INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the tact directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

RACE, GENDER, AND MARGINALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Leslie Sandra Jones, A.B., M.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1997

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Professor Nancy V. Chism, CoAdvisor

Professor Patricia A Brosnan, CoAdvisor CoAdvisors College of Education Professor David G. Horn UMI Number: 9731647

UMI Microform 9731647 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT

While natural science is no longer an exclusively white/masculine domain, and

there have been some increases in both gender and racial/ethnic diversity, portions of our

population remain seriously underserved in science classrooms and underrepresented in

scientific career fields. This study sought explanations for the persistence of

disproportional representation in the professional scientific community with an interest in

how it might impact postsecondary and precoUegiate science education. The descriptive

and explanatory power of naturalistic inquiry was employed to explore the views and

experiences of natural scientists with respect to equity issues. This qualitative research

adhered most closely to the methodological traditions of critical ethnography, employing

the assumption that, although a great deal of difference exists among disciplines and

individual scientists, there is a set of common values and behaviors that can be defined as

the "culture" of science. Open-ended interviews were conducted with participants who

were both traditional (Caucasian males) and nontraditional (all women and men of color) researchers in both the basic and applied fields of the life and physical sciences.

Systematic analysis of decontextualilzed, coded comments led to emergent thematic categories that included: Delusions of Equity, Myth of Meritocracy, Power of the Pedigree, Traditions of Gender, and Typing by Race. Parallel case studies indicated a high level of intersubjective agreement within demographic groups with respect to their perceptions of marginalization. Regardless of racial/ethnic identity, gender issues

provide constant obstacles for women in the sciences. Certain racial ethnic groups are

better tolerated and more easily assimilated, giving the impression that some people are

“more different” than others. Women of color live at the intersection of racism and

sexism, never sure which form of oppression is behind the treatment they receive.

There was evidence that although the majority population in the scientific

community would like to believe they treat people equitably and welcome diverse participation, patterns of discrimination are still prevalent and extremely insidious. The culture of science itself seems to contribute to the fact that certain underrepresented groups of people continue to be denied fundamental access to science knowledge as well as the important right to participate in its production.

m DEDICATION

To the memory of Patricia Blosser...

.without whom I would never have considered the possibility

of becoming a Science Educator.

This is also for my parents,

Marlene S. and Ray P. Jones... who have waited so long to see me finally work up to my full potential.

IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Having begun my academic career in the natural sciences, I know only too well

what it is like to be educated under an adversarial model. It is for that reason I

especially appreciate the contrasting experience I have had with mentors who take an

alternative approach using a generative model of pedagogy. Before she died, Patricia

Blosser germinated those first seeds of my desire to become an equity educator. Stanley

Helgeson stepped in to take away the sting of academic orphanhood and plant the

confidence that has taken me beyond Ohio State. With the unflagging moral support and

encouragement of Patti Brosnan, I branched into the realm of integrated Math/Science

Education, developing the firm conviction that this strategy holds tremendous potential for reaching students who are educationally marginalized. David Horn fertilized my interest in Cultural Studies of Science, challenging me to have the courage the dwell on the bridge between disparate discourse communities and harvest knowledge from interdisciplinary sources. It was my dissertation supervisor, Nancy Chism, who took the crucial role as cultivator of my academic individualism. With her carefiil pruning, I have been allowed grow in my own direction, moving beyond the constraints of my positivist roots into the fi'eedom and challenges of this postmodern experience. The depths of their collective wisdom was like a nutrient base for my intellectual development. My aspiration is to grow into being an educator who can do the same for my students. VITA

April 6, 1955 Bom - New London, Connecticut

1977 A.B. Biological Sciences, Mount Holyoke College

1978 Student Apprentice Moat House, Benenden, Kent, England

1978-1980 Science Teacher The Grier School, Tyrone, Pennsylvania

1980-1981 Professional Intern M^llerup Gods, Ronde, Denmark

1983 M S. Animal Science, University o f New Hampshire

1983-1985 Research Assistant Department of Animal Science Louisiana State University

1985-1996 Biological Scientist Department of Dairy/Animal Science The Ohio State University

1995 M.A. Science Education, The Ohio State University

1996-1997 Science Educator College of Agriculture and College of Education The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

Educational Research

Jones, L.S. (1997). Opening doors with informal science: Exposure and access for our underserved students. Science Education. 81 (6), (In press).

VI Scientific Research

Jones, L.S., Ottobre, J.S., & Pate, J.L. (1992). Progesterone regulation of LH receptors on bovine luteal cells. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. 85. 33-39.

Bemdtson, W.E., & Jones, L.S. (1989). Relationship of intratesticular content of stallions to age, spermatogenesis, Sertoli cell distribution and germ cell-Sertoli cell ratios. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. 85. 511-518.

Thompson, D.L., McNeill, D R., Weist, J.J., St.George, R.L., Jones, L.S., & Garza, F. (1987). Secretion of LH and FSH in intact and ovariectomized mares in summer and winter. Journal of Animal Science 64. 247-253.

Garza, F., Thompson, D.L., French, D.D., Weist, J.J., St George, R.L., Ashley, K.B., Jones, L.S., Mitchell, P.S., & McNeill, D R. (1986). Active immunization of intact mares against GnRH; Differential effects of secretion of LH and FSH. Biology of Reproduction. 35. 347-352.

Jones, L.S., & Bemdtson, W.E. (1986). A quantitative study of Sertoli cell and germ cell populations as related to sexual development and aging in the stallion. Biology of Reproduction. 35. 138-148.

Thompson, D.L., Southern, L.L., St.George, R.L., Jones, L.S., & Garza, F. (1985). Active immunization of prepubertal boars against testosterone: testicular and endocrine responses at 14 months of age. Journal of Animal Science. 61. 1498-1504.

Thompson, D.L., St George, R.L., Jones, L.S., & Garza, F. (1985). Patterns of secretion of LH, FSH, and testosterone in stallions during the summer and winter. Journal of Animal Science. 60. 74-748.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Program Area: Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education

Studies in educational equity, integration of mathematics and science, cultural studies of science, and qualitative research methodology.

Scientific background in reproductive physiology, cellular endocrinology, and equine science.

Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ü Dedication iv Acknowledgements v Vita vi

Chapters:

1. The Persisting Enigma... I

2. Precedent Discourse... 12 Narratives Nature Nurture Niche

3. Strategy for Inquiry... 27 Theoretical Premise Personal Standpoint Participant Scientists Interpretive Moves Integrit) Issues

4. Individual Representations... 59 Traditional Scientists Men. but of Color Gendered DiflFerence Distinct on Both Counts

5. An Analytic Mosaic... 159 Who Joins This Club; The Issue of Representation Always at the Edges: The Sense of Marginalization Square Pegs in Round Holes: The Process of Enculturation Who Says This Is Not Fair: The Delusion ofEquit) What Is Natural about This Selection: The Hiring Process Twice as Much. Half as Good: The Perception of Qualit) How Blue Is Your Blood: The Power of Pedigree Behaving Badly: The Harassment and Hazing Act Like a Ladv': The Traditions of Gender The Difference a Difference Makes: The Typing by Race Persisting in Spite of It All: The Reasons They Stay in the Game Tradition Wears a White Shirt: The Message They Do Not Seem To Get

6. A Reasoned Inference... 193

Citations... 206

vm CHAPTER 1

THE PERSISTING ENIGMA...

In spite of a 1964 Civil Rights Act that makes discrimination in education and employment on the basis of sex or race illegal, the millions of dollars and monumental efforts put into affirmative action and scholarship programs, and the countless hours of research devoted to studying attrition rates and student characteristics, the dramatic underrepresentation of all women and people of color in science programs remains an unresolved problem. Additionally, the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities

Act of 1980 states, “it is the policy of the United States to encourage men and women, equally of all ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds to acquire skills in science, engineering and mathematics” (Hoffman & Stage, 1993). There is, unfortunately, a great deal of evidence that the “equal opportunity in education, training, and employment” that is supposed to exist in scientific and engineering fields is far from reality. While science is no longer an exclusively white/masculine domain and there have been some increases in both gender and racial/ethnic diversity, portions of our population remain seriously underserved in science classrooms and underrepresented in scientific career fields. These people are being denied fundamental access to scientific knowledge as well as the important right to participate in its production. The most obvious indication of the severity o f the problem of educational and

vocational access in the sciences is the disproportional representation that exists in the

professional ranks. Participation in the scientific community varies widely by field and

differs dramatically among ethnic groups (National Science Foundation, 1996), but the

overall picture shows a persistent demographic imbalance that has been remarkably

resistant to change. Women and people of color are only represented in the sciences and

engineering at less than half of the levels they occupy in the total labor force, they hold

lower salary jobs with less status, and are unemployed or underemployed at

significantly higher rates than white men (National Science Foundation, 1994). The

Director of the National Science Foundation has stated that, "for a variety of historical

and cultural reasons, participation in science and engineering in the United States has

not reflected the diversity of the Nation's population" (Lane, 1994, Forward).

Disproportionate representation is the result o f both a failure to recruit and to

retain new scientists fi'om different demographic categories. Disparate attrition for

members of certain demographic groups is seen throughout every stage of science education and the metaphor o f‘The Leaking Pipeline” has commonly been used to describe retention problems (Cullotta & Gibbons, 1992). In addition, the rationale for including diverse people in the process of science education has broadened in scope.

Prior attention to both gender and racial/ethnic representation in the sciences had been confined to the idea that science education was fundamentally a “pipeline” channeling suitable candidates into scientific careers. Emerging recognition that the technological nature of modem society has created the need for some level of Science Literacy throughout the population creates a new imperative to examine equity issues in science

2 classrooms. While definitions of Science Literacy vary, there is agreement that for both

technological as well as economic reasons, everyone should have a fundamental

understanding of the nature of science. Thus while science education had been focused

on an elite audience, there is now a move to promote equity for the potential political

and economic benefits to the country (Marshall, 1993). The path to these historic

discrepancies in professional participation can literally be traced to several factors

including: early education, inadequate pedagogy, ill-conceived reform initiatives, and

the culture of science itself.

Problems in science education begin with very early grade levels. Eventual

access to the profession depends on motivation to study science that could be lost in the

earliest stages of formal schooling. In many elementary schools science is not taught to

students in the primary grades (DeVito & Krockover, 1980). This allows children who

do not have access and encouragement to pursue science activities outside of school to

miss exposure that fosters crucial interest in and personal connections to the subject

area. The National Science Foundation (1996) reports that differences in science and

mathematics achievement by sex and race/ethnicity begin in elementary school.

Clewell and Anderson (1991) conducted an extensive review of the literature on the barriers to full participation in mathematics, science, and engineering by women and people of color. They identified negative attitudes and inappropriate perceptions as major deterrents that begin early for many of these children. Numerous studies have shown that children hold a combination of gender and racial stereotypes with respect to scientists (Kelly, 1981; Chambers, 1983; Flick, 1989). When these stereotypes do not include images of people like themselves, children are less likely to make a personal

connection to science.

Problems with school science pedagogy are one of the critical issues. Crucial

science teaching begins when young children’s ubiquitous interests in the natural world

should be explicitly connected to the process of learning science (Peltz, 1990).

Everything should be done to increase opportunities for science experiences outside of

the classroom (Kahle, Matyas, & Cho, 1985). Science courses should be designed to be

relevant and appealing so that they do not serve as a filter (Cobb, 1979) that discourages

science possibilities. Every student must be encouraged to believe they are smart and

likely to do well in the sciences (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Teachers do not always

realize their own biases (Shepardson & Pizzini, 1991) or that their behavior influences

their students’ perceptions of what they can achieve (Cooper, 1979). All students must

be encouraged to participate and teachers should realize that classroom treatment and

expectation can influence student aptitudes (Spear, 1984).

The growing need to reach each student in science classes is coupled with

mandates for reform that were prompted by the failure of traditional pedagogy to

address the issues. A crucial indication of the lack of confidence in existing science

education was shown in early drafts for the national science standards. These specified

that the commitment to Science for All “implies inclusion not only of those who traditionally have received encouragement to pursue science, but of women and girls, all racial and ethnic groups, the physically and educationally challenged, and those with limited English proficiency” (Hoffman & Stage, 1993, p. 30). Suddenly, there has been a flurry of loud rhetorical posturing on the subject of equity. The idea of Science for

4 All is touted as the centerpiece for most of the recent major educational reform movements. Science for All Americans is both the focus for a reform effort promoted by the Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the name of a book produced by the project (Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990). Unfortunately as Alberto

Rodriguez (1997) states in a very recent critique of the final version of the National

Research Council’s National Science Education Standards, educational equity is actually shrouded within this document by a discourse of invisibility that threatens to undermine any potential the standards could have for transformative action. He argues that to espouse the goal of educational equity without providing strong evidence as to why equity should be a guiding principal of science education reform and how pedagogy can improve virtually ensures the failure to achieve such a goal or make any change in the level of participation.

While there are countless quantitative studies that document the continued scarcity of all women and men of color in the sciences, there are considerably fewer efforts to determine why this situation persists. With all of the success the scientific community usually has in the domain of problem solving, it is somewhat ironic that equity within its own community remains an unresolved dilemma. Previous studies have usually focussed on aptitudes or preparation, locating the deficiencies in the students themselves, virtually ignoring the idea that the scientific community plays a crucial role in the situation. Mary Atwater (1994) claims that the problem is not the student and it is time to give up the Student Deficiency Model. It is important to recognize how pedagogy (Tobias, 1990), the climate in classrooms and laboratories (Sadker & Sadker, 1994), and the culture of science itself (Seymour, 1995) can be a

deterrent and lead to the loss of high ability students.

Although these and other experts stress the importance of cultural context,

science does not seem to recognize or want to acknowledge the degree to which science

culture literally mirrors, and in some ways magnifies the social environment in which it takes place. In particular, the extent to which science is influenced by racism and

sexism goes unexplored. Margaret Anderson (1993) sheds some light on this when she points out that in any sphere, however well intentioned people are, the nature of race, class, and gender in human relations is not always visible and can be difficult for certain groups to see. This may be particularly true in the case of scientific enterprises that derive considerable cultural authority from the premise of their generation of objective and value-free knowledge. There is widespread belief both inside and outside of the natural sciences that the very nature of the scientific method, through its mathematical basis, makes it inherently impartial. This naive assumption about the methodology is often carried over and reflected on other aspects of science practice. Many scientists consider societal circumstances irrelevant to the scientific process, operating with the conviction that context has nothing to do with their efforts to uncover essential facts about nature. This approach has limited the extent to which scientists are willing to accept the importance of contextual factors in the study of representation in science itself.

The very tenets of this positivist approach to science seem to lead scientists to believe that the knower and the known are independent, and that it is quite possible to make generalizations that are free from the context in which they were created. A basic

6 assumption in interpretive theory of social organizations is the simultaneous operation of formal and informal social systems with the informal aspects often being overlooked

(Erickson, 1986). The formal or espoused culture of science purports to be objective and value-free. However, on the informal or unacknowledged level, gender-biased and ethnocentric social values are operating to interfere with the educational and career possibilities for all women and men of color. It is, as Helen Longino (1990) suggests, crucial to build a critique of science that takes into account how social values impact scientific reasoning. The science education process could benefit from its own recognition of a broad understanding of the way in which science functions as "a socially constituted enterprise shaped at many levels by human values, beliefs, and commitments" (Kelly, Carlsen, and Cunningham, 1993, p. 207).

Within the social enterprise of science, several areas are ripe for studies that explore exclusion. This study focuses on factors connected with the nature of the professional community of science because there seems to be a powerful parallel between what is going on in the classrooms and in the professional community. The very same people are relegated to the margins, if not patently excluded, from both science education and full participation in the scientific professional ranks. Those people, all women and men of color, are blamed for the situation through a vein of educational discourse known as “deficit thinking” (Valencia, 1997). The educational community has been somewhat more aware of the underlying connection between their equity problem and that of the gender and racial/ethnic power structure of the larger social context, but neither the educational nor professional communities seem to recognize how this inextricable relationship seems to confound the situation. As we

7 struggle to make sense of the stubborn persistence of racial and gender inequity throughout science and its educational process, we 6il to attend to the interdependence of the two settings. There is clearly a self-feeding cycle in which educational attrition reduces representation in the professions and marginalization in the career fields impairs chances for change in education.

This study, therefore, takes its impetus from the need to develop an understanding of how scientific cultural values influence the thinking and actions of those who are entrusted with the recruitment of future scientists and education of future science teachers. The intent is not to prove science is inherently racist or sexist, but rather to explore areas in which gender and racial bias may be operating unconsciously in the ways it so often does (Bell, 1997). I hope to bring attention to the privilege of gender and ethnicity that continues to be a part of the western science tradition by showing how existing notions about the scientific potential of all women and men of color can impede their access to fair and equitable science education. I am interested in estimating the pervasiveness of notions of inherent intellectual difference, in order to assess whether they might be part of the problematic distribution of representation in the sciences. Science has sealed itself in a self-reinforcing system that allows claims of neutrality to render injustices of the system invisible (Schiebinger, 1989).

This study seeks to explore and analyze the culture of science itself, rather than look for innate student characteristics or consequences of socialization as the determinants of disproportional representation. My intent has been to investigate the ethos of the scientific community by examining how the history, philosophy, methodology, authority, language, and social relations of the sciences might influence

8 the schooling, recruitment, and retention of all women and people of color. Educators

have a serious need to develop more complete understandings of student attrition in

order to develop the tools and procedures that are needed to Acilitate student retention

(Tinto, 1993).

I posit that the culture of the scientific community is very much connected to the

process of science education. Science education was clearly shaped by the sequence of

events that chronicle a history of science that began with the very earliest human

ancestors. The knowledge foundations that dictate the systems of educational principles

come directly from science disciplines themselves. Almost any science textbook opens

with a suitably referential and apparently obligatory ode to the classical rendition of the

mythical scientific method. The academic prestige of the sciences tends to engender an

automatic and uncritical level of status to science classes and the knowledge they

dispense. Science education literally sounds just like the professional scientific

community through its application of the very specialized language system including an

elaborate distinctive vocabulary and bizarre conventions prohibiting the use of first

person and mandating the passive voice. Perhaps most important are the behavioral

manifestations where science classrooms look so much like replicas of the laboratories

they have been fashioned after and science teachers behave so much like the scientists

who trained them in school. It is through a critical examination of this scientific culture

that I hope we can begin to understand part of the underlying reason why the majority

of the population in this country has been so unlikely to actively participate in science

education. Numerous intervention programs have attempted to reverse attrition throughout the educational process (Kahle and Meece, 1994) but the success has been

9 minimal and mostly limited to positive impacts on white females. The Ailure of so

many well-intentioned, proactive, equity intervention efforts to have significant impact

on the interest in and representation of women and people of color in the sciences serves

as evidence of the pressing need for a better understanding of the nature the problem.

