setting-the-uc-context-for-issues-of-the-double-bind

“The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.” American Association for the Advancement of Science 2 2011.. “Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Rese

Setting the UC Context for Issues

of the Double Bind

Yolanda Moses

Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Excellence,

and Equity & Professor of Anthropology

UC Riverside

Two Key Documents

in the Double Bind Literature

1) (1976) Malcolm, Hall, and Brown “The Double Bind: The

Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.” American

Association for the Advancement of Science

2) (2011) Ong, Wright, Espinosa, and Orfield “Inside the

Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research on

Undergraduate and Graduate Women of Color in Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Harvard

Educational Review

“The Double Bind” (1976)

• There is little information and no data on the status of

women of color in science

• Women of color in science were excluded from programs for

underrepresented populations or programs for women

because of biases related to both their race or ethnicity and

gender, constituting a double bind

• Programs for underrepresented populations were

dominated by male scientists or majority women: “minority

women were, in fact, falling somewhere in between the

funded efforts to improve science opportunities for

minorities and efforts to advance women in science.”

“The Double Bind” (1976)

• Conference attendees recommended that the educational

system offer “only what the system already offers male

students”: access to financial aid information, supportive

student services, faculty role models, research training,

counseling, and job placement services

• Conference attendees recommended that employers

institute flexible work schedules, financial and policy

support for child care, grant writing education, career

workshops, communication networks, mentoring,

appointment to advisory councils, data collection by race

and by gender

“Inside the Double Bind” (2011)

• The “Double Bind” continues: “URM women remain

proportionally underrepresented [in STEM] relative to their

representation in the U S Population.”

• Inadequacy of programs: “history has borne out the reality

that programs intended to serve women disproportionately

benefit White women, and programs intended to serve

minorities mainly benefit minority males.”

• The double bind remains as “the way in which race/ethnicity

and gender function simultaneously to produce distinct

experiences for women of color in STEM.”

“Inside the Double Bind” (2011)

• “The pernicious myth that women of color are

under-represented in STEM fields because they are simply not

interested in pursuing scientific careers continues to

circulate.”

• Authors review research on undergraduate and graduate

students; little research on the double bind for faculty in

STEM

• Support from peers and faculty are inadequate: “Young

women of color in science have to carry out a tremendous

amount of extra, and indeed, invisible work in order to gain

acceptance from their male peers and faculty.”

“Inside the Double Bind” (2011)

Research shows several common characteristics across the

undergraduate, graduate, and faculty experience:

• Difficulties of transition and points of loss between the

academic stages

• Critical role that climate plays in women’s retention in STEM,

including issues of isolation, identity, invisibility,

negotiating/navigation, microaggressions on a daily basis,

sense of belonging, and tokenism

• “ Creating more women of color STEM PhDs and getting

them into faculty positions could help foster cultural changes

that would improve overall faculty support for and increase

the enrollment and retention of minority women.”

What Do We Need to Know About UC?

• Some of the infrastructure problems found in the

educational system have been addressed, i.e access to

financial aid information, research training, and career

counseling

• Family friendly policies for faculty are in place

• Each campus has in place a diversity/equity structure to

support women of color

• Data collection is underway to help us define successes,

challenges, and next steps

California HS Graduates UC Enrollees

UC Bachelor's conferred

UC Doctorate's conferred

7% 1% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1%

45%

27%

16%

7%

14%

43%

37%

14%

33% 25%

43%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

From Students to Scholars:

Female Headcount by Ethnicity High School Graduates and UC Enrollees 2009-10

Degrees Conferred 2010-11

White/Other Asian Hispanic American Indian African American

Sources: UC ADVANCE PAID Data Portfolio from the following tables: Pipeline Analysis of California Public High School Students to UC Enrollees, 2009-10

Number and Percent of Total UC Bachelor Degrees Conferred by Gender, Ethnicity, and Discipline - 2010-11

Number and Percent of Total UC Doctoral Degrees Conferred by Gender, Ethnicity, and Discipline - 2010-11

UC Faculty UC SBS Faculty UC STEM Faculty

4% 1% 5% 2% 1% 1%

6% 7%

5%

16% 12% 22%

73% 74% 71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UC tenure-line and equivalent Faculty, UC SBS Faculty, and UC STEM Faculty: Female Headcount by Ethnicity, Fall 2011

White/Other Asian Hispanic American Indian African American

Source: UC ADVANCE PAID Data Portfolio from the following tables:

Ladder and Equivalent Rank Faculty with Tenure by Discipline by Gender by Ethnicity with percentages

UC Systemwide Female STEM Faculty by Ethnicity by Year

UC Systemwide Female SBS Faculty by Ethnicity by Year

Applicants Interviewees Hires STEM

Applicants

STEM Interviewees STEM Hires

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ethnicity of Applicants, Interviewees and Hires for UC Faculty and UC STEM Faculty Positions, 2011-12

White/Oth Hispanic African-Amer Amer.-Indian Asian

All Disciplines STEM Disciplines Only

Comparison 8 Gender and Ethnicity Report Headcount and Percent of Total of Faculty, Women, URM* & Women URM

Fall 2009**

Institution

Total Faculty

Total Women Faculty

Total URM Faculty

Total Women URM Faculty

% Women

of Total

% URM

of Total

% Women URM of Total

Harvard University 1,541 382 72 27 24.8% 4.7% 1.8% Massachusetts Institute of Technology 965 198 50 11 20.5% 5.2% 1.1% Stanford University 1,286 294 70 20 22.9% 5.4% 1.6% SUNY College at Buffalo 383 168 40 21 43.9% 10.4% 5.5%

University of California 9,281 2,768 778 293 29.8% 8.4% 3.2%

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1,815 528 177 72 29.1% 9.8% 4.0% University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 2,530 751 210 82 29.7% 8.3% 3.2% University of Virginia-Main Campus 1,425 358 86 28 25.1% 6.0% 2.0% Yale University 1,419 468 86 42 33.0% 6.1% 3.0%

Notes:

Source: IPEDS http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Data.aspx Data includes Hastings College of Law

*URM = Under represented minority which includes African American, American Indian and Hispanic