise-feedback-and-assessment. University of Washington. “Advancing Women Faculty.” UW ADVANCE, 2023. https://advance.washington.edu /node/1438. University of Wisconsin La Crosse. “Offer ‘Wise’ Feedback— CATL Instructor’s Guide to Inclusive Excellence.” CATL Instructor’s Guide to Inclusive Excellence, 2021. https://www.uwlax.edu /catl /guides/ie/demonstrate -high-belief /offer-wise-feedback/. Viegas, Jennifer. “Profile of Mahzarin R. Banaji.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 26 (May 28, 2019): 12590– 92. https://doi.org/10 .1073 /pnas.1908069116.

Q

321

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Viglione, Giuliana. “How Scientific Conferences Will Survive the Coronavirus Shock.” Nature 582, no. 7811 (June 2, 2020): 166– 67. https://doi.org /10.1038/d41586-020-01521-3. Vincent, Sarah. “ ‘The Chair’ Was Uncomfortable to Watch as a Recent College Grad. And That’s the Point.” America Magazine, September 17, 2021. https://www.americamagazine .org /arts -culture /2021 /09 /17 /sandra- oh -chair-netflix-recent-graduate-241450. Wadman, Meredith. “Boston University Fires Geologist Found to Have Harassed Women in Antarctica.” ScienceInsider, April 12, 2019. https://doi .org/10.1126/science.aax6812. ———. “HHMI Fires Prominent Biologist for Sexual Harassment.” ScienceInsider, August 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm0579. Wakabayashi, Daisuke. “Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech.” New York Times, September 5, 2016, https://www .nytimes.com /2017/08/07/ business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo .html. Watson, Clare. “Following NASA’s Lead, Researchers Are Targeting Gender Bias in Instrument Time.” Nature Index, February 2, 2021. https://www .natureindex .com /news-blog /following-nasa-lead-researchers-targeting -gender-bias-science-instrument-time. ———. “Women Less Likely to Win Major Research Awards.” Nature, published ahead of print (September 13, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 -021-02497-4. Weir, Kirsten. “Brilliance and Bias.” Monitor on Psychology, October 1, 2021. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021 /10/ lab-brilliance-bias. Witze, Alexandra. “Berkeley Astronomer in Sexual Harassment Case to Resign.” Nature, October 14, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18582. ———. “NASA Changes How It Divvies Up Telescope Time to Reduce Gender Bias.” Nature 571, no. 7764 (July 3, 2019): 156–156. https://doi.org /10.1038/d41586-019-02064-y. Women in Academia (WIA) Report. “Gender Differences in the Economic and Social Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” July 8, 2020. https://www .wiareport.com /2020/07/gender-differences-in-the-economic-and-social -impact-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/. Wu, Deborah J., Kelsey C Thiem, and Nilanjana Dasgupta. “Female Peer Mentors Early in College Have Lasting Positive Impacts on Female Engineering Students That Persist Beyond Graduation.” Nature Communications 13, no. 1 (November 11, 2022): 6837. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022 -34508-x.

Q

322

Q

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yang, Jenny R., and Batia Katz. “Promising Practices for Addressing Harassment in the STEM Workplace: How to Lead in Today’s Environment.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 15, 2020. https://www.urban.org /research /publication /promising-practices-addressing-harassment-stem -workplace. Yang, Yang, Tanya Y. Tian, Teresa K. Woodruff, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. “Gender-Diverse Teams Produce More Novel and HigherImpact Scientific Ideas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 36 (September 6, 2022): e2200841119. https://doi.org/10.1073 /pnas.220 0841119. Yeager, David Scott, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Julio Garcia, Nancy Apfel, Patti Brzustoski, Allison Master, William T. Hessert, Matthew E. Williams, and Geoffrey L. Cohen. “Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust: Wise Interventions to Provide Critical Feedback Across the Racial Divide.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, no. 2 (April 2014): 804– 24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033906. Yu, Isaac, and Kedia Sanchita. “SOM Tenure Denial Sparks Debate on Diversity in Academia.” Yale Daily News, February  23, 2022. https:// yaledailynews .com / blog /2022 /02 /23 /som-tenure -denial-sparks-debate -on-diversity-in-academia/. Zuckerman, Harriet. “Nobel Laureates: Sociological Studies of Scientific Collaboration.” PhD diss., Department of Sociology, Columbia University, 1965.

