Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016 COMMENT
Comment
working in the science and engineering of ceramics and glass has
Recognition of achievement not been conducted and here we suggest it as a discipline for
consideration as a model for study. Ceramics and glass, a sub-unit
– priorities and process
of materials science and engineering, encompasses (oxides,
1,2,* nitrides, borides, carbides, inorganic carbon) both traditional
Lynnette D. Madsen
1 and new materials. A study of 100 women of achievement in this
Svedberg Science, Inc., United States
2 discipline has just been published [2] and this group offers a useful
National Science Foundation, United States
model for recognition of achievement for organizations in general.
Election to the National Academies ‘‘is considered one of the
1,2 highest professional honors . . . new members are elected by cur-
Rita R. Colwell
rent members based on outstanding achievement and commit-
1
University of Maryland, College Park, United States
ment to service’’ [3]. Inherent to the process is nomination by an
2
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States
academy member, to be recognized for achievement and subse-
quent election by the membership. Election to foreign associate is
also important, since foreign associates comprise approximately
A closer look at the national
10% of membership in the Academies and foreign women can be
academies (and have been) elected as associates. Unlike a nomination for the
Nobel Prize [4], nomination for membership in the US National
Academies is made by US academy members.
Honorary membership organizations strive to recognize excel-
Thirteen outstanding women having significant accomplish-
lence in performance and achievement. Election of new members
ments in ceramics and glass science and engineering have been
is driven primarily by a process involving current membership.
elected to membership in The Academies (Table 1). In a 2005
Selecting individuals to nominate is difficult, complex, and relies
article, Alberts and Fulton state, ‘‘we describe recent efforts to
heavily on personal knowledge and/or the reputation of accom-
make [NAS] more welcoming, especially to women and to younger
plished individuals. Identifying and inducting new members from
scientists’’. Nomination of younger candidates is encouraged, but
outside established circles remains a challenge and a major hurdle.
it is not clear how election of a more diverse set of members will be
Diversity, in a wider sense (beyond topical area, geographic distri-
achieved. For the women listed in Table 1, their age of election bution, or age), can be a helpful guide in the initial nomination
1
ranged from 43 to 60, with an average age of 51. In the 2005
process. Successful and highly cited women scientists and engi-
Alberts and Fulton article describing the NAS process, it is stated
neers comprise one category of new members or foreign affiliates
that, ‘‘For the past 2 years, newly elected members have been 56
being considered; this approach can serve as a model or prototype
years old, on average.’’ However, in a 2012 article [5], it is noted
for recognizing achievements of underrepresented groups in gen-
eral. that the class ‘‘average age has dropped by 3.5 years from last year,
to 58’’, indicating uncertainty about the age statistic. In any case,
Election of women to the US National Academy of Sciences
the age at the time of election of the 13 women NAE and NAS
(NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and National
members (Table 1), was lower than average. However, statistics
Academy of Medicine offers a useful model. Currently, 15.4% of
across the entire NAS/NAE membership, by gender, would be more
NAS active members and 11.9% of foreign associates are women
informative. If the age of women at the time of their election is, on
and 6.9% of both NAE active members and foreign associates are
women. The process of selection and election to the National
Academies has been reviewed and results for specific fields pub- 1
Excluding Bonnell whose age at election time is not known and noting
lished [1]. Analysis of the recognition of high achieving women Dresselhaus twice for both elections.
1369-7021/Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001
1
Please cite this article in press as: L.D. Madsen, Mater. Today (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001
MATTOD-795; No of Pages 3
COMMENT Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016
TABLE 1
Female NAS and NAE members in ceramic and glass science and engineering.
