The devil's in the details

When I first read both articles, my first thoughts that came to mind were that none of these statistics were really surprising to me! Most of them bothered me, but i started to think about the fact that nothing was surprising me. After that realization, I decided that the fact that most of these statistics didn't surprise me was the most worrisome. Gender and its relationship to science should be something to be concerned about (not necessarily worry) but certainly something to analyze.

the statistics that was worrisome and surprising to me were both from the Sonnert and Holton article (both on page 67)

My worry: "Women in our questionnaire sample who had been affiliated with female advisers during their post doctoral fellowships later left science at a higher rate than those who had not (16.7 percent vs 9.7 percent), whereas the reverse was the case for men with female advisers (0 vs. 8.7 percent)."

I was worried by this finding because statistics like this make it seem like failing or not succeeding in science is more likely if you are advised by a female. Furthermore, one would think that women would help to propagate the importance of higher powered roles for other women. Unfortunately, science is not the only field with this sort of occurrence. In politics, women do not vote for other women. So this made me really upset and uncomfortable, but not surprised.

My surprise: "Do men and women 'do science' differently? Yes, said many of our interviewees. Somewhat more women than men (60.8 percent vs 49.4 percent) said that they believed int eh existence of gender differences in the work of scientists in general"

- I would have hoped (wishful thinking) that women would have said no. That sort of response has pretty much been ingrained in the minds of so many women, where as soon as they hear "math" or "science" they become intimidated and say "oh i don't have that sort of mind" I refuse to believe that rather than people having either humanity based thinking or science based thinking are divided by gender. I fear that the women who are saying these things are part of the reason of why it is near to impossible (or at least it seems to many) for women to succeed in science!

We've been talking a lot about why women are absent from certain fields in science, and I was very happy to read articles that gave some tangible numbers. Like some others have mentioned, I would have to say that the most worrisome statistic that I read regarded women's self-esteem as professionals in the sciences (see Sonnet and Holten stats under the "Socialization" section on page 67). I wish I could say I understood where this comes from, but I don't. Is it a humility thing? Is it born out of the societal expectation that women need to prove themselves in order to be accepted into a given field/profession? I think these are definite possibilities. I also think that this article made a good point about "shmoozing" (sp?). The Holten and Sonnet article reads:

"'Professor talk' may be a waste of time in terms of exchanging research information or gaining scientific insights. But it may be anything but wasteful in terms of its hidden agenda. What other women respondents called a "bull session" or "chatty self promotion" may have the function of a bonding ritual." (H&S, Scientific and Professional Styles, pp. 68).

I wonder if it is not just women thinking that these "professor talk" sessions are a waste of time, but feeling uncomfortable engaging in them because of the gender roles we play. If a male colleague asks another colleague out to the bar for a beer, that's considered friendly. If a woman colleague asks a male colleague out to the bar, especially if she's a lesser rank, she's flirting her way to the top.

I realize I've been rambling a little, so back to the question - what stat surprised me the most. I'd have to say it was the stats on ecology/biology which say that this field has gone beyond the proverbial "threshold" that H&S mention. This was a good surprise. It does make sense, as H&S say, because women have been involved in biology for longer than other sciences. I think we should strive to learn from what biology has accomplished and apply to other scientific fields the principles or actions that have made this a successful field for women to enter.

you know, actually, flora's most surprising statistic was one of the ones that surprised me not at all - i've encountered this phenomenon and i agree with this study's suggestion that women, although they publish slightly less (not a very statistically significant difference, actually), are cited far more often because each publication is so much broader (and probably more likely to be right).  the most surprising thing for me was (pg 67) the bit about people leaving science after having female advisors.  one of our very recent search candidates raved about having a female advisor for the first time, and said that her mentor was inspiring and comforting and pretty much exactly what she needed.  on the other hand, after some thought, i can see how, if your mentor doesn't have the life-outside-of-science that you want, she could be discouraging, too.what worries me most is still the glass ceiling.  i've heard peter beckmann ramble about it for four years now, and i finally have a clear understanding of what it means - in 1995, assistant professors were 30% female, associate professors were 20%, but full professors still below 10%.  in physical and mathematical sciences, we still hadn't hit 5%.so, women can do science but only up to a certain level?  THAT'S terrifying to me - in the same way that the fact that i can name a dozen male physicists in two minutes and only one woman (um, liz, does emmy noether count?) scares me.  when i was little and i lived in south america, i didn't understand why i had red hair and nobody else did.  i had no visual role models, besides my mom - unless you count the little mermaid.  i know this is a silly example, but it's legitimately scary to have no idea where your path leads, no-one to look up to and follow, no one to get ideas from.  we, as women scientists, look up and see a great expanse of thick glass, and on the other side, only men, schmoozing with famous people, using citations from our careful work to advance their agressive careers. that's creepy.