Q

323

Q

INDEX

Abel Prize, 165 ableism, 173 academic science, 3, 63, 66, 84, 134–36, 144, 148–49 accountability, 6, 92, 192, 247; privacy and, 212–15 Ada Initiative, 191 advanced placement (AP) courses, 10, 107 advisors, graduate school, 66, 197– 99, 210, 229 African Americans/Black people, 27, 89–90, 238; as faculty, 20–23, 109–13, 152, 178; microaggressions experienced by, 112–15; students, 71– 72, 74, 77, 107– 9, 117 African Americans/Black women, 75– 78, 117, 119, 124, 128–29, 129– 30, 152; Johnson on experience as, 20–23, 107–13

Akinnola, Ileri, 159 alcohol consumption, 192, 193–94, 198 Alexander v. Yale, 204 allies, 11, 114, 124–26, 128–29, 178, 200 American Association of University Professors, 134 Anning, Mary, 227 anonymity in sexual assault reporting, 205–6 Antecol, Heather, 181 anti-Asian sentiment, 125 antiharassment policies, 188, 190, 192 Antwi, Janet, 75– 78 AP. See advanced placement courses Apple, 210 Arizona, 57–58, 94 Aronson, Joshua, 17 Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, 109, 126 Asian people, 47, 77, 89–90, 125, 138– 39

INDEX

assimilation, 57 assistant faculty, 135, 180, 222 astronomy/astrophysics, 166– 67, 190; generational changes in, 225 Atkins, Kaitlyn, 66 attrition, 2, 3, 135–36, 182 authorship, 137, 154–58; citations and, 67, 155–56, 158, 158–59 awards, 63, 133, 246–47; equity in, 162– 66, 163; Nobel Prize as, 98, 153, 162, 163, 163– 64 Ayala, Francisco, 204–5 Back to the Future (movie), 13 Ball, Alice August, 152 Banaji, Mahzarin, 44–45 Barres, Ben, 168 barriers, 141–42, 245; systemic, 85, 169, 229 Baum, Myriam, 158 Bearded Lady Project, 223– 25 belonging, sense of, 40, 49, 65, 89, 246; in STEM, 19, 21, 71, 96, 231, 249 bias, gender, 79, 168, 217, 225– 26, 240, 246, 247–48; in authorship/ citations, 67, 158– 59; awards and, 162– 66, 163; bias training in, 126–28; blind-reviews and, 100–101; explicit, 25, 44–45, 126, 148; hiring and, 83– 88, 89– 90, 90– 91, 95– 96, 184; implicit, 44–46, 101, 115, 126–27, 132, 137, 148, 165; myth of brain differences and, 97–100; Pietri on, 8–11; representation and, 230– 34; among scientists, 83– 85; social media and, 119–22;

Q

in teacher evaluations, 145, 148– 50; in telescope access, 166– 67; training, 126–28; VIDS on, 96– 97; visibility and, 138–44 BiasWatchNeuro, 160 Big Bang Theory (show), 31, 36, 46–47 binary, gender, 239–41 biology, 59– 60, 97–100, 108, 220 Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), 245 Black, Riley, 229 Black Panther (movie), 26– 29 Blair-Loy, Mary, 179, 182 Blake-Beard, Stacy, 66 boarding school era (Indigenous children), 56–57 Bol, Thijs, 147 Bos, Angela, 188 boys/sons, 14, 25, 40, 49, 52, 98–99 brain differences, myth of gender-related, 97–100 Brière Lepaute, Nicole-Reine Etable de la, 42 Britain, England, 92 Brown, Elizabeth, 50 burnout, 123– 24, 186 bystander retaliation, 191, 207 bystander training, 105, 124– 26 Canada, 53–54, 123– 24, 180–81, 191 Canning, Elizabeth A., 71 careers, science, 69– 70, 92, 109, 238; hiring practices in, 85–88, 183–86; Indigenous women in, 239; “leaky pipeline” in, 2– 3, 3; Matilda/Matthew effect in,

326

Q

INDEX

145–48; mentorship impacting, 55, 63– 64, 67–68, 74– 75, 245; motherhood impacting, 174– 75, 179–80, 189; by parents, 179–82, 183–86; promotions in, 83, 105, 120, 134, 164, 187–88; reporting sexual misconduct impacting, 206. See also early career scientists; recruitment; workplace Carnes, Molly, 128 case studies: on bias training, 126–28; on gender gaps in citations, 158–59; on genderrelated brain differences, 97–100; on increasing interest in computer science, 51–54 Cech, Erin, 179, 182 Charpentier, Emmanuelle, 163 chemistry, 10–11, 66, 67–68, 75, 77, 197, 229 Cheryan, Sapna, 24, 33– 37, 46–49, 51–52, 118 Chicago, Illinois, 219 childcare, 103 , 133, 188, 189–90; during COVID-19 pandemic, 169, 177, 182; daycare as, 178– 79; parental leave and, 180–82 children/childhood, 5, 107, 174– 77; boys as, 14, 25, 40, 49, 52, 98–99; on image of scientists, 7, 12–16, 15; indigenous, 57–59; STEM representation and, 27– 29, 245. See also girls/daughters Cimpian, Andrei, 46 citations, authorship and, 67, 155–56, 158, 158–59 civility. See incivility

