TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE
This study details how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It is based on in-depth interviews with 60 women scientists of color (chiefly professors), and a survey of 557 women scientists (of all races). Different types of gen...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of research in gender studies 2016, Vol.6 (1), p.11-75 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 75 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 11 |
container_title | Journal of research in gender studies |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Williams, Joan C Phillips, Katherine W |
description | This study details how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It is based on in-depth interviews with 60 women scientists of color (chiefly professors), and a survey of 557 women scientists (of all races). Different types of gender bias were reported at different rates. Prescriptive gender bias was most common (76.3% of women interviewed reported it), followed by descriptive gender bias (66.7%) and gender bias triggered by motherhood (64.0%); just over half of the women interviewed (55.3%) reported situations in which gender bias against women fueled conflicts among women. The survey found dramatic differences by race, notably that Black women scientists were more likely than other women to report that they had to prove themselves more than their colleagues, that Asian-American women scientists reported more pressure to behave in feminine ways (and more push-back if they didn’t), and Latina scientists were more likely to be called “angry” or “too emotional” if they behaved assertively. The study concludes by introducing a new approach to organizational change to interrupt gender bias, called Metrics-Based Bias Interrupters. |
doi_str_mv | 10.22381/JRGS6120161 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>ceeol_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866648883</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A458550025</galeid><ceeol_id>412569</ceeol_id><sourcerecordid>412569</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-258dd4fbbb8fcfb66fdc41312080157586241f4a7e36d62576a38080d952a18c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1Lw0AQhoMoWGpvHj0sePFg6n5n662WTRpJs6WJeAz52JWUNKlJe_Dfu7SC4sxhhpnnHV4Yx7lFcIoxEejpdRMkHGGIOLpwRph4wiUM00vbI05diDm-dibDsIU2PEQImo0cP1UqSoCvNmCxnMeBfAYvSiVpGAcgXUqwkamM01DFQPngXa1kDML4tElSuQLrcC2jMJY3zpXJm0FPfurYefNluli6kQrCxTxyS2sFuZiJqqKmKAphSlNwbqqSImJNC4iYxwTHFBmae5rwimPm8ZwIu6tmDOdIlGTsPJzv7vvu86iHQ7arh1I3Td7q7jhkSHDOqRCCWPT-H7rtjn1r3VkKEkYI9ailpmfqI290VremO_R5abPSu7rsWm1qO59TJhiDEDMreDwLyr4bhl6bbN_Xu7z_yhDMTo_I_jzC4nc_uNZd82uBIsz4jHwDvtx5-g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1803533474</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE</title><source>Central and Eastern European Online Library - CEEOL Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Williams, Joan C ; Phillips, Katherine W</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, Joan C ; Phillips, Katherine W</creatorcontrib><description>This study details how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It is based on in-depth interviews with 60 women scientists of color (chiefly professors), and a survey of 557 women scientists (of all races). Different types of gender bias were reported at different rates. Prescriptive gender bias was most common (76.3% of women interviewed reported it), followed by descriptive gender bias (66.7%) and gender bias triggered by motherhood (64.0%); just over half of the women interviewed (55.3%) reported situations in which gender bias against women fueled conflicts among women. The survey found dramatic differences by race, notably that Black women scientists were more likely than other women to report that they had to prove themselves more than their colleagues, that Asian-American women scientists reported more pressure to behave in feminine ways (and more push-back if they didn’t), and Latina scientists were more likely to be called “angry” or “too emotional” if they behaved assertively. The study concludes by introducing a new approach to organizational change to interrupt gender bias, called Metrics-Based Bias Interrupters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2164-0262</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2378-3524</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.22381/JRGS6120161</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Addleton Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Advisors ; African Americans ; Analysis ; Applied Sociology ; Bias ; Ethnic Minorities Studies ; Gender ; Gender Studies ; Graduate students ; Online instruction ; Organizational change ; Psychologists ; Scientists ; Sexism ; Social differentiation ; STEM education ; Studies ; Surveys ; United States ; White people ; Whites ; Women ; Women scientists ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>Journal of research in gender studies, 2016, Vol.6 (1), p.11-75</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Addleton Academic Publishers</rights><rights>Copyright Addleton Academic Publishers 2016</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-258dd4fbbb8fcfb66fdc41312080157586241f4a7e36d62576a38080d952a18c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttps://www.ceeol.com//api/image/getissuecoverimage?id=picture_2016_26132.jpg</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,21362,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, Joan C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Katherine W</creatorcontrib><title>TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE</title><title>Journal of research in gender studies</title><addtitle>Journal of Research in Gender Studies</addtitle><description>This study details how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It is based on in-depth interviews with 60 women scientists of color (chiefly professors), and a survey of 557 women scientists (of all races). Different types of gender bias were reported at different rates. Prescriptive gender bias was most common (76.3% of women interviewed reported it), followed by descriptive gender bias (66.7%) and gender bias triggered by motherhood (64.0%); just over half of the women interviewed (55.3%) reported situations in which gender bias against women fueled conflicts among women. The survey found dramatic differences by race, notably that Black women scientists were more likely than other women to report that they had to prove themselves more than their colleagues, that Asian-American women scientists reported more pressure to behave in feminine ways (and more push-back if they didn’t), and Latina scientists were more likely to be called “angry” or “too emotional” if they behaved assertively. The study concludes by introducing a new approach to organizational change to interrupt gender bias, called Metrics-Based Bias Interrupters.