Many thanks to Science Woman for alerting me to this very interesting call for interviewees for a book project titled "Where the Girls Aren't", over at a blog called Green Gabbro. Finding this new blog (new to me) is also cool! I'm sure I've seen Yami's presence elsewhere on the web; why have I not been to her blog before? Go forth and read, for she is good. Here's about the book project:
[A] science and tech writer in my extended social network just landed a book deal on women’s experiences in science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM). She’s looking to interview women and girls from all walks of sciencehood; if this sounds interesting to you, details are below the fold.
Two similar works are Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences by Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt, and Leaving Science: Occupational Exit From Scientific Careers by Anne Preston.
Seymour and Hewitt's book may be more well known. Elaine Seymour was a recipient of WEPAN's Betty Vetter Award for Research in 2000. Talking About Leaving documented that the shameful attrition rates in engineering and the sciences were not the result of separating the wheat from the chaff. The fleeing students were among the most highly qualified, and, I know this will come as a huge shock to you, but - well - just guess which groups had disproportionately high loss rates. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the white males.
Preston analyzed data from 1700 men and women who received degrees in the natural sciences or engineering between 1965 and 1990 and placed this data in context with federal funding and market force pressures on scientific career trajectories during this period, finding differences in male and female exit patterns for the 49% of those who left science.
I'm much more familiar with Seymour and Hewitt's work. However, from what I know of both, it sounds like the project that generated the call for interviewees above might dovetail nicely with both these books. Seymour and Hewitt's book is rich in anecdotes, data analysis, research summary, and theory, but it focuses at the undergraduate level. Preston's work looks at postgraduate workforce issues, and includes an analysis of how common factors have a differential impact on men and women's decisions to stay or leave. It provides statistical analysis along with illustrative anecdotes. However it doesn't necessarily look deeply at the experiences unique to postgraduate women in academia that affect the decision to stay or leave. Not the "will my proposal get funded?" or "should I take that industry job for double my current salary and half the hours I work now?" worries or dilemmas. No, I mean, the stuff like
- There are only two women in this WeAreTooRealMen Engineering department. At the departmental retreat, the schedule shows at the end of the first day "Let's all gather at the hotel pool for an hour of swimming and relaxing!" We don't want to seem uncollegial, but we don't want to appear in our swimsuits in front of 17 men we have to work with. Will they talk about us if we don't go? Will they talk about us if we do? (A true story, some details slightly altered.)
- I've just defended my PhD and I'm getting interviews but no offers. I finally found out why. I got an anonymous letter from someone after my last interview, just signed "A Friend", letting me know MY THESIS ADVISOR was writing to the places I'd interviewed and telling them I was no good. (This one had a reasonably happy ending. She sued his ass. He lost his job at Ivy Envy U. She's a full professor at Prestige Public U. Should you find yourself in a similar situation, you may want to consult with Absinthe.)
- I am the only woman of color in the entire college of engineering. They want me to serve on everything that even sounds like it has the word diversity somewhere connected to it. They want me to mentor every student of color. They want to trot me out at every fundraising event to show how they are "working their diversity plan". They say things like, "I hope you don't feel like you got your job just because of your race." They say things to me like, "Well, I'm glad we were finally able to hire a woman of color." Why can't they say things like "Well, I'm glad we were finally able to attract one of MIT's best electrical engineering PhD's to our university"? I just had my three-year review and they told me I'm not publishing enough and not bringing in enough research money.
- I'm a physicist working at a national lab. Last year I discovered a new particle! This year I'm going to give birth to a baby! I'd like to take the maternity leave that the written policy says I'm entitled to. I have a meeting with my supervisor in a few minutes. I'm going to let him know. I'm sure it will be fine because the baby won't be coming for six months yet and that gives us plenty of time to plan and schedule things. It's not like I'm sick or anything; that, you can't plan for. You know, like when men have heart attacks.
- At hiring time I was told that publications and research were the most important things for tenure. I have 12 papers in Science and NSF has opened their coffers and told me to take whatever I want. Six engineering firms are fighting to license my incredible patented gadgets. I just had my three-year review. My undergraduate students write remarks on their course evaluations about my clothing. They say my breasts interfere with their learning. My department chair said that teaching is one of the core missions of a land-grant university and I need to improve my course evals or start thinking about places where I might find a "better fit" for my priorities.
Okay, I may have exaggerated just a tiny bit on that last one. Everybody knows funding is tighter than a botoxed socialite.
6:33:02 PM 
|
|
