Women in Science - The Education Connection in Chemistry

This essay will appear in the CHED Newsletter - Winter 1997

Where are the Women Chemists?

Theresa Julia Zielinski, Doris Kimbrough, and Marcy Hamby Towns.

Sometimes at scientific meetings we look around and notice how few women are in the audience. Perhaps this is not surprising. Society has always accepted and even expected boys/men to pursue scientific disciplines and girls/women to shy away from them. It has even been suggested that the extra edge that men have in sciences is due to the type of games and objects used during childhood play time. It would seem that both nature and nurture give men an advantage and that this explains why they outnumber women in science.

That men greatly outnumber women in the hard sciences, especially in physical chemistry is a fact (C&EN June 10, 1996). Only recently have we seen increasing numbers of women (30% as of 1996) receive the Ph.D. degree in chemistry (REF). The percent of women in all academic professorial ranks is about 11% and most women are in the entry Assistant Professor rank. Interestingly, even if all of these women remain in academic careers, there are so few of them that they will be outnumbered by their male counterparts by two or three to one even 20 years from now.

Recent concern over the access of women to careers in science and the prospects for their success in these careers was prompted by two important articles. The first "Women Chemists Reconsidering Careers at Research Universities" in C&EN June 1996 presented stunning statistics and a review of the different reasons for women to shy away from careers in Ph.D. granting institutions. Another article (Nature, vol. 387, May 1997) produced shock waves by describing a study of the peer-review system of the Swedish Medical Research Council, one of the main funding agencies for biomedical research in Sweden. The conclusion was that peer reviewers cannot judge scientific merit independent of gender. Female achievement is routinely underestimated. The study clearly lays out the statistical variables and finds that a woman scientist must be 2.5 times more productive than a male scientist in order to achieve the same competence score. This corresponds to 3 extra papers in Nature or Science or 20 extra papers in other high quality journals. The origin of this report is Sweden, a country which is recognized as a leader in equal opportunities for men and women. In the United States a more level playing field with respect to funding is found at the NSF where the awards of grants and fellowships to women were in proportion to the proposals and applications prepared by women scientists (C&EN, Sept. 8, 1997). However, even in the United States there are clear professional differences that can be linked to gender. Project Access, a large-scale study that compared the career paths of women and men scientists following academic careers, found that women hold considerably lower academic ranks than men even when one controls for the rate of publication (Sonnert, 1995, Fox, 1996).

Clearly one does not wish to get into a quota game with respect to the numbers of women in science. However, considering the overall general talent that both men and women bring to any discipline, one would expect that a more equitable environment, level playing field, would lead to numbers of each gender approaching the same proportions as in the overall general population. More important is the concept of equal opportunity to pursue a life long love of science, especially chemistry, for all those with the motivation and skill to embark on the journey.

To attract and retain more women in science, we must recognize the impediments that young women face as they embark on a scientific career in college, and to remove those impediments at all levels of the educational system. We should start by questioning ourselves and our attitudes toward our male and female students. Do we see differences in the way we view students? Do we treat them differently? Do we ignore their differences? What moves can we make to level the field for both male and female students from different backgrounds? We need to move beyond allowing women to participate and toward encouraging them.

How does one encourage women to pursue scientific careers? One major consideration is the difference in learning styles for male and female students. Matthews and Odom (National Association of Laboratory Schools Journal, 15(3), 32-42, 1991) showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play a role in learning. Intrinsic motivation is the enjoyment of school learning characterized by an orientation toward mastery, curiosity, persistence and the learning of challenging, difficult and novel tasks; it emphasizes process rather than outcome. Extrinsic motivation is characterized by classroom incentives: grades, recognition, or results, and is part of the methodology teachers use to encourage students to do academic work. Female students tend to respond better to intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation.

However, when science is taught in a traditional way, the reward system is more often extrinsic in nature. As described by Elaine Seymour (1995), the notion of being "challenged" within the science, mathematics, and engineering (SM&E) curriculum creates a climate based on competition to prove oneself. Evaluation in science courses often focuses on algorithmic understanding, calculating the correct numerical answer, and obtaining "correct" results in laboratory experiments. Such evaluation systems, which in some cases are normative as well, weed-out the unworthy and heighten student anxiety. These extrinsic motivations are likely to either discourage or turn off more intrinsically motivated students. Social sciences and humanities are less likely to focus on a single right answer or experimental result, present theories that are more open to interpretation, and are more likely to interest an intrinsically motivated student. These classes value answering questions other than "how do I apply this concept correctly".

The irony is that in scientific research, process becomes much more important, and the "right" answer is more often a matter of interpretation. An intrinsically motivated person might not ever survive the courses necessary to arrive at a point where undergraduate research is an option (an argument for introducing research as early as possible in the curriculum). Most of us would agree that many of the problems with the way science is often taught (as opposed to the way science is done) is its over-emphasis on algorithms, "right" answers, competition, and facts at the expense of understanding, process, and cooperation.

