Jump to content

Nelson Diversity Surveys: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:
In most disciplines, URM faculty were so few that a minority student could get a B.S. or Ph.D. without being taught by or having access to a URM professor in that discipline. However, there was a disproportionate number of White male professors as role models for White male students. For example, in 2005, 16.7% of the students who graduated with a B.S. in chemistry were URMs, but in 2007, only 3.9% of faculty at the top 100 chemistry departments were URMs. For females, those data were 51.7% and 13.7%, respectively. In contrast, the corresponding percentages for White males were 37.4% and 74.2%, respectively. While the percentages of women and of URMs in science and engineering Ph.D. attainment had increased in recent years, the White men still dominated the corresponding faculties.
In most disciplines, URM faculty were so few that a minority student could get a B.S. or Ph.D. without being taught by or having access to a URM professor in that discipline. However, there was a disproportionate number of White male professors as role models for White male students. For example, in 2005, 16.7% of the students who graduated with a B.S. in chemistry were URMs, but in 2007, only 3.9% of faculty at the top 100 chemistry departments were URMs. For females, those data were 51.7% and 13.7%, respectively. In contrast, the corresponding percentages for White males were 37.4% and 74.2%, respectively. While the percentages of women and of URMs in science and engineering Ph.D. attainment had increased in recent years, the White men still dominated the corresponding faculties.


'''The FY 2005 Surveys''' offered no final written report, but the data tables (along with those from the 2002 and 2007 surveys) are available here <ref>[[http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html]]</ref>
'''The FY 2005 Surveys''' have no final written report, but the data tables (along with those from the 2002 and 2007 surveys) are available at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html .


'''The FY 2002 Surveys''' were the first national and comprehensive analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in the “top 50”
'''The FY 2002 Surveys''' final report is available online, and its analysis focused mostly on women. A summary of its executive summary follows.
departments of science and engineering disciplines. It showed
that females and minorities were significantly underrepresented.
There were few tenured and tenure-track women faculty
in these departments in research universities, even
though a growing number of women were completing
their PhDs. Qualified women were not going to science
and engineering departments. In some engineering
disciplines, there was a better match between the representation
of females in PhD attainment versus the faculty,
but these disciplines were the ones with very low
percentages of females in PhD attainment.


This NDS was the first national and comprehensive analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in the “top 50” departments of 14 science and engineering disciplines, quantifying the faculty headcount and showing that minorities and women were significantly underrepresented. There were few tenured and tenure-track women faculty in these departments in research universities, even though a growing number of women were completing their PhDs. Qualified women were not going to science and engineering departments. In some engineering disciplines, there was a better match between the representation of females in PhD attainment versus the faculty, but these disciplines were the ones with very low percentages of females in PhD attainment. Underrepresented minority (URM) women faculty were almost nonexistent in science and engineering departments at research universities. In the “top 50” computer science departments, there were no Black, Hispanic, or Native American tenured or tenure track women faculty.
Underrepresented minority (URM) women faculty were
almost nonexistent in science and engineering departments
at research universities. In the “top 50” computer
science departments, there were no Black,
Hispanic, or Native American tenured or tenure track
women faculty.
The percentage of women in BS attainment in science
and engineering continueed to increase, but they were
likely to find themselves without the female faculty
needed for optimal role models.
There were few female full professors in science and engineering;
the percentage of women among full professors
rangeed from 3% to 15%. In all but one discipline
surveyed, the highest percentage of female faculty was at
the level of assistant professor.
In most science disciplines studied, the percentage of
women among recent PhD recipients was much higher
than their percentage among assistant professors, the
typical rank of recently hired faculty. Even in disciplines
where women outnumber men earning PhDs,
the percentage of assistant professors who were White
male was greater than females. For example, in psychology,
66.1% of the PhDs between 1993 and 2002
were women; while in 2002, they accounted for only
45.4% of the assistant professors.
In some disciplines, it was likely that a woman could get a
bachelor of science without being taught by a female professor
in that discipline; it was also possible for a woman to
get a PhD in science or engineering without having
access to a woman faculty member in her field.
The data demonstrated that while the representation of
females in science and engineering PhD attainment had
significantly increased in recent years, the corresponding
faculties were still overwhelmingly dominated by White
men.
There was a drastically disproportionate number of male
professors as role models for male students. For example,
in 2000, 48.2% of the students graduating with a BS in
math were women, but in 2002, only 8.3% of the faculty
was female.
In most science disciplines, the
percentage of women among faculty recently hired was not
comparable to that of recent women PhDs. This was not to say that only women could mentor women
and girls. In the absence of female professors, male professors
have been mentoring female students for decades.
Because of the dearth of female professors and the impact
this had on female student perceptions, the male faculty
should (1) actively encourage female students to enter
science and engineering and offer to become their mentors
and (2) insure that the environment for the few
female professors currently in science and engineering is
one which female students will perceive as appealing.