Q

Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) program, U.S., 123 Clance, Pauline, 88 Clancy, Kathryn, 19, 190, 210, 215 Clarke, Edith, 43 code of ethics, 123, 191 codes of conduct, 191– 92, 205, 211 Cohen, Geoffrey, 73– 74 collaboration, 63, 152–53, 187, 232 Columbia University, 139–40 communal goals, 49–50, 62, 72– 73 “communion stereotype,” 23– 24, 26 communities/community, 62, 209, 241–44; scientific, 90, 97, 190– 91, 231– 32, 248–50 computer science/scientists, 31, 121–22, 164, 181; signaling in, 33–40, 38, 40–41, 51–54; students, 37– 39, 38, 40, 48–49, 51–53 conferences, 187–89, 189–90; drinking culture, 192, 193–94; harassment at, 190– 92; panel participation, 159– 62; sexual harassment at, 172– 73; in work-life balance, 169 confidence, 51–52, 93 confidentiality, 195, 208, 209–10, 212 Congress, U.S., 203 Cornell University, 1– 2 Cortina, Lilia, 122 COVID-19 pandemic, 50, 149, 232; childcare during, 169, 177, 181–82; conferences impacted by, 187–89; parenting during the, 175– 77; work-life balance impacted by, 4, 176– 78, 187–89

327

Q

INDEX

credit, scientific, 227, 246–47; authorship and, 154–58; misplaced, 116, 145–48, 150–54 Crenshaw, Kimberlè Williams, 18 CREW. See Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work program Crick, Francis, 153–54 cultures, 171, 182–83, 219; drinking, 192, 193–94, 198– 99; of extraction, 56– 62; of science, 182, 217, 249; workplace, 35– 36, 105, 125, 178, 186–87, 248 Cundiff, Jessica, 231 Currano, Ellen, 218, 219– 23; on generational change, 224– 26 curriculum vitae (CV) study, 85–88, 89–90 Damore, James, 98 Dartmouth College, 90– 91, 193–94, 197– 202, 205, 209 Dasgupta, Nilanjana, 20, 65 data, 45–46, 84, 97, 102, 150, 198; hiring bias, 86–87, 90– 91; mentorship, 63, 66, 73; on pay gap, 92 daycare, 178– 79, 188, 247 Dean, Arthur L., 152 DEI. See diversity, equity, and inclusion work Dennehy, Tara C., 65 Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S., 123 Diekman, Amanda, 73 discrimination, 81, 95– 97, 102– 3, 217, 248; at conferences, 191– 92; gender, 103, 116–17, 192, 233;

Q

Title IX as protection against, 195, 202, 203 diversity, 8– 9, 28– 29, 143, 171, 218 diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work, 5, 126, 133– 34, 143, 243–44 Doc McStuffins (show), 27 doctor of philosophy (PhD) programs, 60– 62, 64, 88– 89, 135, 173– 74; “leaky pipeline” in, 2– 3, 3 double-blind processes, 100–101, 166–67 Doudna, Jennifer, 163, 189–90 Dovidio, Jack, 20, 84 “Draw a Scientist” study, 12–16, 15, 28– 29 drinking culture, 192, 193–94, 198– 99 Dweck, Carol, 140 Eagly, Alice, 23 early career scientists, 64, 147, 167, 181–82, 207, 221, 249–50; Cheryan on experience as, 33– 37 Eaton, Asia, 89 ecology, 235–37 elementary school, 9–10, 25–26, 219 employment. See careers, science engineering, 1– 2, 24, 30, 41–43, 65, 120 English (language), 58, 171 equity, 140, 171, 242; awards and, 162– 66, 163 Europe, 152–53, 166–67, 180 expectations, 68, 121, 132– 33, 175, 177, 190– 91, 248; civility training and, 122– 23

328

Q

INDEX

experiments, 37–40, 44–46, 48–49, 85–87; “Draw a Scientist,” 12–16, 15, 28– 29 explicit bias, 25, 44–45, 126, 148 Extavour, Cassandra, 31–32 extraction, cultures of, 56– 62 faculty, 102–4, 164– 65, 170– 71, 189–90, 221, 226; assistant, 135, 180, 222; Black, 20–23, 109–13, 152, 178; of color, 109, 127–28; evaluations, 145, 148–50; in hiring bias experiment, 85–88, 91; male, 130– 31, 196– 203, 203–6, 222; mothers in, 174– 75; Native American, 62; power dynamics and, 198– 99, 202– 3, 203–4, 225; service work by, 130– 31; sexual harassment by, 196– 203, 203–5; STEM, 177, 225; tenure in, 176, 193–94; women of color in, 75– 78, 177; Yasué as, 242–43. See also tenure Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), U.S., 180 Fassiotto, Magali, 133 fathers/fatherhood, 9, 25–26, 107, 171, 179–81, 227 feedback, mentor, 73– 75, 245–46 Field Museum, Chicago, 219, 236 finances, 108, 110, 178– 79 Finkbeiner, Ann, 225 first-generation college students, 56–57, 59, 107– 9, 244 fixed mindsets, 71, 73, 141 flexibility, work, 133, 177, 181–82, 247 Florida, 138– 39 Floyd, George, 4, 177– 78

