Women Scientists and Engineers in the Academy

Baker, S. (1999). Success for women in academia: Choices, experiences and challenges. In C.C. Selby (Ed.), Women in science and engineering: Choices for success (210-218). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Baker discusses her experiences at the 1998 WISE conference, focusing on the issue of life choices and the measuring stick of success. She compares more recent experience to that of the women who participated in the 1972 conference, noting the strides made in academia for women scientists and engineers. Despite the progress, Baker finds that some changes make balancing work and life more difficult for women scientists today.

Blackburn, R., Lawrence, J. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

C.C. Selby (Ed.) (1999). Women in science and engineering: Choices for success. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
A collection of papers, essays, and reflections of the 25th anniversary conference of WISE. Choices and Successes: Women in Science and Engineering, sponsored by New York Academy of Sciences, March 12-13, 1998. Invited papers include topics in four categories: Changes, Choices, Sucesses, and the Future.

Clark, S. & M. Corcoran (1986). “Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulative Disadvantage?” Journal of higher education, 57, 1, 20-43.

Cole, J.R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: The Free Press.
This book focuses on sex-based discrimination and the stratification of science. It comments on a dichotomy in academic science: the merit based system of productivity seems to be without bias for sex and race, but there is a strong likelihood that women scientists are not only elite like their male colleagues, but that they also may have withstood sex-discrimination, limited resources, and other hurdles against self-selection for women scientists.

Davis, C.S., A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus, & P.M. Rayman (Eds.) The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics and engineering (pp. 265-289). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dresselhaus, M. (2000). Strategies and policies to recruit, retain and advance women scientists. In National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science (pp. 55-56). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Erskine, M. (1999). A view from the trenches. In C.C. Selby (Ed.), Women in science and engineering: Choices for success (219-223). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Etzkowitz, H., C. Kemelgor, and B. Uzzi. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge University Press.
Based on several sets of interviews, focus groups, and surveys, the book sets out to explain why so few women pursue careers in science, and suggests solutions to these problems. The book traces the experiences women have in the study of science from childhood to retirement.

Fox, M.F. (1995). Women and higher education: Gender differences in the status of students and scholars. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Press, 1995.

Fox, M.F. (1996). Women, academia, and careers in science and engineering. In C.S. Davis, A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus, & P.M. Rayman (Eds.) The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics and engineering (pp. 265-289). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Georgi, H. (2000). A tentative theory of unconscious discrimination against women in science. In National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science (pp. 45-48). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Glover, J. (2000). Women and scientific employment. New York: Macmillan.

Hollenshead, C.S., Wenzel, S.A., Dykens, M.N., Davis, C.S., Ginorio, A.B. Lazarus, B.B., & Rayman, P. M. (1996). Ensuring educational and career equity for women: A research and policy agenda. In C.S. Davis, A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus, & P.M. Rayman (Eds.) The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics and engineering (pp. 321-334). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lane, N. (1999). Why are there so few women in science? Nature, debate. (September).

Lazarus, B., Ritter, L., Ambrose, S. (2001). The Woman's Guide to Navigating the Ph.D. in Engineering & Science. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
A complete outline of the Ph.D. process. Includes tips on practical matters as well as personal issues and problems unique to women in these fields. Women who have been through the process offer their personal stories and advice.

Margolis, J. & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Based on interviews with computer science students at the University level, as well as classroom observations and discussions with college and high school faculty, the book investigates the familial, educational, and institutional origins of the computing gender gap, as well as new educational reforms which attempt to close this gap.

