Examining our bias
Hello again from your guest "curator," Susan Castagnetto.
Having read both of John Tierney's commentaries on gender and science ("Daring to Discuss..." and "Legislation Won't Close Gap"), along with responses, you'd think the entire America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 proposed in congress is about gender equity. Interestingly, that is just one small piece of it. The stated overall purpose of the bill is "To invest in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes." Considering the bill's purpose, one can see the rationale for the gender equity piece of it.
There are at least two reasons for the government to address gender equity/inequity. One reason is to maximize the development of scientific talent so the U.S. is, per the bill, competitive. Long ago, John Stuart Mill argued for women's rights in just this way, in The Subjection of Women (1869): "...opening to [women] the same field of occupation and the same prizes and encouragements as to other human beings, would be that of doubling the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity." Another reason is to ensure that federal grants are not distributed in a discriminatory way. Workshops are just one tool for addressing gender bias that underlies discrimination, and seem hardly worth all of Tierney's fuss.
Of course, Tierney's chief complaint is about the claim that gender bias exists at all. But there is ample research demonstrating that bias operates in non-conscious ways--and no reason to think that scientists are immune. For example, a while back I read about the work of Princeton psychologists Pronin and Krugler, on "bias blind spot." They address our inclination to trust introspection in assessing our own biases-a highly unreliable source-while relying on behavioral indicators in assessing others. Are such introspectively-based judgments (women not exempted!) key to the problem of gender bias? And, might Tierney be suffering from his very own "introspective illusion" in his determination to show that gender bias does not exist, despite the evidence?
On a positive note, researchers Dasgupta and Rivera have shown that we can consciously override our biases; they state, "...although automatic bias. . . may predispose people to behave in a subtly discriminatory fashion, [our] research illustrates that such behavior is by no means inevitable."
Workshops may be an imperfect tool for addressing gender bias, but educating decision-makers (men AND women) about bias blind spots and "methods that minimize the effects of gender bias in evaluation of Federal research grants and in the related academic advancement of actual and potential recipients of these grants" seems a reasonable way to provide tools to "consciously override" biases.
Of course, this only addresses individual bias, not institutional and systemic causes that reflect and reinforce that bias, like hiring policies, family leave, etc. We need multiple tools to achieve genuine gender equity.
On the general subject of bias, and how we recognize it or don't:
1) Have you ever been told that you are in some way biased by someone else observing your behavior?
2) Is examining bias is a waste of time? Will we ever eliminate it?
Your comments resonated with them me as well as I do talk to my colleagues who are still in academe vs. those who have transitioned to industry and those in academe do seem much more stressed over their childcare. I'm not sure if they had more money if it would help things but for me and some others having a nanny at home has made my life so much better. I know my son is in good hands with someone who loves him and is thriving. I never worry about him getting hurt or sick and someone being too busy to notice. But I also wonder if being more stressed about "everything": experiments, papers, grants, lab management trickles over into family life guilt too? When I'm stressed I notice all kinds of things bother me that just don't matter when I'm relaxed. What can be done? Give some grants to help pay for good childcare!
I've been trying to think if I was ever told I was biased. A male math faculty member once asked me if I thought men should still go into science. I thought at the time I had reassured him. I guess people said I was biased in favor of bio and against chem when I was dean. If anything, I tried to bend over backwards to be the opposite, in my opinion. It's too long ago to easily get back in my mind so I can analyze the reasons I was so sure I was right, a la Susan Castagnetto, which would have been valuable at the time. I'm going to keep this in mind for later times when I'm sure I'm right, though.
cheers,
Laura
It was possible for people to combine family and career, but it was not easy. With the bad economy and the high price and low availability of good childcare, it seems less and less possible. But academia needs to step up. Some of my friends in big pharma have great child care support. But tight spaces, high prices, agonizing is what academic young women today seem to face. What can be done? FBP
I agree Laura that childcare is a critical component. When you read books like "Athena Unbound" which focuses on international vs. US academic gender equity in science, you hear that same comment resonate. Women in countries with good support at home (particularly from grandparents living in the home with young children) have more women in their ranks. This model of a "third parent" to help with the domestic chores is very important for achieving balance when both parents work a hectic schedule. Read some biographies of those great women and they discuss this over and over again. It's someone's time and/or money that make that happen. But I have to say that not working weekends and having time off for family vacations and outings is also important to a healthy work-life balance. And that is a culture shift that needs to change if women are to chose an academic career path. I think it can happen as such changes do benefit men interested in family time. Until the status quo changes "Men come back from paternity leave with a book, women come back with a backlog." we won't be making much progress...
