Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

Project Document: Gender Inequity in STEM

Problem: Gender inequity in STEM in academia and industry within the United States and abroad.

Literature Support:
Gender inequity in STEM fields (in both academia and industry) is a primary issue in the United
States. Despite significant improvements, female scientists continue to face discrimination, unequal
pay and funding disparities. Scientific and community leaders, industry experts, academic scholars,
and the community at large must continue to question why. Although women have made great gains in
closing the scientific gender gap in the United States and abroad, female scientists around the world
continue to face major challenges (Shen, 2013). According to the US National Science Foundation,
women earn about half the doctorates in science and engineering in the United States but comprise
only 21% of full science professors and 5% of full engineering professors. And on average, they earn
just 82% of what male scientists make in the United States — even less in Europe (Shen, 2013). To
figure out why women are underrepresented in STEM fields, one must consider the STEM pipeline
beginning in elementary school all the way through graduate studies. This paper will focus on ways to
improve gender inequity in STEM education at Edmonds Community College.

Researchers have sought to identify factors responsible for the lingering underrepresentation of women
in academic science and corresponding STEM industries. Some evidence suggests that early sex
differences in attitudes toward and interest in STEM fields (such that boys are more likely than girls to
express positive attitudes and interest in STEM) may contribute to the gender disparity, though these
attitudes are likely associated with socialization processes communicating that STEM is more
appropriate for boys and men (vs. girls and women; Ceci et al., 2014). Additionally, women’s
participation may be undermined by a lack of female role models (Dasgupta, 2011; Stout et al., 2011)
and peers (Dasgupta et al., 2015). In addition to these factors, mounting evidence suggests that
persistent gender biases favoring men may undermine women’s progress in STEM (Moss-Racusin, C,
et al., 2016).

Although most would agree that blatant gender discrimination in scientific disciplines within academia
is not common or socially acceptable, Moss-Racusin et al. (2016) noted experimental evidence does
support correlational trends between much more subtle persistent gender biases favoring men and/or
undermining women’s progress. For example, a laboratory experiment demonstrated that
undergraduate participants were more likely to hire a male applicant for a mathematical task relative to
the identical female, even when objective performance data were provided (Reuben et al., 2014). What
is more surprising is that further experimental evidence suggests that gender biases are not limited to
the general population but also observed among STEM participants. For example, both male and
female STEM faculty favored a male lab manager applicant relative to the identical female applicant
(Moss-Racusin et al., 2012) and were more likely to agree to a mentoring meeting with a male doctoral
candidate than with the identical female candidate (Milkman et al., 2015). Based on current research,
Moss-Racusin (2016) and others believe persistent gender biases may significantly undermine
women’s advancement within STEM fields and that developing methods to reduce gender bias may
help to broaden women’s participation, persistence, and retention in both academia and in STEM
careers.
Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

Gender Bias Focus:

Because STEM educators are responsible for training, evaluating, and mentoring the next generation of
scientists, their participation is essential in the reduction of gender bias. STEM educators have the
opportunity to either perpetuate or interrupt the transmission of existing gender biases to the next
generation of scientists and participatory action research is a particularly good approach for tackling
this issue as egalitarian attitudes themselves are insufficient to produce positive changes if they are not
also accompanied by relevant behaviors designed to combat gender bias (Moss-Racusin et al., 2016).
Indeed, people who believe that they are objective often paradoxically express high levels of gender
discrimination, suggesting that biases are frequently unintentional and that egalitarian attitudes do not
necessarily ward off inequitable behaviors (Uhlmann and Cohen, 2007). However, it is important to
remember STEM faculty do not exist in isolation. Although they are the primary contact for delivering
STEM content, they are also one part of the greater campus community that forms a larger ecosystem
that must work together to eliminate gender bias. Therefore, effectively combating gender bias in
STEM requires a full-fledged, systemic institutional approach that involves multiple voices and
education/intervention at all levels.

Rational for this Project Proposal/Document:

As a woman and STEM professional I want to see more women in STEM. As a STEM Dean, I want
to develop and promote opportunities that broaden people’s perspective and help both non-STEM and
STEM faculty to more effectively recruit, retain, and graduate women in STEM. I believe minimizing
gender bias is important, however, it is not an easy task. It requires a commitment to openness, self-
reflection, awareness, and effective interventions foster appreciation and inclusion for all. Developing
such supports requires expertise, knowledge, and funding which is limited due to internal constraints
and enrollment declines in the majority of community colleges throughout the state. Therefore, I have
been working with EdCC’s Grant Director and the Institutional Research department to identify
potential funding opportunities that could be used to support the development of programs and policies
that create a climate that helps educate and eliminate gender bias among both STEM and non-STEM
faculty, staff, and ultimately students in order to increase enrollment, retention, persistence, and
completion of women in STEM fields at EdCC.