Q

Fox, Alicia, 191 Franklin, Rosalind, 153–54 From This Day Forward (film), 237 Fulvio, Jacqueline, 159 funding, 147, 178– 79, 181–82, 213–14, 247; for bystander training, 125; federal, 202, 203; mentorship and, 63 Gage, Matilda Joslyn, 150–51 García Peña, Lorgia, 134–35 gaslighting, 118–19, 244 Gates Foundation, 100–101 Gaule, Patrick, 66 GCBI. See gender citation balance index Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, 13 gender-blind reviews, 100–101, 166– 67, 246 gender citation balance index (GCBI), 159 gender gap, 25, 91–92, 100–101, 131, 239–41; authorship and, 154–58; in citations, 158–59; COVID-19 pandemic worsening, 177; productivity, 155–56, 180–81; in STEM, 24, 51–52, 239–41; in tenure positions, 134–35 gender/gendered, 20–22, 97, 107–13, 111–12, 168, 217, 248; binary, 239–41; children and, 14–17, 25–26; discrimination, 103, 116–17, 192, 233; identity, 198, 239–41, 245; imposter syndrome and, 172; mentorship and, 65– 66; names, 79, 85–86; nonbinary, 240; pay gap, 91–92. See also bias, gender

329

Q

INDEX

gender-neutral, 163, 180–81 gender roles, 23, 25–26, 169 “genealogical” data (in mentorship), 63 generational changes, 247–48; Currano on, 224– 26; in paleontology, 226–30 geosciences, 69– 70, 135–36, 171; paleontology in, 219– 22, 224, 226–30 Ghana, 77 girls/daughters, 14–17, 15, 40, 49, 98–99, 219– 20; parents and, 25–26; representation for, 27– 29 Goldring, Winifred, 227–29 Gonzalez, Luis, 67–68 Google, 186–87 graduate school, 9–10, 220– 21; advisors, 66, 197– 99, 210, 229; imposter syndrome in, 11, 172; Johnson on, 108–10; “leaky pipeline” in, 2– 3, 3; parenting during, 178– 79; Pietri on, 232; sexual harassment in, 196– 202 “Great Resignation,” 177 Greenwald, Anthony, 44 Grissom, Nicola, 98–99 Gruber, June, 93 Guarino, Cassandra, 130–131 Hahn, Otto, 152–53 Hamilton, Margaret, 43 Handelsman, Jo, 84 Hannah-Jones, Nikole, 134–35 Harvard University, 205 Harvey Mudd College, 52–54 health, 174– 76; mental, 105, 117, 150, 177, 178, 192

Q

health care, 123, 181–82, 186 Heatherton, Todd, 205 Hefferman, Troy, 149–50 Henderson, Emily, 188 Hernandez, Paul R., 69– 70 hierarchies, 63, 157, 207 Highlights for Children (magazine), 27 high school, 40, 59, 197, 219– 21, 238–39; AP courses, 10, 107; IB program in, 58; Johnson on, 107–8 Hildebrand, Laura, 124 Hildebrand, Lindsey, 26 hiring practices, 72, 183–86; bias experiment on, 83–88, 89–90, 90– 91, 95– 96; double-blind reviews in, 100–101 Holmes, Mary Anne, 165 Hopper, Grace, 43 housework, 26, 114, 129– 34 Huang, Junming, 155–56 Huntington, Katharine, 230; on work-life balance, 170, 170– 76 Hurston, Zora Neale, 113 “I Am a Scientist” project, 31–32 IAT. See Implicit Association Test IB program. See International Baccalaureate program iceberg infographic, sexual harassment, 4–5, 172– 73 Iceland, 180 “ideal workers,” 169, 182–83, 185–86, 247 identity/identities, 57, 64–67, 116; COVID-19 pandemic impacting, 176– 77; gender, 198, 239–41, 245;

