Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Patching the “Leaky Pipeline”: Interventions for Women of Color Faculty in STEM Academia

Patching the “Leaky Pipeline”: Interventions for Women of Color Faculty in STEM Academia Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 32–39 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Patching the “Leaky Pipeline”: Interventions for Women of Color Faculty in STEM Academia Sin-Ning C. Liu, Stephanie E. V. Brown, and Isaac E. Sabat Texas A&M University ABSTRACT The “leaky pipeline” entails the progressive loss of competent women faculty members in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These leaks have been identified at various career stages, including selection, promotion, and retention. Efforts to increase female representation in STEM academia have had mixed results: Although the overall percentage of STEM women faculty has increased in recent decades, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. These differential effects may stem from the fact that most existing interventions for increasing female representation in STEM academia have not been intersectional in nature. However, when the intersec- tionality of raceethnicity and gender are accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, intersectionality theory is employed to identify the specific barriers in selection, promotion, and retention faced by WOCF within the scope of academic STEM careers and to identify the types of interventions that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks. In doing so, this article provides a framework for future research in the area of improving diversity and inclusion of WOCF in STEM. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT There has been a great deal of research on the concept of the “leaky pipeline,” which is the progressive loss of competent women faculty in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Research has shown that women academics are less likely than men to be selected, promoted, and retained in STEM departments. In recent years, there have been programs to increase the representation of women in STEM departments, which have resulted in increasing the overall percentage of STEM women faculty in the United States. However, despite these efforts, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. This simultaneous increase in overall numbers of women faculty in STEM and decrease in numbers of women of color faculty in STEM might be because these programs did not consider intersectional barriers. When the intersectionality of raceethnicity and gender is accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, we consider the unique challenges faced by WOCF in STEM departments within selection, promotion, and retention. Furthermore, we identify the types of interventions and programs that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks within the pipeline. Last, we call for more research to be conducted to assess whether these programs are actually helpful in remediating these disparities for women of color in STEM departments. Keywords: leaky pipeline, STEM, women of color, intersectionality The “leaky pipeline” entails the progressive loss of competent Gonzalez, & Wanat, 2008; Schroeder et al., 2013). These leaks have women in a variety of disciplines, most prevalently in the fields of been identified at various career stages, including the bachelor’s-to- science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Barr, PhD pipeline, and at the academic employment stages of selection This article was published November 25, 2019. Sin-Ning C. Liu, Stephanie E. V. Brown, and Isaac E. Sabat, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Isaac E. Sabat, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843. E-mail: isaacsabat@gmail.com This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 33 (S. L. Morgan, Gelbgiser, & Weeden, 2013), promotion (Ong, Wright, 1244). The literature suggests that the combination of different mi- Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011), and retention (Turner, 2002). The “evap- nority identities (e.g., raceethnicity and gender) has a greater effect oration” of women out of the STEM pipeline has dire impacts on on stress than each identity does on its own (Cole, 2008; Kachchaf, scientific advancement as a whole—investing in the potential of all Ko, Hodari, & Ong, 2015). Moreover, WOCF perceive that their scientists is crucial in an increasingly globalized and technology- dual-minority status of being both female and non-White hinders driven society. This underrepresentation of women in STEM has been career success in the form of the “double bind”—challenges that seen as simultaneously progressive (the proportion of women contin- WOCF uniquely face in their STEM fields (S. M. Malcom, Hall, & ues to shrink as one traverses the pipeline) and persistent (the leaky Brown, 1976). To develop effective and equitable intervention strat- pipeline problem has not been alleviated despite efforts to treat it; egies, one cannot ignore the unique workplace experiences that are Chesler, Barabino, Bhatia, & Richards-Kortum, 2010; Cronin & brought about by the intersection of race and gender (Kachchaf et al., Roger, 1999). 2015; Pittman, 2010; J. W. Smith & Calasanti, 2005). The barriers Efforts to increase female representation in STEM academia in the facing WOCF are unique, and the solutions brought forth by research- United States have had mixed effects. There has been an increase in the ers, faculty members, and administrators must intentionally account percentage of women pursuing and obtaining postgraduate STEM de- for intersections of race and gender (Brown & Liu, 2018). Indeed, grees in recent decades. According to the National Center for Science and research has shown that when the intersectionality of raceethnicity Engineering Statistics (2017), of the PhD degrees awarded to U.S. citi- and gender are accounted for in the creation and implementation of zens and permanent residents, 10.19% were awarded to women of color interventions, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel (WOC) in 2004 and 11.96% were awarded to WOC in 2014, which is like they are important to the institution (G. D. Thomas & Hollens- comparable to the 12.5% of WOC within the U.S (Ginther & Kahn, head, 2001; Turner, González, & Wong [Lau], 2011). 2013). In a similar way, 32.39% of these PhD degrees were granted to Thus, in this article, we employ intersectionality theory to identify White women in 2004 and 30.11% were granted to White women in some of the specific barriers in selection, promotion, and retention 2014 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2017), faced by WOCF within the scope of academic STEM careers. Then, which is comparable to the 36.2% of White women within the United we examine organization-level interventions that may be particularly States (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). effective at fixing these leaks, given the extant literature. Last, we However, despite these advances in postsecondary STEM educa- explain how other interventions that have been suggested in the tion, WOC continue to make up only 5.1% of non-tenure-track faculty literature may be less effective at addressing each of these barriers. It and merely 2.3% of tenure-track or tenured faculty, whereas White is important to note that there is a dearth of research regarding women make up 38.5% of non-tenure-track faculty and 23.4% of strategies for supporting WOCF in STEM at the organizational level tenure-track or tenured faculty (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). Thus, al- and that much of the extant literature has focused on either race or though the number of White women and WOC PhD STEM graduates gender when addressing the leaky pipeline of the STEM academia. is proportional to the percentages of White women and WOC in the Thus, although we propose that certain strategies may be more effec- U.S. population, there is a major underrepresentation of WOC in tive than others, additional research needs to be conducted to compare STEM at the faculty level. Though it is clear that the overall number the relative effects of these strategies. of women in STEM faculty positions is increasing, not all groups of women are experiencing these same advancements. Indeed, when the Barrier to Selection: Implicit Bias numbers of women in STEM fields are parsed out, White women and Commitment to diversity in STEM fields must start at the begin- Asian women are overrepresented in the STEM workforce, whereas ning of the pipeline, with the academic hiring process. This barrier is Black and Hispanic women are significantly underrepresented (Funk especially important, given that fixing subsequent leaks in isolation & Parker, 2018; National Science Board, 2012). would be minimally productive without equal numbers of WOCF Furthermore, women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM are more entering academia. Research from social psychology and intersec- likely to be employed in less prestigious settings (i.e., 2-year and tional feminist literatures inform the specific barriers faced by WOCF non-doctoral-granting 4-year colleges and universities), compared to within STEM faculty selection. Specifically, this research shows that their White female and minority male counterparts. And they are more WOCF face a set of unique stereotypes that are not experienced by likely to be in non-tenure-track positions (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). White women or men of color, including stereotypes that they are However, when they do retain a tenure-track position, women of color angry, aggressive, irrational, overly assertive, and unstable (Ashley, perform equally well, rising through the ranks at a pace similar to that 2014). These stereotypes likely cause WOCF to experience height- of White women’s (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). Thus, although it seems ened barriers within academic selection systems, which often rely that interventions to increase the proportion of women in STEM heavily on subjective perceptions of fit and likability (García, Post- faculty positions have begun to make an impact, they do not appear to huma, & Colella, 2008). Additionally, Harrison and Thomas (2009) be as successful for equalizing the proportion of WOC faculty (Na- examined biases associated with skin color and found that Black tional Science Board, 2012). This may be because the vast majority of women with lighter skin were favored over Black women with darker existing interventions for increasing female representation in STEM skin during the selection process. These manifestations of implicit are not intersectional in nature (Jovanovic & Armstrong, 2014). Thus, bias displayed during the evaluation phase are important to identify within the current article, we employ intersectionality theory to iden- and remediate, given that they directly translate to fewer WOCF tify the unique barriers faced by WOCF, as well as potential strategies entering the pipeline. Thus, it is critically important for interventions to overcome those barriers, in U.S. academic institutions. to focus on dismantling these unique and harmful stereotypes. The Role of Intersectionality in the STEM Academia Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Selection In her introduction of intersectionality theory, Crenshaw (1991) posited that the “intersection of racism and sexism factors into Given the extant literature on interventions to reduce barriers to [WOC’s] lives in ways that cannot be captured wholly by looking at selection systems, we suggest that implicit bias training might be the the race or gender dimensions of those experiences separately” (p. most effective intervention, whereas targeted hiring and increasing This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 34 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT search committee diversity may be less effective strategies. However, being targeted in order to address the selection challenges faced by because most of the existing interventions target either women faculty WOCF in STEM (Diggs, Garrison-Wade, Estrada, & Galindo, 2009; or faculty of color—not WOCF specifically—it is difficult to evaluate D. G. Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, & Richards, 2004). Thus, it has been the costs and benefits of these interventions relative to each other suggested that search committees for STEM departments always when considering the leaky pipeline for WOCF. Thus, we highlight include diversity along racialethnic and gender lines (McNeely & future research that is needed to compare the relative effectiveness of Vlaicu, 2010). This balanced representation on faculty search com- these strategies for reducing biases against WOCF within STEM mittees is thought to increase the likelihood of building a rich, diverse faculty selection systems. candidate pool from which to select and recruit STEM faculty (Diggs et al., 2009; D. G. Smith et al., 2004). Accordingly, this strategy is thought to increase the chances of ultimately selecting WOCF (Bili- Implicit Bias Training moria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). To address the barrier of implicit bias in faculty selection systems, This intervention is potentially problematic given that it increases we propose that department chairs and search committee members service-related burdens for the few existing WOCF in STEM depart- attend mandatory implicit bias training programs to help search com- ments (Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014). Additionally, these mittees realize that their prototypical models of STEM academics may procedures do not ensure a lack of bias within the hiring committee, be biasing them against hiring WOCF. All individuals who are in- even if a diverse committee is assembled. According to Kayes (2006), volved with search committees should undergo such training, regard- “diverse candidate pools do not necessarily result in diverse hires less of their gender or race, because all individuals are vulnerable to because institutional, departmental, and search committee cultures can holding implicit biases (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014). These overtly and covertly undermine the goal of faculty/staff diversity” (p. training programs should focus on the unique stereotypes facing each 65). Thus, it is instrumental that search committees undergo implicit individual and intersectional identity group, as well as the subtle, bias training to educate them about the “biases, assumptions, and unintentional ways that these biases manifest within selection sys- stereotypes that influence their perceptions, judgments and decisions” tems. The most effective implicit bias training programs focus on (Kayes, 2006, p. 69). empirical research (e.g., providing information that disconfirms com- monly held stereotypes) rather than emotional or moral appeals, Barrier to Retention: Social Isolation provide procedures for countering bias, and use local climate indica- tors; these training programs have been shown to be effective in Once they are selected into STEM departments, WOCF are often reducing bias and improving attitudes toward diversity (Jackson et al., doubly isolated from social support networks. Specifically, their ra- 2014). Implicit bias training often includes perspective-taking exer- cialethnic and gender identities (which differ from that of the cises (Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011), promotes prototypical White, male scientist) cause them to stand apart from multiculturalism over colorblindness (Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Witten- others in their academic community, and their scientistscholar iden- brink, 2000), and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging one’s tities may cause them to feel separated from their racialethnic own bias in order to effectively reduce implicit bias (Carnes et al., community (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011). As a result, many 2012). Indeed, search committee implicit bias training programs have WOCF have reported feeling invisible and isolated in their depart- been launched at a number of institutions, resulting in successful ments (Constantine, Smith, Redington, & Owens, 2008; Turner & improvements in faculty diversity in STEM departments (J. L. Smith, Myers, 2000). Furthermore, the STEM academia has not paid ade- Handley, Zale, Rushing, & Potvin, 2015). quate attention to the desire for WOCF to contribute to their racial- ethnic communities, which may serve to further isolate WOCF (Constantine et al., 2008; Turner, 2002). Many of these faculty are Targeted Hiring forced to navigate the muddy waters of maintaining their personal The literature has suggested that targeted hiring—where hires are identities alone, because there are often too few WOCF to provide often sponsored by the university in an effort to more proactively them with meaningful mentoring relationships (Rankins, Rankins, & recruit minority faculty—can help with the selection challenges faced Inniss, 2014). by WOCF in STEM academia (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011). WOCF also experience greater levels of subtle workplace discrim- Indeed, research has shown that these targeted hiring strategies do ination, including incivility, microaggressions, and ostracism (Carter- increase the chance that minority candidates are recruited and ulti- Sowell & Zimmerman, 2015). This is problematic given that subtle mately selected into these positions (Bilimoria & Buch, 2010; Gasman discrimination can be more harmful than is overt discrimination due to et al., 2011) However, this strategy in isolation may not be as effective its ambiguity, which causes increased mental rumination (Jones, Ped- for hiring WOCF in STEM departments. Targeted hiring can often die, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2016) and allows perpetrators to justify incur backlash from majority members (Dover, Major, & Kaiser, their actions (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013; 2016), especially when there are persistent biases against these Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, & Xu, 2016). Academic incivility and groups. Furthermore, such policies do not necessarily address what bullying have been shown to have lasting personal and professional Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) refer to as the “fundamental Whiteness repercussions for the targets of these behaviors (Frazier, 2011; Keas- of [university] policies and practices” (p. 560). Believing that racial hly & Neuman, 2010). Johnson-Bailey (2015) asserted that and gender equity will be achieved by simply hiring WOCF neither when you introduce race and gender, bullying and incivility can occur addresses the need for awareness of and action against the systemic regardless of rank. Therefore, a junior male faculty member can effec- issues facing WOCF in academia nor produces real education on bias tively bully a senior woman colleague, or a White colleague of lesser rank awareness and reduction. can bully a higher ranking faculty member of color. (p. 43) Put simply—regardless of rank or time spent in the pipeline, WOCF Increasing Search Committee Diversity are targeted above and beyond their White male and female counter- The literature has also suggested that the diversity of the faculty parts, increasing their chances of leaving, or leaking, from the pipe- search committee be maximized along the forms of diversity that are line. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 35 In addition to experiences of isolation and mistreatment, STEM judgmental, and relationship based” writing groups that serve to WOCF often find that their students and colleagues are more likely to provide support, accountability, and peer reviews for group and indi- challenge their expertise in the classroom and the field (Pittman, vidual writing. Results from similarly structured writing groups show 2010). Thus, WOCF may feel pressure to go above and beyond to increases in collaborative research, strengthened professional net- prove their expertise and garner respect from others (Ford, 2011), works, and heightened feelings of emotional and professional support which can be cognitively and physically draining. These negative (Penny et al., 2015, p. 458). experiences likely contribute to the increased turnover of WOCF in Additionally, there are support structures for WOCF in STEM STEM (Turner, 2002). beyond the institution level. For example, the STEM Women of Even when they are faced with mistreatment, WOCF are expected Color Conclave and the Minority Women in Science Network are not to rock the boat of the STEM academia. The cultural norms that examples of professional organizations for WOC in STEM—as socialize girls to “play nice” as children continue to urge women to well as their allies—to gather. These organizations are opportuni- play nice at their workplaces as adults. Women who break this norm ties for networking, mentoring, collaboration, and cooperating on and actively resist incivility or bullying are often treated negatively advocacy efforts (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Rankins et al., (Babcock, LaSchever, Gelfand, & Small, 2003; Sandberg, 2013). The 2014). cultural call to play nice differentially affects some minority women faculty. Namely, Black women faculty often have to avoid conform- Mentorship Programs ing to the “angry Black woman” trope, which becomes an emotional There is a host of literature addressing the role of mentorship in burden when faced with the injustice of workplace incivility or retaining minority faculty in the academic pipeline (e.g., Dawson, academic bullying (Ashley, 2014; M. Morgan & Bennett, 2006). Bernstein, & Bekki, 2015; N. Thomas et al., 2015; Turner, 2002). It Alternatively, Asian women (who are often viewed as less out of place is well established that mentor–mentee relationships can help level the in STEM due to so-called model-minority stereotypes) are often playing field for minority faculty in STEM fields. A mentors serve as stereotyped as submissive and passive, and failure to conform to that guide for mentees and introduce them to the culture, conduct, and pattern by confronting mistreatment can cause others to perceive them traditions of the field (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011). They can also as hyperaggressive (Berdahl & Min, 2012). help mentees with professional development and goal setting (Daw- In sum, isolation experienced by WOCF in STEM may exacerbate son et al., 2015). Additionally, mentorship can serve as a source of the negative outcomes of experienced workplace mistreatment. We psychosocial support, which could serve as a buffer against mentees’ posit that interventions providing increased social support can assuage feelings of isolation (Turner & Myers, 2000). Payne, Thompson, and the feelings of isolation for WOCF in STEM departments and serve as Pesonen (2011) found that that women faculty and faculty of color a buffer against workplace incivility, ostracism, and bullying. Ulti- reported significantly stronger needs for career-related mentoring, mately, we believe that social support can serve to satisfy WOCF’s psychosocial mentoring, and role model mentoring, compared to their need to belong (Leary & Baumeister, 2017) and help WOCF remain majority counterparts. in the STEM academic pipeline. Although we agree that WOCF could benefit from mentorship programs, we view mentorship as a less effective strategy for pre- Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Retention venting turnover. Due to the paucity of WOCF who can serve as We propose that creating social support networks might be the most mentors, WOCF mentees are frequently paired with mentors who are effective intervention to address the barriers to retention for WOCF in demographically dissimilar from themselves (i.e., male or White). STEM and that mentorship programs are a less effective strategy. This is problematic because research has shown that WOCF mentees However, these interventions have not been specifically examined feel that it is important to have a mentor who is similar to them in with WOCF in mind. Thus, more empirical research is needed to test terms of race and gender (Blake-Beard, Bayne, Crosby, & Muller, the effectiveness of these two strategies at combatting the experiences 2011). Furthermore, when mentors and mentees are both minorities, of chilly climate faced by WOCF in STEM. mentees receive more instrumental and psychosocial support and feel more satisfied with the mentorship (Adusei-Asante, 2018; Ortiz- Walters & Gilson, 2005). Although there is evidence that demo- Creating Social Support Networks graphic similarity is not necessary for fostering effective mentoring In many institutions, WOCF are dispersed among many different relationships (P. R. Hernandez, Estrada, Woodcock, & Schultz, 2017), departments and academic areas, which can cause feelings of alien- mentees are likely to seek out mentors who can better relate to their ation and loneliness. Social groups (similar to employee resource personal experiences (Brunsma, Embrick, & Shin, 2017; K. M. groups) can promote networking, facilitate camaraderie, and provide Thomas, Willis, & Davis, 2007). Thus, it is possible that mentors who social and emotional support for WOCF (Xu & Martin, 2011). By are men and/or White may be less able to fully support colleagues facilitating opportunities to meet and participate in social and aca- facing specific issues pertaining to their gender and race (i.e., WOCF). demic activities, institutions can combat the feelings of alienation, Additionally, not all mentorship is created equal; Noy and Ray (2012) isolation, and tokenism that WOCF often feel within their STEM found that when it came to adviser support, women of color graduate departments (N. Thomas, Bystydzienski, & Desai, 2015; Turner, students were the most disadvantaged, compared to all other groups of 2002). These opportunities for social interactions among WOCF graduate students. This finding may be due to lack of WOCF mentors. across departments could provide the psychosocial support needed to Thus, typical mentorship programs are likely to be most beneficial to buffer against the negative experiences of incivility and ostracism that junior White, male faculty, thereby exacerbating existing demo- often lead to turnover (N. Thomas et al., 2015). graphic differences in turnover. These social support structures can include peer mentoring circles, seed money for collaborative and interdisciplinary research aimed at Barrier to Promotion: Institutional Housekeeping WOCF, open forums exhibiting research by WOCF, and conferences or symposia for WOCF (Turner, 2002; N. Thomas et al., 2015). Although WOC are underrepresented in STEM faculties across the WOCF can also benefit from the creation of “noncompetitive, non- board, the proportion of WOCF decreases substantially as professorial This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 36 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT rank increases (Villablanca, Beckett, Nettiksimmons, & Howell, Establishing Transparent and Equal Workload Distri- 2011). A primary barrier to advancement for WOCF is the fact that butions within STEM departments, they are often tasked with additional The transparency of institutional policy must extend to tenure and service obligations, known as “institutional housekeeping,” that divert promotion guidelines. Tenure and promotions periods can be stressful, time away from research (Hart, 2016). Research has suggested that but they are even more so if the process seems nebulous and the women in STEM positions perform about three more service jobs per guidelines vague, as described in a study of Latino/a professors year than male faculty members do (Guarino & Borden, 2017). (Urrieta, Méndez, & Rodríguez, 2015). The employment policies of However, because of their double-minority status, WOCF are often the institutions need to be clearly stated, centrally developed, and specifically called upon to teach classes related to racialethnic consistently implemented. Examples of