Political Climate Impact:

The current political climate has made the search more difficult as there is much more uncertainty
about the commitment to fund science. Many NSF grant solicitations that would normally be posted
are on hold because of the lack of clarity regarding science funding. However, after several months of
reviewing grant funding sources, my team and I (consisting of the grant research director and executive
grant writer) found an NSF-Advance grant that seems to address this issue.

Grant Funding Target – NSF Advance Award:

According to the NSF website, NSF expects to make: approximately six Adaptation awards up to
$1,000,000 for three years. We believe this is an appropriate grant because the goals of the
ADVANCE program are as follows:
(1) To develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women
in academic STEM careers.
(2) To develop innovative and sustainable ways to promote gender equity that involve both
men and women in the STEM academic workforce.
(3) To contribute to the research knowledge base on gender equity and the intersection of
gender and other identities in STEM academic careers.
Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

In addition, all projects are expected to build on prior ADVANCE work and gender equity research
and literature to broaden the implementation of organizational and systemic strategies to foster gender
equity in STEM academic careers. This aspect is particularly important to me in that STEM faculty
(and EdCC STEM faculty in particular) are extremely focused on evidence based research. Previous
previous ADVANCE work will provide scientifically recognized resources that are likely to be
perceived as more legitimate than other, less recognized, non-NSF supported programs. The
corresponding Adaptation track supports the adaptation and implementation of evidence-based
organizational change strategies, ideally from among those developed and implemented by
ADVANCE projects.

Institutional Research Data:

Unlike many other NSF grants, this particular grant is focused on inequity among STEM faculty, not
STEM students. After identifying this grant as a significant possibility, our team began working with
EdCC’s institutional research department to determine if we met the preliminary requirements that
begin with inequity among male and female STEM faculty. Preliminary research from our IR
department indicated the following.

 EdCC Preliminary Data

o F:M ratio (FT faculty) 57:43
o F:M ratio (STEM FT faculty) 45:55
o This is slightly off due to HR data which will be updated
o PT faculty ratio will be obtained and added to the data
 Departments with high gender inequity:
o Engineering – 4 male faculty, No FT female faculty
o CS – 3 FT male faculty, 1 FT female faculty
o CIS – 5 FT male faculty (tenured or in tenure track), No FT female faculty

Although more data is needed, the initial data above shows there is gender inequity in EdCC’s STEM
division (F:M ration of 45:55) and there are some departments with high levels of gender inequity as
indicated by a disproportionate ratio of M:F faculty (engineering, computer science, and computer
information systems).

Reason for Pursuing NSF-Advance Grant

After reviewing the solicitation, talking with our grant team, and reviewing the preliminary data, the
core research team decided to approach STEM faculty and purse the grant for the following reasons:

 Preliminary data review supports this grant application (additional data is needed and being
collected now).
 EdCC has the institutional mission and values of diversity, equity, and innovation that support
the objectives of this grant.
 EdCC has the institutional structure in place to facilitate the implementation of this grant
(Associate Vice President for Equity and Inclusion as well as Office of Planning, Research, and
Assessment).
 Increasing the diversity of our faculty benefits our diverse student body.
 Preliminary data review supports this grant application (additional data is needed and being
collected now).
Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

 We would be the first community college in WA to implement ADVANCE, which would

strengthen EdCC’s identity and differentiate the college and its STEM department from other
WA state CCs – attractive to other funders and students.
 This grant would allow us to continue and/or extend the work done with the RiSE grant.
 This award would significantly increase the likelihood of ADVANCE Institutional
Transformation or Partnership track funding.

Faculty Input/Discussion
The above information was presented to the STEM faculty at the May 5, 2017 division meeting along
with a larger discussion of possible grant funding opportunities for the future. Faculty were interested
in exploring this grant possibility so the core team created a survey to better gage faculty interest. The
survey was completed and reviewed early last week by staff from the Grants office, IR, the Office of
Equity/Diversity, the EVPI’s office, the Faculty Senate President, and myself. The anonymous survey
was then sent to all STEM faculty (both FT and PT) last week with a request for completed submission
by Friday, June 2. The survey is provided in Attachment A.

Next Steps
The results of the survey will be assessed and analyzed. If the team determines we are eligible and we
do move forward, I will reach out to faculty to form a small coalition of the willing (from both STEM
and non-STEM disciplines). This group of faculty will work with the Grants Office, IR, the Office of
Equity and Diversity, and myself to formalize the proposal before the September submission date. The
proposal will utilize the participatory action research model in that it will be collaborative, the subjects
will also be the researchers, and the results will continue to shape the direction of the study. Although
specifics have not yet been determined, all activities and/or interventions will require participating
individuals (and hopefully the entire campus) to question their own assumptions about gender inequity.
Previous research has demonstrated that the use of a promotion focus (relative to a prevention focus) is
often associated with superior performance across a host of different types of tasks (Crowe and
Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 1997; Moss-Racusin and Rudman, 2010; Rudman et al., 2012), including
behavior related to bias and diversity (Trawalter and Richeson, 2006; Does et al., 2011). In addition,
interventions will also increase attendees’ readiness to take action on diversity-related issues as other
studies by Moss-Racusin et al. (2014) indicate this approach is more effective for reducing subtle
gender bias.