Hi Helen and Susan,
I keep coming back to the foundation established by German Nobel laureate Christiane Nusslein-Vollhard to support child care and housekeeping needs for young women scientists in her country. She is not married, has no children, but she's a good observer of what can go wrong for those women around her. I completely agree that making the organization family-friendly, really for men and women, is essential for equal success of men and women. How might we do that? We could take a look at Finland, for example. Inexpensive child care of high quality has been available for decades there, and it is so far the only European country to have essentially equal numbers of women and men throughout the ranks of academia. Most other European countries have some version of the scissors curve...at young ages, women outnumber men, but in mid-career the two are about equal and at the highest ranks, there are far more men. I believe that academia is far behind industry on this issue, but some of these women Presidents of universities are making a big impact leading R1 universities to put more user friendly policies in place. Then, getting people to take them seriously will be the next job.
cheers,
Laura
Some thoughts on the work-life balance piece:
1. Stanford sociologist Shelley Correll recently did some research on the impact of motherhood in the workplace. See http://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/cgi-bin/wordpressblog/2009/11/motherhood-penalty-remains-a-pervasive-problem-in-the-workplace/. (Correll is the new director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Correll, and has set the Institute’s new theme as “Beyond the Stalled Revolution: Advancing Gender Equality in the 21st Century.”) The Institute also has lots of resources and news on gender and science, as that has been the focus of its work under director Londa Schiebinger: http://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/. On a positive note—the website has a news item about family-friendly policies for grad students instituted by Stanford’s Chemistry Department: http://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/cgi-bin/wordpressblog/2010/04/chemistry-department-announces-new-parental-leave-policy-for-spouses-or-partners/.
2. We really need to think of workplaces’ failure to support work/life balance as an example of organizational discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights states: "Discrimination, though practiced by individuals, is often reinforced by the well-established rules, policies, and practices of organizations. These actions are often regarded simply as part of the organization's way of doing business and are carried out by individuals as just part of their day's work." (From Affirmative Action in the 1980s.)
Changing the workplace--e.g., instituting family-friendly policies--requires collective action, the investment of men (who also stand to gain), and the support of those in powerful positions. It is also useful to be able to argue that employers will benefit by facilitating work/life balance. (The pool of talent will increase, innovation will be supported, everyone will be happier, etc.?)
Has anyone read the MIT study recently? (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#The%20Study) The MIT case is an interesting example of collective action of senior women scientists that, with the support and leadership of the dean, led to identifying systematic gender discrimination and the institution’s taking steps to make change.
This forum could be a useful place to share strategies.
Certainly for research it's often difficult to maintain one's objectivity. You fall in love with a model and want the data to line up. When they don't you scramble to explain why not. That's where good colleagues and mentors come in. They help reduce your bias by calling you on the carpet when that happens. So yes, I think with some external help we can change. But with protected characteristics (race, gender, diability, etc) those are more difficult and personal conversations to have. We often have them 1.1 not in a group forum where questions would have more impact. As for supporting young women in science, I am all for helping the individuals, but I also think that if we're serious about having more women choose science as a profession (and we could have a whole discussion on whether that is really a need vs a want) we will have to make the culture more focused on work-life balance and less on the "win at all costs mentality". You're not going to change that more women than men take family life seriously and balance their careers accordingly. So an unbalanced environment is simply not attractive to most women, and they will keep leaving until that fundamental issue is addressed.
Well, that's interesting that you were able to reassess your previous perceptions--it's hard to do that. Congratulations! The original article I read (in the L.A. Times) about the Pronin/Krugler research was on the subject of conflicts of interest in research--e.g., scientists believing they can be objective when they are funded by the companies whose products they are evaluating. But the concept of implicit bias looms large with gender issues, too. (As in those studies where subjects rate the same proposal differently according to whether there is a woman's name on it or not...) And both men and women have gender biases--not surprising, since we are surrounded by cultural messages about gender stereotypes. Maybe one part of the answer is starting very early, with education? Can we make a conscious effort to overcome our biases? (And how do we recognize when we have them?)
Tierney argues that we should "encourage [girls'] individual aspirations instead of obsessing about group disparities," discounting implicit bias by pointing to the fact that some science fields are now dominated by women. But shouldn't we take steps to ensure that women don't have to face gender bias? Yes, of course, women can surmount bias--or at least some can, with enough fortitude! But why should women have to face hurdles that men don't?
I had a recent experience that your comments resonated with. I was having trouble with another woman scientist at work. We're both strong willed and would butt heads now and again. And it was getting to the point where we weren't being polite about it. Her supervisor (she's one level up from me) decided that I should get some training on handling difficult people. "That's unfair I replied, it takes two to have a fight, she should have to go too!" To which the supervisor responded "So you're saying you're difficult to work with?". That shut me up! In the class I had to examine why I was so upset with this other woman. As it turned out she has made an excellent mentor for the very qualities I didn't like originally: her mama bear approach to her direct reports and her need to be expert in everything she does. I was just biased about what others said about her (nasty rumors that often affect women at her level) and didn't take the time to look at her with my own eyes. It's a mistake I don't intend to make again!