My study has been centered on seeking the answer to the following questions:

Why the stubborn persistence of disproportionate representation in scientific fields?

How do notions of race and/or gender impact the experiences of nontraditional

scientists?

Are all women and men of color marginalized within their scientific communities and

what is it about the culture of science that interferes with the chances of

attaining equity?

How do the

History, Philosophy, Methodology, Authority, Language, and Social Relations

' of science contribute to a common culture and this situation?

In conclusion I want to speculate as to: whether there might be a relationship, such as a self-feeding cycle where discouragement ensures an underrepresentation in the

10 professional community that impacts the nature of science education, undermines chances for national science literacy, and exacerbates the underservice of certain students that is seen in science education to a degree that ensures continued scarcity in the candidate pools that feed the science pipeline.

11 CHAPTER 2

PRECEDENT DISCOURSE...

Contextualization of this project exploring disproportional participation in the natural sciences reflects the interdisciplinary premise on which the work has been based. Science has its own written history, and the flavors of the scientific archives reflect the dominance of male Europeans just as the practice of science itself does. The

N arratives of science have recently begun to be written in a manner that is inclusive of the contributions of people other than traditional white male scientists, and this significantly changes the picture of the scientific enterprise. Moving beyond biographical documentation, and perhaps more relevant to this project, is the history surrounding the scientific construction of human difference. The area of study known as biological determinism focuses on the development of theories inferring that the

Nature of human beings is dependent on heritable characteristics. This includes the implication that the level of intelligence, which in some cases may be less than that required for participation in the sciences, is genetically defined by the sex and race of the individual. This enterprise evolved during the 1800s when the exclusivity of the scientific community was no longer guarantied by societal rules that prohibited women and men who were not Caucasian from participating in most professional activities.

This damaging vein of discourse remains active and has only recently begun to be discredited. Notions of genetic superiority are being overshadowed, if not refuted, by

12 work from a sociological perspective demonstrating the influence of Nurture or the

social milieu. Without joining the irreconcilable politics of the Nature/Nurture debate,

it is frir more pertinent to consider the significance of environmental influences on

humans and their educational/professional choices. Finally, a great deal of insight into

the Niche or professional climate of science itself comes out of cultural studies of

science.

Narratives

In the modem context, the unapologetic presentation of the history of science as

a long narrative documenting the brilliant accomplishments of only white men is

particularly striking. Without disputing the achievements of these early scientists, the

glaring lack of any reference to women or men of color raises questions about their

conspicuous absence. One wonders whether the invisibility of anyone other than

Caucasian males in the traditional presentations reflects a failure to document

participation that did occur or the possibility that others were actually not involved. The

emergent recognition that both of these explanations are partially true provides a crucial

backdrop for the present examination of issues that impact perpetual disproportional

demographic representation in the sciences.

The history of science, as it is traditionally written, is a one-dimensional chronicle of a series of monumental events. The classic portrayal depicts a linear sequence of major steps that have come to be referred to as Scientific Revolutions

(Cohen, 1985), which signified some monumental attainment of conceptual understanding or redirection of the process of inquiry. A representative sampling

13 ranging from Aristotle to Copernicus to Galileo to Descartes to Newton to Darwin to

Einstein demonstrates how all of what are considered to be the great contributions to

science were attributed to males of European descent. There are, however, other ways

to look at the history of science. Thomas Kuhn (1970) suggests that the stereotypical

portrayal of science history is basically misleading and creates a deceptive image that

does little to actually reveal the nature of the scientific process. Steven Shapin ( 1996)

argues that there is no real essence to the idea of a Scientific Revolution and a

multiplicity of stories would give a more legitimate presentation of the nature of

scientific culture.

Reexamination and scrutiny of scientific history has unearthed evidence of many of the accomplishments of scientists who were not white or male. According to

Margaret Alic (1986), the traditional picture of science history needs to be expanded from the story of a small number of men. It must include “the thousands of people who contributed to the knowledge and theories that constituted the science of their eras and made the ‘great leaps’ possible” (p. 1). There can be little question that the very earliest scientists were not white people. Archeological evidence locates the earliest scientific accomplishments such as the use of fire, domestication of animals, construction of tools, and cultivation of agricultural crops on the continent of Africa where they were certainly accomplished by our African ancestors. These predecessors built the foundations of modem science and left indications that they made great strides in learning to understand and control the natural and physical world (Hayden, 1992) through their ability to cure diseases and use natural energy sources such as plants, animals, water, air, and fire.

14 The historical literature of science takes on new dimensions when the accounts

of scientific accomplishments that have been unrecognized for so long begin to enter the picture. There are new versions of the stones about past science that make a deliberate effort to construct a different portrait and record the contributions of people other than white men. Scholars such as Haber (1970), Klein (1971), Yoimt (1991), Van Sertima

(1992), Manning (1983), Pearson (1985), Hayden (1992), and Jenkins (1996) have produced a growing body of biographical collections of Black scientists. Rossiter

(1982), Morantz-Sanchez (1985), Alic (1986), Achterberg (1990), and Noble (1992) have produced critical histories of women in science.

For the most part, these narratives document life on the margins of scientific communities. Marie Curie literally toiled to discover Radium in a leaking shed that had once been used to store equipment at the School of Physics where only her husband was officially employed (Curie, 1940). While she was the first person ever to win two

Nobel prizes, she was repeatedly denied admission to the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. Another great chemist, Percy Julian completed a Masters at Harvard with a straight “A” average in just one year, but was denied a teaching assistantship to support his doctoral work. He was told in 1922 that “white students, especially from the south, would object to having a Black man as their teacher” (Jenkins, 1996, p. 262). Painful struggles for access often usurped time and energy that should have been going into their scientific woric. Resources mainstream scientists could take for granted were not available to those who were not part of the irmer worldngs of science. Barbara

McClintock went without visible means of support or an official position at an early

15 stage of her career in spite of the recognition that she had a worldwide reputation and

was clearly the best scientist in this country in her field (Keller, 1983).

The popular history of science contains one of the most telling lessons of actual

misrepresentation in the history of science, which also happens to involve gender

discrimination. The great genetic breakthrough that resulted in the delineation of the

physical structure of the DNA molecule was chronicled in The Double Helix, written by

James Watson (1968). This book makes brief reference to the use of the research of

Rosalind Franklin, a female scientist for whom Watson and Crick had little personal or

professional regard. It was not until Aime Sayre (1975) produced Rosalind Franklin’s

biography that it became apparent that the Nobel prize wirming discovery had been

dependent on her work and the laureates had violated the most basic scientific ethical

standards in their theft and unacknowledged use of her work. Thus, a new version of

science history begins to document the consistent pattern of overt and insidious

discrimination that has always been part of the experiences of nontraditional scientists.

Yet, while this biographical literature presents the human experiences in individual

stories of scientific participation, it is also important to examine the systematic ways

science legitimates exclusion through its official discourse.

NATURE

By definition, nature would be the complex set of genetically determined characteristics that make up the constitution of the individual. Evidence of scientific interest in human difference can be found in anything from the writings of the classic scholars of ancient Greece to the most prestigious scientific journals published today.

16 In light of the scientific fixation on understanding Nature on the global level, it is hardly

surprising that there is such a fascination with it on the human level.

Unfortunately, science has gone far beyond a natural curiosity with human

nature and the area has become an aspect of science with an undeniably political

agenda. The post-Darwinian era in the second half of the 19* century spawned a

proliferation of scientific theories rooted in Darwin’s evolutionary concepts (Degler,

1991). Among these were ideas that natural selection had influenced the intellectual capacity of different humans. Some of these notions were the basis for a branch of life science known as biological determinism that has long served as the foundation for gender and racial discrimination (Gould, 1981). During the latter half of the 1800s the practice of craniometry or measurement of the human skull became a popular practice

(Shipman, 1994). John Haller (1995) points out that the scientific theories of the time set out a concrete image of racial inferiority that has served as a fiamework justifying social behavior. Part of the anthropometric attention to theories of racial intellectual inferiority was carried over to ideas of sexual differences in intelligence that could be validated through skull size.

Science made a comparison between race and gender in the process of building notions of female inadequacy as a biosocial science through which scientists used analogy to construct notions of racial and sexual difference (Stepan, 1996). The medical profession had also taken a very active interest in women’s issues during this time period. Young women were being told they should concentrate on developing their reproductive systems and could not retain their good health if they were educated in the same way as men. Overstimulation of the female brain was reported to cause “stunted

17 growth, nervousness, headaches and neuralgias, difficult childbirth, hysteria,

inflammation of the brain, and insanity” (BuUough & Voght, 1973, p. 69). Around the

turn of the century, it was widely believed that there were serious limits to female

intellectual and career potentials due to women’s biology (Sebrechts, 1992).

There was nothing coincidental about the timing of the development of theories

of biological determinism. Margaret Rossiter (1982) documents the struggles of women

in the late 1800’s trying to move beyond territorial demarcations and into the sciences.

The emancipation of Americans of African descent meant that education could no

longer be systematically withheld from Black people. Critics now dissect this racist and

sexist history to show the political agenda that was promoted under the guise of science.

Ruth Hubbard (1990) talks about racist and sexist practices that allowed studies to distort measurements in order to confirm the political prejudices held by those in power.

It was no accident that science used a Darwinian imperative to promote the idea that males and females were as different mentally as they are physically (Degler, 1991).

Skepticism as to the validity of scientific evidence of intellectual difference has prompted efforts to review the historic evidence of difference in intellectual ability or academic aptitude. A monumental comprehensive review of sex differences was published by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) who concluded that most studies on psychological differences between males and females showed little or no significant difference. In many of the cases they examined, there were methodological flaws that led to exaggerations or flawed conclusions. Such work remains to be conducted in the area of antiracist scholarship and with the proliferation of racist science that continues, the imperative becomes more immediate.

18 NURTURE

The concept of nurture is to support, promote, and encourage development. In

human beings, nurture is associated with upbringing, training and development.

Biologists have long debated what is known as the Nature/Nurture controversy or the

issue of whether genetics or the environment are the ultimate determinants of behavioral

characteristics. In the case of science participation, a variety of factors have been

shown to influence participation by all women and men of color.

Socialization has a tremendous impact on participation in the sciences. Peltz

(1990) talks about how young children are comparably curious about the natural world,

but by middle school, attitudes are strongly differentiated. Minority students identify a

lack of encouragement and counseling as a reason why they do not consider science

careers (Atwater, 1986). Socioeconomic status is a significant factor in science

participation by minority students (ICll & Pettus, and Hedin, 1990). Pearson (1985)

found that the parents of most Black scientists were professionals. Jonathan Kozol

(1991) depicts educational limitations of the discouraging conditions and lack of even

textbooks in science labs and classrooms of schools in poor communities.

For children, experience has a major impact on their attitudes toward science

participation. Cobb (1979) discusses how a series of filters determines who is likely to

go into science. Very early play experiences, elementary education, math and science

courses and classroom conditioning are some of what she sees as the first steps that act to select for what people are likely to go into science. Kahle, Maty as, and Cho (1985) found that even if classroom experiences are controlled, boys have outside advantages

19 from more extracurricular science activities. Teachers’ perceptions of science achievement have been shown to be influenced by the behaviors of minority students

(Matthews, 1982).

Self-confidence is an area that is very likely to impact the likelihood of students’ pursuit of a science career. Sadker and Sadker (1994) have shown that teachers tell high-achieving girls that they are lucky or work hard rather than they are smart and likely to become scientists. Minority students are particularly sensitive to negative treatment and stereotypes (Atwater, 1986). Teacher expectations can clearly reflect racial/ethnic stereotype and influence the way people are judged (Hoy, 1993). Teachers may magnify tendencies for girls to have lower aptitudes for science because as Spear

(1984) showed in a careful study, teachers grade differently depending on what they perceive a student’s sex to be. Girls tend to be less comfortable with class participation and especially dislike being tested orally as is done in science settings (Peltz, 1990).

Cooper (1979) implies that student perceptions of what they can achieve in science classes are influenced by the verbal behaviors of their teachers. Shepardson and Pizzini

(1991) found science teachers are often unaware of their biases, but can be made more sensitive to the impact their classroom behavior can have on their students.

Factors such as separate education have been shown to alter tendencies toward science participation. Single sex schools positively influence attitudes as well as educational and occupational attainment (Riordan, 1992). Tidball (1986) showed that women are much more likely to earn science degrees at women’s colleges than coed schools. Women’s colleges seem to engender a mindset that fosters science participation since the proportions of people majoring in those fields is significantly

20 higher in that setting (Sebrechts, 1992). Sharpe (1995) has shown that certain

historically women’s liberal arts colleges, specifically Mount Holyoke College and

Bryn Mawr, have undergraduate programs that graduate women who are much more

likely than average to go on to obtain science PhDs than other institutions.

The im%e students have of science can be quite influential. Gender roles

become very important at the middle school level. Girls begin to think of certain

courses such as math and science as male courses that lead to associated male careers

(Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Teachers, who at the elementary level often do not like

science, have been shown to transmit their attitudes about science to students in very

subtle ways (Shakeshaft, 1995). The American Association of University Women

(1995) reports that girls who do well in math and science are less likely than their male

counterparts to go into scientific/technical careers. Cultural differences can influence

students’ perceptions of science (Tibord, 1973). There is a tremendous need to find the

high quality relevant curricula that will interest diverse students in science education

(Travis, 1993). Stanley and Brickhouse (1994) advocate multiculturalism in science

education is a way of better meeting the needs of diverse students through changing

their ideas about the usual presentation of science.

Scientific role models are seen as a significant way to encourage scientific

aspirations. Role models are one of the most commonly mentioned outside influences

to the career choices made by nontraditional students in the sciences. Olden (1993)

advocates taking science back to minority neighborhoods through outreach. Atwater

(1986) reports that minority role models not only inspire children of color, but break stereotypes among majority students as well. Gilbert (1985) showed that female

21 students rate same sex role models as much more likely to influence their career

decisions than male students do. Science career choices were found across race and sex

to be most directly affected by personal contact with a scientist (Hill & Pettus, and

Hedin, 1990).

Beyond role models, the importance of special and direct encouragement

through mentoring has been shown to have positive influence on the career choices of

women. Massey (1992) talks about the fact that very few students of color will ever

have the chance to be mentored by individuals who take a special interest in promoting

their careers. Holden (1993) points out that only in historically Black colleges are

students likely to see very many science faculty members who are African American,

Haring and Paludi (1992) recommend that while good mentoring is of the utmost

importance, the best outcomes seem to be in cases of female to female mentor-protegee

relationships. This was confirmed by Schroeder and Mynatt (1993) who found that

although cross-gender mentoring is much more effective that it used to be, women with

female major professors perceived their interactions more positively.

When it comes to debating Nature/Nurture, the whole dilemma is hardly

productive. Nothing but a complex interactive model that takes into account the intertwined contributions of both nature and nurture is even close to resolving that, but when we look at preparation for science careers, the significance of nurture is apparent.

Biological determinism is particularly damaging to students and almost irrelevant in the face of evidence showing how a multitude of social factors seem to have the most profound impact on student responses to education related to the sciences.

22 NICHE

By définition, the niche is the place or position appropriate for a person. Niche

locates the function or position of an organism in a community. It is the way of living

or sum of all relationships between an organism and its environment. Science has been

studied by several veins of scholarship in the humanities. Historians of science have

chronicled the activities and accomplishments of scientists. Philosophers of science

have scrutinized science methods. Now, the broader implications of science are being

addressed within an interdisciplinary effort generally known as Cultural Studies of

Science. Scholars in this area have taken on the task of critically examining the social

aspects of science. Their work presents bold challenges to some of the premises of

scientific work, most notably the idea that science is apolitical and capable of operating

without being influenced by the culture in which it operates.

Cultural critics focus on tearing down some of the knowledge claims that are

based on misrepresentation of the scientific method. Assertions of a neutral viewpoint

have been part of science since the Enlightenment (Shiebinger, 1989). Scholars

working in the Cultural Studies of Science have explored how claims of neutrality

actually mask privilege. Science is no more immune to ideology than any other human

activity (Hubbard, 1990). Andrew Ross (1991) warns against believing in the idea that

there is context free technology and implies that science is part of a dialog around which

our cultural process creates its social meaning. Philosopher Sandra Harding (1986)

challenges the notion that science is a sacred form of knowledge especially in its pretense of being anything other than a human activity. Richard Lewontin (1992) proposes that science has its own two-part agenda to manipulate the material world.

23 One part is to explain the way things are and the other is to reinforce dominant social

and economic forces through the ideas it produces. There is no such thing as apolitical

science since science is very much a human activity that is nothing more than a product

of its social culture and the time in which it was produced. In naming science as social

knowledge, Helen Longino (1990) explores how the scientific method can be used to

make claims that a value-laden process such as science is as value-free as scientists

would like to claim.

Feminist voices have made some of the strongest challenges to the pretense that

science is objective and value free. Acutely aware of how science contributed to the

oppression of women through oppressive theories of gender, feminists outside of the

sciences sought to point to the political work that was done through science. Labels like

the “Sexual Politics of Science” (Wajcman, 1991) reflect the feelings that the link

between science and masculinity determines how women are impacted by science.

Sandra Harding (1991) looks for ways feminists can come to push scientists to

recognize that its practices are shaped by androcentrism. Some early work written with

the passions of the women’s movement were never taken seriously by science because

they failed to identify essential flaws in the scientific posture that are the true

vulnerabilities and could actually be used to hold science accountable. Feminist critiques began to connect more effectively in their challenges of science when they were generated by people from within the scientific community who had a better sense of how to “tear down the Master’s house” (Lorde, 1984) using something closer to his own tools. Scholarship that was produced by feminist scientists contributed extremely valuable insights to this body of literature. Evelyn Fox Keller (1985) wonders if science

24 is not so masculine it might be impossible to reclaim science to situate it in a place where it can be gender-free. Ruth Hubbard (1990) builds a very strong case for how political biology is with respect to women’s issues. Ruth Bleier (1984) also examines the androcentric assumptions of biology especially how extreme she feels it is that we still must debate the Nature/Nurture or heredity/environment debate. Ann Fausto

Sterling (1985) takes a well-grounded stand against the current use of sociobiology to justify institutional sexism.

Antiracist scholarship got a later start, but is now joining cultural studies by building as a body of work that challenges the hegemonic mindset on ethnic difference.

Race is now widely recognized for being nothing more than a social construction and even most biologists agree the typological distinctions are arbitrary (Marshall, 1993).

In the absence of geographical isolation to prevent mixing, even any possible usefulness of the original distinctions is lost. Yet, the vestiges of biological theories about difference refuse to die. Washburn (1993) attributes the racism that surrounds the concept of IQ to basic misunderstanding of biology. The exalted status of the sciences led to the ease with which its racist theories were accepted (Haller, 1995). Carl Degler

(1991) deems scientific racism the product of a misunderstanding of human nature.

Gould (1981) has exposed the ways in which biological determinism is unapologetically used for social dominance by hiding behind the inaccessibility gained from the prestige of science.

The best of the cultural criticisms are those that challenge both racist and sexist notions simultaneously. This approach shows the possibility of unmasking the political nature of the scientific enterprise in a way that breaks down myths of objectivity and

25 gives a more accurate portrayal of the scientific method. Sandra Harding (1993) speaks of the need to challenge constructed hierarchies and undo the matrix of oppression science has created in its scripts around race, class and gender. There is tremendous hope for constructive outcome from science critique when it works toward the equity

Anne Fausto-Sterling (1985) urges will come out of research that opens the possibility rather than a prognosis of limitations.

26 CHAPTERS

STRATEGY FOR INQUIRY...

Theoretical Premise

This research begins with the assumption that although differences exist among disciplines and individual scientists, there is a set of common values and behaviors that can be defined as a culture of science. Anthropologists have never agreed on a definition of culture, but there is a great deal of correspondence between codes of conduct in the scientific community and some of the classic definitions. Kluckhom

(1962) summarized the various characterizations as including: a way of life, patterns for doing things, a social legacy, ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving, pooled learning, standardized orientation, mechanisms for normative behavior, and techniques for adjusting to the environment and other humans. Out of the chaos of such diffuse thinking, Clifford Geertz (1973) suggests that a less eclectic definition might be to expand on Max Weber's idea that humans are suspended in webs of significance and culture is the web of meanings by which we organize social experiences.

The “webs of significance” in science culture include, but are not limited to; the historical background, its philosophical foundations, sources of authority, methodological practices, use of language, and social relations. Scientists are not a group generally thought of as having culture, but the common past and shared future of

27 science as an organized society demonstrates the applicability of the term (Traweek,

1988). The scientific community is basically orgamzed around a template of values that

structure normative social behaviors and influence the thinking of those entrusted with

the recruitment and education o f future scientists. Once people are successfully

acculturated, they become unconscious of science culture; it becomes virtually

imperceptible. The invisibility of its influence is where the culture of science can be

extremely problematic. ‘To become a scientist is to work under men and women who are already scientists; to become a scientific authority is to submit for an extended time to existing authorities. These authorities embody in their work whatever past thought and practice is deemed worthwhile...” (Gross, 1990, p. 14). Every aspiring scientist gradually learns the idiosyncratic culture of science through a process of enculturation.

This is the mechanism by which a scientist learns the traditional content of a culture and adopts its practices and values by assuming established norms of behavior.

Membership in the professional community is contingent on assimilation or the successful outcome of enculturation. People whose background is very different from the culture that spawned Western science may not enculturate as easily. Others whose biological sex and socialization have led to different ways of knowing (Belenky,

Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986) may not be attracted to a community that operates on a very contradictory value system.

Traditional studies of science participation have tended to reify explanations that justify disproportional representation in the sciences. This enterprise will paradigmatically contrast sharply with the very empirical analytic tradition of the positivist science it investigates in the hope that a poststructural approach with new

28 lines of inquiry, devoted to the production of new knowledge rather than réinscription

of the same, can capture explanations that have thus far remained so elusive. Critical

examination of the culture of science necessarily interrogates the epistemology of the

sciences. Science is usually treated as an untouchable form of knowledge in our

culture. Scientific knowledge is so sacred science has literally taken over the position

of cultural authority that religion used to occupy. In order to question the scientific way

of knowing, it is crucial to move beyond the modernist notion of science as an ultimate

source of authority. Science is a system of knowledge that prides itself on a

methodology that is presumed to transcend the fallibility of other processes through its

rigid systematization and strict adherence to numeric measurement. Science is

presumed to come as close as is humanly possible to the production of ultimate ‘Truth.”

Science critiques are usually considered academically subversive, blasphemous, and

were rarely seen until recently. When Audre Lorde (1984) cautioned, “the master’s

tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (p. 110), she was referring to the racial

power structure of society, but her words readily apply to this research project.

With the idea that science consists of a mesh of interdependent cultural

constituents, its analysis is better constructed as an interpretive effort in search of

meaning rather than experimental science that searches for laws (Geertz, 1973).

Naturalistic inquiry has been employed to explore scientists' ideas about the persistent

problem of disproportional demographic representation in the sciences. The usefulness of quantitative methodologies has virtually been exhausted. Numbers of scientists have been counted time and time again and interventions in the name of empiricist social science have done little to remedy the situation. Thus, it is time to turn to the

29 descriptive/explanatory power of Interpretivism in hopes o f gaining a better

understanding and leading to the Critical/Emancipatory possibilities of qualitative

research. The conceptual context for this project is strongly situated within both

hermeneutic and critical research perspectives. Rejecting the notion of a singular

essential reality, I sought multiple perceptions of scientific reality from both women and

men as well as people of color and Caucasians. I looked for intersubjective

constructions of the assumptions that underlie the experiences of race and gender these

scientists have in the context of the cultural dimensions of their professional

environment. I moved from the Interpretvist perspective to the Critical/Emancipatory

level in order to do an ideological critique that paid special attention to indications of

the dominant constructions that might be responsible for a power structure that favors

certain types of people. I sought to expose the sociopolitical factors that are so

oppressive and dominating by virtue of the fact that they go unrecognized.

The project moved beyond a purely interpretivist framework to fall within the

scope of critical theory. My secondary goal is as Van Manen (1990) says, to “promote

critical consciousness and struggle to break down the institutional structures and arrangements which reproduce oppressive ideologies and the social inequalities that are sustained and produced by these social structures and ideologies” (p. 176). The participants in this study are likely to have been made conscious, through the member checks, of ideas that serve as unintentional foundations for personal bias. Lather (1991) urges researchers to realize that change is a likely consequence of the human experience involved in their work. While the praxis-orientation was not the primary focus of this work, it was certainly a very desirable outcome. Scientists may begin to change their

30 personal concepts of the ideal scientist through a new awareness of their own culture

and the manner in which new members are enculturated. This is the phenomenon

known as catalytic validity (Lather, 1986) whereby the respondents examine their own

thinking and are stimulated by increased consciousness to pursue self-determined

change.

My desire has been to accumulate a collection of scientists' conceptions of the

social existence of all women and men of color within the scientific community. I was

interested in their insights as to the meaning of the racial and gender power structure of

their community in the hope that such information might contribute to my formulation

of a reasoned understanding of how science culture shapes the nature of science

education. I did not expect many of the participants to readily acknowledge the

existence of a science culture, so I worked indirectly around the issue. My interview

strategy explored their ideas about various facets of what I consider to be the culture of

science. When people seemed to embrace the notion, I asked at the very end whether

they considered science to have a culture of its own. With respect to the impact

cultural values could have on equity, I held onto a personal belief that those who have

been effectively assimilated were likely to have serious difficulty recognizing the

effects science culture could have in excluding others. For scientists, it has been easier

to assume something is deficient in other people than accept the responsibility that

something might be wrong with the culture of the scientific community.

A fundamental goal of this research has been to move beyond mere description

in the tradition of conventional ethnography. My personal commitment to educational equity provided the basic impetus for the project and drove the firm commitment to

31 place the work into the critical/emancipatory realm of postpositivist/poststructural

work. An understanding of what might contribute to the persistent underrepresentation

of all women and men of color in science programs was sought by exposing

descriptions of science culture to a combined Feminist/Antiracist critique. Thus the

project is most accurately depicted as critical ethnography (Thomas, 1993),

acknowledging the political agenda and social purpose of the work. As is characteristic

of ethnography, culture will provide the conceptual fiamework in terms of principal

organization and as the central focus in the data analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).

Once the realm of anthropologists studying exotic “other” people, ethnography has

become a practical tool in the evaluation of contemporary social problems (Patton,

1990). My use of ethnography does not make any attempt at orthodoxy from an

anthropological standpoint. Rather, I have adapted the method to “respond to the

different purposes and contexts of the research” as so many educational researchers

have begun to do (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990, p.5).

Personal Standpoint

Since there are no scripted canons for Naturalistic Inquiry and the range of

methodological possibility is so great, the apprentice researcher is left to develop a

sense of these ideals rather than follow scripted procedures. Having conducted

biological science research for years, I am fascinated by the contrast in necessary

preparation for this type of qualitative social science. Novice bench scientists can be quickly trained in the technical measurement procedures required to collect data and literally start a research project. They do not really need to understand the premise of

32 the research question, the background for the study, or how the data will be analyzed

and interpreted. Most often novices learn these as they go along under the supervision

of an established scientist with less attention given to epistemological and ontological

assumptions inherent in their work.

Advance preparation is not optional in a situation where the researcher is

literally the research instrument. I could never have presumed to begin the interviews

for this project without developing an appreciation for the entire research process. This

investigation has been an inductive process where the theory was constructed on the

basis of observations, and learning the methodology could not have been left to occur as

part of that process. In contrast, empirical science, perhaps because of the deductive

nature of the research, or at least the well-established ground rules of the methodology,

is a place where the training can occur “on the job.” I am struck by the contrast,

between paradigms, in the level of consciousness the researcher has about the research

process and realize now that this is a fundamental epistemological difference. Perhaps this realization comes from the active consciousness of this project, cautioning a former natural scientist to dismiss any premise of objectivity and accept the inherently subjective nature of any research.

My conceptualization of the nature of science culture is based very much on my own lived experience as a member of that community. Lifelong aspiration to be a scientist meant that I spent a great deal of time as a student of the sciences. I began experiencing the process of scientific enculturation at an early age. I knew what it meant to be a female scientist because I had a visible role model in my family. I took an active role in my own socialization, making choices and decisions that increased the

33 likelihood of my fitting into that realm. My attraction to science included; the subject

matter in Zoology, the challenge of problem solving, the application of mathematics, the

rational order of the procedures and the success I had in science courses. I remained

interested in science in spite of poor teaching in high school. I survived a science major

that was very competitive and the source of my lowest grades in college. By graduate

school, however, I had hit my stride and was doing very well in the subject I loved on

the way, I thought, to a Ph.D. and a career that I hoped would combine scientific

teaching and research. I knew the history of science was a story of white men and I

knew that the representation of anyone else was poor. I never expected to face barriers

to my participation because I was a woman. I never really saw the gendered nature of

the scientific community. Science did not look any more masculine than most career

fields. Science also did not look monocultural, ethnocentric, or even racist until I began

to notice the way my fiiends were treated in graduate school. There was something

quite alarming about a climate that seemed to condone racial bigotry as if it had a

special dispensation to behave in a way that was not tolerated elsewhere.

The academic socialization that occurred during the schooling that led to bachelors and Masters degrees, plus part of a doctoral program and 11 years of experience as a research scientist takes very deep root in one’s psyche. My thinking has been shaped by the cultural values of the scientific community over a prolonged period of time. I had a very solid grounding in quantitative methodology. Through excellent mentoring and course work, I came to understand the theoretical premise of quantitative analytical procedures in addition to their modes of application. This in itself is rather unusual. Many scientists are too busy to take the time to ever understand the

34 mathematical basis of the statistical procedures they use and this is likely to be the

reason they make mistaken or incorrect assumptions. My scientific thinking was also

shaped by training in the philosophy of science under the tutelage of Husain Sarkar

whose work A Theory of Method (1983) stimulated a consciousness of my practice that

might never have developed otherwise.

There are many facets of my move from natural sciences to social science that

bear directly on this work. My academic move to a social science discipline pulled me far enough outside of that culture of science to obtain a perspective 1 so need to begin to recognize it. I still strongly self-identify as a scientist and in the context of this project feel something o f an insider looking back at my own community. Recent personal growth, as a consequence of my experience in a Science Education program, has enabled me to begin to understand aspects of the science world that had never seemed apparent before. I came very close to spending my life buried in the positivist epistemology of a career in the natural sciences. A brilliant and well-constructed introduction to the world of Naturalistic Inquiry in a research methods course led me to undergo a rapid philosophical paradigm shift. I had initially resisted, even considering the possibility of qualitative work. There was a time when I am certain I could have made a very rude case to dismiss the validity of anything other than traditional statistics-based, empirical science. I was absolutely convinced, as 1 explored the possibility of completing my unfinished doctorate in Education, that if 1 were going to be a social scientist, I would definitely be a quantitative one! Yet I now self-define as a

“bimethodological” and take tremendous pride in the fact that I am comparably well grounded in both methodologies. Undertaking this examination of science culture has

35 necessitated my problematizing a great deal that is connected to the methodology of the

sciences. I do not think it would have been possible for me to think critically about the

methodology of science without growing and moving my past unquestioned acceptance

of it.

As a Science Educator, I will always be trapped by the necessity of bridging two

very dissimilar discourse communities. My woridview has changed, but I cannot reject

the one I previously held for practical reasons. If my work is to have impact, it will

have to be taken back to the scientific community in a manner that can be

comprehended. The move to the Post-positivist paradigm is usually progressive and

relatively complete. The shift to a Post-modern perspective seems to require the

creation of a degree of distance from the culture under scrutiny. True Post-structural

work comes from adopting completely new methods of knowledge production in order

to avoid réinscription of the old. The efforts examine the ideological role of language in

constructing rather than representing experience. Interestingly, I have begun to accept

that the nature of my position may never allow me to move completely beyond my roots

in the natural sciences. 1 will always need to maintain a line of communication with

scientists in order to do my work. I situate myself in something of a postmodem/poststructural stance, but 1 literally caimot allow my thinking to move too far from a place where I can still relate to theirs, if I am going to be able to function in the Science Education community.

My belated realization of how scientific enculturation had influenced my own career path makes me acutely aware of the hidden nature of personal subjectivity. As a woman who aspired to become a practicing scientist but resigned from a doctoral

36 program out of an unwillingness to tolerate the hazing and harassment that is

occasionally part of the process of enculturation, I made a choice to reject the culture I

am examining. This research topic was not chosen on the basis of my circumstances.

My woric in science education fostered a strong interest in the invisible systemic

problems that exist for all women and men of color. I had become fascinated by the

way science mirrors and reflects itself back and forth between the classrooms and the

professions. There is always a connection between theory and experience in research,

whether it involves a linear movement in that order in the deductive model or the

reversal from experience to theory in a more inductive model. For feminist researchers,

there are likely to be complex interactions between the research phenomenon and

personal background (Stanley & Wise, 1991). Without question, my interest is

stimulated by my own background, but this was not the fundamental motivation to

conduct this study.

In naturalistic inquiry or qualitative work, the investigator literally serves as the

research instrument. I found this to be the most novel and possibly exciting aspect of

this project. The fascination came from the fact that this was the most profound

contrast in my experiences of doing both positivist and postempiricist work. On the epistemological level, in my biological science I realized how much I had been trained to believe that the validity of my work and the accuracy of the knowledge I produced depended on the precision of “objective” measures and the appropriate choice and use of statistical analytic procedures. My social science work showed me only too clearly how delusional that premise of objectivity was because I had to face the fact that I was at the center of everything that was going on. In the data collection, the interviewer

37 creates the context and actively manipulates the flow of the discussion as long as the respondent is willing to comply with the direction that is taken. The time I spent as a member of the scientific community was extremely valuable in terms of the interview process. The necessary interval of prolonged engagement in order to make accurate interpretations in ethnographic work has been accomplished. I understand the language and values of the respondents which is a critical aspect of ethnographic fieldwork (Wax,

1971). Because I know the culture of science so well, I feel I have been able to find that place for possible inquiry and creating visibility that Luce Iragaray (1989) cautions is so illusive. Most importantly, paradigm issues are at the very heart of this investigation.

As the research unfolded and I began to get a sense of what is blocking science from progressing into a more diverse and equitable arena, I realized that the blinding illusion of objectivity prevents the scientific world from seeing itself as the masculinist/ethnocentric artifact that it is.

I struggled a great deal with how to use my own feminist/antiracist political agenda in this work. Those politics are the single most important sources of motivation for my choice to become a Science Educator. My commitment to change things for people who have been traditionally underserved by the sciences, both educationally and in their exclusion from access to the professions, provided the crucial impetus for the study. Yet, I was conflicted by the haunting vestiges of positivism that nagged me to feel guilty that my work is undeniably framed by anything as subjective as this political dimension. Peshkin (1988) has decided to claim virtue in subjectivity, valuing the contribution made by the researcher's unique configuration of a situation. I have found addressing this to be one of the most daunting, but crucial aspects of the research

38 process. I was terrified that I might be excessively critical of traditional scientists as

representative of the dominant culture, but every one of them responded favorably to

my interpretation of their interviews. I am fairly certain that my personal circumstances

have been translated into an awareness of the subtleties in the data or what Strauss and

Corbin (1990) deem theoretical sensitivity. Rather than a biased subjectivity that would

have given my interpretations a distorted perspective, I found an alternate position of

announced perspective. Rejecting any pretence of value-free objectivity, I let the

participants know that my work was being done with the intent of unraveling the

complexity of race and gender within the sciences.

In all honesty, this study began with the idea of focussing on gender issues. I very quickly realized that without careful consideration, I would join many other feminist researchers in producing yet another monochromatic exploration of white, middle class women's issues. Most feminist work obscures the issue of race, failing to acknowledge the special circumstances of women of color (Spelman, 1988). I began to investigate issues of racial/ethnic diversity in the interest of giving credible attention to the situation of nonwhite women who experience the often undistinguishable, simultaneous oppression of both racism and sexism. There is no separation of the interlocking nature of the oppression for women of color, as Patricia Hill Collins (1991) and other African American feminists repeatedly point out. To my surprise, I discovered that racism seems to be a much more deeply entrenched form of oppression in the scientific community than sexism. Scientists are very proud of the steady increases in participation by women in most fields, but as they show the ascending levels on timeline graphs, they rarely point to the flat line on the bottom of the chart representing

39 how little change there has been in ethnic diversity. I chose to simultaneously explore

the impact of racism and sexism. Thus, the experiences of all women and men of color

are central to my woit. They will be juxtaposed against the situation that Aces

members of the European American male (majority) population in the sciences.

However, in any theorizing I did on the subject of racism, as a European

American I carefully considered how my experience based on the privilege of my own

ethnicity impacted my epistemic position. The insider/outsider debate worked both in

favor of and against my legitimacy as the researcher on this project. In the general

perspective, I am, as a woman, outside of the traditional domain of white masculine

academic authority. There has been considerable argument that only those researchers

emerging from life experiences outside the dominant status group can be adequate

interpreters of experiences of the oppressed (Stanfield, 1994). On the other hand, I am

equally concerned about my right to interpret the experiences of those people who are

racialized through the ethnic component of this research. I do not presume to be able to

transcend my location and acknowledge the discursive danger of using it to speak for

others (AlcofiE^ 1991). I have no doubt that a person of color would have posed other

questions, experienced the research differently, collected unique information and

interpreted the findings in another way (Zinn, 1970). Questions on issues of racial

identity in the interviews have been strongly informed by the work of Beverly Tatum

(1992) and Janet E. Helms (1993) who have produced racially/culturally explicit models to facilitate research. I hope that my understanding of this issue will serve to guard against the exploitation of people of color. I consciously tried to learn to look at my culture as it must appear through the experiences of others. This is a process that is

40 usually antithetical to the actions of those in privileged groups (Anderson, 1993). The

benefit of a critique made by an ethnic insider could be the increased potential to

challenge the dominant racial/ethnic ideology of the scientific community because it is

impossible to dismiss me for acting in my own self-interest. I can only hope that my

commitment to challenge the ethnic hegemonic character of the scientific culture in the

United States is reason enough to justify this aspect of the study.

Participant Scientists

Since practicing scientists serve as the science educators and mentors in postsecondary stages of science education, they are the ultimate gatekeepers of each subject area. Scientists choose and train their successors, thus determining the gender and ethnic composition of their professional field through the selection of their proteges.

University scientists teach the science courses that provide the disciplinary grounding for those who eventually become science teachers and science educators. Therein lies what is perhaps the most explicit connection between the culture of science at large and the culture in science classrooms. In the long term, it is through this cycle of education that science culture is maintained and perpetuated largely by these academic scientists.

The setting for the study is the world of academic science. Most, but not all, participants in the study are currently employed as faculty members at The Ohio State

University. This very large research-based institution employs over 1,000 faculty members in the natural sciences excluding the clinical fields. The necessity to sample an additional four participants fi’om other institutions was due to the fact that there were literally not enough women of color within the science faculty to provide adequate

41 representation for this study. The thirty-four informants in this study included both demographically traditional (European American male) and nontraditional (all female and non-Caucasian male) practicing scientists who were primarily involved in higher education.

Without entering the debate as to “What fields get to count as science?” I was particularly interested in the traditional natural sciences including the basic life and physical sciences and their applied domains of agriculture and engineering. Scientists were chosen fi'om a variety of different departments to represent multiple disciplinary perspectives within those disciplines. The large number of possible science programs was narrowed by eliminating the various biomedical fields and their associated professional colleges. This choice was made for practical reasons to reduce the sheer number of programs and also because the clinical fields have their own particularly unique cultural issues that distinguish them from the other sciences. The 34 participants came from 22 different science departments. To provide ample disciplinary breadth, there was fairly comparable representation of the life (20) and physical (14) sciences.

Of these, they worked in the basic fields ( 19) and applied specializations (15). Life scientists (12) came from; biochemistry, cell biology, entomology, microbiology, molecular genetics, pharmacy, physiology, psychology, and zoology. The physical scientists (7) represented: astronomy, chemistry, geology, and physics. Agricultural scientists (8) included people from: agricultural engineering, animal science, food science, and horticulture. The engineers (7) were from: biomedical, electrical, materials science, mechanical, and industrial systems engineering.

42 Deliberate and purposeful demographic sampling was done across those fields to obtain substantial variation since these people needed to be informcaion-rich cases

(Patton, 1990) with respect to sex and racial/ethnic background. The traditional and nontraditional scientists constituted critica l case samples because they were crucial in the scheme of the research, representing both the group that is known to move easily into science culture and the group for whom it is more difficult. They included the majority/minority populations with respect to numeric representation in their departments. In terms of political power within their communities, they covered both dominant and subordinate social status. The potential contrasts in their opinions could make certain points of study more dramatic. Of the people interviewed, exactly half were male (17) and the other half were female (17). Comparable numbers of European

Americans (18) and People of Color (16) were included. The People of Color included

Americans of African (6) and Asian (4) descent as well as Latinos (4) and First Nation

People (2). The intensive nature of the chosen research method entailed limiting the number of participants but maximizing their engagement. Eventually the number of participants was almost double the number originally proposed for the project, since after twenty participants I lacked the balanced representation and feeling of theoretical saturation I knew was necessary and eventually achieved.

Focussed conversations that took place between July 3, 1997 and October 14,

1997 were used to elicit perceptions of science held by these participants. An interview strategy was employed because it is particularly useful for examining human actions in their full social and cultural context, and is a more efficient and less obtrusive tactic than traditional ethnographic participant observation (McCracken, 1988). This process

43 took into account the scarcity of time for everyone involved and the need to respect the

privacy of the participants. Participants were identified predominantly by word of

mouth recommendations of various people on campus. Initial contact was made by

telephone. The actual interviews took place at the participants’ convenience, usually in

their offices, but occasionally in nearby departmental conference rooms. After

obtaining participants’ signatures to verify informed consent as to their voluntary

participation in the study, the audio recording was initiated.

The conversations lasted from 45 minutes to 2.5 hours. In most cases, I

terminated the discussion at very close to the 90 minute duration I had requested out of

respect for them and in the interest of containing the dialog on one 90 minute audiotape.

Success of the interviews rested on finding a balance between familiarity and distance,

concentrating on gaining information without being obtrusive. Most informants seemed

flattered by the attention and very willing to talk openly about their perspectives on

science. These interviews were conducted from an interactionist viewpoint (Silverman,

1993) that sought to document the authentic experiences of the subjects through the dynamic of the situation created between myself as the interviewer and the scientist as the interviewee.

Initial efforts to use an interview guide approach (Patton, 1990) were abandoned for a more open-ended style of conversation. The guide would have provided systematic treatment across subjects, but these people resisted being led in particular directions and were much more forthright if allowed to talk without direction. The open-ended format allowed more easily for the flexibility necessary to pursue unanticipated themes. As Bernard (1988) suggests, a crucial aspect of this strategy

44 included convincing the respondents that I was genuinely interested in what they had to

say, probing only when necessary and often with silence, and focussing the

conversation minimally but giving the informant room to determine the content. An

effective strategy to open the interview was asking the participants how they developed

an interest in science and what led them to become a scientist. Inviting them to tell life

stories on other topics was also particularly useful since I could literally watch them

make sense of the experience through the narratives they shared.

My goal was to encourage description, explanation, clarification, and evaluation

of science and its culture. The focus was on participants' perceptions of the culture of

science and how gender and racial/ethnic status impact people’s experience within that

culture. I inquired about characteristics they look for in potential students and traits

they associate with people who succeed in being socialized to fit into science. I asked them to recall the kind of training they experienced and what they thought is most suitable to prepare people for a successful career in science. In the early interviews the act of pure data collection was the dominant theme. As the interviews went on, I began to move into a more analytic activity. I found myself playing back decontextualized comments from other interviews and asking scientists to respond to what others had said. While some scientists recognized, had thought about and were ready to discuss their academic culture, I was relieved to find that others who were less prepared or able could be enticed to think about and discuss it with suitable prompts.

I negotiated the issue of presentation very carefully. I claimed insider status gradually by demonstrating my scientific background through the types of questions I asked and the language I used. This was done initially in order to move the discussion

45 past any perception that I would need extensive introductory explanations of general

aspects of the sciences. It also gave me leverage to probe in greater depth and question

problematic issues. Fontana and Frey (1994) caution that the presentational self casts

the context of an interview and seriously influences the dynamic of the interaction. I

found this to be quite true, and one of the most positive aspects of the research. There

would have been little chance of my obtaining much of this testimony without being

able to speak to these people as a fellow scientist.

One of the more amusing aspects of the interviews was the convolution of the

usual power relationship between the researcher and the subject. Contrary to the

traditional imbalance that attributes so much control to the investigator, there may have

been something closer to a balance of power in these cases. I deliberately positioned

myself as a deferent graduate student, carefully using their titles and making them feel

that I was the subordinate person in this setting. For most of the people this was neither

significant nor necessary, but in some cases, it seemed to satisfy people as to their own

perception of their status.

These interviews were clearly influenced by response effects (Bernard, 1988)

which are predictable influences that the demographic characteristics of the interviewer

and the participants have on the conversations. Both sex and ethnicity generated

response effects also because they were the subject in question. The controversial

nature of these topics altered the dynamic of the conversations with different

respondents. I had to work to break down the reticence of some people in order to open up lines of communication. Current cultural norms restrict explicit expression of sexist and racist views (Bell, 1997) with the idea that such behavior is not “politically

46 correct,” but I was quite surprised at some of the comments that were actually made

with full recognition they were being recorded.

The gender issue added another important dimension to every conversation.

Warren (1988) cautions female field workers not to rely on the myth that gender will

always work in favor of a woman who is assumed to be more communicative and less

threatening. My temperament tends to negate that possibility very quickly which was

an asset in this case since, on the basis of my experience working with them, I think

scientists respond better to a stronger posture fi’om women. For me, the issue was very

much a matter of negotiating either a same sex rapport with female scientists or a level

of trust on gender issues with male scientists. I was very careful not to give the

impression of being a feminist adversary of traditional science in either case and I had

the distinct impression that both men and women were looking for that possibility. It

was very easy to speak to almost all of the women and much harder to converse with

most of the men about sexual discrimination. Every woman I spoke to suffers fiom the marginalization she experiences in the profession, so it was clearly cathartic for them to talk about it. They quickly realized that I understood what they were going through without self-disclosure on my part and obviously reciprocated for the empathy with forthright testimony.

I had little idea of what kind of rapport I was going to be able to establish with people fiom racial/ethnic groups other than my own. I have thought long and hard about the ideological and cultural biases that John Stanfield (1993) identifies as encumbering any social science work involving race or ethnicity. My stance was cautious and honest with people I had never met and it worked remarkably well. One of

47 the most personally satisfying parts of the process was marveling when I was able to

overcome several walls of caution that threatened to block the flow of information from

some participants. I was intent on facing my own privilege and endeavoring to see the

world through the experience of others as Margaret Anderson (1993) describes.

The construction of a short synopsis to “play back” my interpretation of each

interview to the subject was an explicit attempt to establish the credibility (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985) of this work. While there can be no pretense of objectivity, since any

interpretation was my subjective view of what they said, this exercise verified that what

I heard was a fair reflection and not an unacceptable distortion of their opinions.

Credibility was proposed by Lincoln & Guba (1985) as a replacement for the concept of

internal validity which is an empiricist guarantee that measurements are accurate. By

allowing the respondents to critique my essays, I gave them a role in monitoring the

accuracy of the data collection. This was a very explicit effort to guard against

researcher bias in the project and address the issue of face validity (Lather, 1986) by

cycling the data back through the participants. This also became an explicit site from

which 1 could explore the issue of intersubjective agreement. Part of the critical

tradition includes having the researcher undertake self-conscious exploration of the

influences of subjective, intersubjective, and epistemological presuppositions that

inform the work (Kinchloe & McClaren, 1994).

Interpretive Moves

Immediately following every interview, field notes were written to document my reaction to the interview. These texts were a source of spontaneous analytic reflection

48 with information that was useful for triangulation with the transcript in subsequent

aspects of the research. Interviews were audio-recorded using the internal microphone

of a stereo cassette tape recorder and standard-sized tapes. The text was transcribed

verbatim by a professional transcriber with previous scientific experience and an

interest in the subject that facilitated her understanding of the conversations. She also

served as a crucial peer debriefer, critiquing the early interviews and suggesting ways to

improve my questioning skills. Using a dictation machine, I carefully reviewed each

transcript to verify the interpretation of the spoken text and monitor the quality of the

conversations I was having. There were cases where phonetic similarity in words

deceived the transcriber into a homonym that led to a very erroneous impression of

what was being said. Some of these were quite amusing, but certainly needed to be

corrected. I saw quite clearly what Poland (1995) cautions is the need to ensure

accuracy and transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. The

interviews ranged from 8 to 33 single-spaced pages with an average of 18 and a grand

total 630 pages.

The substantive appraisal of the accumulated information began at the first level

of formal written analysis which were the official member checks. At the time of the

interviews, I explained to each participant that I would write up a short synopsis of our

conversation and that they would have the option of editing and approving it. These member checks described each interview in a narrative text, constructing a realist tale

(Lather, 1991) that depicted each subject's viewpoints as accurately as I could possibly retell them. I listened to the tape, reviewed the notes and transcript, and wrote an account of the ideas that had been conveyed to me. This was done independently for

49 each participant to ensure that I understood and was able to describe their viewpoints to

their satisfaction. I was particularly concerned that the traditional scientists were

represented fairly in the critical context of this work. Each person was sent a copy of

the member check to review. One of the original thirty-five participants, a man of

color, withdrew from the study after reading his member check, stating his feeling that

his “views had changed somewhat since we talked.”

Although the first interviews were best described as pure data collection, the

conversations with the scientists took on an increasingly analytic tone as the study

progressed. It became very natural to verbally play back interesting testimony and

monitor other people’s reactions to it. Between interviews, my conversations with the

transcriber and other research colleagues also facilitated my efforts to process the

details I was collecting. I began to see general patterns emerge from their collective

accounts. These are included in the text surrounding the parallel cases studies in

Chapter 4 of this document.

The systematic analysis began with the transfer of raw information from the

interviews into a more simplified and organized format. The sheer volume of material

collected with the unstructured interview style was reduced through progressive

focussing that involved a number of steps. Through an original review of the interviews,

a series of mutually exclusive structural categories was devised and used to code the transcripts by hand on the typed copies of the transcripts. These were based on the main areas of focus in the study. The primary structural codes included: Behaviors, Culture,

Demographics, Enculturation, Merit, Scientists, and Teaching. The utility of these categories was assessed by evaluating the homogeneity of the data within one category

50 and the heterogeneity of the data between categories (Guba, 1990). Letter codes were

placed in the right margins to denote text that was relevant to the focus of the study.

Further evaluation of the efBcacy of this system was conducted by asking a colleague to

code a single interview using this system and determining that there were comparable

patterns in our efforts.

The data were eventually handled using the FileMaker Pro data mangement

computer software package. Sections of text from word-processed transcript files were

individually highlighted and moved to create 1,269 individual data records, each labeled

as to the sex, race/ethnicity, and identification code of the participant, as well as the

primary structural code and the line and page where it was found in the transcript.

Records from each identified structural category were sorted once and then assigned

secondary structural codes for more refined organization. These clustered comments

served as the observations on which the thematic analytic categories were formed. In

the process of organizing the tremendous volume of this material, I synthesized the

information and looked for meaning in the comments. The raw information from the

interviews, transformed into data through the selective condensation of the mechanical

management served as the basis for theoretical propositions. The evaluation was based

on an appraisal of the itemized dimensionality of the data. Structural codes set out a

single dimensional scheme, subcategories added a second dimension, and as the

interconnections and thematic content become apparent, the data took on a multi­

dimensional shape. Categorization and collection of related comments allowed for the emergence of significant interconnected themes. Through this process, and I saw how the interpretive act gave the data meaning in the way Marshall and Rossman (1989)

51 suggest. Interpretivist knowledge is, thus, generated through grounded theory (Glaser

& Strauss, 1967). My understanding came not only from the words, but also from the

contextual depiction of the natural experiences in which the stories were embedded

(Greene, 1994).

During the thematic analysis, I made constant validity checks (Bernard, 1988)

which were the appraisal of the data for consistencies and inconsistencies with

consideration of why informants might agree or disagree on specific points. Examples

of intersubjective agreement among several of the participants warranted serious

consideration. The selected sample of participants, the nature of this topic, and the

unstructured format of the interviews produced significant inconsistencies. These

disagreements stemmed largely from the nature of different informants’ experiences

and contributed to the multifacted picture that was created. There were actually few

extreme cases that did not fit into basic patterns in the data. These were given careful

attention and I usually concluded that they were idiosyncratic reflections of a single

person, but occasionally when they yielded explanatory value, they were retained as

incisive observations that contributed usable information to the study.

A method of data display I had planned to use extensively was a descriptive

matrix. Since I was interested in comparing and contrasting the manner in which

gender and ethnicity influence experience, I wanted to evaluate how they influenced

respondents' comments on particular issues. For any single subject, the matrix for such a comparison looked like the classic 2x2 factorial in a statistical model. There were columns for female and male sex and two rows for majority and minority racial/ethnic groups. Each of the quadrants of this matrix contained applicable scientists' comments.

52 This display would have highlighted tendencies for similarities among groups or

differing responses if they existed. These matrices were constructed for most of the

structural categories, but proved surprisingly ineffective as a means to scrutinize the data. While there were tendencies for comments to cluster in the quadrants, more often than not, they came fi'om one or two participants who happened to address a particular theme. There was not enough distinction between demographic groups to legitimate this mode of comparison. This finding was particularly counterintuitive with respect to my impressions fi'om the parallel case studies that there had been tendencies for scientists in each category to have similar viewpoints and differences to exist across those demographic categories.

I have chosen a combination of techniques as the particular form of displaying the meaning I make of this data. Using the narrative code (Richardson, 1990) I wanted to ensure I demonstrated my appreciation that my impression of the whole comes from an integration of multiple parts. Therefore, I included representative quotations throughout Chapters 4 and 5 to support any claims I made. I have great respect for the ideas of critical theorist Walter Benjamin (1978) who cautioned that claims made in a single authoritative voice tended to falsify history. Benjamin’s literary aspiration was to fashion a mosaic o f quotations that would constitute a seamless narrative melding the power of multiple voices taken out of their original context (Linden, 1993). I have tried to preserve the authenticity of the scientists’ voices at the same time I concealed their identity in the narratives I wrote. My use of differing type fonts in Chapter 5 was a move to represent the use of different anonymous voices in the text. Van Maanen

(1988) advocates the use of typographical play to clarify the move to give the narrative

53 multiple points of view.

There was profound contrast in the impressions I got from the two different ways of analyzing these interviews. The straight forward synthesis of the parallel case studies kept each person’s views contextualized in the demeanor of their discourse. My impressions were molded and profoundly impacted by my view of the presentation they had made on that day. Decontextualizing the substantive pieces of their testimony gave me very different impressions of what had been said. The systematic qualitative data analysis seemed to be a way of moving beneath the surface for the explanations that are embedded in their views of science. Removing the comments from the surrounding context stripped them of distracting verbiage. It then became possible for me to get closer to what seemed to be the essence of what they were collectively saying.

Clandinin and Connelly (1994) make an interesting point that narrative texts contain three sets of voice; the obvious dominant voice of the researcher, the voices of the subjects, and the silent voices of the audience. I found it very productive to think of the text as a triangular conversation among these three. In leaving room for the unavoidable silence of the audience in my written dissertation, I have considered Harry

Wolcott's (1990) suggestion that there is no reason to force closure on a qualitative study. To avoid going beyond what was in my study and giving in to the temptation to pronounce what ought to have been, I have concluded my work with some of the unanswered questions about marginalization and the impact of racism and sexism in the sciences. My goal was to find an equilibrium between description, interpretation, and critique. This was certainly not a balance represented by equal numbers of pages, but was a trilateral symmetry that attempted to do justice to the importance of each

54 component. I was interested in shifting attention from the cultural product of the sciences to the human actions of the scientists themselves (Znaniecki, 1980).

The production of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) out of the interpretive moments was one of the final elements of the research process. I lived with the impatient terror that it might never happen but in the end, tangible ideas were the reward for laboring through the long systematic analysis process. I might have gone into this endeavor declaring my intent to carry out an inductive piece of research, but such an enterprise takes a great deal of courage. It feels safer to pursue a deductive program that exists with almost a guarantee that the question posed in the thesis will be answered one way or another. While the license to modify the program and follow encouraging and productive directional changes is part of the liberating value of inductive work, it brings along the absence of a guarantee that anything substantive, going beyond mere description, will be part of the outcome

Integrity Issues

Naturalistic inquiry, by its very nature, poses profoundly different methodological concerns than are posed by traditional quantitative social science techniques. In traditional scientific work, rigor comes from strict adherence to standard methods. Hard data in observable measures or quantitative units are considered a safeguard against subjective flaws. Qualitative work opens up entirely new areas of concern and renders other issues absolutely irrelevant. The absence of scripted methodological procedures, even more than the lack of discrete numerical data, has been a conundrum for those whose task it is to evaluate the quality of postempirical

55 examples of research. The work in this study has been inductive, employing a flexible

plan that was modified as needed. My hope was to generate emergent hypotheses from

the data and produce grotwded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In this case, defining

trustworthiness was considered preferable to adopting standards of rigor as suggested by

Lincoln (199S). In challenging the process and existing assumptions of traditional

research methods, adequacy of method becomes a vulnerability for postpositivist

research (Oleson, 1994). The need to establish trustworthiness remains for our

community the bifurcation of the approved from the disapproved or a marker of

acceptable research (Scheurich, 1993). While some criteria for trustworthiness remain

vested in lingering notions of the positivist need to establish validity, Kvale (1989)

proposes that to validate is to check, question, theorize, and communicate and therefore,

a very crucial part of the qualitative research process. My conscious reflexivity

throughout this project has been focused on addressing this.

Since a fundamental tenet of this work rests on the postpositivist rejection of

universalist claims to a single reality, there has been no attempt to argue for the

general izability of any findings from this study. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest, any potential for transferability or application of the findings in another context will be left to the reader. I make no claims for the external validity of the project. My judgments are context dependent and I only profess to have explored the understandings of these individuals. I have supplied enough of my data in support of my claims to allow my audience to make the decision as to transferability or applicability in other situations.

56 I created and maintained a thorough audit trail for the sake of verifying the

confirmability of my work (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These archival records include:

field notes; the raw textual information from the interviews in the form o f the audio

tapes and verbatim transcripts; the various stages of data management from coded

transcripts to tabular presentations and matrices; my own jottings in the form of writing

notes and the reflexive log journal; and the various narratives.

Concern for the participants and their rights was an integral aspect of this

project. The study conformed to the Human Subjects Program Guidelines of The Ohio

State University. The proposal was submitted and approved by the Behavioral and

Social Sciences Review Committee before any interaction took place with the

participants. Participants were informed of the nature of this research on the telephone

during the initial contact and on the consent form stating: the objectives of the project,

details of the interview and member check procedure, and the intended use of the

research. To confirm the implication of consent that came from their agreement to be

interviewed, written verification of their consent was obtained as the signature on that

form. Confidentiality has been respected as this is the most likely manner in which participants could actually be harmed by the research. I was very careful to decontextualize their comments giving no indication as to their specific ethnicity or discipline. Participants are identified only in records held by me and each interview was coded on the tape recorder at the time it was conducted. The member check and data taken from each transcript was labeled only by that code.

I saw evidence of reciprocity (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992) or giving something back to the participants in exchange for using them as an information source during the

57 interviews. There was a distinct difference in this between the traditional and

nontraditional scientists. With traditional scientists, there was the evidence of raised

consciousness and sincere appreciation I had brought things to their attention they had

not really thought about. For all of the women and the men of color, there were

indications that they derived personal validation from the interview process itself and

the chance to talk about their experiences. I have had subsequent conversations via

electronic mail, by telephone and in person with the majority of these people and they

are very eager to hear about the work and share additional information. Several have assisted me by moving into a role that is closer to peer debriefer and helping with the analytic process.

58 CHAPTER 4

INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIONS...

The voices included in this work are those of practicing scientists. Much of the

picture I will construct is a montage of the impact of gender and racial/ethnic status on

their scientific experiences. This particular section will, instead, be a composite,

assembling glimpses of science fi’om each of the thirty-four participants' individual lenses. It is intended to serve as something of the straight ethnographic account,

pushing for the authentic cultural representation (Van Maanen, 1988) by staying close to the participants’ testimony with the liberal inclusion of their own words. These parallel case studies are included to give an overview of what is, in this case, the

“native's point of view.”

Demographically, these people are both traditional (European American male) and nontraditional (all female and non-Caucasian male) scientists. Their selection, as was indicated in the methods chapter, was not random. Given the composition of most scientific fields, random sampling would have produced a group of subjects that would have been almost all white men. They are the product of the purposeful sam pling

(Patton, 1990) that I used to gather data fi'om a balance of information-rich cases. There are equal numbers of women and men to provide viewpoints fi’om both sides of the gender issue. People of Color are represented in numbers comparable to members of the majority culture to give some perspective on issues of race/ethnicity. Since Women

59 of Color sit at the intersection of both the racism and sexism, they are necessarily the most critical case samples and the inclusion of their stories provides a particularly poignant juxtaposition to the traditional portrayal of the world of science.

The differences between the scientists within any particular group serve as clear reminders that these are individual people and not genetically similar inbred strains of

“laboratory rats.” These synopses of my conversations with them show the fallacy of stereotyping and the inadequacy of generalizations. They are clustered to form four groups that result from division by sex and dominant/subordinate ethnicity for the purpose of demonstrating both the variation and the commonalties that exist. Each person has a unique perspective and the varied opinions they contribute allowed me to see science culture from multiple perspectives.

This narrative clearly displays the common threads across demographic categories and the connections these people have as scientists. As members of the scientific community, even members of the marginalized groups have been relatively well acculturated and support many aspects of the central value system. The assemblage serves as confirmation of my thesis that a common culture exists across a wide range of scientific disciplines. These people see the big picture of science in similar ways, in spite of the fact that they come from the Life Sciences, Physical

Sciences, Agriculture, and Engineering. Participants had the opportunity to edit the marmer in which I portrayed them, as these texts served as the member checks used to demonstrate my interpretation of their interview for them. Each essay is presented here with what was for me the most poignant comment highlighted as a direct quote in an alternative type font just before the text.

60 Traditional Scientists

In the United States of America, men of European ancestry are the predominant

population in virtually any scientific discipline (NSF, 1996). Any cluster of scientists

might include one or more exceptions, but there are still certain fields and individual

departments that remain the exclusive domain of white men. The public holds a very strong impression of the demographic picture of the white male scientist. Numerous studies conducted fi’om the 1950s through the 1980s report that U.S. children see men as the “typical” scientist and when asked to draw a scientist, the tendency is for children to draw white men in white lab coats (Chambers, 1983; Fort and Varney, 1989; Flick,

1989).

In the case of this study, the composition of every single science department of this research university is predominantly white men, so the sample of traditional scientists was extremely easy to accumulate. Close scrutiny of the conversations with these men reveals some heterogeneity in terms of their personal backgrounds (ethnicity and class), but in the larger context, they were the most homogenous group. These are members of the most privileged caste with respect to the automatic sociopolitical status afforded on the basis of their sex and race/ethnicity. Their attitudes differed very slightly and very strong threads of common thinking or ideology emerged in my conversations with them.

* * $ * * * *

For a minority like that, where the average educational background is less than the population at large, those that do get into the university will be over-represented in the ones that have to take remedial courses. So those students will tend to stay out of the courses that they find difficult, such as the science courses 61 For one senior researcher, the enjoyment of and success in science and math

courses throughout school led right through graduate study to a career in science. He

chose an academic situation over the industrial possibilities in his field because he

“liked the freedom of what you work on and dealing with students.” He got into his

particular research field out of an afRnity for “the instrumentation and then after all that,

the use of computers.” He sees science as “dealing with the world around you and

trying to understand it is a way that you can be pretty sure that the ideas you come up

with are based in reality.” “It is a matter of gathering evidence one way or another that

supports or contradicts any ideas about the processes in nature.” He is “a bit dubious of

people saying that the scientific method is something unique and special” since he thinks “it's pretty closely related to the processes that go on in some other areas.”

The teaching responsibilities in his department are tremendous due to their provision of required fundamental courses for science students in a variety of other scientific fields. As a result they service 3,000 - 4,000 people in undergraduate courses at any one time. Almost all the students get teaching experience while they are in graduate school and a number of them like that and try to go on to academic jobs. Out of a commitment to teaching, the department “encourages” incoming graduate students to take a summer-long course in teaching that covers the things they consider important to their teaching associates. The faculty teaching load is feirly standard and of the courses, he says he “enjoys them all because of the variety.” He thinks the public reputation of the difficulty of some of the courses in the field are “exaggerated to some extent.” If students are “reasonably adept” at combining their science and mathematical background by “applying calculus to a new area” they should be able to “get through.” 62 He claims “there's certainly a lot of diversity” in the lower level courses, but

“the number of some particular minority - the fiaction in the class compared to the

fraction in the overall population” is not the same. He thinks African Americans are

“less inclined to go into classes that have that (math) prerequisite” since they “have had difficulty getting up to that prerequisite and they didn't like or enjoy those classes to get there.” He thinks that Black students come to the university weaker than white students due to “genetics or environment.” “It is a matter for the country at large to deal with, but in terms of statistics we have seen, that are broken down by minority classifications, in most instances, the average Black entrance exam scores are - there's always a distribution, but on the average, they're usually a few points lower.” “In any group you want to identify, there is always going to be a spread of abilities and so that is the way you treat people.” His department “usually has a few (African Americans) in the program at one time.” He speculates that the representation o f African Americans is low in the sciences because they tend toward other occupations and “will have a number of options open to them as to other fields they can go into.”

He talks about gender representation that is “closer to 50-50” in the large enrollment lower level courses that contain a variety of different majors. In the upper level major courses “a fairly large majority” of the students are male. On their faculty, the female representation is under ten percent and there is a general feeling to increase that if we can find the right people.” He “thinks women fit right in” and there is “no obvious distinction in any academic sense or social sense among the students.” On the subject of attrition, he quotes a female student who was asked about it “on her PhD exam” and said the higher rate was “mainly due to things external to the department or

63 to the science.” So he believes attrition is due to the expectations women had of

themselves and their families had of them as women, rather than something intrinsic to

the field or the department. He admits that he “thinks most people feel that, at least in

times past more so than now, they have been steering women out of science careers.”

*******

Throughout my entire career the Black students needed that extra help. I have to present it to them in more simplistic terms. Here is the question. This is the answer

Another senior scientist, who started out with the intention of majoring in a

humanities field, attributes his change in interest to some good teaching and the

profound influence of books he read about the sciences. FBs own philosophy about

graduate students is that their “motivation for the most part comes from the desire to go

into a specialty where the competition is very keen.” They are the people who did “well

in school at a very early age, participating in science fairs with the motivation to get

good grades.” The sciences “attract the people that have talent and have worked hard

all their lives.”

He thinks “oriental students seem to do quite well and they are highly motivated once they decide they want to go into research.” He feels the African American students “are competing with white students who have a better background” and “some of them are more motivated to do a good job.” He sees them “breaking the tradition for their race in showing intellectual achievement.” ‘Tor Black students, to go to college was even breaking the tradition.” Some “programs for Black students did not consider their background which was not like the Caucasian students.” “Nowadays, you can get grants and scholarships for these students and they don’t have to be crackerjack

64 students.” There are recruiters that “go out to the Black colleges and try to get them to

come.” Recruitment has not changed the faculty demographic and there is only one

Afiican American on their very large staff. He defends the need for affirmative action

saying, “we have got to give these people who have been discriminated against a

break.” He “does not think it should go on forever, but until we get the snowball going

at a certain level...”

His field “was a man’s world” until about five years ago, although you actually

found women much earlier in closely related areas. He “does not think the field

discriminated against women;” he says “women were not interested in the field.” At

only thirty percent female, his program lags behind the increases to fifty percent of the

student body that have taken place in the same discipline at other schools. The female

students are “no different than the males” in terms of ability. They are different in that

they “are not ashamed to ask for help” and will “seek it out more likely than males.”

There is a distinct separation between the teaching and research faculty in his

area. Faculty members are supposed to combine the responsibilities of teaching and

research, but in reality, they “used to hire what they called workhorses that took care of

the teaching” and were the mainstays of student training. Of the faculty doing research

some will not take on a pre-doctoral student and only take on post-doctoral students because they “are hungry to get more research done so they could get their grants renewed and get additional grants.” They “want students who do good work for them, for their enhancement.” This attitude leads to a separation between the teaching and research functions that he feels ought to go hand-in-hand. He feels the public “has a lot of confidence in the scientific community” especially when it comes to the medical

65 sciences. He seems to have had a productive and satisfying career and is particularly proud of a research program he established that provided support for large numbers of students to get research training. When he reflects on the scientific process, he mentions two particularly heartbreaking things that happen to scientists. These are

“when you get a manuscript rejected for publication and when you get turned down for a research grant.” He calls these the “toughest hurdle most any scientist has” and says,

“you have to leam how to take care of the disappointment.”

*******

The minority subculture or culture has to acknowledge that there is a culture of science and they are not going to remake the culture of science until they get into the culture of science. If it is not what they want it to be then they are first going to have to enter into the profession to kind of work within the system

A different scientist insists on making it quite clear just what he means by science when prompted to discuss his career field. He takes a more theoretical approach to science than the usual hard data collector/analyzer perspective, so he specifies that his ideas could differ a great deal from a bench scientist's outlook. He says that “people are confusing science the verb versus science the noun” and he wants a distinction made

“between the doing of science and what is commonly referred to science in a broad sense.” He thinks what undergraduates do in college is hardly science, but merely memorization and acquiring knowledge and experience in the laboratory. They leam

“about science in the sense that they have confidence in the source of the knowledge” as being from an expert or from published literature that has followed the scientific method. The real “initiation of a scientist” is often painful and takes place when they realize they do not have a specific assignment and must decide what the next step is.

This can happen at the Masters level, but “80% of the Masters degree students are really

66 just extended bachelors degrees and they don’t really do investigative science.” “The

PhD is really the crisis of becoming a knowledge creator in some sense.”

To him, the “most important component of a growing scientist is the intense

desire to generalize, to generalize phenomena and then to acquire the data to support

your view and to convince people that is a reasonable way of looking at things.” “Good

students automatically ask the questions” and “they get addicted to solving them.”

“Too many young scientists are thrown into either the lab bench science or grinding out

formulas or curves and theoretical studies” without going beyond that to the

assimilative stage of the learning cycle where the real exploratory things take place.

“You’ve got to have the art and curiosity of the collection of questions that you would

expose to the scientific method.” He thinks “in the last twenty years or so basically the training of scientists has been pushed by a professional drive to pursue money” and

prestige of a high status occupation, rather than the more intellectual goal of “wishing to understand something and then use science to be convinced of it.” He argues that “we need to develop a class of scholar who would spend time on integrating human purpose and values and the questions that the scientific method might be applied to.”

He thinks the “profession of science is the best it can be” and seems to think the culture can and will change when different people become part of it. “Change occurs fi'om the variation and if you want to create programs, then you had better work on identifying those members of the various cultures that seem to be out of the mainstream or those members who are most likely to adapt” to what he calls “the dominant scientific culture.” We need to “begin discerning those members of subcultures that will be effective in the main culture.” It is “a totally different question as to whether

67 you should change the main culture to be some other kind of culture. Nobody does that.