330

Q

INDEX

intersectional, 18–20, 240–41; in reporting sexual misconduct, 206; scientist, 198–99; workplace and, 186 If/Then She Can project, 238 Imes, Suzanne, 88 immigrants, 58, 77, 139, 171, 238, 241 Implicit Association Test (IAT), 44–45 implicit bias, 44–46, 101, 115, 126–27, 132, 137, 148, 165 “imposter syndrome,” 11, 87, 87–89, 172, 174 incivility, 105, 115–17, 119–22; at conferences, 191– 92; workplace, 122– 24 inclusion/inclusivity, 5– 6, 89, 103–4, 171, 242–43 Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 21, 108, 133– 34 Indigenous women, 56– 62, 238–39 inequities, 102– 3, 217; racial, 177– 78; workplace, 240 Instagram, 119–22 International Baccalaureate (IB) program, 58 International Women’s Day, 92 internships, 2, 33– 34, 62, 108, 220 intersectional/intersectionality, 97; CV Study and, 89–90; identities, 18–20, 240–41; role models and, 20–23 interventions, 5, 18, 95– 97, 132– 33, 165– 66, 231– 34; bias training, 126–28; civility, 122– 23 interviews, 33– 38, 60, 94–95, 124– 25, 183–86

Q

Islamophobia, 81 Italy, 171, 190 Johnson, India, 18–19, 20–21, 106, 115–17, 129, 178– 79; on gaslighting, 118–19; on workplace aggression, 107–13 Johnson, Katherine, 41, 43 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 158 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 Kavli Prize, 165 Keller, Mary Kenneth, 43 Kelley, Bill, 205 kindergarten, 14, 58, 178 Klawe, Maria, 53 Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, 148 Kolev, Julian, 100–101 Koss, Mildred (“Milly”), 43 Kraus, Michael, 134–35 language, 100–101; English, 58, 171 Latinx people, 8–11, 20–21, 68, 89–90, 126, 229, 232 “leaky pipeline” narrative, 2– 3, 3, 198 Lee, Alice, 42 Lee, Meggan, 117 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people, 19–20, 225, 244 loans, 178– 79 London, Bonita, 140 Lovelace, Ada, 42 Lozier, Susan, 64 Ludvigson, Greg, 67–68 Lunnemann, Per, 164 Lyda Hill Foundation, 13

331

Q

INDEX

Ma, Yinfang, 63 Marchant, David, 205 Marcy, Geoffrey, 204–5 Marsh, Lexi Jamieson, 222– 23 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 102– 3, 168, 172, 174, 204 Master, Allison, 49 maternity leave, 103, 179–80 “maternity salience,” 184 math/math skills, 26, 46, 98–99, 165, 168 Matilda effect, 44, 145–48, 150–54 Matthew effect, 44, 145–48, 154, 156, 159 McCarthy, Margaret, 98–100 Mead, Margaret, 13 Meho, Lokman, 164– 65 Meitner, Lise, 152–53 men/male, 35, 83–84, 91, 120–21, 182–83, 192, 198; as allies, 125– 26, 128–29, 200; faculty, 130– 31, 196– 203, 203–6, 222; hiring practices and, 184–85; image of scientists as, 7, 12–16; mentors, 65, 67, 67–68; myth of brain differences in, 97–100; names, 79, 85–86; scientists, 145–48, 155–56, 172– 73, 221– 22; tenure for, 180–81, 193–94. See also white men mental health, 105, 117, 150, 177, 178, 192 Mentoring Physical Oceanography Women to Increase Retention (MPOWIR), 64 “mentor’s dilemma,” 73– 74

Q

mentors/mentorship networks, 5, 68– 73, 88, 140, 176, 220– 21, 225; careers and, 55, 63– 64, 67–68, 74– 75, 245; feedback and, 73– 75, 245–46; female, 55, 64, 65, 67; for Indigenous people, 60– 62; peer, 65, 174; representation in, 67–68; for students of color, 11, 109–10; women of color in, 55, 75– 78, 177 meritocracy, 9, 97, 141, 145, 147, 168 Merton, Robert, 146 #MeToo movement, 120, 209 Métraux, Rhoda, 13 microaggressions, 112–18, 112–19, 119–22, 124– 26, 129– 30 middle school, 10, 238–39 military, U.S., 57, 107 Miller, David, 14–17, 23– 24 mindset, 71– 73, 140–41 minoritized/marginalized groups, 68, 70– 72, 87, 241–44; microaggressions and, 114–15, 125– 26 miscarriages, 175 misplaced scientific credit, 145–48 Misra, Joya, 131– 32 MIT. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mitchell, Maria, 42 Monteith, Margo, 124 Morgan, Allison, 181 Morriswater maze task, 99–100 Moser, Charlotte, 128–29 Moss-Racusin, Corinne, 20, 80, 80–83, 231– 33, 239–40; bias experiment designed by, 85–88, 90– 91; on discrimination, 95– 97