these policies, noted in issues, serve on diversity-specific committees, mentor students of Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2005), include establishing “equitable color and female students, and handle minority and gender affairs evaluation criteria, processes, time frames, and compensation plans— (Ford, 2011). Additionally, El-Alayli, Hansen-Brown, and Ceynar including benefits—for teach type of academic appointment” (pp. (2018) found that students who were academically entitled (i.e., think 37–38). This information should be accessible for new academic they deserve to succeed despite a lack of academic effort) had a hires, and the processes for tenure and promotion at the institution tendency to expect women faculty (but not men faculty) to concede to should be explicitly stated (Hart, 2016). requests for special favors. Upon denial of such requests, these stu- To prevent the exploitation of women and minority faculty mem- dents often reacted negatively, adding to the emotional burden of bers, researchers have suggested that academic institutions enforce institutional housekeeping. even distribution of workloads across departments as well as manda- Indeed, WOCF are often expected to be teachers, mentors, friends, tory annual audits of teaching and service to monitor and adjust these workloads accordingly (Hart, 2016). O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, and a source of inspiration for all women of color, racial minority Waugaman, & Jackson (2017, p. 1181) suggested creating easily men, and White women who are out of place in STEM fields. This accessible “dashboards,” showing low, medium, and high teaching, extra, invisible service burden is a form of “cultural taxation,” which advising, and service levels across campus and departments to better Padilla (1994, p. 26) described as the additional service burden placed pinpoint unequal workloads. WOCF could potentially benefit from on minority faculty to be the primary point of contact for all minority these interventions because the increased transparency of workload students. As faculty spend more time with these students, they have distributions could free WOCF from having to shoulder a dispropor- less time to spend on their own work. tionate amount of institutional housekeeping duties. Without these Although these tasks are inherently well intentioned (to perhaps hidden workloads, WOCF will be able to continue to focus their increase representation and diversity in academia and provide efforts on the research and writing that are most richly rewarded mentorship for racialethnic minority women who are interested during the tenure and promotion processes. in pursuing STEM careers), there is an ironic contradiction in these demands. The small number of WOCF available in STEM depart- Just Say No! ments forces these faculty members to participate in committees more often than their White and/or male colleagues do (Ford, 2011; One strategy that is commonly recommended in both the academic T. J. Hernández & Morales, 1999). Their presence is also quite literature and popular press is for WOCF to simply refuse these salient, causing WOCF to feel intensely scrutinized and judged by additional service requests. This idea centers on the notion that learn- their raceethnicity and or gender (J. W. Smith & Calasanti, ing how to say no encourages women to speak up on behalf of 2005). In the words of L. E. Malcom and Malcom (2011, p. 169), themselves and set firm boundaries on how they spend their time “they are at once highly visible and invisible.” Ultimately, they are (Pyke, 2015). Senior female faculty members are expected to model penalized during the tenure and promotion processes for allocating such behaviors for their junior colleagues. their time to these service committees rather than their research This Just Say No! technique may not be effective for WOCF for pipeline. This issue is exacerbated in top-tier research institutions, several reasons. First, this strategy places the obligation on WOCF to which value research productivity much more than service and undo their own disadvantage and does nothing to address the fact that women are asked to spend more time and energy on non-research- teaching (Baker, 2012; Turner, 2002). Thus, although the voice of related activities and service requests (O’Meara et al., 2017). Second, minority women is crucial to building lasting change in universi- although all women open themselves to criticism by refusing requests, ties, expecting WOCF to act as representatives of all minorities and WOCF are particularly impacted. Stereotypes at the intersection of shoulder the responsibility of addressing diversity-related issues is race and gender open underrepresented WOCF to accusations of being what leads to the disproportionate amount of institutional house- angry, lazy, bossy, unreasonable, and uncooperative (Ashley, 2014). keeping in the first place. Thus, this model must move from Just Say No! to Just Don’t Ask! to avoid pressuring WOC into the service positions that typically detract Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Promotion from their career progression (Pyke, 2015). Just Don’t Ask! highlights the fact that the problem is not with WOCF who refuse such service In this article, we posit that establishing transparent and equal requests but with the overly demanding system placing undue and workload distributions will be the most effective intervention to unequal pressures on them in the first place. reduce the barriers to promotion that WOCF face in the STEM academia, compared to Just Say No! and formally rewarding service Formally Rewarding Service Work work. However, it is important to note that these strategies have not been studied specifically for WOCF in STEM. Thus, future research Some researchers have also suggested formalizing mechanisms to still needs to be conducted to determine which of these interventions reward service work in order to account for these unequal service is the most influential in combating these barriers faced by WOCF in burdens (Reynold & Corda, 2011). Such suggestions include ade- quately documenting both the quality and quantity of service work, STEM academia. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 37 reducing teaching loads for those involved in particularly heavy pipeline using an intersectional framework. There will never be gen- service, and considering service work when discussing salary merit der or racial equity in STEM if the solutions produced continue to increases (Bird, Litt, & Wang, 2004; Roos, 2008). Administrators are leave WOCF behind. often compensated for similar types of service, so it seemingly makes References sense to simply extend the compensation for day-to-day tasks that keep the university running to faculty as well. Adusei-Asante, K. (2018). Do same-demography mentoring programmes make The formalization of service work is problematic for the same any difference to mentees’ learning outcomes? Reflections on the Top Up reason Just Say No! is problematic—formally rewarding service work programme. 2018 STARS Conference proceedings (pp. 1–5). Auckland, does not address the underlying problem of who is being asked to New Zealand: STARS Conference. perform higher amounts of service work in the first place. Formalizing Ashley, W. (2014). The angry Black woman: The impact of pejorative stereo- types on psychotherapy with Black women. Social Work in Public Health, service work may pressure WOCF into believing they need to perform 29, 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2011.619449 extra service work to be competitive. This service work, however, Babcock, L., LaSchever, S., Gelfand, M., & Small, D. (2003). Nice girls don’t takes time away from the research crucial to earning tenure, promo- ask. Harvard Business Review, 81, 14–16. tions, and prestige (especially at top-tier research universities, where Baker, M. (2012). Academic careers and the gender gap. Vancouver, British research will always remain a top priority). Any policies regarding Columbia, Canada: UBC Press. compensation for committee assignments should also account for the Barr, D. A., Gonzalez, M. E., & Wanat, S. F. (2008). The leaky pipeline: emotional burdens felt by those consistently tasked with fighting their Factors associated with early decline in interest in premedical studies among own oppression in a system built on systemic racism and sexism. underrepresented minority undergraduate students. Academic Medicine, 83, Instead, male faculty committed to racial and gender equality should 503–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31816bda16 be required to step up and accept these positions. Furthermore, it Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J. A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and should be made clear that the onus must be on the university admin- Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 141–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00 istration, and not on WOCF, to undo institutional inequity (Fehr, 2011; Bird et al., 2004). Bilimoria, D., & Buch, K. K. (2010). The search is on: Engendering faculty diversity through more effective search and recruitment. Change, 42, 27–32. Conclusion http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.489022 Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating When Crenshaw (1991) first coined the term intersectionality, she inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women highlighted the urgency with which the world must address and faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Manage- correct the dual challenges–also known as the double bind (pp. 12, ment, 47, 423–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225 S. M. Malcom et al., 1976)—faced by the targets of race-and gender- Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: based prejudice. Researchers have identified a multitude of barriers Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work.” NWSA Journal, 16, 194– that impact women in academia but often disregard the unique chal- lenges facing women of color. Solutions for promoting minority Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M. L., Crosby, F. J., & Muller, C. B. (2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the success in STEM academia are often viewed through the lens of either prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j gender or race. Indeed, much of the extant literature has proposed .1540-4560.2011.01717.x strategies targeted at either gender or race, and few have addressed the Brown, S. E. V., & Liu, S.-N. C. (2018). Intersectionally insufficient: A specific challenges faced by WOCF in STEM. Because WOCF ex- necessary expansion of the social-structural lens. Industrial and Organiza- perience injustice at multiple levels, so too must the solutions for these tional Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 296–301. problems address the multiple levels of social injustice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.18 At this point, academics must do more than simply raise aware- Brunsma, D. L., Embrick, D. G., & Shin, J. H. (2017). Graduate students of ness—there are tools, methods, and solutions in the literature for color: Race, racism, and mentoring in the white waters of academia. Soci- correcting the roadblocks for WOCF in STEM fields. Of course, ology of Race and Ethnicity, 3, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2332 advocacy is a crucial step for implementation. However, advocacy 649216681565 Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars- must be paired with action. The solutions we have recommended Winston, A.,... Sheridan, J. T. (2012). Promoting institutional change purposefully engage an intersectional framework to highlight the through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 63–77. unique barriers and best corresponding interventions associated with http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028128 selecting, retaining, and promoting WOCF. Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Zimmerman, C. A. (2015). Hidden in plain sight: To truly address the leaky pipeline challenges faced by WOCF in Locating, validating and advocating the stigma experiences of women of STEM, one must tailor interventions to the unique experiences of color. Sex Roles, 73, 399 – 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015- WOCF. In this article, we highlight strategies that we believe would 0529-2 be less effective to address the selection, retention, and promotion Chesler, N. C., Barabino, G., Bhatia, S. N., & Richards-Kortum, R. (2010). challenges faced by WOCF because many of them fail to account for The pipeline still leaks and more than you think: A status report on gender the intersection of race and gender. However, empirical research is diversity in biomedical engineering. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38, 1928–1935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-9958-9 needed to test the assertions made within this article regarding the Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice relative effectiveness of the different strategies for combating the to theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008- barriers to selection, retention, and promotion for WOCF in STEM 9419-1 academia. Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., & Owens, D. (2008). Racial Although it must be noted that not every intervention is appropriate microaggressions against Black counseling and counseling psychology fac- for every institution, we charge departments, institutions, and aca- ulty: A central challenge in the multicultural counseling movement. Journal demic fields as a whole to think critically about these intersections of of Counseling & Development, 86, 348–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j stigmatization to more effectively identify and fix these leaky pipe- .1556-6678.2008.tb00519.x lines hindering the success of institutions and science as a whole. We Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. encourage researchers to reexamine prior solutions for the leaky (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Ev- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 38 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT idence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579–1605. http://dx.doi Hernández, T. J., & Morales, N. E. (1999). Career, culture, and compromise: .org/10.1177/0149206311418835 Career development experiences of Latinas working in higher education. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, Career Development Quarterly, 48, 45–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. .2161-0045.1999.tb00274.x http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Education, 17, 419–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5 Science Teaching, 36, 637– 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- Johnson-Bailey, J. (2015). Academic incivility and bullying as a gendered and 2736(199908)36:6637::AID-TEA43.0.CO;2-9 racialized phenomena. Adult Learning, 26, 42–47. http://dx.doi.org/10 Dawson, A. E., Bernstein, B. L., & Bekki, J. M. (2015). Providing the .1177/1045159514558414 psychosocial benefits of mentoring to women in STEM: CareerWISE as an Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). online solution. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015, 53–62. http:// Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20142 overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42, 1588–1613. http://dx.doi Diggs, G. A., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2009). .org/10.1177/0149206313506466 Smiling faces and colored spaces: The experiences of faculty of color Jovanovic, J., & Armstrong, M. A. (2014). Mission possible: Empowering pursing tenure in the academy. Urban Review, 41, 312–333. http://dx.doi institutions with strategies for change. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and .org/10.1007/s11256-008-0113-y Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 16, 21–24. Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A., & Ong, M. (2015). Career-life balance for groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j of Diversity in Higher Education, 8, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ .jesp.2015.10.006 a0039068 El-Alayli, A., Hansen-Brown, A. A., & Ceynar, M. (2018). Dancing back- Kayes, P. E. (2006). New paradigms for diversifying faculty and staff in higher wards in high heels: Female professors experience more work demands and education: Uncovering cultural biases in the search and hiring process. special favor requests, particularly from academically entitled students. Sex Multicultural Education, 14, 65–69. Roles, 79, 136–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6 Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher Fehr, C. (2011). What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory communities. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist epistemology and philos- & Praxis, 32, 48–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103 ophy of science (pp. 133–155). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6835- Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for 5_7 interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In B. Ford, K. A. (2011). Race, gender, and bodily (mis)recognitions: Women of Laursen & R. Zukauskiene (Eds.), Interpersonal development (pp. 57–89). color faculty experiences with White students in the college classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 444–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M. (2011). The double bind: The next genera- .2011.0026 tion. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 162–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/ Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion haer.81.2.a84201x508406327 for African-American faculty. Florida Journal of Education Administration Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., & Brown, J. W. (1976). The double bind: The price & Policy, 5, 1–13. of being a minority woman in science (No. 76-R-3). Washington, DC: Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over American Association for the Advancement of Science. workplace equity. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/ McNeely, C. L., & Vlaicu, S. (2010). Exploring institutional hiring trends of 09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/ women in the U.S. STEM professoriate. Review of Policy Research, 27, Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work 781–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00471.x and workplaces. Change, 37, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.6 Morgan, M., & Bennett, D. (2006). Getting off of Black women’s backs: Love .32-39 her or leave her alone. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, García, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the 3, 485–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X06060334 employment interview: The role of similarity, liking and expectations. Morgan, S. L., Gelbgiser, D., & Weeden, K. A. (2013). Feeding the pipeline: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 173–189. Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317907X238708 Research, 42, 989–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008 Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, mi- of color at high selective institutions: A school of education case study. norities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering [Data Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 212–222. http://dx.doi.org/10 files]. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www .1037/a0025130 .nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/data.cfm Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2013). Education and academic career outcomes National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. for women of color in science and engineering. In K. Matchett (Ed.), Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Seeking solutions: Maximizing American talent by advancing women of Noy, S., & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisors: Is color in academia (pp. 71–92). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. there systematic disadvantage in mentorship? Journal of Higher Education, Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: 83, 876–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0036 Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Edu- O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). cation, 58, 672–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2 Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research Harrison, M. S., & Thomas, K. M. (2009). The hidden prejudice in selection: universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educa- A research investigation on skin color bias. Journal of Applied Social tional Research Journal, 54, 1154–1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002 Psychology, 39, 134 –168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008 831217716767 .00433.x Ong, M., Wright, W., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double Hart, J. (2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. Journal of Higher women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Education, 87, 605–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0024 Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Schultz, P. W. (2017). .81.2.t022245n7x4752v2 Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L. L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An exam- more than on demographic match. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, ination of the experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational 450–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405 Behavior, 67, 459–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.09.004 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 39 Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23, 24–27. http://dx.doi coping strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty mem- .org/10.2307/1176259 bers at a research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70, 166–175. Payne, S. C., Thompson, R. J., & Pesonen, A. (2011, April). Mentoring in http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211208 academia: Who needs it? Paper presented at the 26th Annual SIOP Con- Thomas, K. M., Willis, L. A., & Davis, J. (2007). Mentoring minority graduate ference, Chicago, IL. students: Issues and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students. Equal Penny, S., Young, G., Badenhorst, C., Goodnough, K., Hesson, J., Joy, R.,... Opportunities International, 26, 178 –192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ Pelech, S. (2015). Faculty writing groups: A support for women balancing family and career on the academic tightrope. Canadian Journal of Higher Thomas, N., Bystydzienski, J., & Desai, A. (2015). Changing institutional Education, 45, 457–479. culture through peer mentoring of women STEM faculty. Innovative Higher Pittman, C. T. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom: The Education, 40, 143–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9300-9 experiences of women faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Sociology, 38, 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092055X10370120 Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Pyke, K. (2015). Faculty gender inequity and the “just say no to service” Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1027–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10 fairytale. In K. De Welde & A. Stepnick (Eds.), Disrupting the culture of .1037/a0022308 silence: Confronting gender inequality and making change in higher edu- Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple cation (pp. 83–95). Herndon, VA: Stylus. marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 74–93. http://dx.doi.org/10 Rankins, C., Rankins, F., & Inniss, T. (2014). Who is minding the gap? Peer .1080/00221546.2002.11777131 Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wong (Lau), K. (2011). Faculty women 16, 6–8. of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Reynold, L. E., & Corda, K. W. (2011). Faculty identity and the “lesser role”: Higher Education, 4, 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024630 Service to the academy. Journal of the Professoriate, 5, 121–148. Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Roos, P. A. (2008). Together but unequal: Combating gender inequity in the Bittersweet success. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. academy. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13, 185–199. http://dx.doi.org/10 Urrieta, L., Jr., Méndez, L., & Rodríguez, E. (2015). “A moving target”: A .2190/WR.13.2.f critical race analysis of Latina/o faculty experiences, perspectives, and Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, reflections on the tenure and promotion process. International Journal of NY: Knopf. Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 1149–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H. L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D. M., Saul, 09518398.2014.974715 J.,... Horrocks, N. P. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary Villablanca, A. C., Beckett, L., Nettiksimmons, J., & Howell, L. P. (2011). biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063–2069. http:// Career flexibility and family-friendly policies: An NIH-funded study to dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12198 enhance women’s careers in biomedical sciences. Journal of Women’s Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). “We are all for diversity, but . . .” How Health, 20, 1485–1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.2737 faculty hiring committees reproduce Whiteness and practical suggestions for Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing how they can change. Harvard Educational Review, 87, 557–580. http://dx interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on .doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.557 judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting Psychology, 78, 635–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.635 the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. Journal of Higher Xu, Y. J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: Education, 75, 133–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0006 From the aspects of informal professional networking and faculty career Smith, J. L., Handley, I. M., Zale, A. V., Rushing, S., & Potvin, M. A. (2015). development. Gender Issues, 28, 134–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12 Now hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty 147-011-9104-5 gender diversity in STEM. Bioscience, 65, 1084–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10 Zimmerman, C. A., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Xu, X. (2016). Examining .1093/biosci/biv138 workplace ostracism experiences in academia: Understanding how differ- Smith, J. W., & Calasanti, T. (2005). The influences of gender, race and ences in the faculty ranks influence inclusive climates on campus. Frontiers ethnicity on workplace experiences of institutional and social isolation: An in Psychology, 7, 753. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00753 exploratory study of university faculty. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 307–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027321790518735 Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling possibility: Received March 15, 2018 Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Jour- Revision received October 29, 2018 nal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 58–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0035775 Accepted November 16, 2018 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Scientific Psychology American Psychological Association

Patching the “Leaky Pipeline”: Interventions for Women of Color Faculty in STEM Academia

