Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 638, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 141-162

  Goulden, Marc ^a   Mason, Mary Ann ^a   Frasch, Karie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

family formation; family policies; federal agencies; researchers; science; universities; women

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857521675     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: 15523349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716211416925     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adams, James. 2009. Is the U.S. losing its preeminence in higher education? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15233, Cambridge, MA.
2. Allison Paul D.Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 1995.
3. Statement of principles on family responsibilities and academic work. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors; 2001.
4. An agenda for excellence: Creating flexibility in tenure-track faculty careers. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Women in Higher Education; 2005.
5. Blake Margaret,Valle Ivana LaWho applies for research funding? Key factors shaping funding application behaviour among women and men in British higher education institutions. London: National Centre for Social Research; 2000.
6. Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers. Burke RonaldMattis Mary, ed. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2007.
7. Ceci Stephen,Williams Wendy,Barnett Susan M.The underrepresentation of women in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations.Psychological Bulletin. 2009;135:172-210.
8. Clark Sheldon 1994. Variations in item content and presentation in the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1973-1991. National Science Foundation Working Paper, Arlington, VA.
9. Cole Jonathan R.,Zuckerman Harriet.Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science.Scientific American. 1987;255:119-25.
10. Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; and Committee on National Statistics.Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
11. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
12. Policy implications of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
13. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century.
14. Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, Land of plenty: Diversity as America's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2000.
15. Cunningham F. Gary,Leveno Kenneth,Bloom Steven,Hauth John,Rouse Dwight,Spong CatherineWilliams obstetrics. 2009. Williams obstetrics. 23rd ed.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2009.
16. Davis Geoff.Doctors without orders: Highlights of the Sigma Xi postdoc survey.American Scientist. 2005;93 (3 Suppl.).
17. Drago Robert,Colbeck Carol,Stauffer Kai Dawn,Pirretti Amy,Burkum Kurt,Fazioli Jennifer,Lazarro Gabriela,Habasevich Tara.Bias against caregiving: Faculty members rarely take advantage of family-friendly workplace policies. What are we so afraid of?.Academe. 2004;91 (5): 22-25.
18. FraschKarieGouldenMarcMasonMary Ann. 2008a. Federal agency grants, contracts, and family accommodation policies and programs survey. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/Federal%20Agency%20Survey.
19. FraschKarieGouldenMarcMasonMary Ann. 2008b. University's family accommodations policies and programs for researchers survey. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/AAU%20Family%20Friendly%20Policies%20Survey.html.
20. Galama Titus,Hosek JamesU.S. competitiveness in science and technology. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute; 2008.
21. Ginther Donna K.Atlanta, GA:; 2001. Does science discriminate against women? Evidence from academia, 1973-97. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper 2001-2, Atlanta, GA
22. GouldenMarcFraschKarieMasonMary Ann. 2008. Survey of University of California postdoctoral scholars on career and life issues. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/UC%20Postdoctoral%20Survey.html.
23. Goulden Marc,Frasch Karie,Mason Mary AnnStaying competitive: Patching America's leaky pipeline in the sciences. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center on Health, Economic, & Family Security and the Center for American Progress; 2009.
24. GouldenMarcMasonMary Ann. 2006. Survey of University of California doctoral students on career, family, and life plans. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/grad%20life%20survey.html.
25. Grant Jonathan,Low LawrenceWomen and peer review: An audit of the Wellcome Trust's decision making on grants. London: Wellcome Trust; 1997.
26. Hill Derek,Rapoport Alan I.,Lehming Rolf F.,Bell Robert K.Changing U.S. output of scientific articles: 1988-2003. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2007.
27. Hosek Susan D.,Cox Amy G.,Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar,Kofner Aaron,Ramphal Nishal,Scott Jon,Berr Sandra H., Gender differences in major federal external grant programs, Technical report of the RAND infrastructure, safety, and environment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2005.
28. Jackson Shirley AnnEnvisioning a 21st century science and engineering workforce for the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
29. Jacobs Janis.Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: What have we learned?.New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2005;11:85-94.