332

Q

INDEX

mothers/motherhood, 25–26, 27, 175, 178–81, 185; at conferences, 189–90; pregnancy and, 108, 174; as students, 9–10, 108–10 MPOWIR. See Mentoring Physical Oceanography Women to Increase Retention Munoz, Lisa M. P., 1– 6, 183–84 Murad, Neha, 238 Muradoglu, Melis, 89 Murray, Andy, 124– 25 Murray, Susan, 231 Museum of the Earth, 226–28 Mutlu-Pakdil, Burçin, 238

Nobel Prize/Nobel Laureates, 98, 153, 162, 163, 163– 64 nonbinary, gender, 240 nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), 209–10 NorthPark Center, Texas, 238 NSF. See National Science Foundation oceanography, 64 Oklahoma, 9 O’Meara, KerryAnn, 132 Ozgumus, Ezgi, 184 paleontology, 219– 22, 224; generational changes, 226–30 panel participation, conference, 159– 62 parental leave, 103, 179–80 parents/parenthood, 170, 174– 77, 219, 224– 25; careers impacted by, 179–82, 183–86; fathers in, 9, 25–26, 107, 171, 179–81, 227; during graduate school, 178– 79; immigrants, 139; Indigenous people as, 56–57; Johnson on, 107, 110; of Moss-Racusin, 80–81; Pietri on, 8– 9; Shattuck on, 234–35, 237. See also mothers/ motherhood parity, gender, 135, 165 part-time work, 140, 180, 182 “pass-the-harasser” phenomenon, 212–14, 247 Pattullo, June, 64 pay gap, 35, 91–93 peer mentoring, 65, 174

names, 44–45, 79, 85–86, 111 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 4–5, 114–15, 172– 73; on childcare, 182; on civility training, 122; on mentors, 68– 69; on sexual harassment, 3–4, 191; on work-life balance, 177 National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S., 60, 161, 197 National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S., 53, 64, 125, 213–14 Native Americans/Indigenous peoples, 56–57, 94–95, 238–39 Nature (journal), 67 Navajo Nation, 56–58 NDAs. See nondisclosure agreements Netherlands, 25 neuroscience, 99–100 New York, 8– 9, 77, 81 Nietfeld, Emi, 186–87 NIH. See National Institutes of Health

Q

333

Q

INDEX

peer mentors, 65, 174 people of color, 89–90, 110–13, 127–28, 229; mentorship for, 55, 66, 109–10; microaggressions impacting, 112–19; tenure positions for, 134–35. See also African Americans/Black people; Latinx people; minoritized/marginalized groups; women of color Pfund, Christine, 71 PhD. See doctor of philosophy programs Philippines, 241, 244 Phoenix, Arizona, 57–58, 94 physics, 31, 46, 156, 171 Piacentini, Mario, 66 Picture a Scientist (film), 102, 119–20, 232– 34 Pierce, Chester, 114 Pietri, Eva, 8, 8–11, 124, 126, 128– 30, 232– 34; on role models, 20–23; on stereotypes, 28 platforms, technology, 195 PNAS. See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Postle, Brad, 158–59 power/power dynamics, 143–44, 157, 207– 9, 247; faculty in, 198– 99, 202– 3, 203–4, 225; in Matilda/ Matthew effect, 145–48; of mentorship, 64; of NDAs, 209–10; privilege and, 175; of storytelling, 248 pregnancy, 174– 75 Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda, 192 privacy, 209; accountability and, 212–15

Q

privilege, 10, 219, 224, 249; of white women, 176, 240–41 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 63, 86, 90– 91, 95– 96, 147, 155; on awards, 165– 66; on children and stereotypes, 49 productivity, 66, 113–14, 129, 177; gender gap in, 155–56, 180–81 professional societies, 64, 130, 188, 190– 92, 230, 233 promotions, 83, 105, 120, 134, 164, 187–88 protests, 177– 78 psychology, 10–11, 80–81, 88, 93, 109–10, 139–40, 184, 198; of gaslighting, 118; of gender, 239–40; stereotypes and, 23– 24 race/racial, 4, 9–10, 20–22, 89–90, 107–13; achievement gaps, 71; allies and, 128–29; gap, 72, 74; inequities, 177– 78; mentorship and, 65– 66; microaggressions, 112–17 racism, 111–12, 123, 129, 173 Rapuano, Kristina, 69, 193–94, 196, 196– 202, 209 Rattan, Aneeta, 71– 72, 138, 145, 182, 183–86, 249; on double-blind reviews, 101; on visibility, 138–44 recruitment, 5, 70, 79, 102–4, 181; biases in, 246; double-blind review in, 100–101; tokenization in, 94–95 reform, institutional, 195, 247 reporting, sexual assault/ misconduct, 207– 9, 247;

