How to Reduce the Impact of Negative Stereotypes
Dear Friends of Women in Science,
I heard about an interesting article on the Science Careers site from Susan Forsburg, who posted with us here. It describes how to contend with stereotypes successfully, and here is a brief listing of the recommendations for institutions. You may also enjoy reading the extensive recommendations for individuals dealing with these issues. But this institutional list is very worthwhile trying to implement where you are if you sense there could be a problem in any area affected by stereotyping.
Recommendations for Institutions on Reducing the Impact of Negative Stereotypes
1. Demonstrate institutional commitment to diversity through strategic plans, mission statements, and other communication to employees.
2. Educate organizational leaders on how stereotypes, especially those that are unconscious, affect hiring and evaluation decisions.
3. Consider educating all employees about how stereotypes affect decisions.
4. Diversify the members of all hiring committees.
5. Make efforts to diversify candidate hiring pools in order to avoid creating "tokens."
6. Create ground rules for hiring discussions, including keeping job criteria front and center and focusing on evidence rather than opinions.
7. Appoint at least one senior leader who is responsible for monitoring institutional fairness.
8. Although numbers are important, focus equally on creating an inclusive organizational culture that supports diversity.
9. Help build and support professional networks that connect scientists of different backgrounds and ages.
10. Develop leadership-development programs for scientists that incorporate diversity training.
Cheers,
Laura
What do you think?
A I never see the negative stereotyping, I just think it happens from the results.
B I do see it and can sometimes affect it, but we don't have many of these protective processes in place.
C I can fight it when it happens, and my institution has a lot of these ideas already in force.
I think local environment is something anyone can influence to a degree. Often no one has really thought about it, so some of these ideas would be welcome. In other cases, there could be resistance, but it would still be helpful to ask for the changes. If any are made, things will improve for everyone in that location.
And for those who don't have time to read the whole article by Daisy Grewal, here is her list of three important things individual women can do:
"Individual scientists can take at least three steps to buffer themselves against negative stereotypes: educating themselves and others about the science of stereotypes, adopting a growth mindset, and expanding their professional networks." In some sense, visiting this site and joining in these discussions is a way to network with other women in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology.
cheers,
Laura
It's an interesting study, great pot! mold remediation cincinnati
I do think this could be a clip and save list, useful when someone appoints you to the affirmative action committee or diversity committee or similar. I'm a little concerned that number 3 sounds weak. I think every employee who makes hiring and promotion and salary decisions does need to understand how stereotypes can affect decisions and has been convincingly demonstrated to do so, in spite of what people think about their own good will and lack of prejudice. I don't think such should just be "considered" but should be done.
cheers,
Laura
A is my choice, and like postdoc cat, I suspect later on when I have (I hope) a real job, I can probably help people with these issues assuming I get to be one of the good guys as we discussed before. I like knowing what kinds of structures would keep down the effects of stereotypes. Maybe also Dale Carnegie stuff, just keep thinking you can do it, never mind what anyone tells you or tries to put up as a barrier to your success.
I'm not sure number 9 means parties. Maybe something along the lines of MentorNet is what I thought about with that one. We have an on campus mentoring program that gives each incoming faculty member a tenured person in a different department to serve as his/her mentor. This program isn't focused on science, but I can see where something similar through a scientific society could be very good.
B for me. I think some of these are not really feasible in real time with real people. For example, 9. Who has time to take on what I think Kurt Vonnegut would have called a new granfaloon, a group with no real task or purpose except getting together to waste time. Yes, it would be good for the people of science to know each other across barriers, but they need to achieve that goal via some kind of meaningful activity together (revising NIH peer review?) rather than by sipping beer and wondering why they are there rather than back in the lab doing research.
C for me. We do a lot of this as a matter of course, but some of it isn't done well, more pro forma. I think women need to be on guard to keep watching the results and asking questions if it looks like women aren't getting a fair shake. Also, I disagree with 8, the numbers are much more important than this list implies. The lawsuit you brought up recently, and most lawsuits women have brought, have rested in the end on the numbers so having to report those publically is really necessary. FBP
B, maybe we're dodging bullets, but we have almost none of these policies in place yet I think we do pretty well. I guess it depends in part on the good will of the aministrators you have.
A for me. Maybe later I'll be more in the loop. I can check on whether we have these policies, though. Maybe the postdoc organization would be interested in working towards them.