30. Jacobs Jerry A.Gender inequality and higher education.Annual Review of Sociology. 1996;22:153-85.
31. JaschikScott. 18February2005. What Larry Summers said. Inside Higher Education. Available from www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/18/summers2_18.
32. Kazmierczak Mathew,James Josh,Archey WilliamLosing the competitive advantage? The challenge for science and technology in the United States. Washington, DC: American Electronics Association; 2005.
33. Kazmierczak Mathew,James Josh,Archey WilliamWe are still losing the competitive advantage: Now is the time to act. Washington, DC: American Electronics Association; 2007.
34. Lane Neal.U.S. science and technology: An uncoordinated system that seems to work.Technology in Society. 2008;30:248-63.
35. Long J. ScottFrom scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press and National Research Council; 2001.
36. Long J. Scott,Allison Paul D.,McGinnis Robert.Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity.American Sociological Review. 1993;58:703-22.
37. Lubinski David,Benbow Camilla Persson.Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2006;1:316-45.
38. Martinez Elisabeth D.,Botos Jeannine,Dohoney Kathleen M.,Geiman Theresa M.,Kolla Sarah S.,Olivera Ana,Qiu Yi,Rayasam Geetha Vani,Stavreva Diana A.,Cohen-Fi Orna.Falling off the academic bandwagon: Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition.EMBO Reports. 2007;8:977-81.
39. Mason Mary Ann,Goulden Marc.Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women.Academe. 2002;88:21-27.
40. Mason Mary Ann,Goulden Marc.Do babies matter (part II)? Closing the baby gap.Academe. 2004a;90:3-7.
41. Mason Mary Ann,Goulden Marc.Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2004b;596:86-103.
42. Mason Mary Ann,Goulden Marc,Frasch Karie.Why graduate students reject the fast track: A study of thousands of doctoral students shows that they want balanced lives.Academe. 2009;95:11-16.
43. MasonMary AnnStacyAngelicaGouldenMarc. 2002. University of California faculty work and family survey. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/workfamily.htm.
44. MasonMary AnnStacyAngelicaGouldenMarcHoffmanCarolFraschKarie. 2005. University of California faculty family friendly edge: An initiative for tenure-track faculty at the University of California. Available from ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ucfamilyedge.pdf.
45. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Available from web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.pdf.
46. Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2010.
47. Changes to the Survey of Doctorate Recipients in 1991 and 1993: Implications for data users. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation; 1995Arlington, VA; 1995.
48. National Science Foundation (NSF). 15April2008a. National Science Foundation announces graduate research fellows for 2008. Press release 08-062. Available from www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111452.
49. Survey of earned doctorates. Arlington, VA: NSF; 2008b.
50. National Science Foundation (NSF). 2009. FY 2008 annual performance report. Available from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf0922/fy2008_annual_performance_report.pdf.
51. Survey of doctorate recipients. Arlington, VA: NSF; 2010.
52. NelsonDonna. 2007. National analysis of diversity in science & engineering faculties at research universities. Available from http://chem.ou.edu/~djn/diversity/briefings/Diversity%20Report%20Final.pdf.
53. Average age of principal investigators. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008a.
54. Women in research: The involvement of women in career development, Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA training and fellowship programs, and NIH extramural research. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008b.
55. Cost principles for educational institutions. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget; 2000.
56. Perna Laura W.The relationship between family responsibilities and employment status among college and university faculty.Journal of Higher Education. 2001;72:584-611.
57. Rosenbloom Joshua,Ash Ronald A.,Dupont Brandon,Coder LeAnne.Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices.Journal of Economic Psychology. 2008;29 (4): 543-54.
58. Schaffer Walter T.Women in biomedical research. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008.
59. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Educational attainment in the United States: 2008. Available from www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2008.html.
60. Valian VirginiaWhy so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
61. Van Anders Sari.Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors.Sex Roles. 2004;51:511-21.
62. Ward Kelly,Wolf-Wendel Lisa.Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities.Review of Higher Education. 2004;27 (2): 233-57.
63. Williams JoanUnbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
64. Williams Joan.Hitting the maternal wall.Academe. 2004;90:8-12.
65. Wolfinger Nicholas,Mason Mary Ann,Goulden Marc.Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower.Journal of Higher Education. 2008;79 (4): 388-405.
66. ZedeckSheldonStacyAngelicaGouldenMarc. 2009. Survey of University of California, Berkeley faculty on workplace climate and career/life issues. Available from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/UCB%20Faculty%20Climate%20Survey.html.