Skip to main content

Annika Peter: More Facts

To continue my exploration of gender parity in astronomy, I have called on my friend and fellow astronomer Annika Peter to guest blog for me. Annika and I have had several illuminating discussions over coffee about academia in general and women in science in particular. Here's the second in a series of posts from Annika. The first can be found here. The data contained herein has informed a number of articles that I'll post soon.

Women scientists in academia and family structure:  A number of studies indicate that, at the faculty level, a large proportion of women physicists and astronomers are partnered with other academic scientists (especially other physicists!).  The exact numbers are hard to come by---a lot of the time, all physical scientists are lumped together in studies, even though there are hints that there are major differences across fields (with Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research finding that physicists have the most “endogamous” marriage habits).  I have found only one survey specific to physicists, and it is not especially recent (1998 to be specific).  Moreover, I have not yet been able to find cohort studies that examine family structures at a variety of career stages, or studies of the reasons why both men and women leave the academic track.  I am also interested to see if there is greater or lesser selection pressure on dual academic couples.  In my experience, a high percentage of women in physics and astronomy are coupled with other academic scientists at just about all career stages, but I would like to see some cold, hard numbers on this.

Nevertheless, if you lump all physical science faculty together, one finds large differences in the partnering and child-rearing patterns of men and women.  A study referenced in this article (PDF document) shows that women scientists are more than three times more likely than their male counterparts to be married to someone who also holds a science PhD.  Women science professors are far more likely than their male counterparts to be single or have no children.  When women science professors are partnered, they are far more likely than men to have a “two-body problem”.  The subject of the two-body problem is near and dear to my heart (as it is to many women scientists and the men or women they are partnered with), and I will be devoting some future blog space to this subject.

Women scientists still do far more housework than men, even in dual-academic-career households, as noted by Schiebinger & Gilmartin.  The difference in time devoted to household work is significant, especially compared with their additional finding that men and women in dual career couples have statistically almost indistinguishable distributions of hours worked (median of about 55 hours, the width of the distribution is 11 hours).  Thus, women scientists have a significantly higher work+housework time commitment than men scientists.  In addition, the authors of the study find that the average scientist spends 19 hours per week on housework.  There are a lot of illuminating figures in that paper, and I recommend you check it out.  Note that this study only considers work related to inanimate objects; child-related tasks are not included. 

Efforts at top-tier PhD-granting universities to hire and retain women faculty: About a decade ago, some top-tier universities starting realizing that they were not hiring or retaining very many women faculty in their science and engineering departments.  MIT is particularly famous (or infamous) for having had so few women on its faculty as recently as the late 1990’s.  This realization is an indication that the AIP’s finding of a lower proportion of women at PhD granting institutions than colleges and universities as a whole is in part because they simply were not hiring and retaining women at rate one would have expected based on PhD completion rates.  Since then, these universities have undergone self-studies to identify concrete steps they can take to improve the retention of women faculty, and have implemented a number of changes.  Here are links to a few of those universities’ reports and findings:
-MIT:  1999 report; 2011 progress report (PDF document)
-Princeton: 2003 report (PDF document)
-The NSF funded ADVANCE (Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) programs at a suite of universities. Information on UC Irvine’s ADVANCE Program can be found here:  Information about the NSF ADVANCE grant program can be found here:


Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:

It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The subtle yet real racism of the Supreme Court

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?" 
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …