Nelson Diversity Surveys

Nelson Diversity Surveys

The Nelson Diversity Surveys (NDS) are a collection of data sets that quantify the representation of women and minorities among professors at research universities. They consist of four data sets compiled by Dr. Donna Nelson, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oklahoma during FY2002, FY2005, FY2007, and FY2012. The Surveys initially came at a time when constituents were becoming concerned and vocal about perceived inequities in academia. At the time the Surveys were initiated, (1) the MIT Study of 1999, which expressed concerns of women scientists (including Nancy Hopkins) had just been issued, and (2) URM (underrepresented minority) science faculty saw URM students increase among PhD recipients without a corresponding increase among recently-hired professors. 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, many other organizations interested in diversity in academics.

Methodology

From FY2001 to FY2004, Nelson surveyed tenured and tenure-track university faculty members of the "top 50" departments in each of 14 science and engineering disciplines (chemistry, physics, mathematics, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, political science, sociology, economics, biological sciences, and psychology). Data were collected about race/ethnicity, gender, and rank, and are complete populations, rather than samples, so 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 a large number of disciplines. This set became known as the FY 2002 Nelson Diversity Surveys.

The NDS determined demographics of tenured / tenure track faculty at pertinent departments of "top" universities, ranked by NSF (National Science Foundation) according to research 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; each department chair provided faculty data, disaggregated by gender, by race/ethnicity, and by rank.

The NDS Quantified the degree to which women and minorities are significantly underrepresented on these faculties. 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. Analogous surveys were carried out for top 100 departments in each of 15 science and engineering disciplines, including earth science, in FY2005, in FY2007 and in FY 2012.

Results

Diversity research [edit]

NDS Data Sets

The data tables are posted online at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/top50.html .

These tables are listed there by discipline. Each entry in the list is a link to the tables for that discipline. The last discipline added (earth science) is at the top of the list. Below that, the disciplines are within discipline tables, by year, and within the year of the survey. They are listed either by top 50 group or next 50 group.

last two disciplines added are at the top of the list below that, they are organized roughly according to similarities among data for disciplines

within discipline, by year within year of survey, by top 50 group or next 50 group

The Organization of Data WITHIN Tables Discussion

Top 50 table example from 2002 survey – this table was first survey of its type ever done.

File:Fig 1. NDS example top 50 table.pdf

2002 NDS Example Top 50 Table

Summary table example from 2007 report

Figure 2. 2007 NDS summary table

Results of Nelson Diversity surveys

The FY 2012 Surveys have been completed, but the data have not been released.

  The FY 2007 Surveys were the first national and comprehensive demographic analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in the top 100 departments of science and engineering disciplines showed 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 continueed to increase, but they were likely to find themselves without the minority faculty needed for 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 is significantly above their percentage among assistant professors; 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.

Edited out: A cycle is perpetuated. Minorities are less likely to enter and remain in science and engineering when they lack mentors and role models. In most science and engineering disciplines, the percentage of URMs among faculty recently hired was not comparable to that of recent minority Ph.D.s. and was far below that of recent BS recipients. This resulted in fewer minority faculty to act as role models for minority students. Minority students observed this in the course of sampling the educational environment. If minority professors were not hired, treated fairly, and retained, minority students perceived that they will experience the same. This will not encourage them to persist in that discipline.

Trends in data for women are very similar to those observed for URMs, but more obvious due to greater magnitudes. Therefore, the most useful comparisons may be those for representation of women across disciplines. For example, in the top 100 departments, the representation of females among professors in chemistry, versus astronomy or earth sciences, is lower at each rank. The ratios of chemistry: astronomy: earth science are 21.2%: 25.3%: 28.2% for assistant professors, and 13.7%: 15.8%: 16.5% for professors of all ranks combined. However, the representation of female students in chemistry is and has been higher than that of astronomy or earth sciences for years (51.7%: 42.4%: 41.9% for B.S. in 2005, and 32.4%: 22.7%: 31.8% average for Ph.D.s in 1996 – 2005).

Astronomy and earth science may have had desirable hiring practices which could be used by other disciplines. Using these data to identify points of strength and challenge for each discipline could guide the search for programs, resources, and attitudes which are responsible for the results. This could facilitate the transfer of good practices among disciplines.

  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 [[1]]

  The FY 2002 Surveys were the first national and comprehensive analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty in the “top 50” 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.

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.

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

Nelson's diversity research has been cited by dozens of newspapers, magazines, and journals, including Nature, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, and CNN. 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. Nelson has also written about diversity in the STEM fields for outlets, such as PBS and the Association for Women in Science.

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"