The percentage of women in BS attainment in science and engineering continued to increase, but they were likely to find themselves without the female faculty needed for optimal role models. There were few female full professors in science and engineering; the percentage of women among full professors ranged from 3% to 15%. In all but one discipline surveyed, the highest percentage of female faculty was at the level of assistant professor. In most science disciplines studied, the percentage of women among recent PhD recipients was much higher than their percentage among assistant professors, the typical rank of recently hired faculty. Even in disciplines where women outnumber men earning PhDs, the percentage of assistant professors who were White male was greater than females. For example, in psychology, 66.1% of the PhDs between 1993 and 2002 were women; while in 2002, they accounted for only 45.4% of the assistant professors. In some disciplines, it was likely that a woman could get a bachelor of science without being taught by a female professor in that discipline; it was also possible for a woman to get a PhD in science or engineering without having access to a woman faculty member in her field. The data demonstrated that while the representation of females in science and engineering PhD attainment had significantly increased in recent years, the corresponding faculties were still overwhelmingly dominated by White men. There were a drastically disproportionate number of male professors as role models for male students. For example, in 2000, 48.2% of the students graduating with a BS in math were women, but in 2002, only 8.3% of the faculty was female. In most science disciplines, the percentage of women among faculty recently hired was not comparable to that of recent women PhDs.
'''Edited out'''

This resulted
in fewer female faculty to act as role models for female
undergraduates and graduate students. Female students
observe this in the course of sampling the environment.
When female professors are not hired, treated fairly, and
retained, female students perceive that they will be treated
similarly. This dissuades them from persisting in that
discipline.

A cycle is perpetuated. Women were less likely to enter
and remain in science and engineering when they lack
mentors and role models.

In the end, the presence, treatment, and fate of female professors
will be most relevant to the lives, family responsibilities,
and careers of typical female students and the
choices and obstacles they will face.


=='''Impacts'''==
=='''Impacts'''==

Revision as of 14:03, 3 August 2013


Nelson Diversity Surveys

The Nelson Diversity Surveys (NDS) are a collection of data sets that quantify the representation of women and minorities among professors, by science and engineering discipline, at research universities. They consist of four data sets compiled by Dr. Donna Nelson, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oklahoma during fiscal year (FY) 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012. These surveys were each complete populations, rather than samples. Consequently, the Surveys quantified characteristics of the faculty which had never been revealed previously, drawing great attention from women and minorities. Furthermore, the Surveys initially came at a time when those constituents were becoming concerned and vocal about perceived inequities in academia. At the time the Surveys were initiated, (1) the MIT Study of 1999, expressing the concerns of women scientists (including Nancy Hopkins), had just been issued, and (2) underrepresented minority (URM) science faculty saw URM students increase among PhD recipients without a corresponding increase among recently-hired professors. Now, URM faculty were quantified with complete populations instead of having only samples of faculty headcounts.

The Nelson Diversity Surveys have been utilized by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, US Congress, Sloan Foundation, the National Organization for Women, universities, and other organizations interested in diversity in academics.

Results

The NDS quantified the degree to which women and minorities are significantly underrepresented on science and engineering faculties at research universities. Because the surveys were complete populations rather than samples, characteristics of the faculty were revealed, which had never been revealed previously. For example, the FY 2002 survey showed that there were no Black, Hispanic, or Native American tenured or tenure track women faculty in the top 50 computer science departments. For chemistry and chemical engineering faculties, additional national origin data revealed that recently, more immigrants had been hired as faculty than had American females and American minorities combined.[1] Analogous surveys were carried out for top 100 departments in each of 15 science and engineering disciplines, including earth science, in fiscal years (FY) 2005, 2007 and 2012.