</description><subject>Advisors</subject><subject>African Americans</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Applied Sociology</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Ethnic Minorities Studies</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Gender Studies</subject><subject>Graduate students</subject><subject>Online instruction</subject><subject>Organizational change</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Sexism</subject><subject>Social differentiation</subject><subject>STEM education</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>White people</subject><subject>Whites</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Women scientists</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>2164-0262</issn><issn>2378-3524</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>REL</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1Lw0AQhoMoWGpvHj0sePFg6n5n662WTRpJs6WJeAz52JWUNKlJe_Dfu7SC4sxhhpnnHV4Yx7lFcIoxEejpdRMkHGGIOLpwRph4wiUM00vbI05diDm-dibDsIU2PEQImo0cP1UqSoCvNmCxnMeBfAYvSiVpGAcgXUqwkamM01DFQPngXa1kDML4tElSuQLrcC2jMJY3zpXJm0FPfurYefNluli6kQrCxTxyS2sFuZiJqqKmKAphSlNwbqqSImJNC4iYxwTHFBmae5rwimPm8ZwIu6tmDOdIlGTsPJzv7vvu86iHQ7arh1I3Td7q7jhkSHDOqRCCWPT-H7rtjn1r3VkKEkYI9ailpmfqI290VremO_R5abPSu7rsWm1qO59TJhiDEDMreDwLyr4bhl6bbN_Xu7z_yhDMTo_I_jzC4nc_uNZd82uBIsz4jHwDvtx5-g</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Williams, Joan C</creator><creator>Phillips, Katherine W</creator><general>Addleton Academic Publishers</general><scope>AE2</scope><scope>REL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE</title><author>Williams, Joan C ; Phillips, Katherine W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-258dd4fbbb8fcfb66fdc41312080157586241f4a7e36d62576a38080d952a18c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Advisors</topic><topic>African Americans</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Applied Sociology</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Ethnic Minorities Studies</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Gender Studies</topic><topic>Graduate students</topic><topic>Online instruction</topic><topic>Organizational change</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Sexism</topic><topic>Social differentiation</topic><topic>STEM education</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>White people</topic><topic>Whites</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Women scientists</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, Joan C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Katherine W</creatorcontrib><collection>Central and Eastern European Online Library (C.E.E.O.L.) (DFG Nationallizenzen)</collection><collection>Central and Eastern European Online Library - CEEOL Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of research in gender studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, Joan C</au><au>Phillips, Katherine W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE</atitle><jtitle>Journal of research in gender studies</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Research in Gender Studies</addtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>11-75</pages><issn>2164-0262</issn><eissn>2378-3524</eissn><abstract>This study details how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). It is based on in-depth interviews with 60 women scientists of color (chiefly professors), and a survey of 557 women scientists (of all races). Different types of gender bias were reported at different rates. Prescriptive gender bias was most common (76.3% of women interviewed reported it), followed by descriptive gender bias (66.7%) and gender bias triggered by motherhood (64.0%); just over half of the women interviewed (55.3%) reported situations in which gender bias against women fueled conflicts among women. The survey found dramatic differences by race, notably that Black women scientists were more likely than other women to report that they had to prove themselves more than their colleagues, that Asian-American women scientists reported more pressure to behave in feminine ways (and more push-back if they didn’t), and Latina scientists were more likely to be called “angry” or “too emotional” if they behaved assertively. The study concludes by introducing a new approach to organizational change to interrupt gender bias, called Metrics-Based Bias Interrupters.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Addleton Academic Publishers</pub><doi>10.22381/JRGS6120161</doi><tpages>65</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2164-0262 |
ispartof | Journal of research in gender studies, 2016, Vol.6 (1), p.11-75 |
issn | 2164-0262 2378-3524 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866648883 |
source | Central and Eastern European Online Library - CEEOL Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Advisors African Americans Analysis Applied Sociology Bias Ethnic Minorities Studies Gender Gender Studies Graduate students Online instruction Organizational change Psychologists Scientists Sexism Social differentiation STEM education Studies Surveys United States White people Whites Women Women scientists Workshops |
title | TOOLS FOR CHANGE: BOOSTING THE RETENTION OF WOMEN IN THE STEM PIPELINE |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T04%3A00%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ceeol_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TOOLS%20FOR%20CHANGE:%20BOOSTING%20THE%20RETENTION%20OF%20WOMEN%20IN%20THE%20STEM%20PIPELINE&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20research%20in%20gender%20studies&rft.au=Williams,%20Joan%20C&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=11-75&rft.issn=2164-0262&rft.eissn=2378-3524&rft_id=info:doi/10.22381/JRGS6120161&rft_dat=%3Cceeol_proqu%3E412569%3C/ceeol_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1803533474&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A458550025&rft_ceeol_id=412569&rfr_iscdi=true |