To a large extent, the decision of whether or not to pursue science as a career is made long before students ever arrive at college. However, a number of students, more women than men, plan to major in science and then are turned off by their college experiences. Seymour and Hewitt (1994) collected and interpreted an exhaustive quantity of information about why students switch SM&E majors in college. Some highlights of their discussion on the differences between genders in the reasons given for leaving SM&E fields are:

Women are far more likely than men to switch out of SM&E majors and more commonly switched to majors outside the sciences altogether. Furthermore, women in SM&E majors were more likely to switch majors than their counterparts who originally chose majors in the humanities and social sciences.
Women do not switch from SM&E to other majors because they lack adequate preparation or perform poorly. They perceive the teaching methods used in undergraduate SM&E courses as impersonal and uncaring.
Women sometimes feel alienated, unwelcome and inadequate. This is a very complex and difficult problem to deal with. Young women are simultaneously coping with adjusting to the social pressures of gender roles and succeeding in a male-oriented, male dominated field. Self doubt and feelings of intimidation should not come as a surprise; they should be expected. Furthermore men and women respond to the competitive ("weed out") aspect of introductory courses differently: male students often blame the system for their struggles, whereas female students blame themselves. In general women do not find competition a meaningful way to receive feedback on their level of understanding.
Women often feel they have to work harder than their male peers to achieve the same level of recognition. They encounter attitudes that range from obviousness to hostility among their peers and their professors.
Women also arrive on our campuses hoping to establish a personal relationship with faculty. When that does not occur, women in SM&E classes tend to feel that they are performing badly and begin to doubt their ability to "do science" regardless of how well they are actually doing in their courses.

In order to attract and retain a more diverse population of students in SM&E courses faculty must acknowledge and act upon variations in student learning styles. In fact, the NSF has urged faculty and institutions to shift their emphasis and focus from teaching to learning and recommends that faculty "recognize that different students may learn in different ways" (NSF, 1996, p. 65). Faculty may be obligated to modify their teaching style--an action which requires effort, resolve, and the courage to take risks. We know that discrepancies between learning and teaching styles are a source of conflict, frustration, and discouragement for both students and faculty. Sheila Tobias in 1990, provided some of the clearest data to document the consequences of this incongruity. However, Grasha (1996) writes that when acknowledgment of variations of student learning styles is accompanied by an awareness of different teaching styles, then altering classroom interactions between students and faculty may be more successful.

Beyond changing what takes place in the classroom, out of classroom activities play a role in increasing the participation of "underrepresented groups" in SM&E. Mentoring female students via research activities is an excellent method of encouraging and supporting young women scientists. The nomination letter for Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond, the only chemist to receive the 1997 Presidential Award for Excellence in SM&E mentoring, makes clear the positive impact of such mentoring activities (Brennan, 1997). Her former students at Bryn Mawr College wrote:

"As a researcher, [Richmond] was the most sought-after undergraduate research advisor, with the most innovative research projects and the most supportive work environment. And, as a mentor, all science majors freely consulted her for advice, not only about the academic program, but also about weathering the vagaries of student life."

Another example of increasing the participation and success of women is Purdue University’s Women in Engineering Program. This program combines residence hall options which promote the success of female students, mentoring programs staffed with successful women undergraduates, a women in engineering seminar course, scholarships, and classroom climate workshops for teaching assistants and faculty (Jane Daniels, Purdue University Women in Engineering Programs Annual Report, 1995). Since 1976, the percentage of BS degrees in engineering earned by women has grown from 4% to 21% in 1995.

Clearly, there are a variety of effective methods to support, mentor, and encourage young scientists. By reading articles or texts on the experiences of women in science, learning styles, and teaching styles, and by learning about programs which increase the participation of women in SM&E, we can become more aware of the obstacles and pathways to success. Below we provide a short reading list for those wishing to pursue these topics further.

Our goal as teachers is to provide the best opportunities for all students to succeed in science, especially chemistry, our chosen discipline. By working together to remove the psychological, physical, and policy barriers to participation we can develop an inclusive educational methodology which will enrich our discipline and ensure that it remains intellectually challenging and continues to foster creative and important discoveries.

Theresa Julia Zielinski teaches at Niagara University, Department of Chemistry and Physics, Niagara University, NY 14109, theresaz@localnet.com; Doris R. Kimbrough teaches at the University of Colorado at Denver, Chemistry Department Box 194, University of Colorado at Denver, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364, dkimbrough@castle.cudenver.edu; Marcy Hamby Towns teaches at Ball State University, Chemistry Department, Cooper Hall, Muncie, IN 47306, 00mhtowns@bsu.edu.

References

Brennan, M. (1997). C&E News, 9/22/97, 10.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching With Style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.
NSF (1996). Shaping the future: New Expectations in Undergraduate Education in SME&T. A report on its revision of undergraduate education by the Advisory Committee to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources. NSF publication number 96-139.
Seymour, E. (1995). Science Education, 79, 437-473.
Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. (1994). Talking About Leaving: Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors? Final Report to The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation on an Ethnographic Inquiry at Seven Institutions.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

Where are the Women Chemists?

References

Suggested Readings