334

Q

INDEX

accountability in, 212–15; anonymity in, 205–6; NDAs in, 209–10; Rapuano on, 196, 196– 201, 209; retaliation in, 187, 191, 195, 203, 206, 208; Title IX in, 195, 200– 203, 203–5; transparency in, 210–11 representation, 246; in Bearded Lady Project, 223– 25; bias and, 230– 34; in mentorship, 67–68; of scientists, 7, 12–16, 15, 217, 245; STEM, 27– 28, 245; stereotypes and, 24– 25, 27– 29, 29–32. See also underrepresentation reservations, Native Americans, 58, 238–39 resignations, 201, 203, 204–5, 212–13 retaliation, 187, 191, 195, 203, 206, 208 retention, 64, 65, 181, 200 Reyes, Teresa, 98–99 Rick and Morty (show), 13 role models, 5, 11, 20–23, 49, 128, 245; female, 18, 65, 69, 224– 25, 234, 238 Romero Canyas, Rainer, 140 Rossiter, Margaret, 150–51, 154 Rubin, Vera, 166

Schroter, Sarah, 157–58 science (field/industry). See specific topics science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), 16–17, 77, 128–29, 164, 182, 238; faculty, 177, 225; gender bias in, 231– 32; gender gap in, 24, 51–52, 239–41; hiring in, 83–88, 89–90, 90– 91, 95– 96; “leaky pipeline” narrative in, 2– 3, 3, 198; minoritized groups in, 71– 72, 74, 241–44; representation, 27– 28, 245; sense of belonging in, 19, 21, 71, 96, 231, 249; signals in, 33– 37; stereotypes in, 82–83. See also workplace/s scientific community, 90, 97, 190– 91, 231– 32, 248–50 scientists, 96; bias among, 83–85; image of, 7, 12–16, 15, 245 scientists, female, 198– 99, 217, 225, 231; as allies, 128–29; bias in hiring, 85–88; indigenous women, 59, 62, 238–39; Matthew effect for, 145–48, 154, 156, 159; misplaced credit for, 116, 145–48, 150–54 scientists, male, 145–48, 155–56, 221–22 Scientists Versus Dartmouth, The (film), 205 Sekaquaptewa, Denise, 18, 118 self-doubt, feelings of, 87, 88, 93 September 11 attacks, 81 sexism, 44, 82, 125, 129, 221; at conferences, 172– 73 sex-related brain differences, myth of, 97–100

Sabatini, David, 204–5 safe/safer spaces, 188, 190– 91, 247; for reporting sexual misconduct, 195 safety cues, 124– 25, 129 Saklayen, Nabiha, 31 salaries, 35, 86, 92–93, 102– 3, 130, 200 Schmader, Toni, 25–26 scholarships, 59, 82, 87, 178, 204

Q

335

Q

INDEX

sexual harassment/misconduct, 186–87, 193–94, 207– 9; anonymous reporting of, 205– 7; at conferences, 172– 73, 190– 92; iceberg infographic on, 4–5, 172– 73; by male faculty, 196– 203, 203–5, 205–6; microaggressions and, 114–15, 117; National Academy of Sciences iceberg infographic, 4–5, 172– 73; NDAs and, 209–10; “pass-the-harasser” phenomenon, 212–14, 247; Rapuano on, 196– 201; resignations following, 201, 203, 204–5, 212–13; Title IX and, 202– 3, 203–5. See also reporting, sexual assault/misconduct Shattuck, Sharon, 234–37, 248 Sheridan, Jennifer, 127 signals/signaling, 46–50; in computer science, 33–40, 38, 40–41, 51–54; implicit bias and, 44–46 Silenced No More Act, California, 210 Silicon Valley (show), 47 SING. See Summer internship for INdigenous peoples in Genomics single mothers, 108 Smith, Jessi, 62 social justice, 242–43 social media, 29, 49, 119, 160, 203, 208 spatial skills/learning, 16–17, 99–100 Stanford University, 34, 36– 38 Star Trek (show/films), 35– 36, 38 Steele, Claude, 17

Q

STEM. See science, technology, engineering, and math stereotypes, 109, 139, 142–43, 155, 238, 245; “communion,” 23–24; in computer science, 33–40; Currano on, 219–24; gender, 7, 16–18, 24, 50, 97–100, 115, 240; Moss-Racusin on, 82–88; representation and, 24–25, 27–29, 29–32; in teacher evaluations, 145, 148–50; threat, 17–18, 74 Stigler, Steven, 146 storytelling, 225– 26, 236–39, 247–48, 248; by VIDS, 96– 97 Strickland, Donna, 162– 63 students, 1– 2, 81, 140 142–43, 198, 245; Black, 71– 72, 74, 77, 107– 9, 117; of color, 11, 107– 9, 117; computer science, 37– 39, 38, 40, 48–49, 51–53; first-generation college, 56–57, 59, 107– 9, 244; in hiring bias experiment, 85–88; Indigenous, 56–57, 62, 244; minority, 71– 72, 74– 75, 77– 78; mothers as, 9–10, 108–10; sexual misconduct against, 193–94, 203–4; teacher evaluations by, 145, 148–50; white, 71– 72, 74, 77. See also mentors/mentorship networks “Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, A,” 102– 3 Suarez, Marina, 67–68, 229 Summer internship for INdigenous peoples in Genomics (SING), 62 Summers, Larry, 98 systemic barriers, 85, 169, 229