Hstoiy and continental drift make those changes or the involvement of government

agencies and research funding or funding of any kind makes those changes.” He says

that the reason science is populated by white men is only “a reflection of the wider

society.” “Women saw and accepted a narrower role for themselves in terms of their

life purposes.” Men felt as though that “is just the way it was.” People of other

racial/ethnic backgrounds are not in science “because there is not a tradition or a

pipeline.” Blacks are not in his field because it has the wrong image in their minds,

even if it is an out of date image. He uses the allegory of “roots growing through the

soil” to say that “once the roots are grown, then the pipeline is established and it is easy to keep going but we are still at the stages where the roots are trying to penetrate the culture.” He insists that to his perception, “there is absolutely no discrimination among male and female scientists working together in any spectrum.” He also thinks, “it is not a scientific question” but rather a “fundamental human assessment” to examine whether people value the culture they work in.

*******

The net effect of that is the women get away with what is perceived as getting away with murder around here because they're not here. Th^'re off playing mother and then when it comes to professional qualifications for tenure, numbers of publications, whatever is used, th ^ have fewer of them than comparable males have

One scientist feels he has been around long enough to have seen his field move from once being almost exclusively male to an unusual situation where the faculty in his department is now almost fifty percent women. Twenty years ago, some national conferences were all male and the representation of women was never more than two to five percent. ‘Tf you go to the same ones today, the biggest difference is simply the

68 number of women.” It is usually half and hal^ but he has even “been to a few where

there are more women than men” in the audience, but for the most part there are still

more men presenting. He describes the racial/ethnic composition as virtually “all

white.” There are “virtually no Blacks,” meaning in most settings there are often none

and he “has never had a Black student.” Any diversity consists of “a sprinkling of

Asians, you could count them on one hand” but even with those small numbers there

was an instance of official affirmative action people declaring “Asians are not

minorities” with respect to faculty hires.

He is part of a program “that cares more about teaching than you do in a lot of

places, but there is still this constant battle between teaching and research.” “Very few

science Acuity put teaching as high as their research,” but his department sets out to hire faculty who “honestly do care” and looks for the interview seminar that is “clear and easy to understand by a diverse audience.” He has strong opinions about the way that graduate study should be conducted. He would “reduce the number of formal classes” because “you don’t leam stuff that is relevant or that you are going to remember in a classroom.” He thinks you have to leam critical thinking by being challenged or forced by your major advisor to prove whatever you say. He thinks you can “leam it by interaction with other people that are willing to be critical every day.”

People who take “challenge as a personal insult” are “obviously not going to make it.”

‘The mental hardening is that you have to leam that you can be challenged.”

He expressed some dismay with the changes that have occurred at the same time women have moved into his field. He says, “I don’t know if it is through the presence, maybe it’s coincidental, but the biggest change in all of those meetings is that they are

69 warm and fuzzy, now.” "You can get up there and give a talk now and you can say the dumbest stuff and nobody will challenge you. Nobody will shoot you down.” “Women take criticism very personally.” They think you are criticizing them as a person and

“males as a group are definitely more arrogant, self assertive and in some cases they really don’t care what other people think about them.” He sees a similar pattern in his own department where female faculty are seen to be “training their graduate students poorly because they are not critical” of them. By his description, most of the women in his department “are playing mothers, they are not playing faculty advisors, they are not being professional advisors to these graduate students.” “If other faculty criticize their graduate students at a seminar, they get all upset.” He sees a dramatic contrast in “one female faculty member who is just the opposite” and wants her students to be challenged. He thinks the protective style is “going to produce students who are going to be mushheads.” “They are going to be challenged and if they stand up in fi'ont of a national audience some day and present a paper and be challenged and they are going to crumble.”

Most of his senior male colleagues are content in their community, but some of the young ones seem uncomfortable because although they are white men, they are different fi'om the majority of the people. One is “of a particular religion and it affects his lifestyle,” the other one is presumed to be gay. He thinks that, with women, it might be “hard to separate the fact that they might be emotionally damaged because they are overly sensitive,” but there is “something wrong with the self-esteem” in women who feel they “stand out in their crowd as being strange.” He stresses that “with one glaring exception” the women on the faculty in his department “are not performing the way that

70 they should.” He is particularly angry over the “things that women can get away with and men can’t do.” “With this political correctness bullshit, women can say anything and get away with it around here.” He thinks women can “put a negative characteristic on any group” but “men are walking on eggshells.” He is adamant that “women around here cannot say they don’t have equal opportunity” and “they have, if anything, more than equal” by being “given more chance.”

He says the tenured women in his department “did less to get it than men did at the same time.” “They are cut slack every day of the week. They do not perform in this department equal to men.” As an example, he says they have a tenured woman who has

“one manuscript.” “We get a lot of brownie points around here for hiring all these women. We have got women coming out the ears compared to all the other science departments and on the surface it looks good,” but it is “backfiring badly.” He thinks they “had not had enough experience with women faculty” when they “were hiring most of the women.” Now, “there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the males in this department” are looking for something different in women they consider.

*******

There might be a difference there, that a male would be sort of a comrade, one that you could feel - you would just treat differently because they are a male... You would have a common set of experiences that would be gender-specific

For another person, the comfort felt within his professional community is readily apparent. He has a humorous way of portraying the typical scientist as a short, not particularly attractive “nerdy” guy and making it clear he includes himself in that category. He describes scientists as “not particularly concerned how we are perceived and how we’re accepted.” “A lot of scientists have either rightly or wrongly, sort of an

71 arrogance or self-confidence about their own way of thinking about things and they're not too concerned how they appear, how they look, if they are dressed the right way.”

He insists that people “who can play basketball well or impress people with their good looks or skill at oratory” will go into other areas. Science is “a place for people with intellectual skills” and not “a place where physical appearance is important.” He got interested in scientific research because he enjoyed hunting and fishing and “discovered that there were other ways of making a living with science and biology than teaching.”

Having liked school, he knew he would go to college even though that was rare where he grew up. He thought that a lot of other subject areas didn't merit his attention and still feels that way.

Science is seen as “a way of looking at the world” with “some pretty well- established procedures.” Good science is investigating phenomena “with established procedures for experimental design, statistical analysis, and all the technical things that would merit publication in good journals.” “Nothing is held without being challenged and the challenges are usually experimental, (employing) empirical data.” He sees anything that uses “hypothesis testing as scientific.” Science is “ultimately a matter of communicating your results,” “interpreting them for people and convincing them that this is the model.” The most exciting and rewarding part of science, for him, is the thrill of “presenting new information to people who know a lot about it.” Science is “largely influenced by personal ambition” and “the drive to achieve.” “Nobody tells us what to do,” and scientists decide “what we study, how we study, and what we select to study.”

Scientific authority comes fi'om the fact that “it can make money and it can heal” and he thinks “it tends to be viewed as objective and less subject to corruption than other

72 endeavors.” Human behavior is particularly difficult to study “because of assumptions that we make because we are one in the same, the same species as what we are studying” and “it is more difficult to be objective and the results are often politicized.”

His field has a good gender ratio (though still under fifty percent) in the sciences, and he does not think they “have too much to worry about in terms of gender balance.” There are more women “coming in at the bottom and then rising toward the top.” He talks about how society does not “expect women to go into science, they are expected to stay home” and “for many women, having a family is as important as their career.” He does not ‘Imow how that is ever going to change” and is “personally not that concerned about it because he views women as his equal and is just happy to have them around.” Acknowledging that the sex of his female colleagues never can be ignored, he says, “I suppose I am always aware that this is a female.” He says “it does not bother him” even though he knows that “women probably have to overcome feeling, and these feelings may be based on fact, like they are less a part of a group that is male- dominated as it is in most cases.” He admits women “probably spend more time, even if they are not paranoid or anything else... feeling like their gender is an issue.”

While he understands “societal and lifestyle factors will more often prevent women from achieving,” he actually expects more of women than men because his

“experience has been that in general the female student is stronger than the male student.” He seems to think this comes “through desire to please and desire to be viewed, to be affirmed as a good student” and “for whatever reason they have achieved those academic skills, they find it pretty easy to out-compete the average guy who has been a jock” and suddenly needs to catch up. He describes himself as “gender-free” and

73 says that he has “so many female colleagues” that “I just can’t see that I could have a

bias.” He says he has “strong feelings about gender.” After once telling an

undergraduate student he was a feminist, she told him he was “feminist nightmare” or

someone who “intellectually knows what they want to do, makes political statements

that are correct, but just doesn’t treat women the same as they treat men.”

For him, “the far greater concern is that we don’t have any minorities. I

shouldn't say we don’t have any. But it’s almost to the point where we don’t...” In

terms of increasing the numbers on the faculty, “it is sort of a non-issue for us because we could put on a search and get 100 candidates and maybe have one Black individual or one minority. The chances of that person being the number one candidate just out of probability with all things being equal is pretty slim.” Student recruitment is also tough since scientists tend to be second or third generation college people. Those coming in as the first generation seem to look “at areas with greater rewards.” He thinks that

“money should be spent on identifying and encouraging kids that have the ability and trying to bring them along” and “then just making sure people of equal ability are not discriminated against.” He sees a great challenge in the fact that we are increasingly becoming two nations “in terms of the have’s and have nots - having is not just money.”

He says, “the minority thing is a real societal problem.” Scientists “should do everything they can,” by helping people to have “some expectation and if a little bit of that can come science’s way...” He has an Afiican American student doing independent study with him and talks candidly about valuing her participation in his lab because she is Black. He “recognizes that there aren’t many African Americans and if he could get one in to be a college professor some place, he would be just as proud as could be.” In

74 talking about her future, he acknowledges “she won't be comfortable because she will

probably be the only African American in the academic unit,” but that is “one of the

things a lot of these professional and Black people” have to deal with.

*******

There are enough women in classes and in the profession, now, that they aren't so much different from everybody else

Change came out as a strong theme in another scientist’s descriptions of his

field. His characterizations included references to many differences he has seen over

time. He has watched his specialization shift from a place where “the idea was to make

individual contributions that were fairly significant” to one where “teamwork is now

being taught” because “teaming situations where everybody is contributing” have

become the model of productivity. Science teaching that has traditionally been based

on the “Lecture-Recitation-Laboratory Model” has shown a trend to place “a lot more

emphasis on interactive participation.” Instructional strategies in his area benefit from

techniques that “transmit a lot more information visually.” “Things that can be done

with simulation” demonstrate principles students may not have been previously exposed

to. There is a trend to incorporate a variety of technological innovations including

computer, live programming, simulations or multi-media visuals such as liquid crystal

displays and film clips, for enhancing the ability to “illustrate points.” “Running

laboratories and recitations where there is some interaction in solving,” at least

answering general questions rather than “demonstrations and usually not very

sophisticated experiments” has become more common.

He sees “absolutely no reason that a woman would not choose his field if they knew what it is and that they get to do really interesting work.” They “used to rarely

75 have women.” When he “was in school, they were so few as to say there were almost none.” “It is just for whatever cultural reasons they haven't been interested.” The women that do choose to study in his field are “usually really good students,” and the population in the classes is probably “ten to fifteen right now.” “The women often times will be at the top of the class,” and he would be surprised if any of them got a ‘C.’

His feeling is that he does not “see that there has been any difference with female students” feeling they have been “either especially well-treated or especially badly- treated.” He “thinks twenty-five years ago there was a reluctance, but does not see a difference.” He says “they just simply aren’t treated differently.” “They aren’t looked at differently, there are enough women in the field.”

Through a “fairly aggressive Affirmative Action program” they try to recruit

“other underrepresented groups.” They want more minority students because they are

“an untapped resource that people have not looked at.” Until recently, they have “had very few Afiican Americans,” with “one in a class every couple of years.” The low representation is part of “historic prejudice, at least when he was growing up.” The problem lingers as an “injustice and here we have this fairly large minority and they just don’t appear in the field.” There had been “basically a stereotype that certain ethnic or racial backgrounds weren’t intellectually capable of learning what they had to teach.”

He asserts that “there is no reason intellectually they shouldn’t be here” and “in terms of basic ability does not see any difference between any of the groups of students that they have.” As students, “they will usually not be in the top of the class,” and he comments that when he hears “about their backgrounds, it is quite an achievement that they are even here because of the lack of encouragement and things at home.” He “does not see

76 discrimination that would compartmentalize them” and ‘'thinks they are pretty much treated like anyone else.”

With respect to retention, he sees differences between female and minority students. They “don’t have retention problems with women because once they are there, their background is such that if they want they can stay in.” Female students seem “to mix with the men and vice versa.” They do not “cluster together” and “all gravitate to teams of women.” “With the other underrepresented groups, they often come from not very good schools, and maybe not really good family situations, and so retention problems with them are pretty high.” He “would consider them less integrated than the women are in terms of the whole student body, but they are in such a distinct minority, that there would be a natural affinity for working with people that kind of have the same cultural backgrounds.” His program makes an effort by “providing kind of a helping hand to people that haven’t had the opportunities that other people have had.” For undergraduates, there are “big classes that they’ve got to survive” and these

“weed out anyone who does not have the ability.” He feels they “bend over backwards to try to keep everyone in the system.”

Science is “primarily problem solving,” with some types of scientists being

“simply interested in accumulating knowledge” and others looking to “improve society” through their end product. Under an all-inclusive label, science is “a way of approaching experimentation that makes sense.” Scientists are people who are able “to put things together” and “able to think associatively.” As a group they are “more analytically oriented” and “less verbal” than other academics since “they do more with numbers than words.” When they do communicate, scientists have traditionally used

77 the passive voice “from a modesty standpoint” because ‘It just doesn’t project the arrogance that first person does.” There is a “trend toward first and second person” because “it is less ambiguous” and is “a matter of presenting things more accurately.”

Writing guides “discourage passive voice although still the majority of the papers” are written that way.

*******

I tliink we Lave removed almost all tke oLstacles tkatI can tLmk of tLat are clearly structural tLings. WLat we Lave not done is entice tLem it seems to me. We Lave not made it attractive.

In spite of considering an English major in college, one scientist had a “pretty innate” interest in “science and science technology kinds of things.” He feels like he has a “scientific outlook” and even when he wrote papers for English, they were about using a kind of a scientific method and a very logical, analytical sort of approach. The actual choice of a profession was narrowed down by the subjects he enjoyed studying and the attraction to a specific area with good jobs and a strong market. He thinks you either like a subject because you are good at it or vice versa. Good teachers can figure in as a significant part of that equation and “when you teach, the goal of that teaching is to impart the knowledge and the interest and the ability” to those people. He proposes that “no matter how theoretical something is” you have to have a “practical and useful reason for learning all that theory.” Beyond the goal of “opening up this whole realm of interesting stuff like a library of information” lies research and expanding that knowledge and eventually the quest to solve problems. Taking issue with the way that the purest of the sciences, “mathematics is taught as if god or somebody made this beautiful structure and we can climb it a step at a time and leam it in a very orderly

78 rational sequential way,” he thinks students leam better from “kind of a messy, not so

well-organized” approach. On the other hand, you “can’t just pick a subject and say

let’s explore and see where we go” because at the end of four years, they expect

students to have a certain body of knowledge, and teaching must “cover certain things”

and fit into their system and curriculum. He is less inclined than his colleagues to

follow a book or course that has been generated elsewhere, he “tends to kind of take a

course and start constructing it out of nothing.”

The undergraduates in their program have a broad range of abilities from a high

percentage of National Merit Scholars to people that would never get into the same program at another major research university. Since there is prerequisite course work that students go through before entering the major in his department, “the people who cannot make it already have been eliminated and they do not see them.” They would like to see and could handle more students, but his field is less well known than others in spite of efforts to get information to large numbers of high school teachers in the area. He is very disappointed with the quality of American high schools after seeing the

European system and feels students enter the university less well prepared than they should be.

His field is predominantly Caucasian males with about fifteen percent of the students being female. The reason is speculative, but he suspects it is related to long tradition. He “does not think any of the hard professions that way back were not male dominated.” He thinks “that women as a group have resisted” going into his field. He looks for “why women are not attracted to his field rather than why women are kept out.” He has “never seen any major problem with women dropping out” and has

79 trouble remembering any who just could not make it, but he suspects it is possible that more women “get knocked out early on before they hit his department and go on to other areas because they are more easily discouraged.” Female students “seem to be quite comfortable and well-adjusted.” He can't understand why a closely related field can attract enough women that their student numbers are closer to fifty percent female.

It is clear that field is more desirable to women and he thinks it might be due to impressions about the nature of the field that he is not convinced are true. He guesses that the perception out there is that the other field is quite fiiendly as a profession, not the culture, but the jobs have “fewer obstacles and unpleasant things to do for women.”

He says the demographics at the professional level are just beginning to show a big change in that field. “It only takes a few years until you have quite a few young women entering the profession.” His sense is that women have a better chance than men do when it comes to chances of obtaining employment. He says “that the evidence seems hindsight and even now women may not make quite as much money in these fields, but this is not the case for recent graduates.” As for his own discipline, he thinks they

“have a collective sort of responsibility that’s all politically correct to get more women in.”

On the topic of participation by members of other racial/ethnic groups, he thinks, “it is more likely that a person in a minority group will feel unwelcome than a person in the majority group.” He says when a group is at about fifteen percent “you can get into things where it’s we/they” and “the minority group may not feel welcomed if it’s the wrong kind of atmosphere.” There are very few Afiican Americans or “often none and typically one” in each class. He says the Afiican American students his

80 department has had “are not as qualified on average” and he has not seen a top African

American student “that is truly competitive with anywhere near the best of the other students.” His “sense is that the populations and those abilities of those groups where you measure with IQ tests or whatever are slightly different” so there are “fewer people at the top end where they chop off’ to find participants. He thinks “anybody from a low socio-economic status has a hard time” and “probably the biggest is if you don’t make it through the math.” Asian students, as a broad generalization, are “exactly the opposite of the Afiican American population” in that the families are immigrants and have pushed education, science, and honorable rewarding careers. He does not think universities are going to make much difference enticing underrepresented people to study in nontraditional fields. He thinks, “this is decided at the latest when you are in high school” and probably much earlier than that. “By the time they get out of grade school, seventh grade you’d better have attracted people and make sure they are on track to leam.” “It has to be both the parents and the teachers in those schools” that instill the motivation.

