By Nelly P. Stromquist, College of Education, UMCP
Institutions reflect their surrounding social environment and, at the same time, create their own. Periodically, both need drastic change for human conditions to approach that optimum point on their ever-evolving continua. One element of our academic environment that now cries out for such a change—one that affects more than most imagine—is the underrepresentation of women as faculty members, especially in scientific and technological (STEM) fields. This condition persists despite the growth in the number of women gaining Ph.D. degrees in all fields. Is this purely the consequence of women’s own individual choices? Does gender socialization pressure women into avoiding certain careers? Do institutions of higher education exacerbate the problem through diverse forms of discriminatory practices?
Nelly Stromquist
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has committed itself to increasing the representation of women faculty members in STEM fields nationwide and has invested over $135 million to this end in approximately 140 colleges and universities since 2001. Its ADVANCE initiative (Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) is NSF-wide, covering its seven directorates and its three research programs. ADVANCE’s strategy is to provide matching funds so that colleges and universities carry out additional activities that give impetus to new and revised hiring, retention, and promotion policies in STEM fields, address the work-family relationship that greatly affects women faculty members, and create all kinds of supporting mechanisms such as mentoring, lecture series, conversations with university leaders, research grant seeds, and social networking to increase awareness around gender dimensions. Institutions receiving NSF funds are given freedom to design their own array of initiatives. The impact evaluation, however, has been carefully delineated by NSF, and requires the provision of statistical indicators to show before and after conditions.
Three in the University Maryland University System have been recipients of NSF “institutional transformation” awards, of which there are about 40 in this country: the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC); the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES); and the University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP). The UMBC grant, initiated in 2003 and completed in 2010, received $3.2 million. According to an external evaluation (Campbell-Kliber Associates, 2008), prior to ADVANCE women represented 27% of those in STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty positions; by the end of the project, their numbers had risen to 50%. There were no significant increases in the number of underrepresented minorities, however—a condition that UMBC also sought to remedy. While considerable improvement took place in numbers as well as in mentoring and faculty development plans, a survey of UMBC’s general work environment conducted at the end of the program found significant differences between women and men faculty members in nine of 11 work environment areas, with women perceiving much greater negative differences in four of these areas (degree of sexism, respect, civility, and collegiality). Institutional factors at the university level are not hospitable to women scientists, but of equal concern is the fact that fewer girls than boys continue to enroll in math and science courses in high school. A notorious example is computer science. The College Board reported recently that only 30,000 students in the nation took the AP test in computer science in 2013. Of these, 4,964 were female, about 8% Latina, and about 3% African American. The combination female/minority undoubtedly produces an even smaller proportion.
ADVANCE at UMCP is younger (initiated in 2010) and smaller ($2.7 million) than at UMBC. As Prof. O’Meara described in a previous article (The Voice, December 2013), our own ADVANCE initiative covers multiple activities that enable women to develop a stronger sense of individual agency through research focusing on gender dimensions, mentoring and networking, discussions on leadership issues, and provision of conferences by stellar women academics. Change, of course, takes time. Asked to reflect on climate changes concerning gender at UMCP, Marvin Breslow, an emeritus history professor with a 41-year UMPC experience and a former chair of the University Senate, observed: “We are still a white male faculty but one that is now much more aware of what the world is becoming.” He noted that among the 15 academic deans, seven are women (ARHU, Education, Information Sciences, Journalism, Libraries, Public Health, and Undergraduate Studies). Progress, however, is not even. For instance, at the School of Engineering, where women now represent 25% of those receiving a Ph.D., only 12% of its faculty are women.
Research on barriers to similar representation and status of women and men faculty members at institutions of higher education shows convergence on key obstacles. A study that traced the attainment of about 400 NSF women awardees in a program that existed from 1997 to 2000 found that the most significant challenge—by far—facing women scientists and engineers was their ability to balance career and family responsibilities (Rosser, 2004). The fact that there is a considerable number of dual academic careers among faculty members’ households complicates the problem because family responsibilities are not equally shared: women continue to be the main care providers and household managers in their families. Since provided at home is the most common type of childcare in the US, cumulative disadvantages accrue “naturally” to women, with corresponding less time available for research activities and campus presence. The career-family issue exceeds the limits of institutional action. Merely making private childcare information available to women (as ADVANCE proposes) is no substitute for actual access to reasonably priced and widespread childcare provision. The US provides less childcare and family support than any of its peer nations. The ADVANCE program at UMBC found that the most frequent obstacle reported by the newly recruited STEM women faculty was “family obligations.” It would seem that if women are to have equal professional opportunities, the issue of child care and elder care provision must be endorsed as a nationwide social policy. A serious alternative, of course, would be for colleges and universities to adopt a more gender-sensitive policy and offer childcare services on their own campuses. The other aspect of “family obligations” concerns the gender division of labor at home, where women continue to assume—whether by love, competence, or both—the greater share of domestic tasks and care responsibilities.
At UMCP, ADVANCE has now entered its fourth of five years. Results from two surveys on the work environment faced by women and men faculty members offer data that merit reflection. The first survey, administered in Spring 2011, found that the climate for work-life balance was rated poorly by all respondents, especially women, who identified a need for improved childcare. In the words of one woman faculty member, “The environment that you need to work 100 hours per week is deflating and demoralizing for those who want children.” Unsurprisingly, while 38% of women reported having experienced discrimination by gender, only 12% of the men had faced such an experience (O’Meara and Campbell, 2011). The first survey also found large and statistically significant differences by gender in the following items: “Opportunities for female faculty at UMD are at least as good as for male faculty,” “I work harder to be perceived by some of my colleagues as a legitimate scholar,” and “I have experienced discrimination based on my individual or multiple identities.” The second survey, given in Spring 2013—two years later—found identical results for those items. Interestingly, an item that had not reached statistical significance in the first survey now reports large differences to the disadvantage of women: “I am satisfied with my unit’s culture around work-life balance” (O’Meara, Garvey, Niehaus, and Corrigan, 2013). Could these results reflect that the new knowledge promoted by ADVANCE sharpened perceptions and thus led to heightened recognition of needs? Or simply that institutional change takes a longue-durée framework?
The social networks and mentoring provided through NSF grants work gradually but effectively among women faculty members. Even though such activities reach only a small group of beneficiaries, the mere idea of being targeted for assistance and included in a set of activities and venues previously out of their reach seems to give women faculty members a sense of confidence and self-esteem that can only be positive. I personally have benefited from participating this academic year as an ADVANCE leadership fellow. This allowed me, together with five other women and eight men, to hear monthly accounts by high-ranking administrators on various facets of their work, from budgets and leadership challenges to conflict management. These venues have provided an unparalleled access to frank and detailed conversations on key aspects of university functioning and performance. And the leadership provided by former Provost Anne Wiley in moderating these conversations has been exceptional. Will the new knowledge enable these and other ADVANCE participants to use their place of employment to create the capabilities that will prompt institutional changes at UMCP? Keep posted.
References:
Campbell-Kliber Associates. 2008. University of Maryland Baltimore County. ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program. Final Evaluation Report.
O’Meara, K. and Campbell, C. 2011. The Work Environment for Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty at the University of Maryland. ADVANCE Research and Evaluation Report I.
O’Meara, K., Garvey, J., Niehaus, E., and Corrigan, K. 2013. The Work Environment for Tenure Track/Tenured Faculty at the University of Maryland. Results from the 2013 UMD Work Environment Survey.
Rosser, S. 2004. Using POWRE to ADVANCE: Institutional Barriers Identified by Women Scientists and Engineers. NSWA Journal 16(1): 50-69.
facultyvoiceumd.wordpress.com 