Tentative Research Framework:

The tentative framework we intend to use will be based on a study done by Moss-Racusin et al. (2016)
which identified four design elements shared by successful interventions and recommended the
targeting and assessment of at least three key measurable outcome variables.

Essential design elements were as follows:

1. Interventions based on theory and empirical evidence, rather than intuition.
2. Approaches that utilize active learning to foster participants’ dynamic engagement with
workshop content.
3. Presentation of diversity as a shared goal and responsibility rather than as the fault of one group
or individual.
4. Incorporation of rigorous evaluation to assess the intervention’s efficacy.

Essential outcomes will be to:

Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

1. Increase in participants’ awareness of diversity issues.

2. Reduction of participants’ biases.
3. Preparedness of participants to take action on diversity-related issues rather than avoid diversity
challenges.

References:

Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM (2014). Women in academic science: a changing landscape.
Psychol Sci Pub Int 15, 75–141.

Crowe E, Higgins ET (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision-
making. Organ Behav Hum 69, 117–132.

Dasgupta D (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: the stereotype
inoculation model. Psychol Inq 22, 231–246.

Dasgupta N, Scircle MM, Hunsinger M (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s
motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112, 4988–
4993.

Higgins ET, Shah J, Friedman R (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of regulatory focus as
a moderator. J Pers Soc Psychol 72, 515–525

Milkman KL, Akinola M, Chugh D (2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and
representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. J Appl Psychol 100, 1678–1712.

Moss-Racusin CA, Rudman LA (2010). Disruptions in women’s self-promotion: the backlash avoidance model.
Psychol Women Quart 34, 186– 202.

Moss-Racusin CA, van der Toorn J, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J (2014). Scientific
diversity interventions. Science 343, 615–616.

Moss-Racusin CA, van der Toorn, J, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham, MJ, Handelsman J (2016). A “scientific
diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a sample of life scientists. CBE Life Sciences Education.
doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-09-0187.

National Science Foundation (NSF) (2008). Thirty-Three Years of Women in S&E Faculty Positions.
www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308 (accessed 23 May 2017).

NSF (2012). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.
www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme2.cfm (accessed 24 May 2017).

Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 111, 4403–4408.

Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Glick P, Phelan JE (2012). Reactions to vanguards: advances in backlash
theory. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. PG Devine and EA Plant, New York: Elsevier,
167–227.

Shen, H (2016). Inequity quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature News. doi:10.1038/495022a.
Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA (2011). STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to
inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J Pers Soc
Psychol 100, 255–270.

Uhlmann EL, Cohen GL (2007). “I think it, therefore it’s true”: effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring
discrimination. Organ Behav Hum Dec 104, 207–223.

Trawalter S, Richeson JA (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions. J Exp
Soc Psychol 42, 406–412.
Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

Attachment A – ADVANCE Faculty Survey

The survey consisted of 10 questions geared toward – Please see below.

Carey Schroyer AHE 555 Action Research Project (Final Project)

ADVANCE Faculty Survey Questions:

1. EdCC provides career opportunities that allow both men and women the same opportunity to follow
a career path and grow within the organization.
(Strongly Agree ------Strongly Disagree)

2. EdCC encourages senior management to communicate support for flexible work options and
encourage employees to use flextime when needed.

3. EdCC trains managers on how to effectively manage workers who are using flexible work options.
EdCC informs employees of their rights and obligations in terms of flexible work options.

4. EdCC periodically assesses employee needs regarding dependent care and provides appropriate
private spaces for breastfeeding mothers.

5. EdCC offers flexible training and professional development opportunities that account for childcare
or elderly care responsibilities.

6. EdCC addresses issues that may prevent women from attending organization and/or training events,
including timing, venue, and security concerns.

7. EdCC devotes sufficient human, financial, and technical resources to the implementation of
measures aimed at ensuring gender equity.

8. Within my department, both women and men have equal opportunities for promotion
 Women are significantly disadvantaged
 Women are slightly disadvantaged
 No gender difference
 Men are slightly disadvantaged
 Men are significantly disadvantaged

9. Within my department, both women and men have equal opportunities for career development
opportunities.
 Women are significantly disadvantaged
 Women are slightly disadvantaged
 No gender difference
 Men are slightly disadvantaged
 Men are significantly disadvantaged

10. I feel I am treated unfavourably/unfairly because of my gender

 Always
 Occasionally
 Never