Methodology

During 2001 to 2003, Nelson surveyed tenured and tenure-track university faculty members of the "top 50" departments in each of 14 science and engineering disciplines (chemistry FY2001, physics, mathematics, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, political science, sociology, economics, biological sciences, psychology, and astronomy FY2003).[2] Data were collected about race/ethnicity, rank, and gender, and are complete populations, rather than samples. Consequently, they accurately reveal the small number or complete absence of underrepresented groups. Data for all disciplines were obtained in a relatively short time and by a consistent protocol and are therefore comparable across this relatively large number of disciplines. This entire data set became known as the FY2002 Nelson Diversity Surveys (NDS).

The NDS determined demographics of tenured / tenure track faculty in a discipline at pertinent departments of "top" universities, ranked by the National Science Foundation( NSF) according to research funding expenditures in that discipline. The FY2002 data were the first such data published, disaggregated by gender, by race, and by rank, on faculty at the top 50 research universities in each of 14 science and engineering disciplines. The FY2005 survey was expanded to include the "top 100" departments in each of 15 disciplines (adding earth sciences). In some cases, slightly fewer than 100 schools were ranked by NSF for a discipline. Data were collected by surveying department chairs, who provided their own department’s faculty data, disaggregated by gender, by race/ethnicity, and by rank.

Nelson Diversity Survey Data Availability

The data tables, which constitute the Nelson Diversity Surveys, were rapidly made available publicly at no cost, at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html so that constituents could use them for their own purposes. Data tables for NDS FY2002, FY2005, and FY2007 are listed there by discipline, so that each discipline has a group of links listed below it. Each link points to a table for that discipline. Disciplines are presented there so that the last discipline (earth science) added to the NDS is at the top of the list. This means that last two disciplines added are at the top of the list, and below the disciplines are organized roughly according to similarities among data for disciplines. Within discipline headings, tables are listed by survey year, and within the year of the survey, tables are listed either by the group of “top 50” ranked departments or the next group of departments, ranked 51 - ~100. There are a total of about 75 such tables of departments at the website.

Within each table of departments, data giving characteristics of tenured and tenure track professors are provided by race/ethnicity, by rank, and by gender. The table of the first NDS (FY2002) department is provided as an example in Figure 1; therein the first column lists chemistry departments, NSF-ranked 1-50 according to chemical research funding expenditures. The next group of four columns provides White faculty headcount, disaggregated by rank (full, associate, assistant, and all). The next analogous four groups of columns give similar headcount data for Blacks, for Hispanics, for Asians, and for Native Americans. The final column in the table is the sum of all faculty in each department. Gender data are provided in each number after the decimal point, so that a number such as 35.003 means 35 people, 3 of whom are women.

File:Fig 1. NDS example top 50 table.pdf
Figure 1. “Top 50” table from 2002 NDS; this table was first survey of its type reported.

Final reports of two NDS (FY2002 and FY2007) are given at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/FinalReport07.html . Each of these reports analyzes the NDS data collected that fiscal year, by using summary tables which compare the NDS data at the discipline level. A summary table showing data for women from the FY2007 NDS is given in Figure 2. This summary table provides, by discipline, the representation of women as a percentage of BS recipients, PhD recipients, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, and all professors. These data enabled the first quantification of women proceeding through the academic “pipeline” from BS to full professor. Analogous summary tables were created, which provided data for Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and White males.

Figure 2. Summary table from the 2007 NDS comparing representation of women among faculty of different science and engineering disciplines.

Analyses of Nelson Diversity Surveys

The FY 2012 Surveys offered no final written report, but the data tables (along with those from the 2002 and 2007 surveys) are available online. Put reference to http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html   The FY 2007 Surveys final report is available online, and its analysis focused mostly on minorities. A summary of its executive summary follows.