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/patching-the-leaky-pipeline-interventions-for-women-of-color-faculty-FMpHlOBfiv

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
© 2019 American Psychological Association
eISSN
2169-3269
DOI
10.1037/arc0000062
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 32–39 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Patching the “Leaky Pipeline”: Interventions for Women of Color Faculty in STEM Academia Sin-Ning C. Liu, Stephanie E. V. Brown, and Isaac E. Sabat Texas A&M University ABSTRACT The “leaky pipeline” entails the progressive loss of competent women faculty members in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These leaks have been identified at various career stages, including selection, promotion, and retention. Efforts to increase female representation in STEM academia have had mixed results: Although the overall percentage of STEM women faculty has increased in recent decades, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. These differential effects may stem from the fact that most existing interventions for increasing female representation in STEM academia have not been intersectional in nature. However, when the intersec- tionality of raceethnicity and gender are accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, intersectionality theory is employed to identify the specific barriers in selection, promotion, and retention faced by WOCF within the scope of academic STEM careers and to identify the types of interventions that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks. In doing so, this article provides a framework for future research in the area of improving diversity and inclusion of WOCF in STEM. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT There has been a great deal of research on the concept of the “leaky pipeline,” which is the progressive loss of competent women faculty in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Research has shown that women academics are less likely than men to be selected, promoted, and retained in STEM departments. In recent years, there have been programs to increase the representation of women in STEM departments, which have resulted in increasing the overall percentage of STEM women faculty in the United States. However, despite these efforts, the percentage of women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM has decreased. This simultaneous increase in overall numbers of women faculty in STEM and decrease in numbers of women of color faculty in STEM might be because these programs did not consider intersectional barriers. When the intersectionality of raceethnicity and gender is accounted for, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel like they matter to the institution. In this article, we consider the unique challenges faced by WOCF in STEM departments within selection, promotion, and retention. Furthermore, we identify the types of interventions and programs that are likely to be particularly effective at fixing these leaks within the pipeline. Last, we call for more research to be conducted to assess whether these programs are actually helpful in remediating these disparities for women of color in STEM departments. Keywords: leaky pipeline, STEM, women of color, intersectionality The “leaky pipeline” entails the progressive loss of competent Gonzalez, & Wanat, 2008; Schroeder et al., 2013). These leaks have women in a variety of disciplines, most prevalently in the fields of been identified at various career stages, including the bachelor’s-to- science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Barr, PhD pipeline, and at the academic employment stages of selection This article was published November 25, 2019. Sin-Ning C. Liu, Stephanie E. V. Brown, and Isaac E. Sabat, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Isaac E. Sabat, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843. E-mail: isaacsabat@gmail.com This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 33 (S. L. Morgan, Gelbgiser, & Weeden, 2013), promotion (Ong, Wright, 1244). The literature suggests that the combination of different mi- Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011), and retention (Turner, 2002). The “evap- nority identities (e.g., raceethnicity and gender) has a greater effect oration” of women out of the STEM pipeline has dire impacts on on stress than each identity does on its own (Cole, 2008; Kachchaf, scientific advancement as a whole—investing in the potential of all Ko, Hodari, & Ong, 2015). Moreover, WOCF perceive that their scientists is crucial in an increasingly globalized and technology- dual-minority status of being both female and non-White hinders driven society. This underrepresentation of women in STEM has been career success in the form of the “double bind”—challenges that seen as simultaneously progressive (the proportion of women contin- WOCF uniquely face in their STEM fields (S. M. Malcom, Hall, & ues to shrink as one traverses the pipeline) and persistent (the leaky Brown, 1976). To develop effective and equitable intervention strat- pipeline problem has not been alleviated despite efforts to treat it; egies, one cannot ignore the unique workplace experiences that are Chesler, Barabino, Bhatia, & Richards-Kortum, 2010; Cronin & brought about by the intersection of race and gender (Kachchaf et al., Roger, 1999). 2015; Pittman, 2010; J. W. Smith & Calasanti, 2005). The barriers Efforts to increase female representation in STEM academia in the facing WOCF are unique, and the solutions brought forth by research- United States have had mixed effects. There has been an increase in the ers, faculty members, and administrators must intentionally account percentage of women pursuing and obtaining postgraduate STEM de- for intersections of race and gender (Brown & Liu, 2018). Indeed, grees in recent decades. According to the National Center for Science and research has shown that when the intersectionality of raceethnicity Engineering Statistics (2017), of the PhD degrees awarded to U.S. citi- and gender are accounted for in the creation and implementation of zens and permanent residents, 10.19% were awarded to women of color interventions, WOCF are more likely to thrive professionally and feel (WOC) in 2004 and 11.96% were awarded to WOC in 2014, which is like they are important to the institution (G. D. Thomas & Hollens- comparable to the 12.5% of WOC within the U.S (Ginther & Kahn, head, 2001; Turner, González, & Wong [Lau], 2011). 2013). In a similar way, 32.39% of these PhD degrees were granted to Thus, in this article, we employ intersectionality theory to identify White women in 2004 and 30.11% were granted to White women in some of the specific barriers in selection, promotion, and retention 2014 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2017), faced by WOCF within the scope of academic STEM careers. Then, which is comparable to the 36.2% of White women within the United we examine organization-level interventions that may be particularly States (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). effective at fixing these leaks, given the extant literature. Last, we However, despite these advances in postsecondary STEM educa- explain how other interventions that have been suggested in the tion, WOC continue to make up only 5.1% of non-tenure-track faculty literature may be less effective at addressing each of these barriers. It and merely 2.3% of tenure-track or tenured faculty, whereas White is important to note that there is a dearth of research regarding women make up 38.5% of non-tenure-track faculty and 23.4% of strategies for supporting WOCF in STEM at the organizational level tenure-track or tenured faculty (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). Thus, al- and that much of the extant literature has focused on either race or though the number of White women and WOC PhD STEM graduates gender when addressing the leaky pipeline of the STEM academia. is proportional to the percentages of White women and WOC in the Thus, although we propose that certain strategies may be more effec- U.S. population, there is a major underrepresentation of WOC in tive than others, additional research needs to be conducted to compare STEM at the faculty level. Though it is clear that the overall number the relative effects of these strategies. of women in STEM faculty positions is increasing, not all groups of women are experiencing these same advancements. Indeed, when the Barrier to Selection: Implicit Bias numbers of women in STEM fields are parsed out, White women and Commitment to diversity in STEM fields must start at the begin- Asian women are overrepresented in the STEM workforce, whereas ning of the pipeline, with the academic hiring process. This barrier is Black and Hispanic women are significantly underrepresented (Funk especially important, given that fixing subsequent leaks in isolation & Parker, 2018; National Science Board, 2012). would be minimally productive without equal numbers of WOCF Furthermore, women of color faculty (WOCF) in STEM are more entering academia. Research from social psychology and intersec- likely to be employed in less prestigious settings (i.e., 2-year and tional feminist literatures inform the specific barriers faced by WOCF non-doctoral-granting 4-year colleges and universities), compared to within STEM faculty selection. Specifically, this research shows that their White female and minority male counterparts. And they are more WOCF face a set of unique stereotypes that are not experienced by likely to be in non-tenure-track positions (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). White women or men of color, including stereotypes that they are However, when they do retain a tenure-track position, women of color angry, aggressive, irrational, overly assertive, and unstable (Ashley, perform equally well, rising through the ranks at a pace similar to that 2014). These stereotypes likely cause WOCF to experience height- of White women’s (Ginther & Kahn, 2013). Thus, although it seems ened barriers within academic selection systems, which often rely that interventions to increase the proportion of women in STEM heavily on subjective perceptions of fit and likability (García, Post- faculty positions have begun to make an impact, they do not appear to huma, & Colella, 2008). Additionally, Harrison and Thomas (2009) be as successful for equalizing the proportion of WOC faculty (Na- examined biases associated with skin color and found that Black tional Science Board, 2012). This may be because the vast majority of women with lighter skin were favored over Black women with darker existing interventions for increasing female representation in STEM skin during the selection process. These manifestations of implicit are not intersectional in nature (Jovanovic & Armstrong, 2014). Thus, bias displayed during the evaluation phase are important to identify within the current article, we employ intersectionality theory to iden- and remediate, given that they directly translate to fewer WOCF tify the unique barriers faced by WOCF, as well as potential strategies entering the pipeline. Thus, it is critically important for interventions to overcome those barriers, in U.S. academic institutions. to focus on dismantling these unique and harmful stereotypes. The Role of Intersectionality in the STEM Academia Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Selection In her introduction of intersectionality theory, Crenshaw (1991) posited that the “intersection of racism and sexism factors into Given the extant literature on interventions to reduce barriers to [WOC’s] lives in ways that cannot be captured wholly by looking at selection systems, we suggest that implicit bias training might be the the race or gender dimensions of those experiences separately” (p. most effective intervention, whereas targeted hiring and increasing This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 34 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT search committee diversity may be less effective strategies. However, being targeted in order to address the selection challenges faced by because most of the existing interventions target either women faculty WOCF in STEM (Diggs, Garrison-Wade, Estrada, & Galindo, 2009; or faculty of color—not WOCF specifically—it is difficult to evaluate D. G. Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, & Richards, 2004). Thus, it has been the costs and benefits of these interventions relative to each other suggested that search committees for STEM departments always when considering the leaky pipeline for WOCF. Thus, we highlight include diversity along racialethnic and gender lines (McNeely & future research that is needed to compare the relative effectiveness of Vlaicu, 2010). This balanced representation on faculty search com- these strategies for reducing biases against WOCF within STEM mittees is thought to increase the likelihood of building a rich, diverse faculty selection systems. candidate pool from which to select and recruit STEM faculty (Diggs et al., 2009; D. G. Smith et al., 2004). Accordingly, this strategy is thought to increase the chances of ultimately selecting WOCF (Bili- Implicit Bias Training moria, Joy, & Liang, 2008). To address the barrier of implicit bias in faculty selection systems, This intervention is potentially problematic given that it increases we propose that department chairs and search committee members service-related burdens for the few existing WOCF in STEM depart- attend mandatory implicit bias training programs to help search com- ments (Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014). Additionally, these mittees realize that their prototypical models of STEM academics may procedures do not ensure a lack of bias within the hiring committee, be biasing them against hiring WOCF. All individuals who are in- even if a diverse committee is assembled. According to Kayes (2006), volved with search committees should undergo such training, regard- “diverse candidate pools do not necessarily result in diverse hires less of their gender or race, because all individuals are vulnerable to because institutional, departmental, and search committee cultures can holding implicit biases (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014). These overtly and covertly undermine the goal of faculty/staff diversity” (p. training programs should focus on the unique stereotypes facing each 65). Thus, it is instrumental that search committees undergo implicit individual and intersectional identity group, as well as the subtle, bias training to educate them about the “biases, assumptions, and unintentional ways that these biases manifest within selection sys- stereotypes that influence their perceptions, judgments and decisions” tems. The most effective implicit bias training programs focus on (Kayes, 2006, p. 69). empirical research (e.g., providing information that disconfirms com- monly held stereotypes) rather than emotional or moral appeals, Barrier to Retention: Social Isolation provide procedures for countering bias, and use local climate indica- tors; these training programs have been shown to be effective in Once they are selected into STEM departments, WOCF are often reducing bias and improving attitudes toward diversity (Jackson et al., doubly isolated from social support networks. Specifically, their ra- 2014). Implicit bias training often includes perspective-taking exer- cialethnic and gender identities (which differ from that of the cises (Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011), promotes prototypical White, male scientist) cause them to stand apart from multiculturalism over colorblindness (Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Witten- others in their academic community, and their scientistscholar iden- brink, 2000), and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging one’s tities may cause them to feel separated from their racialethnic own bias in order to effectively reduce implicit bias (Carnes et al., community (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011). As a result, many 2012). Indeed, search committee implicit bias training programs have WOCF have reported feeling invisible and isolated in their depart- been launched at a number of institutions, resulting in successful ments (Constantine, Smith, Redington, & Owens, 2008; Turner & improvements in faculty diversity in STEM departments (J. L. Smith, Myers, 2000). Furthermore, the STEM academia has not paid ade- Handley, Zale, Rushing, & Potvin, 2015). quate attention to the desire for WOCF to contribute to their racial- ethnic communities, which may serve to further isolate WOCF (Constantine et al., 2008; Turner, 2002). Many of these faculty are Targeted Hiring forced to navigate the muddy waters of maintaining their personal The literature has suggested that targeted hiring—where hires are identities alone, because there are often too few WOCF to provide often sponsored by the university in an effort to more proactively them with meaningful mentoring relationships (Rankins, Rankins, & recruit minority faculty—can help with the selection challenges faced Inniss, 2014). by WOCF in STEM academia (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011). WOCF also experience greater levels of subtle workplace discrim- Indeed, research has shown that these targeted hiring strategies do ination, including incivility, microaggressions, and ostracism (Carter- increase the chance that minority candidates are recruited and ulti- Sowell & Zimmerman, 2015). This is problematic given that subtle mately selected into these positions (Bilimoria & Buch, 2010; Gasman discrimination can be more harmful than is overt discrimination due to et al., 2011) However, this strategy in isolation may not be as effective its ambiguity, which causes increased mental rumination (Jones, Ped- for hiring WOCF in STEM departments. Targeted hiring can often die, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2016) and allows perpetrators to justify incur backlash from majority members (Dover, Major, & Kaiser, their actions (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013; 2016), especially when there are persistent biases against these Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, & Xu, 2016). Academic incivility and groups. Furthermore, such policies do not necessarily address what bullying have been shown to have lasting personal and professional Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) refer to as the “fundamental Whiteness repercussions for the targets of these behaviors (Frazier, 2011; Keas- of [university] policies and practices” (p. 560). Believing that racial hly & Neuman, 2010). Johnson-Bailey (2015) asserted that and gender equity will be achieved by simply hiring WOCF neither when you introduce race and gender, bullying and incivility can occur addresses the need for awareness of and action against the systemic regardless of rank. Therefore, a junior male faculty member can effec- issues facing WOCF in academia nor produces real education on bias tively bully a senior woman colleague, or a White colleague of lesser rank awareness and reduction. can bully a higher ranking faculty member of color. (p. 43) Put simply—regardless of rank or time spent in the pipeline, WOCF Increasing Search Committee Diversity are targeted above and beyond their White male and female counter- The literature has also suggested that the diversity of the faculty parts, increasing their chances of leaving, or leaking, from the pipe- search committee be maximized along the forms of diversity that are line. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 35 In addition to experiences of isolation and mistreatment, STEM judgmental, and relationship based” writing groups that serve to WOCF often find that their students and colleagues are more likely to provide support, accountability, and peer reviews for group and indi- challenge their expertise in the classroom and the field (Pittman, vidual writing. Results from similarly structured writing groups show 2010). Thus, WOCF may feel pressure to go above and beyond to increases in collaborative research, strengthened professional net- prove their expertise and garner respect from others (Ford, 2011), works, and heightened feelings of emotional and professional support which can be cognitively and physically draining. These negative (Penny et al., 2015, p. 458). experiences likely contribute to the increased turnover of WOCF in Additionally, there are support structures for WOCF in STEM STEM (Turner, 2002). beyond the institution level. For example, the STEM Women of Even when they are faced with mistreatment, WOCF are expected Color Conclave and the Minority Women in Science Network are not to rock the boat of the STEM academia. The cultural norms that examples of professional organizations for WOC in STEM—as socialize girls to “play nice” as children continue to urge women to well as their allies—to gather. These organizations are opportuni- play nice at their workplaces as adults. Women who break this norm ties for networking, mentoring, collaboration, and cooperating on and actively resist incivility or bullying are often treated negatively advocacy efforts (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Rankins et al., (Babcock, LaSchever, Gelfand, & Small, 2003; Sandberg, 2013). The 2014). cultural call to play nice differentially affects some minority women faculty. Namely, Black women faculty often have to avoid conform- Mentorship Programs ing to the “angry Black woman” trope, which becomes an emotional There is a host of literature addressing the role of mentorship in burden when faced with the injustice of workplace incivility or retaining minority faculty in the academic pipeline (e.g., Dawson, academic bullying (Ashley, 2014; M. Morgan & Bennett, 2006). Bernstein, & Bekki, 2015; N. Thomas et al., 2015; Turner, 2002). It Alternatively, Asian women (who are often viewed as less out of place is well established that mentor–mentee relationships can help level the in STEM due to so-called model-minority stereotypes) are often playing field for minority faculty in STEM fields. A mentors serve as stereotyped as submissive and passive, and failure to conform to that guide for mentees and introduce them to the culture, conduct, and pattern by confronting mistreatment can cause others to perceive them traditions of the field (L. E. Malcom & Malcom, 2011). They can also as hyperaggressive (Berdahl & Min, 2012). help mentees with professional development and goal setting (Daw- In sum, isolation experienced by WOCF in STEM may exacerbate son et al., 2015). Additionally, mentorship can serve as a source of the negative outcomes of experienced workplace mistreatment. We psychosocial support, which could serve as a buffer against mentees’ posit that interventions providing increased social support can assuage feelings of isolation (Turner & Myers, 2000). Payne, Thompson, and the feelings of isolation for WOCF in STEM departments and serve as Pesonen (2011) found that that women faculty and faculty of color a buffer against workplace incivility, ostracism, and bullying. Ulti- reported significantly stronger needs for career-related mentoring, mately, we believe that social support can serve to satisfy WOCF’s psychosocial mentoring, and role model mentoring, compared to their need to belong (Leary & Baumeister, 2017) and help WOCF remain majority counterparts. in the STEM academic pipeline. Although we agree that WOCF could benefit from mentorship programs, we view mentorship as a less effective strategy for pre- Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Retention venting turnover. Due to the paucity of WOCF who can serve as We propose that creating social support networks might be the most mentors, WOCF mentees are frequently paired with mentors who are effective intervention to address the barriers to retention for WOCF in demographically dissimilar from themselves (i.e., male or White). STEM and that mentorship programs are a less effective strategy. This is problematic because research has shown that WOCF mentees However, these interventions have not been specifically examined feel that it is important to have a mentor who is similar to them in with WOCF in mind. Thus, more empirical research is needed to test terms of race and gender (Blake-Beard, Bayne, Crosby, & Muller, the effectiveness of these two strategies at combatting the experiences 2011). Furthermore, when mentors and mentees are both minorities, of chilly climate faced by WOCF in STEM. mentees receive more instrumental and psychosocial support and feel more satisfied with the mentorship (Adusei-Asante, 2018; Ortiz- Walters & Gilson, 2005). Although there is evidence that demo- Creating Social Support Networks graphic similarity is not necessary for fostering effective mentoring In many institutions, WOCF are dispersed among many different relationships (P. R. Hernandez, Estrada, Woodcock, & Schultz, 2017), departments and academic areas, which can cause feelings of alien- mentees are likely to seek out mentors who can better relate to their ation and loneliness. Social groups (similar to employee resource personal experiences (Brunsma, Embrick, & Shin, 2017; K. M. groups) can promote networking, facilitate camaraderie, and provide Thomas, Willis, & Davis, 2007). Thus, it is possible that mentors who social and emotional support for WOCF (Xu & Martin, 2011). By are men and/or White may be less able to fully support colleagues facilitating opportunities to meet and participate in social and aca- facing specific issues pertaining to their gender and race (i.e., WOCF). demic activities, institutions can combat the feelings of alienation, Additionally, not all mentorship is created equal; Noy and Ray (2012) isolation, and tokenism that WOCF often feel within their STEM found that when it came to adviser support, women of color graduate departments (N. Thomas, Bystydzienski, & Desai, 2015; Turner, students were the most disadvantaged, compared to all other groups of 2002). These opportunities for social interactions among WOCF graduate students. This finding may be due to lack of WOCF mentors. across departments could provide the psychosocial support needed to Thus, typical mentorship programs are likely to be most beneficial to buffer against the negative experiences of incivility and ostracism that junior White, male faculty, thereby exacerbating existing demo- often lead to turnover (N. Thomas et al., 2015). graphic differences in turnover. These social support structures can include peer mentoring circles, seed money for collaborative and interdisciplinary research aimed at Barrier to Promotion: Institutional Housekeeping WOCF, open forums exhibiting research by WOCF, and conferences or symposia for WOCF (Turner, 2002; N. Thomas et al., 2015). Although WOC are underrepresented in STEM faculties across the WOCF can also benefit from the creation of “noncompetitive, non- board, the proportion of WOCF decreases substantially as professorial This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 36 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT rank increases (Villablanca, Beckett, Nettiksimmons, & Howell, Establishing Transparent and Equal Workload Distri- 2011). A primary barrier to advancement for WOCF is the fact that butions within STEM departments, they are often tasked with additional The transparency of institutional policy must extend to tenure and service obligations, known as “institutional housekeeping,” that divert promotion guidelines. Tenure and promotions periods can be stressful, time away from research (Hart, 2016). Research has suggested that but they are even more so if the process seems nebulous and the women in STEM positions perform about three more service jobs per guidelines vague, as described in a study of Latino/a professors year than male faculty members do (Guarino & Borden, 2017). (Urrieta, Méndez, & Rodríguez, 2015). The employment policies of However, because of their double-minority status, WOCF are often the institutions need to be clearly stated, centrally developed, and specifically called upon to teach classes related to racialethnic consistently