Name Academy [23] Year of election Age at election time
Della M. Roy NAE 1987 60
Mildred S. Dresselhaus NAE, NAS 1974, 1985 43, 54
Maxine L. Savitz NAE 1992 55
Elsa M. Garmire NAE 1989 49
Alexandra Navrotsky NAS 1993 49
Uma Chowdhry NAE 1996 48
Bonnie J. Dunbar NAE 2002 53
COMMENT
Laura H. Greene NAS 2006 53
Julia M. Phillips NAE 2004 49
Katharine G. Frase NAE 2006 48
Emily A. Carter NAS 2008 47
Dawn A. Bonnell NAE 2013 Unknown
Karin M. Rabe NAS 2013 52
TABLE 2
Highly cited academic women in ceramic and glass science and engineering who are not members or foreign associates of NAS or NAE.
a a
Name Citizenship h-index Citations Expertise
Ulrike Diebold American and Austrian 54 14,000 Interdisciplinary research in surface science.
Clare P. Grey British 55 11,000 Examination of solid state materials using nuclear magnetic resonance.
Jueinai R. Kwo American and Taiwanese 56 10,000 Materials physics of thin films by advanced molecular beam epitaxy.
Hua Kun Liu Australian 76 22,000 Electrochemistry and the development of clean energy materials.
Linda F. Nazar Canadian 68 16,000 Solid state chemistry and the development of energy storage materials.
Nava Setter Swiss and Israeli 65 16,000 Functional ceramics focusing on piezoelectric and related materials.
Nicola A. Spaldin British 60 21,000 Development and application of first-principles theoretical techniques
to study the fundamental physics of novel materials.
Marı´a Vallet-Regı´ Spanish 64 20,000 Bioceramics with clinical applications.
a
Web of Science (Core Collection) or ResearcherID.
average lower, it may be a result of women working in disciplines citation numbers, of which the women [1], indeed, rank highly. In
where they are underrepresented, and therefore believed it neces- a survey about women and Nobel Prizes in Physics [11], five
sary to accomplish significantly more and earlier in their careers. women were cited as those who were very strong candidates.
Perhaps such overachieving accounts for lower age at election for Other women of great promise were also highlighted. Nazar is a
women. However, individuals in the past have been elected to NAS Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Grey a Fellow of the
at a young age: Edward C. Pickering [6] at 26, Theodore W. Royal Society of the UK (particularly notable since a 2014 report
Richards [7] at 31, Simon Newcomb [7] at 34, and Carl Barus showed that the UK Royal Society has selected fewer female
[7], Deborah S. Jin, and Susan Solomon [8] at age 36. members than the NAS) [12].
In year 2012, the number of nominees to be elected annually to Why should having more women in the National Academies
NAS was increased from 72 to 84. Opening the door to more matter? Aside from the obvious prestige and recognition, inclusion
members offered the potential to increase diversity. Unfortunate- in science and engineering societies and academies influences
ly, the data do not support such a trend [9]. According to NAS by- career paths and opportunities and provides talent and wise
laws, geographic distribution is considered when committees are counsel for the country. Delay or omission to election not only
appointed. Gender should also be considered, since diversity impedes individual careers, but also scientific and technological
breeds excellence [10]. Obviously the number of citations of an progress and expertise serving the nation. Future nominations,
individual’s publications alone does not, and should not, secure with underrepresentation, that is with too few women in The
nomination (or election). However, it can indicate contenders for Academies, perpetuates gender imbalance. Because women tend to
nomination. Listed in Table 2 are women [3] whose publications have wider networks [13] and as members eligible to nominate
have been frequently cited. A random selection and comparison of deserving women, will be able to tap those networks.
recently elected (2013–2015) NAS and NAE members accom- Published research shows that diversity has positive impact.
plished in materials-chemistry-physics research indicate similar Diversity in team composition yields greater success in solving
2
Please cite this article in press as: L.D. Madsen, Mater. Today (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001
MATTOD-795; No of Pages 3
Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016 COMMENT
complex problems [14]. Publications of results achieved from Disclaimer
diverse research teams have received 34% more citations than
Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
those produced by homogenous teams, with gender-diverse
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
groups recognized as producing results of higher quality [15].
reflect the views of NSF.
Conversely, an analysis of 2.5 million research papers showed
homophily (connecting and co-authoring with surnames of the
Acknowledgement
same ethnic group) resulted in publication in lower impact jour-
The work contributed by Lynnette D. Madsen was, in part, performed in an
nals with those publications receiving fewer citations [16].
