Objectives
An objective of this study was to determine how female STEM faculty, as compared to male counterparts, are guided by other faculty members to engage in research, take on leadership roles, and assume teaching and advising roles. A second objective was to compare how guidance varied among the disciplines of engineering, biology, and physics.
Methods
Faculty members from engineering (n=691), biology (n=360), and physics (n=202), representing 81 U.S. universities, completed a discipline-based Assignment of Research, Teaching, Advising and Leadership Activity (ARTALA). The activity prompts respondents to recommend five fictitious faculty members to leadership, research, and teaching/advising roles. Respondents were randomly driven to an ARTALA wherein all five faculty members are male or to one in which the person with the middlemost experience is female (i.e., “Carl” swapped for “Cathy”). Analysis included applying Chi square tests to determine if Carl or Cathy, with identical credentials, were differently recommended. Logistic regression was applied to assess if respondents’ characteristics (e.g., years experience) predicted recommendations.
Findings
Although Cathy was recommended to engage in research more than Carl across disciplines, this was statistically significant only in engineering. However, across all disciplines Cathy was significantly more likely than Carl to be recommended to the leadership role of co-chairing a department. The only independent variable significantly predictive of recommendations was a respondent’s gender, but only in engineering.
Conclusion
Results indicate STEM faculties are generally integrating affirmative action moves and supporting female faculty members by guiding them more often toward research and leadership roles. However, the greater likelihood to recommend a woman versus a man to an administrative role can be construed as beneficial if it truly supports a career trajectory, but worrisome if underlying reasons are related to preference for women to serve as “store front” role models and assume administrative housework.
Eugene Judson is an Associate Professor of for the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. He also serves as an Extension Services Consultant for the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). His past experiences include having been a middle school science teacher, Director of Academic and Instructional Support for the Arizona Department of Education, a research scientist for the Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (CRESMET), and an evaluator for several NSF projects. His first research strand concentrates on the relationship between educational policy and STEM education. His second research strand focuses on studying STEM classroom interactions and subsequent effects on student understanding. He is a co-developer of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) and his work has been cited more than 2800 times and he has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals such as Science Education and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Dr. Lydia Ross is a clinical assistant professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. She also serves as the executive director of the Association for Education Finance & Policy. She holds a PhD in Educational Policy and Evaluation from Arizona St
Stephen Krause is professor in the Materials Science Program in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches in the areas of introductory materials engineering, polymers and composites, and capstone design. His research interests include faculty development and evaluating conceptual knowledge and strategies to promote conceptual change. He has co-developed a Materials Concept Inventory and a Chemistry Concept Inventory for assessing conceptual knowledge and change for materials science and chemistry classes. He is currently conducting research in two areas. One is studying how strategies of engagement and feedback and internet tool use affect conceptual change and impact on students' attitude, achievement, and persistence. The other is on a large-scale NSF faculty development program and its effect on change in faculty teaching beliefs, engagement strategies, and classroom practice. Recent honors include coauthoring the ASEE Best Paper Award in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2013 and the ASEE Mike Ashby Outstanding Materials Educator Award in 2018.
Keith D. Hjelmstad is President's Professor of Civil Engineering in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University.
Lindy Hamilton Mayled is the Director of Instructional Effectiveness for the Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. She has a PhD in Psychology of Learning, Education, and Technology from Grand Canyon University. Her research and areas of interest are in improving educational outcomes for STEM students through the integration of active learning and technology-enabled frequent feedback. Prior to her role and Director of Instructional Effectiveness, she managed the NSF-funded JTFD Engineering faculty development program, worked as a high school math and science teacher, and as an Assistant Principal and Instructional & Curriculum Coach.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.