implemented. Examples of these policies, noted in issues, serve on diversity-specific committees, mentor students of Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2005), include establishing “equitable color and female students, and handle minority and gender affairs evaluation criteria, processes, time frames, and compensation plans— (Ford, 2011). Additionally, El-Alayli, Hansen-Brown, and Ceynar including benefits—for teach type of academic appointment” (pp. (2018) found that students who were academically entitled (i.e., think 37–38). This information should be accessible for new academic they deserve to succeed despite a lack of academic effort) had a hires, and the processes for tenure and promotion at the institution tendency to expect women faculty (but not men faculty) to concede to should be explicitly stated (Hart, 2016). requests for special favors. Upon denial of such requests, these stu- To prevent the exploitation of women and minority faculty mem- dents often reacted negatively, adding to the emotional burden of bers, researchers have suggested that academic institutions enforce institutional housekeeping. even distribution of workloads across departments as well as manda- Indeed, WOCF are often expected to be teachers, mentors, friends, tory annual audits of teaching and service to monitor and adjust these workloads accordingly (Hart, 2016). O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, and a source of inspiration for all women of color, racial minority Waugaman, & Jackson (2017, p. 1181) suggested creating easily men, and White women who are out of place in STEM fields. This accessible “dashboards,” showing low, medium, and high teaching, extra, invisible service burden is a form of “cultural taxation,” which advising, and service levels across campus and departments to better Padilla (1994, p. 26) described as the additional service burden placed pinpoint unequal workloads. WOCF could potentially benefit from on minority faculty to be the primary point of contact for all minority these interventions because the increased transparency of workload students. As faculty spend more time with these students, they have distributions could free WOCF from having to shoulder a dispropor- less time to spend on their own work. tionate amount of institutional housekeeping duties. Without these Although these tasks are inherently well intentioned (to perhaps hidden workloads, WOCF will be able to continue to focus their increase representation and diversity in academia and provide efforts on the research and writing that are most richly rewarded mentorship for racialethnic minority women who are interested during the tenure and promotion processes. in pursuing STEM careers), there is an ironic contradiction in these demands. The small number of WOCF available in STEM depart- Just Say No! ments forces these faculty members to participate in committees more often than their White and/or male colleagues do (Ford, 2011; One strategy that is commonly recommended in both the academic T. J. Hernández & Morales, 1999). Their presence is also quite literature and popular press is for WOCF to simply refuse these salient, causing WOCF to feel intensely scrutinized and judged by additional service requests. This idea centers on the notion that learn- their raceethnicity and or gender (J. W. Smith & Calasanti, ing how to say no encourages women to speak up on behalf of 2005). In the words of L. E. Malcom and Malcom (2011, p. 169), themselves and set firm boundaries on how they spend their time “they are at once highly visible and invisible.” Ultimately, they are (Pyke, 2015). Senior female faculty members are expected to model penalized during the tenure and promotion processes for allocating such behaviors for their junior colleagues. their time to these service committees rather than their research This Just Say No! technique may not be effective for WOCF for pipeline. This issue is exacerbated in top-tier research institutions, several reasons. First, this strategy places the obligation on WOCF to which value research productivity much more than service and undo their own disadvantage and does nothing to address the fact that women are asked to spend more time and energy on non-research- teaching (Baker, 2012; Turner, 2002). Thus, although the voice of related activities and service requests (O’Meara et al., 2017). Second, minority women is crucial to building lasting change in universi- although all women open themselves to criticism by refusing requests, ties, expecting WOCF to act as representatives of all minorities and WOCF are particularly impacted. Stereotypes at the intersection of shoulder the responsibility of addressing diversity-related issues is race and gender open underrepresented WOCF to accusations of being what leads to the disproportionate amount of institutional house- angry, lazy, bossy, unreasonable, and uncooperative (Ashley, 2014). keeping in the first place. Thus, this model must move from Just Say No! to Just Don’t Ask! to avoid pressuring WOC into the service positions that typically detract Interventions to Reduce Barriers to Promotion from their career progression (Pyke, 2015). Just Don’t Ask! highlights the fact that the problem is not with WOCF who refuse such service In this article, we posit that establishing transparent and equal requests but with the overly demanding system placing undue and workload distributions will be the most effective intervention to unequal pressures on them in the first place. reduce the barriers to promotion that WOCF face in the STEM academia, compared to Just Say No! and formally rewarding service Formally Rewarding Service Work work. However, it is important to note that these strategies have not been studied specifically for WOCF in STEM. Thus, future research Some researchers have also suggested formalizing mechanisms to still needs to be conducted to determine which of these interventions reward service work in order to account for these unequal service is the most influential in combating these barriers faced by WOCF in burdens (Reynold & Corda, 2011). Such suggestions include ade- quately documenting both the quality and quantity of service work, STEM academia. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 37 reducing teaching loads for those involved in particularly heavy pipeline using an intersectional framework. There will never be gen- service, and considering service work when discussing salary merit der or racial equity in STEM if the solutions produced continue to increases (Bird, Litt, & Wang, 2004; Roos, 2008). Administrators are leave WOCF behind. often compensated for similar types of service, so it seemingly makes References sense to simply extend the compensation for day-to-day tasks that keep the university running to faculty as well. Adusei-Asante, K. (2018). Do same-demography mentoring programmes make The formalization of service work is problematic for the same any difference to mentees’ learning outcomes? Reflections on the Top Up reason Just Say No! is problematic—formally rewarding service work programme. 2018 STARS Conference proceedings (pp. 1–5). Auckland, does not address the underlying problem of who is being asked to New Zealand: STARS Conference. perform higher amounts of service work in the first place. Formalizing Ashley, W. (2014). The angry Black woman: The impact of pejorative stereo- types on psychotherapy with Black women. Social Work in Public Health, service work may pressure WOCF into believing they need to perform 29, 27–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2011.619449 extra service work to be competitive. This service work, however, Babcock, L., LaSchever, S., Gelfand, M., & Small, D. (2003). Nice girls don’t takes time away from the research crucial to earning tenure, promo- ask. Harvard Business Review, 81, 14–16. tions, and prestige (especially at top-tier research universities, where Baker, M. (2012). Academic careers and the gender gap. Vancouver, British research will always remain a top priority). Any policies regarding Columbia, Canada: UBC Press. compensation for committee assignments should also account for the Barr, D. A., Gonzalez, M. E., & Wanat, S. F. (2008). The leaky pipeline: emotional burdens felt by those consistently tasked with fighting their Factors associated with early decline in interest in premedical studies among own oppression in a system built on systemic racism and sexism. underrepresented minority undergraduate students. Academic Medicine, 83, Instead, male faculty committed to racial and gender equality should 503–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31816bda16 be required to step up and accept these positions. Furthermore, it Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J. A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and should be made clear that the onus must be on the university admin- Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 141–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00 istration, and not on WOCF, to undo institutional inequity (Fehr, 2011; Bird et al., 2004). Bilimoria, D., & Buch, K. K. (2010). The search is on: Engendering faculty diversity through more effective search and recruitment. Change, 42, 27–32. Conclusion http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.489022 Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating When Crenshaw (1991) first coined the term intersectionality, she inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women highlighted the urgency with which the world must address and faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Manage- correct the dual challenges–also known as the double bind (pp. 12, ment, 47, 423–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225 S. M. Malcom et al., 1976)—faced by the targets of race-and gender- Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: based prejudice. Researchers have identified a multitude of barriers Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work.” NWSA Journal, 16, 194– that impact women in academia but often disregard the unique chal- lenges facing women of color. Solutions for promoting minority Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M. L., Crosby, F. J., & Muller, C. B. (2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the success in STEM academia are often viewed through the lens of either prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j gender or race. Indeed, much of the extant literature has proposed .1540-4560.2011.01717.x strategies targeted at either gender or race, and few have addressed the Brown, S. E. V., & Liu, S.-N. C. (2018). Intersectionally insufficient: A specific challenges faced by WOCF in STEM. Because WOCF ex- necessary expansion of the social-structural lens. Industrial and Organiza- perience injustice at multiple levels, so too must the solutions for these tional Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 296–301. problems address the multiple levels of social injustice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.18 At this point, academics must do more than simply raise aware- Brunsma, D. L., Embrick, D. G., & Shin, J. H. (2017). Graduate students of ness—there are tools, methods, and solutions in the literature for color: Race, racism, and mentoring in the white waters of academia. Soci- correcting the roadblocks for WOCF in STEM fields. Of course, ology of Race and Ethnicity, 3, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2332 advocacy is a crucial step for implementation. However, advocacy 649216681565 Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars- must be paired with action. The solutions we have recommended Winston, A.,... Sheridan, J. T. (2012). Promoting institutional change purposefully engage an intersectional framework to highlight the through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 63–77. unique barriers and best corresponding interventions associated with http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028128 selecting, retaining, and promoting WOCF. Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Zimmerman, C. A. (2015). Hidden in plain sight: To truly address the leaky pipeline challenges faced by WOCF in Locating, validating and advocating the stigma experiences of women of STEM, one must tailor interventions to the unique experiences of color. Sex Roles, 73, 399 – 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015- WOCF. In this article, we highlight strategies that we believe would 0529-2 be less effective to address the selection, retention, and promotion Chesler, N. C., Barabino, G., Bhatia, S. N., & Richards-Kortum, R. (2010). challenges faced by WOCF because many of them fail to account for The pipeline still leaks and more than you think: A status report on gender the intersection of race and gender. However, empirical research is diversity in biomedical engineering. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38, 1928–1935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-9958-9 needed to test the assertions made within this article regarding the Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice relative effectiveness of the different strategies for combating the to theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008- barriers to selection, retention, and promotion for WOCF in STEM 9419-1 academia. Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., & Owens, D. (2008). Racial Although it must be noted that not every intervention is appropriate microaggressions against Black counseling and counseling psychology fac- for every institution, we charge departments, institutions, and aca- ulty: A central challenge in the multicultural counseling movement. Journal demic fields as a whole to think critically about these intersections of of Counseling & Development, 86, 348–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j stigmatization to more effectively identify and fix these leaky pipe- .1556-6678.2008.tb00519.x lines hindering the success of institutions and science as a whole. We Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. encourage researchers to reexamine prior solutions for the leaky (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Ev- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 38 LIU, BROWN, AND SABAT idence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579–1605. http://dx.doi Hernández, T. J., & Morales, N. E. (1999). Career, culture, and compromise: .org/10.1177/0149206311418835 Career development experiences of Latinas working in higher education. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, Career Development Quarterly, 48, 45–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. .2161-0045.1999.tb00274.x http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Education, 17, 419–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5 Science Teaching, 36, 637– 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- Johnson-Bailey, J. (2015). Academic incivility and bullying as a gendered and 2736(199908)36:6637::AID-TEA43.0.CO;2-9 racialized phenomena. Adult Learning, 26, 42–47. http://dx.doi.org/10 Dawson, A. E., Bernstein, B. L., & Bekki, J. M. (2015). Providing the .1177/1045159514558414 psychosocial benefits of mentoring to women in STEM: CareerWISE as an Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). online solution. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015, 53–62. http:// Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20142 overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42, 1588–1613. http://dx.doi Diggs, G. A., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2009). .org/10.1177/0149206313506466 Smiling faces and colored spaces: The experiences of faculty of color Jovanovic, J., & Armstrong, M. A. (2014). Mission possible: Empowering pursing tenure in the academy. Urban Review, 41, 312–333. http://dx.doi institutions with strategies for change. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and .org/10.1007/s11256-008-0113-y Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 16, 21–24. Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A., & Ong, M. (2015). Career-life balance for groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j of Diversity in Higher Education, 8, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ .jesp.2015.10.006 a0039068 El-Alayli, A., Hansen-Brown, A. A., & Ceynar, M. (2018). Dancing back- Kayes, P. E. (2006). New paradigms for diversifying faculty and staff in higher wards in high heels: Female professors experience more work demands and education: Uncovering cultural biases in the search and hiring process. special favor requests, particularly from academically entitled students. Sex Multicultural Education, 14, 65–69. Roles, 79, 136–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6 Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher Fehr, C. (2011). What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory communities. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist epistemology and philos- & Praxis, 32, 48–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103 ophy of science (pp. 133–155). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6835- Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for 5_7 interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In B. Ford, K. A. (2011). Race, gender, and bodily (mis)recognitions: Women of Laursen & R. Zukauskiene (Eds.), Interpersonal development (pp. 57–89). color faculty experiences with White students in the college classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 444–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M. (2011). The double bind: The next genera- .2011.0026 tion. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 162–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/ Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion haer.81.2.a84201x508406327 for African-American faculty. Florida Journal of Education Administration Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., & Brown, J. W. (1976). The double bind: The price & Policy, 5, 1–13. of being a minority woman in science (No. 76-R-3). Washington, DC: Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over American Association for the Advancement of Science. workplace equity. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/ McNeely, C. L., & Vlaicu, S. (2010). Exploring institutional hiring trends of 09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/ women in the U.S. STEM professoriate. Review of Policy Research, 27, Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work 781–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00471.x and workplaces. Change, 37, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.6 Morgan, M., & Bennett, D. (2006). Getting off of Black women’s backs: Love .32-39 her or leave her alone. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, García, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the 3, 485–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X06060334 employment interview: The role of similarity, liking and expectations. Morgan, S. L., Gelbgiser, D., & Weeden, K. A. (2013). Feeding the pipeline: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 173–189. Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317907X238708 Research, 42, 989–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008 Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, mi- of color at high selective institutions: A school of education case study. norities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering [Data Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 212–222. http://dx.doi.org/10 files]. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www .1037/a0025130 .nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/data.cfm Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2013). Education and academic career outcomes National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. for women of color in science and engineering. In K. Matchett (Ed.), Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Seeking solutions: Maximizing American talent by advancing women of Noy, S., & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisors: Is color in academia (pp. 71–92). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. there systematic disadvantage in mentorship? Journal of Higher Education, Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: 83, 876–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0036 Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Edu- O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). cation, 58, 672–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2 Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research Harrison, M. S., & Thomas, K. M. (2009). The hidden prejudice in selection: universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educa- A research investigation on skin color bias. Journal of Applied Social tional Research Journal, 54, 1154–1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002 Psychology, 39, 134 –168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008 831217716767 .00433.x Ong, M., Wright, W., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double Hart, J. (2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. Journal of Higher women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Education, 87, 605–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0024 Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Schultz, P. W. (2017). .81.2.t022245n7x4752v2 Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L. L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An exam- more than on demographic match. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, ination of the experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational 450–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405 Behavior, 67, 459–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.09.004 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. WOMEN OF COLOR FACULTY IN STEM 39 Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23, 24–27. http://dx.doi coping strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty mem- .org/10.2307/1176259 bers at a research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70, 166–175. Payne, S. C., Thompson, R. J., & Pesonen, A. (2011, April). Mentoring in http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211208 academia: Who needs it? Paper presented at the 26th Annual SIOP Con- Thomas, K. M., Willis, L. A., & Davis, J. (2007). Mentoring minority graduate ference, Chicago, IL. students: Issues and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students. Equal Penny, S., Young, G., Badenhorst, C., Goodnough, K., Hesson, J., Joy, R.,... Opportunities International, 26, 178 –192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ Pelech, S. (2015). Faculty writing groups: A support for women balancing family and career on the academic tightrope. Canadian Journal of Higher Thomas, N., Bystydzienski, J., & Desai, A. (2015). Changing institutional Education, 45, 457–479. culture through peer mentoring of women STEM faculty. Innovative Higher Pittman, C. T. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom: The Education, 40, 143–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9300-9 experiences of women faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Sociology, 38, 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092055X10370120 Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Pyke, K. (2015). Faculty gender inequity and the “just say no to service” Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1027–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10 fairytale. In K. De Welde & A. Stepnick (Eds.), Disrupting the culture of .1037/a0022308 silence: Confronting gender inequality and making change in higher edu- Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple cation (pp. 83–95). Herndon, VA: Stylus. marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 74–93. http://dx.doi.org/10 Rankins, C., Rankins, F., & Inniss, T. (2014). Who is minding the gap? Peer .1080/00221546.2002.11777131 Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wong (Lau), K. (2011). Faculty women 16, 6–8. of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Reynold, L. E., & Corda, K. W. (2011). Faculty identity and the “lesser role”: Higher Education, 4, 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024630 Service to the academy. Journal of the Professoriate, 5, 121–148. Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Roos, P. A. (2008). Together but unequal: Combating gender inequity in the Bittersweet success. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. academy. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13, 185–199. http://dx.doi.org/10 Urrieta, L., Jr., Méndez, L., & Rodríguez, E. (2015). “A moving target”: A .2190/WR.13.2.f critical race analysis of Latina/o faculty experiences, perspectives, and Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, reflections on the tenure and promotion process. International Journal of NY: Knopf. Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 1149–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H. L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D. M., Saul, 09518398.2014.974715 J.,... Horrocks, N. P. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary Villablanca, A. C., Beckett, L., Nettiksimmons, J., & Howell, L. P. (2011). biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063–2069. http:// Career flexibility and family-friendly policies: An NIH-funded study to dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12198 enhance women’s careers in biomedical sciences. Journal of Women’s Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). “We are all for diversity, but . . .” How Health, 20, 1485–1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.2737 faculty hiring committees reproduce Whiteness and practical suggestions for Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing how they can change. Harvard Educational Review, 87, 557–580. http://dx interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on .doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.557 judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting Psychology, 78, 635–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.635 the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. Journal of Higher Xu, Y. J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: Education, 75, 133–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0006 From the aspects of informal professional networking and faculty career Smith, J. L., Handley, I. M., Zale, A. V., Rushing, S., & Potvin, M. A. (2015). development. Gender Issues, 28, 134–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12 Now hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty 147-011-9104-5 gender diversity in STEM. Bioscience, 65, 1084–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10 Zimmerman, C. A., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Xu, X. (2016). Examining .1093/biosci/biv138 workplace ostracism experiences in academia: Understanding how differ- Smith, J. W., & Calasanti, T. (2005). The influences of gender, race and ences in the faculty ranks influence inclusive climates on campus. Frontiers ethnicity on workplace experiences of institutional and social isolation: An in Psychology, 7, 753. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00753 exploratory study of university faculty. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 307–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027321790518735 Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling possibility: Received March 15, 2018 Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Jour- Revision received October 29, 2018 nal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 58–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0035775 Accepted November 16, 2018 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Journal

Archives of Scientific Psychology – American Psychological Association

Published: Nov 25, 2019

There are no references for this article.