Independent Research/Development (IR/D) Program while serving at the
Science by its very nature should be meritocratic, with similar
National Science Foundation (NSF).
or equal achievements receiving similar reputation and recogni-
tion [13]. There are many examples of women overlooked or References
otherwise missed in being recognized with Nobel prizes, including
[1] E. Ruksznis, Observer 9 (May/June (3)) (1996).
Rosalind Franklin, Frieda Robscheit-Robbins, and Lise Meitner. [2] L.D. Madsen, Successful Women Ceramic and Glass Scientists and Engineers: 100
Inspirational Profiles, Wiley, New York, 2016.
Such denial and repression of the contributions of women is
[3] http://www.nationalacademies.org/memarea/ (accessed June 2016).
known as the Matilda effect [17]. Worldwide, 69 science acade-
COMMENT
[4] http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/index.html (accessed June 2016).
mies have just 12% women in their membership [18]. Authors of a
[5] J. Mervis, Science Insider (2012, May) http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/u.s.-
recent paper [19] noted, ‘‘While women’s receipt of professional national-academy-gives-itself-facelift.
[6] http://nationalacademies.org/memarea/memfaq/index.html (accessed June 2016).
awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men
[7] R.C. Archibald, Science 83 (May (2158)) (1936) 436–437.
continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly
[8] L. Ost, NIST Fellow Elected to National Academy of Sciences, 2005, May press
research than expected, based on their representation in the release, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/jin_nas.cfm (accessed June
nomination pool.’’ A corollary to the Matilda effect is the Mat- 2016).
[9] http://www.awis.org/general/custom.asp?page=Awards_NAS (accessed June 2016).
thew effect, whereby eminent male scientists receive credit soon-
[10] F. Guterl, Sci. Am. 311 (September (4)) (2014).
er in their careers and in greater largesse. Also notable is that even
[11] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/women_
small imbalances will accumulate, with resulting overall signifi- and_the_nobel_prize_these_female_physicists_deserve_a_physics_nobel.single.
cant advantage for men and significant disadvantage for women html (accessed June 2016).
[12] R. Van Noorden, Nat. News Blog (2014, May), http://blogs.nature.com/news/
[20]. Although professional scientists and engineers prefer to
2014/05/uks-royal-society-still-trails-us-national-academy-of-sciences-in-female-
consider themselves unbiased and adhering to a meritocratic members.html.
system, recent studies in the United States [21] and the [13] H. Ibarra, Acad. Manag. Rev. 18 (January (1)) (1993) 56–87.
Netherlands [22] have shown a bias of men being viewed as more [14] M. Higgs, U. Plewnia, J. Ploch, Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 11 (7/8) (2005) 227–250.
[15] L.G. Campbell, et al. PLoS ONE 8 (10) (2013) e79147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
competent and more suitable for hiring for science and engineer- journal.pone.0079147.
ing positions.
[16] R.B. Freeman, W. Huang, Nature 513 (September) (2014) 305.
In conclusion, diversity is important and can improve results of [17] M.W. Rossiter, Soc. Stud. Sci. 23 (1993) 325–341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
030631293023002004, ISSN: 0306-3127.
both academy committees and research teams. The model dis-
[18] E. Gibney, Nature (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19465.
cussed here, namely women in ceramics and glass, a subunit of
[19] A.E. Lincoln, et al. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42 (2) (2012) 307–320.
materials science and engineering, who are representative of those
[20] V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
eligible for election. Clearly, there are women in this field with MA, 1998.
[21] C.A. Moss-Racusin, et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (41) (2012) 16474–
accomplishments noteworthy for election, and likely there are
16479, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
similarly worthy women in all fields. No nation can afford to
[22] M. van den Brink, Y. Benschop, Organization 19 (4) (2011) 507–524.
overlook excellence and talent in meeting the challenges of the [23] https://www.nae.edu/MembersSection/20412.aspx or http://www.nasonline.org/
twenty-first century. member-directory/ (accessed August 2016).
3
Please cite this article in press as: L.D. Madsen, Mater. Today (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001