336

Q

INDEX

Tangalakis, Kathy, 149–50 teacher evaluations, 142, 145, 148–50 teachers. See faculty tech industry, 179–80, 186–87, 209 Teich, Erin, 156 telescopes, access to, 101, 166–67 tenure, 134–36, 180–81, 249; DEI in, 133– 34; race and, 110–11; for white women, 176 Texas, 238 threat, stereotype, 17–18, 74 time-banking, 133 Title IX, U.S., 195, 200– 203, 203–5, 206 tokenization, 94–95, 129– 30 Tovar, Dorothy, 238 toxic workplaces, 114–19, 246 training, 45–46, 93, 114, 154–55; for allies, 124– 26; bias, 126–28; civility, 122– 24; mentorship, 71 transgender people, 168, 229, 237 transparency, 137, 210–12, 246–47 Transparent (show), 237 travel, 187–89 Tsosie, Krystal, 56, 73, 94–95, 238–39; on cultures of extraction, 56– 62 Twitter, 29–32, 92, 190, 258nn37–44

underrepresentation/ underrepresented groups, 40–41, 66, 90, 146–47; allies and, 128–29; imposter syndrome and, 88; of minority students, 71– 72, 74– 75, 77– 78; myth of biological differences in, 97–100; visibility and, 137– 39; of women of color, 177. See also minoritized/ marginalized groups United States (U.S.), 38, 92, 134, 166–67, 180–81; Department of Veterans Affairs, 123; federal funding, 202, 203; Indigenous people in, 56–57, 238–39; military, 57, 107; NIH, 60, 161, 197; NSF, 53, 64, 125, 213–14; Title IX, 195, 200–203, 203–5, 206 University of British Columbia, 25–26, 53–54 University of Melbourne, 103–4 University of Washington, 174 unsafe, feeling, 19, 190 Video Interventions for Diversity in Science (VIDS), 96, 231– 32 virtual/remote spaces, 149, 158–59, 188–89 visibility, 102–4, 137–44; authorship and, 154–58, 158–59; awards and, 162– 66, 163; at conferences, 159– 62; misplaced credit and, 145–48, 150–54 Voss, Valerie, 2

undergraduate programs, 10–11, 60, 65, 139–40, 171– 72, 197, 235–36; computer science, 37– 39, 38, 51; first-generation, 56–57, 59, 107– 9, 244; “leaky pipeline” in, 2– 3, 3; mentors in, 69– 72. See also specific colleges

Q

Watson, James, 98, 153 Weinstein, Harvey, 209

337

Q

INDEX

Whalen, Paul, 205 White, Lisa, 229 white men, 11, 85–86, 95, 124, 126, 130, 131; image of scientists as, 7, 12–16 white students, 71– 72, 74, 77 white women, 20–23, 28, 74, 77, 87, 125, 175; as allies, 128–29; privilege of, 176, 240–41 Wing, Scott, 220– 21 Winlock, Anna, 42 WISELI. See Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute women. See specific topics Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI), 127–28 women of color, 4, 28, 114–15, 119, 124, 127–28, 129– 30, 227; imposter syndrome impacting, 87; intersectionality, 18–20; mentorship and, 55, 75– 78, 177; teacher evaluations for, 145, 148–50; tenure positions for, 134–35; toxic workplaces for, 246; work-life balance for, 177. See also African Americans/Black women

Q

work-life balance, 133, 169, 179–83, 247; conferences in, 187–89; COVID-19 pandemic impacting, 4, 176– 78, 187–89; hiring in, 183–86; Huntington on, 170– 76; Johnson on, 178– 79 workloads, 131– 33, 183 workplace/s, 4–5, 89, 113, 202– 3, 217; aggression, 107–13; bias training, 126–28; civility, 105, 122– 24; culture, 35– 36, 105, 125, 178, 186–87, 248; flexibility, 182; hiring in, 183–86; housework in the, 129– 34; NDAs in, 209–10; pay gap in, 91–94; toxic, 114–19, 246. See also productivity; sexual harassment/misconduct workshops, 69– 71, 246 World War I, 229 xenophobia, 173 Yale University, 20, 83–84, 201, 203–4 Yasué, Maï, 241–44 Young Frankenstein (movie), 13 zoology, 241–42 Zuckerman, Harriet, 146

338

Q