*******

You can't all of a sudden have a whole bunch of females or other minority groups because they have to work their way through the system

Yet another scientist says his field was “one of the last sort of bastions of male white dominance” but says “there are no barriers now, there are no barriers at a university level as far as he knows.” His department has always been exceedingly supportive of “anybody, a woman or a minority group that would come in as a student.” He thinks they “still need desperately to have more women and Blacks and

81 Hispanics in the profession” and to have “good representation and role models so they

represent society.” There is always a concern that ‘If you are told you have to go out

and hire a minority then you have to get the best person within those constraints and that may not be the best person you could hire overall.” In any of the searches he has been involved in “there has not been an applicant who was in a minority group, with the exception of women, and the women have just never surfaced to the top because they simply were not either in the discipline that needed to be filled or they just didn't have the credentials that the others did.”

Of the students in his classes, his “gut feeling would be that female students are typically better on average” than male students. He knows that when he was a student, women of his generation were actually told that they could not join his profession by faculty. He has female contemporaries whose “advisors told them that this is not a career for women” and “there is no place for you in the profession.” However, it was basically his generation that “really kind of broke through.” He says that while he “is not a woman so he never suffered any of this, he is sure that there must have been a lot of barriers real, perceived, or probably both in subtle ways.” “It stems fi’om simply the fact” that the field work was considered “too rugged and hardy and involved camping and being in the open and was not the proper thing to do.” “That was just the time. It wasn't discrimination, but simply based upon an incorrect assessment of the role of the female.” There has been a shift “in norms of what society has expected and the roles that women play.” The “women who survived that kind of a culture” were “the ones who were in the laboratory, very successful, but they were more lab-based rather than field-based.”

82 While he has “never really paid attention” he would guess African American students “would be close to average, maybe a little below on average” compared to other students. They rarely have African American students majoring in his subject; there has only possibly been one graduate student since he has been on the Acuity.

While he has been told there are Black members of his professional organization, he does not know any personally. He figures that the subject matter is “just not part of the iimer city experience” and “many Blacks or other minority groups who are really smart and who either have the drive can go into other fields that actually make a difference for them if they are socially conscious.” With the “other advantages that help them get a college education, whatever the pathway that gets them in if they are not already middle class and have education as a priority,” they are likely to “go into medicine or into law or into politics.”

In the introductory courses, he tells students “straight out that if they don’t want to be in the class, he does not want them there and they shouldn’t even bother to come.”

He wants to “teach the students who want to leam something and tries to teach them things they are interested in.” He thinks at the introductory level, the main things they should get out of a class are the understanding that “there is nothing magical or mystical about science.” They should see how science is done and why it is done as well as get a bare bones appreciation for the subject area. He finds the “biggest drain on the faculty in this university is that we teach so many 100 level classes and basically what we are doing is weeding out all the people that come into this university that don’t belong in the university.” “There is a huge amount of weeding that takes place” and “they drop out before they declare a major basically.”

83 The challenge of teaching at the introductory level is doing justice to the

diversity of his discipline. He says it is much more of a “whole bunch of odd sub­

characters” and “different cultures that come together.” They have diverse opinions “on

a lot of issues” and are “trying to find a consensus on how to train students” including

“what the curriculum ought to be.” He acknowledges that it might be a problem in other disciplines, but is convinced that in his discipline there are really “specialists coming fi’om very different backgrounds” and they all teach fi'om different perspectives.

His “discipline covers so much ground,” there are very few people who could cover the breadth of the introductory course. He says that curricula are dynamic and “they change all the time” with his faculty constantly deciding “what they want to have in courses.”

‘Tf you look over a decade at any one course” that he is involved in, the content has changed dramatically. He admits there are faculty members “who have notes that fall apart on the yellowed paper” but he “thinks that is probably the minority of the faculty.”

* $ $ * $ * *

My own personal philosophy is that, in science, things like gender and race are irrelevant

One scientist’s career evolved out of a lifelong passion for his disciplinary topic.

He sees his field as “a pure science” requiring a great deal of technical competence because of unique constraints on the process of experimentation. He proposes that

“science is not a body of knowledge, it is a process, it is a way of thinking and what we are constantly trying to do is refine our thinking about how the universe works by hypotheses and tests.” While he admits most scientists “like to think we classically go through this scientific method where you start out with a hypothesis and you test it,” he suggests that “things are discovered by accident” and “things you don’t expect can be 84 some of the most exciting things.” He does not “see any evidence that there has been

any social agenda that has managed to work its way into physical science” and

considers objectivity to be a goal even though “sometimes we &il.”

When it comes to university science, he talks about there being a dual mission.

Undergraduate education tends to be more formal and his view of introductory level

classes is that “they are not really science classes, they are science appreciation classes”

and “show by demonstration how the scientific process works.” “When you are an

undergraduate, you get real good at digesting and spewing back what other people have

learned.” “As a graduate student you have to leam to do research.” “Graduate

education is the reason you hire people who are researchers and not just people who are

teachers.” This is when people are “taught to do research and our job is really to teach

them how to think and how to do science.” “If you are not a good researcher, you are

not going to produce good graduate students.” The scientists he knows tend to come

from similar backgrounds, “often raised in the suburbs” with “parents who were

professionals.” He knows very few scientists from working class backgrounds and

none who “come out of real poverty.”

There are “only a handful of Blacks in his professional field and few who were

raised in the US.” This is not likely to change since the proportion of African

Americans in the introductory courses in his department is “probably smaller than for the university as a whole” and he can only ever remember two Black students in the major courses. He speculates that the lack of participation by African Americans may have to do with math skills that depend on “how good the schools are that you went to,”

“how much math you are taught,” and “how much your math skills were fostered.” He

85 figures that those who are “good at math” and had “enough tenacity to go through

school, swimming upstream all the way” are unlikely to “think of science as a career”

because of little prior experience and other economic priorities.

There is now a “pretty significant representation of younger women” in his area,

since his society has “bent over backwards to sort of right those former wrongs.” He

says this has been unfortunate because “sometimes they do it in a heavy-handed way and sometimes you see backlash.” “Because most of the women in the field tend to be young, they wind up wielding a lot of influence at a disproportionately early age.” To get gender balance, “they get asked to serve on national conunittees and things like that earlier than their male counterparts do.” He seems to hear women claiming that gender is an issue in their careers, but remains unconvinced that sexual bias really exists. He admits there are “much older” scientists “who really did regard science as a man’s world” but such things are unlikely to be explicit today, and “certainly the social pressures are such that anyone who thought that would know they had better keep it to themselves because they are just going to buy themselves a bag of trouble if they say it.” His female colleagues have told him that they are “encountering barriers that they see as gender barriers,” but he “thinks everybody goes through this as part of the tempering process that everybody has to go through to make them tough.” He does admit “some people were harder on women graduate students” and it is easy enough to engage in “passive discouragement” by not giving all students “the same sort of opportunities.”

Proposing that there are “cultural differences internationally,” he says women

“fi-om other countries are sort of just more comfortable with being scientists than

86 American women” who can seem to “have a chip on their shoulder and they’re just

lookingfor something.” “It doesn’t have anything to do with inherent differences in

men and women, what kinds of things they’re predisposed to or interested in or ability.”

He sees these national differences as “how people are raised to think about the world

and think about themselves.” Science “is a tough field and you have got to leam to deal

with it personally.” “People throw more at you than you can handle because you have

to leam where it is that I cant handle it anymore.” There is “a lot of winnowing” and

“we have classes that are clearly weed out classes.” He thinks, “it is important for a

scientist to know what he/she doesn’t know” or ‘to know the limits of your ability.”

This is the preparation for the arguments that are going to be faced when ‘they are trying to defend a hypothesis in a theory or a paper they have written.” “You have to leam to deal with the give and take of science and you have to leam to separate all of the personal stuff fi'om the hard Acts.” “The scientific community does not go out seeking recruits. There are already more of us than the world seems to want. People come to us.”

*******

You know women want everything to be equal and now it's getting equal and now they want to be different They want to have special attention focused on their needs

A different scientist makes a real effort to try to see how things might look on the other side of the coin when issues come up. He admits, however that he is really baffled at what is behind some of the controversy on gender issues. He recounted an example of female students taking offense at the use of beautiful women as subjects in a scientific training film and how he saw it as “strictly cold science” for instmctive

87 purposes. He wondered if maybe they do have something, but really could not see why

they were making an issue of it. He basically agrees with a colleague, who said women

wanted every thing to be equal and now that is not enough and they want recognition of

their difference. He admits that he thinks h might be true that “there are important

differences” both in and out of the political arena where “differences in sex biology”

have long been overlooked in terms of their physiological significance.

On a personal level, he seems to be struggling to understand gender issues in

science. He thinks his male colleagues are sensitive and try “not to make innuendo.”

Once he attended a talk that was pertinent to his work, but of particular interest to

women and found himself almost the only male in a group of women. He says “it was

kind of like I was invisible” and when the discussion moved to some “sexually-driven”

comments that were anti-male he felt like he was “sitting in on a group discussion that

he was not supposed to be in.” He “wondered if this is how women feel when they say

stuff.” He thinks, “women are very sensitive” and do “not let on that they are nearly as

offended as they are” when such things happen. The representation of women in his

specialization is excellent, according to him. “Every other president of his society is a

woman” because “they have done a wonderful job of coalescing their effort and putting

candidates up whereas the males are disorganized.” The women have realized that if

they come together and vote as a block they are going to get things done, and “if they

ever got as a block, they would have control of the society.” He is not sure “other men

perceive it” as he does. He figures women make up less than half of his society. He has

“toyed with the idea of going” to the women’s luncheon at the national conference to

see how they are being so politically effective. He thinks women fit fairly well and says

88 gender issues involving the Acuity do not come up in his department. He has noticed the way women dress at scientific conferences and figures they make choices to look nice and feminine but not to “stick out as a female.” Women can have problems when they are so outgoing and forceful that they seem to be “trying to overcome a hurdle” or

“trying to establish themselves too hard.”

His teaching duties run the gamut fi’om huge lectures of 150 to very small classes of 20 and lab sections with about 2- 20 students per group. In the large classes,

“it is more getting organized and getting everything together and giving a good presentation,” so “he prepares what he wants to say and delivers it.” In the small section “the format is different, so you have a lot more interaction with the students.”

“When you go into the lab, you’re open to any question that the student has.” The representation of people of color has always been small, consisting of an occasional

Afiican American and a few Asians who are usually fi’om Mainland China or Taiwan.

He finds it interesting that in spite of the fact that Asian Americans actually score higher in math and science when SAT scores are segregated by ethnicity, they are not particularly well represented in scientific research fields. He speculates that the reason they may go into medicine rather than academic research could be job security. For the talented minority student, “the world is their oyster’’ and “a Black male or woman who was an excellent student could go anywhere,” at least a few years ago. There has never been an Afiican American student in the graduate program in his department, and they are “looking for the best students they can find” rather than a diverse population. “The best students are Mainland Chinese” and “after there is a quota of Asians” they give preferential treatment in order to meet the objectives of “a state institution to support

89 the state.”

He teaches more students of color in a course he does for another department than in any for his own He shared an anecdote that he thought revealed something about their “perception of the teacher” and possibly people’s perceptions of students in this class. In his very first class, as one of the later members of the teaching team, the students wanted to know if he was “going to take attendance because the rule was you take attendance.” He found it “so out of place at this level of education” and even though he did not take attendance, the students were always there. With his own Asian grad students, he considers the development of their language skills to be important because he knows they have to present their work eventually and wants them to be prepared for the writing they will have to do. He thinks it is important “because any results we get we have to communicate somehow,” either verbally or written. In science, “in the lab you have jargon for things all the time, but when you sit down and write you have to use it correctly.” Most trouble with communication is “mostly just people” and it “is easier to get by differences in langu%e than it is just to communicate with people.” He thinks that white people who have had childhood interactions with people of color do better. “If your first interaction with a minority was when you went to college, your perception at that level is going to be much different.”

Men, but of Color

Distinction on the basis of race or ethnicity plays out very differently depending on the heritage of the minority scientist. Men of certain ethnicities blend into the scientific community feeling very little distinction or distance fi’om their colleagues.

90 Asian Americans, who began as social outcasts in the larger society, have achieved such

high levels of success in mathematics and science, they now must contend with the label

of “model minority” (Schaefer, 1990). This unfortunate tag originally was applied in

the 1960s to emphasize the quiet manner in which the group had supposedly overcome

racism and been successful through hard work (Suzuki, 1989). In science, it has

spawned the idea that Americans of Asian descent are “overrepresented” in the sciences

since in some cases their numbers actually exceed their representation in the larger population. Spanish-sumamed Americans tend to be inconspicuous in the sciences and

attract little attention. The unfortunate consequence o f this is that they are often not in positions that make them visible as the role models for students from similar backgrounds (Martinez, 1976). The numbers of First Nation people are literally so small it is very difficult to identify them within the scientific labor force. Americans of

Afiican descent have no such chance to blend into the scientific community. They stand out, conspicuous especially by their exceptionally low numbers. Black scientists must overcome extremely oppressive and inhospitable circumstances (Van Sertima,

1992). Studies indicate that African Americans do not find employment in the sciences commensurate with their academic training and abilities (Pearson, 1985).

Regardless of ethnic membership, the connection through masculine status places Men of Color in a reasonable position to relate to the dominant group. There is a sense of masculine camaraderie that comes through in their testimony. They can connect with the majority group through the commonalities they have as men. Some seem to hold sympathy for women and have a sensitivity on gender issues, others project attitudes ranging from oblivion to overt sexism.

91 *******

9ibink ibere is a built in stereotype Üxû mmorSks and women ore in the field ^’’because there are quotas and things bke that, and whenever you ^ d a minorSy or a women who is doing some good work, heishe is the exertion to this stereotype

In spite of being a “reasonably good student,” one scientist confesses that he would not even have gone to college if it had not been for the prompting of a concerned high school teacher. The path to graduate school for a Masters was paved in the same way by a college professor and his first graduate advisor helped him see the possibility of obtaining a doctorate. “Before that experience, people didn’t talk about those kind of things” and he knows that other talented people like himself would benefit fi-om such

“discussions going on around the table.” ‘Too often females of whatever group they belong to and minorities don’t get that kind of encouragement to enter the field and take a look at it.”

He likes to distinguish the idea of a scientific process fi-om the cliche of the scientific method. The thing he loves about science is the “process that one goes through to ask the questions that allow one to uncover what nature is trying to hide.”

He does not see a “step-by-step way of doing anything” but says, “there are rules of evidence that must be obeyed” if “one expects to see their work respected.” Scientists have “a natural curiosity” and “love to search for knowledge.” Science is “not the easiest work in the world and if you don’t love it, it will be difficult to put in the time that is necessary to succeed.” So he “tells students the first thing you ought to decide upon is do I like this.” His comfort in the scientific community is apparent and he speaks of other scientists with many references to collegiality and camaraderie. There is “pressure to get ahead or the wish to see their reputation increased” and “there is

92 always a competition to be out there, to be first, but there is a vast amount of

collegiality.” While “there are exceptions as in all fields,” he has “by and large not

found that to be a problem.” He does not believe that “we are fi'ee of racial bias, but the

bottom Une is that those who get to that level and have the opportunity to produce are

thought of as a scientist.”

PoUtical correctness may not change people’s attitudes, but it does something

about people’s behaviors. He attributes some of the bias that exists about the potential

for women and people of color to succeed in the sciences to an inability to distinguish

“the difference between causation and correlation.” He says that people believe things

like The Bell Curve because they have “never been taught the difference” and while

there may be a correlation, “it doesn’t say anything in the work about what the cause

is.” “There is a real troubling question - Why minorities don’t do as well?” and we

“don’t have the answer.” He thinks “we tend to harp on preparation” but has seen

studies where that is controlled and there are still “great differences between Asians,

Native Americans, Blacks and whites.” He thinks, “there is something basic going on”

but does not think it is “the simple answer we always thought it is going to be.”

He is “not quite sure that 52% of all the scientists should be women” because he

is not sure “what causes a woman to be interested in the sciences.” He says he

“wouldn’t use the word less-suited,” but thinks women “believe themselves to be less-

suited because they don't do the kind of things that are necessary to prepare them for it.”

He does “think it is tougher for women to get there because of the network.” Science

works through a system where “we do it on the backs of people and you need to have a mentor who sort of carries you along, who makes introductions, who gets you working

93 on the right program, who steers you away from dead ends.” There are so few women in science, “who is going to make sure you take the right kind of committee assignment?” He thinks there is validity to the “Procreation Theory” where faculty

“look around and try to find the person in that class who is going to replace me and most often that is the person that looks like me.” “White males tend to talk to white males and make the suggestion that you ought to go into” science.

He is very concerned with educational reform in his field and thinks, “we need to get people who are teaching to do things a little bit differently.” This includes taking in an understanding from the “psychology of learning” of how people learn

“fundamental concepts” at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level, he thinks many things “are carried to the extreme” including PhD programs which “are too long on the average.” He does think it is good for students to be challenged and says people were “very, very tough on him to make him think about all the aspects” of his work. He thinks we should be more deliberate about teaching students the research process and not hope they “will walk away knowing what good research is.” He wants to see the

“impression that science is something done in an office with the door shut” changed and thinks “the more we start looking at it as a group subject, the better off we’ll be.” He

“thinks the lay public respects science” but also thinks “we have to do a better selling job” especially to young people who need to see “the impact science has on their life.”

*******

I don't feel like a token. I feel like I am hete to make a diffetence and also heie to bring more on board and if tfiat doesn't happen then I'll leave. There are students here that need help. There are students here that need to see me. There are students here that need to see my only female colleague

94 Coming from a very good academic background, another scientist walked into

one of the most rigorous science disciplines well ahead of the game as an

undergraduate. He had a year of calculus and college level chemistry and physics, so

for the first year he was essentially reviewing material he had seen before. He is

absolutely convinced that preparation is crucial to the chances of students having

success in the sciences. For whatever reason, people “don’t go through the necessary

steps preparing themselves to be involved in science curriculum.” Students do not

study like they should. You cannot study for a test by reading, in his field you work

problems not essay questions and they need to “prepare for the battle like they are going

through it.” Because of this, he believes that the most important part of teaching is to

tell the students in our classrooms how to study. He lays it all out for his students,

telling them exactly how they should study including how many times they should

rework the homework and subsequently has very little sympathy if they don’t get it.

