Women, Work and the Academy > Executive Summaries > Sue V. Rosser

Executive Summary

Sue V. Rosser, Dean and Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology

As a scholar who has worked for a quarter of a century on theoretical and applied problems of attracting and retaining women in science and engineering, I have heard the expression of doubts and dilemmas in a variety of forms from diverse women scientists and engineers in all types of institutions. These dilemmas were reinforced by what women told me when I formerly served as Senior Program Officer for Women's Programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and what they tell me now in my current position as dean at a Research I institution who also serves as co-PI on an NSF ADVANCE grant for institutional transformation. The women question whether their individual choices, decisions, and will power, or institutional obstacles and barriers, prevent them from fulfilling their research potential and career goals.

In an effort to better understand the barriers and discouragements encountered by women faculty in the sciences and engineering, I undertook research comparing the experiences of Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education (POWRE) awardees and Clare Boothe Luce (CBL) Professorship recipients. POWRE awardees are women who received peer-reviewed funding from a focused National Science Foundation program from 1997-2000. They are primarily untenured assistant professors in tenure-track positions at research universities. The CBL Professorships were created by Clare Boothe Luce's generous bequest to The Henry Luce Foundation upon her death in 1987. CBL Professors are primarily assistant professors in their first tenure-track position at liberal arts colleges.

Because of the emergence of anecdotal reports that some women scientists actively choose to avoid research universities because of their hostile climate, it seemed important to examine the Clare Boothe Luce Professors. Data supporting these anecdotes of women's avoidance of research universities documented that women make up 40% of tenure-track science faculty in undergraduate institutions compared to less than 20% when data from four year colleges were combined with those from universities.

In order to examine this trend and to understand some of the reasons behind the data and anecdotal reports, the e-mail questionnaire responses from 389 POWRE awardees and in-depth interviews of 50 of them were extended to women scientists and engineers concentrated at small liberal arts colleges. Although the NSF POWRE awardees included individuals from all types of institutions and at varying ranks, the overwhelming majority held the rank of untenured assistant professor and came from large research institutions. The Clare Boothe Luce Professorships offered a group of women scientists and engineers concentrated at small liberal arts colleges and private institutions who, like the POWRE awardees had received an externally validated prestigious award. CBL Program Officer Jane Daniels helped obtain responses from 41 of the 46 active CBL professors and 8 of the 84 former CBL professors; 11 CBL professors were interviewed in depth. (For the complete data on this research see Rosser, 2004).

The CBL professors gave very similar responses to those of the POWRE awardees to e-mail question 1: "What are the most significant issues, challenges, and opportunities facing women scientists and engineers as they plan their careers?" 63% to 88% of the almost 450 women identified responses in the category of "balancing career and family" as the overwhelming barrier. Problems faced by women because of their low numbers and stereotypes held by others regarding gender, more overt discrimination and harassment, as well as issues faced by both men and women scientists and engineers in the current environment of tight resources, which may pose particular difficulties for women, also emerged as significant issues.

Although the responses reflected less consensus overall, the Clare Booth Luce Professors responded similarly to the POWRE awardees to e-mail question 2: "How does the laboratory climate (or its equivalent in your subdiscipline) impact upon the careers of women scientists?" Many described the impact of negative laboratory climates on the retention of women scientists and the toll these climates take on women's self-esteem. A number of both POWRE and CBL respondents noted the efforts that they make to provide a supportive atmosphere in their laboratories. Perhaps the most positive evidence to emerge came from indications of women's abilities to construct a small, empowering environment within their own labs, within a larger, hostile environment. Very exciting indications of the potential for the new ideas and approaches that women might contribute to science and engineering because of their experiences as women also emerged.

How can the dilemmas faced by academic women scientists and engineers be solved to allow more of the exciting potential for new ideas, approaches, and empowering laboratory environments? The 450 women I surveyed are highly educated and successful. They have completed Ph.D. degrees and post-doctoral experiences at the most prestigious institutions in the country. They have succeeded in obtaining a coveted tenure-track position at either a Research I institution or a highly ranked small liberal arts college. Each has competed to obtain a prestigious NSF or CBL award. Most still love their chosen field of science or engineering.

Yet, they express frustration with problems, and in some cases, almost insurmountable barriers erected by institutional and foundational policies and procedures. The interviews and responses to the e-mail questionnaires reveal that some disciplines, institutions, or individual timing of life events are better or worse than others. Encouraging mentors and role models, both male and female, do make a difference. A supportive spouse/partner is critical. But the bottom line remains the same: Most of these women struggle to have both a life and a career as a scientist or engineer.

Responses to questions 1 and 2 suggest the need for support that extends beyond the research of individual women scientists and engineers. Many of the qualitative statements of awardees particularly underline the need for institutional, systemic approaches to balance career with family, deal with problems resulting from low numbers of women in some disciplines and the stereotyping they may encounter, as well as more overt discrimination and harassment.

The relatively new ADVANCE program (institutional transformation component) at the National Science Foundation funded nine universities beginning in 2001 and funded a similar number in 2003 to develop model policies and practices to address institutional barriers and discouragements faced by female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty. As co-PI of the ADVANCE grant at Georgia Tech, my colleagues and I struggle with appropriate policy and practice recommendations.

Building upon my research on POWRE and CBL awardees, the following policy areas seem significant for institutions to address:

Moving toward balance: The issue of balanceÑwhether pertaining to the tension between children and work, dual career academic couples, or among competing demands within the work environmentÑsurfaces time and again as an impediment to the attraction and advancement of women.

Widening paths to success: A lack of role models, feelings of isolation, and stereotyping are all barriers caused by low numbers. Understanding specific characteristics of gender differences at each institution such as whether paths narrow in certain places (departments), at certain distances (recruitment, tenure, promotion to full professor, prestigious award, influential committees) or at specific points (salary, space graduate student assignment) provides important information for beginning to address the problems.

Improving the environment: Words describing the environment encountered by women faculty in science and engineering departments include chilly, masculine, exclusionary, elitist, and hostile. Lack of collegiality and difficulty in gaining credibility among peers exemplifies a characteristic of a negative environment identified by POWRE awardees. The results of ADVANCE will provide a variety of models for improving the environment in academic science and engineering departments and transform faculty careers to be more attractive and supportive of all men and women, particularly those from previously underrepresented populations.

Works Cited

Rosser, Sue V. (2004). The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed. New York: Routledge.

Back to top