This NDS quantified faculty of top 100 departments of 15 science and engineering disciplines, showing that minorities and women were significantly underrepresented. There were relatively few tenured and tenure-track underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in these research university departments, even though a growing number and percentage of minorities were completing their Ph.D.s. Qualified minorities were not joining faculties of many science and engineering disciplines. However, in some engineering disciplines, there was a better match between the percentage of URMs in recent Ph.D. attainment versus among assistant professors. The percentage of URMs in science and engineering B.S. attainment generally increased, but URM students were likely to find themselves without minority faculty as optimal role models and mentors. There were few minority full professors in the physical sciences and engineering disciplines studied; the highest percentage of all URMs combined among full professors was less than 5% (chemical engineering).

Comparing the representation of URMs among assistant professors in the top 50 departments, versus those in the next group of 50, gave mixed results; in engineering, the top 50 departments had higher percentages of URMs, while the top 50 chemistry, math, and computer science departments had much lower representations of URMs. In each discipline except biological sciences, the percentage of White males in top 50 departments was about equal to or greater than in the next group of 50. URM women faculty, especially “full” professors, were almost nonexistent in physical sciences and engineering departments at research universities. Surprisingly, most of the few female minority full professors in those disciplines were not born in the U.S.

In most disciplines studied, the percentage of URMs among recent Ph.D. recipients was significantly above their percentage among assistant professors, indicating under-utilization; exceptions included civil engineering and mechanical engineering. In the top 50 departments of chemistry and math, the percentage of Hispanic and Native American faculty among assistant professors was lower than among associate professors, revealing a decline in hiring those minorities. In contrast, in all disciplines studied, the highest percentage of female faculty was at the level of assistant professor, as a result of increased recent hiring of women.

In most disciplines, URM faculty were so few that a minority student could get a B.S. or Ph.D. without being taught by or having access to a URM professor in that discipline. However, there was a disproportionate number of White male professors as role models for White male students. For example, in 2005, 16.7% of the students who graduated with a B.S. in chemistry were URMs, but in 2007, only 3.9% of faculty at the top 100 chemistry departments were URMs. For females, those data were 51.7% and 13.7%, respectively. In contrast, the corresponding percentages for White males were 37.4% and 74.2%, respectively. While the percentages of women and of URMs in science and engineering Ph.D. attainment had increased in recent years, the White men still dominated the corresponding faculties.

The FY 2005 Surveys have no final written report, but the data tables (along with those from the 2002 and 2007 surveys) are available at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html .

The FY 2002 Surveys final report is available online, and its analysis focused mostly on women. A summary of its executive summary follows.

This NDS was the first national and comprehensive analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in the “top 50” departments of 14 science and engineering disciplines, quantifying the faculty headcount and showing that minorities and women were significantly underrepresented. There were few tenured and tenure-track women faculty in these departments in research universities, even though a growing number of women were completing their PhDs. Qualified women were not going to science and engineering departments. In some engineering disciplines, there was a better match between the representation of females in PhD attainment versus the faculty, but these disciplines were the ones with very low percentages of females in PhD attainment. Underrepresented minority (URM) women faculty were almost nonexistent in science and engineering departments at research universities. In the “top 50” computer science departments, there were no Black, Hispanic, or Native American tenured or tenure track women faculty.

The percentage of women in BS attainment in science and engineering continued to increase, but they were likely to find themselves without the female faculty needed for optimal role models. There were few female full professors in science and engineering; the percentage of women among full professors ranged from 3% to 15%. In all but one discipline surveyed, the highest percentage of female faculty was at the level of assistant professor. In most science disciplines studied, the percentage of women among recent PhD recipients was much higher than their percentage among assistant professors, the typical rank of recently hired faculty. Even in disciplines where women outnumber men earning PhDs, the percentage of assistant professors who were White male was greater than females. For example, in psychology, 66.1% of the PhDs between 1993 and 2002 were women; while in 2002, they accounted for only 45.4% of the assistant professors. In some disciplines, it was likely that a woman could get a bachelor of science without being taught by a female professor in that discipline; it was also possible for a woman to get a PhD in science or engineering without having access to a woman faculty member in her field. The data demonstrated that while the representation of females in science and engineering PhD attainment had significantly increased in recent years, the corresponding faculties were still overwhelmingly dominated by White men. There were a drastically disproportionate number of male professors as role models for male students. For example, in 2000, 48.2% of the students graduating with a BS in math were women, but in 2002, only 8.3% of the faculty was female. In most science disciplines, the percentage of women among faculty recently hired was not comparable to that of recent women PhDs.