McIlwee, J. & Robinson, J. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power and workplace culture. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Morahan, P. (PhD), Voytko, M. (PhD), Abbuhl, S. (MD), Means. L. (MD), Wara, D. (MD), Thorson, J. (PhD), Cotsonas, C. (JD) (2001). Ensuring the success of women faculty at AMCs: Lessons learned from the National Centers of Excellence in women’s health. Academic Medicine, 76, 19-31.
Abstract: Since the early 1970s, the numbers of women entering medical school and, subsequently, academic medicine have increased substantially. However, women faculty have not advanced at the expected rate to senior academic ranks or positions of leadership. In 1996, to counter this trend, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office on Women’s Health included women’s leadership as a required component of the nationally funded Centers of Excellence in Women’s Health to identify effective strategies and initiate model programs to advance women faculty in academic medicine. The authors describe the experience of Centers at seven U.S. medical schools in initiating and sustaining leadership programs for women. The processes used for program formation, the current programmatic content, and program evaluation approaches are explained. Areas of success (e.g., obtaining support from the institution’s leaders) and difficulties faced in maintaining and established program (such as institutional fiscal constraints and the diminishing time available to women to participate in mentoring and leadership activities) are reviewed. Strategies to overcome these and other difficulties (e.g., prioritize and tightly focus the program with the help of an advisory group) are proposed. The authors conclude by reviewing issues that programs for women in academic medicine will increasingly need to focus on (e.g., development of new kinds of skills; issues of recruitment and retention of faculty; and increasing faculty diversity).

Morse, M. (1995). Women changing science: voices from a field in transition. New York and London: Plenum.

National Academy of Sciences. (2000). Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Preston, A. (1994). Why have all the women gone? A study of exit of from the science and engineering professions. American Economic Review, 84,1446-62.
Abstract: This paper documents a twofold difference in aggregate occupational exit rates of male and female scientists and engineers in the 1980s. Decomposing the aggregate exit rate into exit for different reasons, the paper reveals that the biggest difference in male and female exit behavior occurs within two categories: exit from the labor force and exit to other occupations for reason other than promotion. Because the data also reveal that male and female scientists are different along demographic, human-capital, and occupational dimensions, multivariate models are used to determine whether these marked differences account for the large differences in exit rates.

Rowe, M.P. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3, 153-163.

Schneider, A. (2000). Female scientists turn their backs on jobs at research universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A12-14.

Sonnert, G. & G. Holton. (1994). Gender differences in science careers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Sonnert and Holton seek to explain the gender disparity in science, focusing on structural barriers as well as gender differences in research styles. They study the glass ceiling effect, using rank and exit from the field to measure it. They also discuss 'science-external' issues such as marriage and parenthood.

Sonnert, G. & G. Holton. (1995). Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
The authors analyze science careers, seeking to learn what factors help or hinder academic success, and in what ways gender matters. Their sample focused on men and women who were identified early in their careers as 'promising.'

Sonnert, G. & G. Holton. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American Scientist 84: 63-71.
The authors review the results of their study, the Project Access Study, which assesses the careers of a large sample of female and male scientists using both qualitative and quantitative methods. They examine the career outcomes of promising young scientists and the causes of different outcomes over time.

Sonnert, G. (1996). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Science and Technology, 12: 53-58.
Sonnert briefly presents the disparities found in the Project Access Study. He then considers the disparities between men and women scientists in relation to the traditional explanations for disparity, the "deficit model," and the "difference model."

Tack, M.W., & Patitu, C.L. (1992). Faculty job satisfaction: Women and minorities in peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Tracy, K.B. (1998). From our readers: Women in science: The myth of “having it all.” Equity and Excellence in Education, 31, 68-72.

Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Vetter, B.M. (1996). Myths and realities of women’s progress in the sciences, mathematics and engineering. In C.S. Davis, A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus, & P.M. Rayman (Eds.) The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics and engineering (pp. 29-56). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wenneras, Christine, and Agnes Wold. (1997). "Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review." Nature 387: 341-343.

Wertheim, M. (1995). Pythagoras’ trousers: God, physics, and the gender wars. New York: Times Books/Random House.

Zuckerman, H. (1991). The careers of men and women scientists: A review of current research. In H. Zuckerman, J. Cole, and J. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (27-56). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Zuckerman, H., Cole, J. & Bruer, J. (Eds.) (1991), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (27-56). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.