Feynman Prize In Nanotechnology To Amanda S. Barnard (Too Busy Doing Science To Complain About Being A Woman In It)
From Foresight Institute for for her theory in nanotechnology -- Amanda S. Barnard's work on diamond nanoparticles -- that has "spearheaded understanding of the structure and stability of carbon nanostructures, and the role that shape plays in establishing the properties and interactions under different conditions."
Yes, it seems Barnard was too busy making scientific discoveries to complain about how awful it is to be a woman in science.
And oops -- from a WaPo story by Sara Kaplan, there's a recent study out that finds that women are actually favored for hiring for science jobs at universities. In fact, they found that they are twice as likely to be hired for tenure-track science professorships in biology, engineering, economics and psychology as men.
Which is wrong. Because whether there are women in STEM or other areas of science shouldn't be the question, but whether the person being hired is the best person for the job.
The study is by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci, co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, who, Kaplan writes, "have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields."
And get this, also from the WaPo story:
Despite the belief that women's life choices -- like taking time off to have children -- can put them at a disadvantage, men actually favored women who took extended maternity leave over those who went right back to work at a ratio of 2-to-1 (women slightly preferred female candidates who didn't take extended leave). Female evaluators also preferred divorced women over married fathers, and both genders favored a single, female candidate over a man with children.
And the researchers' conclusion:
This is the latest in a series of studies by the Cornell researchers, many of which have concluded that the scarcity of female faculty in science departments (about 20 percent in most fields) can't be blamed on innate sexism.
Barnard via @instapundit
And oops -- from a WaPo story by Sara Kaplan, there's a recent study out that finds that women are actually favored for hiring for science jobs at universities. In fact, they found that they are twice as likely to be hired for tenure-track science professorships in biology, engineering, economics and psychology as men.
Did you look into the study before posting about it, Amy? What it shows it that when asked about CVs they know to be hypothetical, women are preferred over men 2:1. This is no way represents how actual hiring takes place, as my colleague at Harvard notes:
http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-study-demonstrates-shocking-truth.html
I don't support favoring women over men but then the actual hiring statistics show no such bias.
Astra at April 26, 2015 7:39 AM
This link discusses more of the methodological issues with the Williams and Ceci study. There is also some interesting back and forth in the comments section:
http://othersociologist.com/2015/04/16/myth-about-women-in-science/?hc_location=ufi
Astra at April 26, 2015 8:02 AM
Thanks, Astra -- I should have looked into the study before posting.
But I do see that women who are working in STEM and other areas of science -- productively working -- are not the ones complaining that only men are getting notice, etc.
Amy Alkon at April 26, 2015 12:11 PM
But I do see that women who are working in STEM and other areas of science -- productively working -- are not the ones complaining that only men are getting notice, etc.
In the past this certainly was true. At least in the physical sciences, the women who have succeeded are those who have the type of personality that can flourish in the analytic, confrontational, often rough and tumble world of science. I have tended not to look for bias and that has generally worked well for me. (Sometimes it has found me, but never egregiously so.)
When I see many of my colleagues, especially the younger ones, try to confront some of the biases that they see, I am torn between admiring them for taking on the system and thinking they might be happier if they weren't so focused on this issue. Many of them are outstanding scientists too, though, so in that sense the field can improve by being more open to a range of skills and personalities. Does one really have to be somewhat of an arrogant blowhard to be a good scientist?
I think it boils down to whether you have an activist mentality or not. I am definitely a work within the system you have type of personality.
Astra at April 26, 2015 2:13 PM
I have almost zero patience with activists. I have found over the years that, almost without exception, they tend to think of themselves as Chosen Ones who regard themselves as essential to the issue they claim to be fighting for, to the point where they usually use the "royal we" in describing it, as in: "This issue will never be truly solved until I become extremely wealthy and powerful, and maybe not even then".
Cousin Dave at April 26, 2015 9:17 PM
'Does one really have to be somewhat of an arrogant blowhard to be a good scientist?'
Honest answer, probably yes. It is a similar issue in engineering. There are many solutions. And none of them are particularly more compelling than the others. So you pick one at random. Displaying that arrogant confidence is important in pushing a solution through to it's end. Otherwise you end up jumping from solution to solution and never get anything done. There is also the feedback mechanism, when someone is too big of a blowhard and won't let go of an obviously inferior idea they get black listed.
It it an optimally efficient system, no. But it is one minimally wasteful solution among many. Without precognition I don't know how to minimize waste fully. And at that point you aren't doing exploratory science.
Ben at April 27, 2015 7:34 AM
Leave a comment