Impacts

Nelson's diversity research has been cited by dozens of newspapers, magazines, and journals, including Nature,[3] The New York Times,[4][5] The Christian Science Monitor,[6] and CNN.[7] The Government Accountability Office used Nelson's data for its July 2004 report to Congress on Title IX, specifically addressing women's access to opportunities in the sciences.[8] Nelson has also written about diversity in the STEM fields for outlets, such as PBS [9] and the Association for Women in Science.[10]

Many educational institutions and units therein used the Nelson Diversity Surveys as part of programs to improve the diversity on their own campuses. Some of these had been awarded NSF ADVANCE grants; in some instances, the NDS were cited or obviously used in the resulting ADVANCE program postings.

DO NOT INSERT A PDF FILE BELOW; DATA MUST BE TYPED INTO A TABLE WHICH IS CREATED WITHIN THE Wikipedia WEBSITE, SO THAT THE ADVANCE GRANT PROGRAMS WHICH USE NDS DATA IN THE FUTURE WILL BE ABLE TO ADD THEMSELVES TO THE LIST.


Brian Engel Header text Header text
Red Blue Green purple
Example Example Example
Example Example Example

DO NOT INSERT A PDF FILE ABOVE; DATA MUST BE TYPED INTO A TABLE WHICH IS CREATED WITHIN THE Wikipedia WEBSITE, SO THAT THE ADVANCE GRANT PROGRAMS WHICH USE NDS DATA IN THE FUTURE WILL BE ABLE TO ADD THEMSELVES TO THE LIST.

NDS cited at top 100 Universities


  • Nelson Diversity Surveys - UC Davis ADVANCE ucd-advance.ucdavis.edu/post/nelson-diversity-surveys‎

The Nelson Diversity Surveys measure the demographic distribution of tenured and tenure-track faculty in “top” STEM departments as ranked by the National ...

  • Harvard University's Diversity in the Sciences: Resources www.fas.harvard.edu/~lifesci/diversity/resources_statistics.htm

Nelson Diversity Surveys The Nelson Diversity Surveys are an analysis of the representation of women and minorities in faculty positions at the country’s top ...


http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/good-bye?http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-Nelson, Donna J. 2007. "A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities." Norman, OK.


http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf" 1/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf


Nelson, Donna J. 2005. "A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities." Norman, OK. http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/briefings/Diversity%20Report%20Final.pdf

Nelson, Donna J. 2007. "A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities." Norman, OK. http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf"

References

  1. ^ Donna Nelson (2006-01-06). "A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities" (PDF). University of Oklahoma. Retrieved 2010-10-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Nelson, Donna. "Diversity surveys data". Nelson Diversity Surveys. Retrieved 2013-5-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "Academic Diversity". Nature. 447 (7146). Nature Publishing Group: 753–754. 2007-06-14. doi:10.1038/447753b. PMID 17568703. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
  4. ^ Lewin, Tamar (2004-01-15). "Despite Gain in Degrees, Women Lag in Tenure in 2 Main Fields" (PDF). The New York Times. LexisNexis. Archived from the original (reprint) on September 3, 2006. Retrieved 2010-10-11.
  5. ^ Rimer, Sara (2005-04-15). "For Women in Sciences, Slow Progress in Academia" (PDF). The New York Times. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-01.
  6. ^ Teicher, Stacy (2006-06-29). "The ivory tower gets more flexible" (PDF). The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-01.
  7. ^ Associated Press (2004-01-16). "White Men Dominate Science Posts" (PDF). CNN. CNN. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-01.
  8. ^ Cornelia M. Ashby (2004). "Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX" (PDF). Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 2007-06-01. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Donna Nelson (2008-02-06). "Do We Need Julian Today?". NOVA Forgotten Genius. PBS. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
  10. ^ "Contrasts in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering". Association for Women in Science. Archived from the original on April 19, 2003. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Diversity_Surveys&oldid=566988237"