Learning to teach is a tough process for young scientists. “You are basically

baptized by fire since there is no formal training for faculty to teach courses” in his

field. He sees this as a real problem with the system and does not have the slightest idea what other people do. He knows his audience is now the nintendo generation, and we need to bring better stimuli into the classroom to get their attention. He “guarantees that we can’t continue to get up in front of a blackboard, turn our back on the class and teach from a blackboard for forty more years and have our idds progress the way they should.” There need to be changes in how we do things, especially the way we teach math. He is convinced that math “has to be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective” because nobody uses pure math and students learn it better when it is

95 applied. He tries to implement different things in the classroom and see how they work.

In his evaluations, the students talk about how they can see how things go together because he explains why they need to leam things. In addition to classroom teaching, he is interested in doing outreach for his department and has already worked with some precoUegiate African American students on campus. He knows the importance of getting many people involved in this, so he is setting up ten to fifteen demonstrations that he can train graduate students to give and pass on to other people. He thinks we have got to find ways to constructively deal with their widespread aspirations to become professional athletes or entertainers. He thinks it is the nemesis of their culture and something must be done “to improve the perception of people in our society.” He thinks there needs to be a planned assault on existing values which must come from the educated in a planned maimer that covers many fronts including the TV they watch so much of. He seems convinced we can get more Afiican American students interested in applying to science programs if we get them interested at an early age.

He thinks some scientific disciplines are more masculine while others are “more feminine areas for people to go into.” He has seen outstanding women in his field, but says that some of the areas they work in are not “what the society puts on as conducive to women.” His description of the department climate does not sound particularly collegial. He says “people try to leave you alone.” Most are “so busy that people don’t really have time to mess” with him. “You are doing your thing and everybody is doing theirs.” So you “are kind of put here” and they say “go to it, you do your own thing.”

His colleagues don’t come by and offer help, but if he asks for help they will give it. He thinks this is fine because he is the type of person that is just fine as long as there are no

96 roadblocks put up. He does say that the laissez-faire approach could be his colleague’s way of seeing what he does as the only person of color on their faculty. He knows he has to do well because of who he is. He might not have to be exceptional, but he can not be mediocre.

*******

It depends on the woman. If the woman is actually a man who has the chromosomal makeup of a female, she will fit right in

As there is for so many others, for yet another scientist, there is such a

“fascination” with the process and magnetic attraction to the joy of problem solving, that science never seems like “hard work.” He attributes his interest to good teachers during his K-12 education, who “made the science fim.” Good grades “meant you were good at a particular subject” and reinforced the attraction. He appears to be satisfied with his career choice and looking to changes in the future in his field. This includes thinking a lot about “new paradigms” and the challenges they pose to traditional disciplinary structures and standard approaches to teaching and learning. He realizes that the “predominant teaching mode” is still “people in classrooms lecturing to the blackboard,” but some people are adopting more “enlightened approaches.” He does question the push for “team learning where you do things for the common good” because he sees “personal satisfaction or gratification” in the “individual effort or grade” as better incentives.

A great deal of his early motivation to excel in school came fi"om knowing he

“would be the only one who got the answer” and “the high of being the only one to do it.” His father had a science degree, but never encouraged his children to have “any

97 desire to enter the sciences” because he bad never been able to “use it for a lot of reasons, the primary reason being discrimination.” “Discrimination means people judge you on the basis of your color or your race and dont look at your qualifications.” He is well aware of the way it plays out differently according to someone’s ethnicity with

Black people being treated much more harshly than other groups. Challenging discriminatory behavior takes time, patience, and it takes conviction. Certain groups are

“politically mobilized” and likely to “ferret out” things by “filing class action suits and testing it in the courts.” He points to the Jewish and Black American communities as examples of those who are prepared to confront systemic problems, but Asian

Americans as very unlikely to do so. Some groups are inclined to fight and others have had so much thrown at them, he does not think they “feel it is worth it.”

“History repeats itself over and over again” in the way certain ethnic groups are being treated. In education, stereotypes lead to ungrounded presumptions about people.

The issues unfortunately often become self-fulfilling prophecies. “There is an expectation of Asians to be good at math” and a “notion that men and women are different in their ability to comprehend science.” “There is no presumption that Black

Americans are good at math and science,” so “if someone does choose to excel in that area, it has to be proven by action.” In many cases, African Americans do not even have the opportunity to prove the inaccuracy of such things. When it comes to racism, he says‘T do not see it in the faculty. I do see it in the staff.” He cites several experiences, but among his colleagues he says, ‘T don’t see any racism, overt racism. I don’t see any aversion towards advising, teaching or mentoring people of color.” He thinks programs can do key things to attract students of color and diversify the

98 participation in their field. Once “word gets out that this is a place where Black people are welcome” or “the Black American feels a sense of belonging, achievement, self­ esteem or learning” the number will increase.

The need for a diverse feculty becomes apparent when you think about “the purpose of a faculty member” being “to inspire students” that maybe “the student sees themselves in the teacher’' and a “Black student is far more likely to see themselves in a

Black teacher.” He hopes to see efforts made to also “bring in the highest quality graduate students fi'om Latin American countries and Mexico,” but does not “think there is a need to actively recruit Asian Americans.” This comes fi'om his feeling that

“Asians like Jewish people had a tendency to dominate higher education.” He responds to mention of systematic discrimination against Asians in the sciences saying “the reason people have quotas or exclude others is because they are afi'aid to compete” and

“they believe that if allowed to compete on a peer-to-peer or equal basis, they would lose.” As for his opinion on women, he thinks they will fit in if they tend to be “just one of the boys.” He suggests “if you close your eyes and did not hear the pitch of the voice” and it should sound like a man. He says women need to “think like them” and

“take steps or by reflex do things which are not gender specific.” “It is a totally plain vanilla, non-gender kind of person that actively tries to do what the common culture does to be accepted” including: “no strong feminist, she’s not at all sexy, not attractive, not a feminist.” He says his female colleagues probably “have never (all) had lunch together” and “are not a caucus or a political action group,” they “are faculty members who advance science and they teach students.”

99 He insists that both gender and ethnicity are secondary characteristics in the initial assessment of new faculty hires in his department. If they hire a woman, he says,

“that wouldn’t be the first thought in their minds that a person is female.” He admits that “in other departments it would be the first thought in their minds,” but claims his contemporaries would be going around talking about what branch of the discipline the candidate comes fi’om. When a faculty is all white men, there tends to “be a white male mindset” and excuses like “insufficient pool” are “an excuse for the status quo” and

“for not doing anything” to change the representation. He does “not know if it is conscious or non-conscious bias. People have a tendency to hire people like them.”

“That is a human tendency that requires a conscious intervention to overcome.” He advocates for change saying with “a very diverse scientific work force you might get hundreds of different approaches to solving a problem.” People who all come fi’om the same background “all have a common cultural paradigm,” “all think the same way,” and

“all are going to come up with the same solution when you give them the same problem.”

* $ $ * $ * * *

1 ceMamlyca: feelmp of prejidke. Majbelfeitisuaivutageof hatiii K as 1 leitor becaise I u Mt line to œrtiii tfenfs.

The spark that kindled the career interest for another scientist came from a newspaper article that referred to a need for members of a clinically related vocation.

The idea seemed to mesh with an interest in science and math that had started in elementary school. The absence of role models in his community means children have very little idea what a research scientist does, so it takes special circumstances to get

100 them going in the direction of such a career. There is “a lot of uncertainty, economic

uncertainty for one’s climb into the basic sciences, so it is a hard sell” and he thinks “it

has to be in the heart.” He actually ended up in graduate school “not really knowing

what the pay-ofif was going to be, but it was just passion” and realizing he had the

ability to do what he liked to do. He wanted to be somewhere where he could use his brain and what he had learned in school and since he liked the laboratory environment, he chose graduate study in the sciences.

Growing up in majority schools, he learned very early how to negotiate issues of race and ethnicity. That early training “in these areas of difference, sociological issues dealing with difference” made him different from others because he had “learned how to adapt and maybe blend in and do something he was maybe not brought up culturally to do.” He does get tired of dealing with it, but “it is something he has dealt with for years and years and years through school and it’s just part of the job.” He is resigned that “when one sees you, automatically the intuitive feeling is that well this guy is probably less than average or certainly not above average. He must be average or less than average, certainly not above average, certainly not exceptional.” It is “the extra burden” of always “more or less having to prove yourself.”

In school he was recruited into a special program for minority students to teach them how to study and boost their English skills. Having been in private schools most of his life, he may not really have needed to be brought up to speed, but “for some of the students it might have been the difference between making it and not making it.”

He thinks another issue that has a profound impact for students of color is the culture shock of moving from the relatively supportive, nurturing environment of perhaps a

101 Historically Black College or University to a large cold majority institution where the attitude is “show me that you can do it.” The scarcity of minority faculty and administrators is a terrible problem. There are no role models and the students certainly do not see people like themselves in powerful positions on campus. He got very used to the situation early on, and never had a minority teacher throughout his entire collegiate and graduate career. He had to know that he had it within himself to do it. Now, he can see the impact his presence has for students of color in his classes. Even though his teaching is probably typical because he follows his Caucasian mentors. Just being there means a lot to the students. Because his English is good and he is very competent and can answer questions he knows it shows people that if you can toe the line and do well, then you can succeed.

Teaching is “the most disappointing part of being a faculty member at this type of institution.” As a student, he and all of his peers were trained to do research and that is how they are evaluated for promotion and tenure. He knows that basically as long as you’re doing well enough that the students do not complain to the administration, you are all right. “You could be an award winning teacher, but if you don’t do good research and are not bringing in any money then you won’t continue here and you will not be promoted.” He tries to do a good job with the classroom teaching, following the good examples he has seen, but there is so little reward in it he can hardly take the time away from his research. The teaching he does get more satisfaction from is the smaller scale efforts that take place in his lab with his graduate students.

102 *******

The stereotypical Anglo Saxon white doesn't believe that the African person has equal intelligence or even higher sometimes. So they face a constant battle of having to constant^ prove that they're right or capable and th ^ 're sort of constantly being undermined and their confidence is con^ntly being eroded with time. That is not a growth process. That's a decay process

The scientific enculturation of one scientist began at a very early age since his father was a scientist and he had decided by age four that he was going to teach people science. He spent plenty of time in the company of scientists as a child, so it was very natural for him to think he “could be like any one of these people.” He labels this the naive attitude that he has kept throughout his life. He uses this anytime he finds himself in a certain environment to “naturally develop a feeling that he can be like others in that environment.” Being surrounded by people that were scientifically inclined, he was exposed to scientific concepts in a way that made it natural for him to want to go in that direction. He knows that “a lot of what goes on during that early development phase, the way in which you can look at problems and really imagine the scope, imagine things you can go into dictates ultimately what goes on later in your life.” If you have any doubt at all about your confidence, science is a tough place to be, because you have to go through many competitive processes such as peer review and the tenure system.

He is keenly aware of the profound influence teachers can have and says we all can identify people who confused and discouraged us as well as those who encouraged, inspired, and believed in us. He remembers very specific people who shaped him in significant ways, especially his doctoral advisor “who apart fi-om the fact that he was a world-class scientist, was also human.” He never once felt like an outsider even if there were not other people in his racial/ethnic group in the program. This man was

103 convinced he could be as good as anyone else in his field. He hears of the tragic experiences others have where people are told they are lucky to be there, lucky to get through, and everything they do is sub-standard. He knows a lot of people of color do not have the luxury of being exposed to someone who is the best in the world in the field and who supports them through reputation and recommendations that open up other important possibilities.

He sees a great deal of evidence of racism in the sciences. Professors make statements about students of color that make it clear that they are not “going to promote these students, help them find jobs, help them gain academic positions, and help them advance in the sort of intellectual community we belong to.” There is a “perception problem on the part of professors which really affects people. It may be conscious, it may be subconscious, but it is real.” The expectation of them is usually not as high.

“In some cases there are professors that are clearly outrageous in terms of their attitude” and this can be directed toward Asian people as well as Black people. Students can be given deliberate problems that impair their chances of even making it through their programs due to “underlying racist fectors in the system.” Our students are

“encouraged to come to college and there are many opportunities that are provided to try get them through, but they face a hostile environment.” Besides explicit discrimination by the faculty, they often struggle with the social aspects of situations such as finding lab partners and study groups that can be the survival networks to help them get through the system. He thinks that if he had been “subjected to such negative pressure throughout all of his life, he is sure he would have chosen a different path than the one that he did.” He believes “that it is important for some of us to survive and not

104 run away to an easier place. Unless you have a couple of people create an impression that it is possible, that barrier will still remain.”

*******

They mag deny ft as much as the; want, but they have ijuotas. If they chose students only based on 6RE or SAT and high school grades, they would have a ma|orfty of Asians and very few whites or Caucasians and almost no minorities. In order to avoid that situation, they have to reduce the number of Asian students

Having been bom and raised in another country, the views of another scientist cast a very interesting light on American culture. He declares his position to be that of a

“very comfortable foreigner” adding, “if you move when you are younger, you adapt much better” and he will “never be a true American.” He does not see assimilation as

“a big issue” and makes no big effort to change or resist change with respect to fitting in. He talks about being unaware that his background is an issue at work, but realized that he could be oblivious to some indications. One particular incident brought this to his attention when a student took a campus worker to task for being disrespectful due to his accent in a case where he had not even noticed the insulting behavior. After that, he says “Either I never have any problem or I never was aware of having problems, which is another possibility.”

Science is a rather low status profession in the country he came from. Research scientists and Acuity do not earn “enough to make a decent living.” It tends to be “run mainly by women” since despite the pay, it “gives you more flexibility than the private sector” in terms of work hours. Scientific careers used to be prestigious, but there is now a joke “that husbands work and women do science.” In the United States, the male/female ratio in his field varies dramatically depending on the area of 105 specialization. Some majors literally have “more women than men” in the student ranks, but the faculty “is a huge difference in that they are men.” With respect to hiring, he supports existing practice “that everybody should have the same chance” but if

“everything is equal, give it to the woman so that we have better representation.” He says that those women who are hired are “exceptionally well-qualified” and once they are hired, the only thing that matters is publications. “They can tell you otherwise, but if you do not publish, you are out.” He has never been “aware of any incident contrary” to the idea that female faculty are accepted by their male colleagues. His perception is that “there are no problems” for the women in his department, but admits that he is “not living those problems” and “they may not be making those problems” visible to him.

He does “not recall ever seeing an Afiican American” student in this department or during his graduate studies. “Afiican American students don’t choose any career” in his area in spite of the opportunities and “it has to do with tradition and how they came out from plantations where they were slaves.” He did see solid Asian representation in

California where he was in graduate school, since it was in close proximity to cities with many people of Asian ancestry. He does not support the idea of quotas that exclude the best candidates. He feels that if “the population is 100% Asian because they are the best, I am sorry.” “You cannot close the door for Asians that deserve to be” in the best schools. In his school, the academic success of the Asian American students was well recognized. “There was a joke going around - the first day of class, you sit in the first row. Look back and see how many Asian students you have and it would give you an idea of how much you have to work to get an ‘A’ in the class. The more Asian-

Americans you have, the more you have to study.” He attributes this to those students

106 those students “growing up in a &miiy where they were taught that you do things

because you have to” regardless of whether you like it or not “which is what most

American cultures teach.” Asian fiunily emphasis includes pushing students to “take

classes that are hard like algebra and calculus in high school to prepare you for the

university.” Asian children begin “in an environment vdiere the homework has to be

done and you have to work hard. That is the way you get good grades.”

He sees an interesting contradiction in American attitudes about diversity.

“Everybody wants the melting pot, but when it comes time for each other to behave in a way that they fit into the melting pot, they say no way, I am going to do whatever I want. This is America and we live in a fi-ee country.” ‘Tt is a fi’ee country as long as I don’t have to change in order to melt with the rest of society.”

*******

Since I didn't grow up in this environment, I never felt like a minority even though I am different

For another person, coming to the United States as a graduate student gave an interesting perspective on issues of race/ethnicity in this country. He had “always heard since he was at the university” about the issues, problems, and messages of minorities, but attitudes were different toward him because he was an international student at the time. In his country there is far less distinction made among people, so he “didn't know anything about discrimination.” They only make distinctions about nationality when you fill out an application not “whether you are Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, and all that list you have here.” He had heard about discrimination but only came to really understand it when he moved here and began to live in it. He does not feel “like a minority” and did not come fi'om a minority background, so he says it is possible for 107 him to just “work and study like anyone else" in the mainstream culture. Since he feels

like he has “never lived h,” what he knows is what he has been told. He thinks if he had been subjected to what he has heard, he might have been angrier. He sees minorities that grew up here as being on the defensive all the time and knows “sometimes they are bitter about certain aspects of their life. He thinks, “maybe he would have been that way if they would have treated him like that.”

His contacts in this country have always been educated people which he thinks has made a difference. Since there are so many foreign students in a university setting,

“that environment was very nice.” He struggled with the language at first, but honestly does not recall anyone ever having lower expectations of him because of it. He came as a relatively mature graduate student with practical experience in his field and a decision already made as to the specific field he wanted to study. He has noticed certain things about US minority populations. One thing is that “their vision or ambition is limited.”

Even as a kid they are already seen as workers, so the chances are they will end up doing that. He came out of a poor background, and ended up as a successful faculty member at a national university in his country and then in the United States. As a little kid he was ambitious, “thinking he was going to be a professional in either industry or academia” and knowing that even though he was poor, he did not want to stay like that.

He had a vision even though he did not know what he was going to be. He “was sure and always kept in mind that with patience, hard work, and honesty,” he would succeed.

The “combination of a lack of education and a lack of foundation or vision for higher opportunities” is what he perceives to be the major problem for the people. He also realizes how few role models there are and is glad to tell them that he came fi-om a

108 situation of having less than they do when he was a child.

He claims women are very active in business and politics in his country. There are also “a lot of faculty" women in the sciences. He says he has known three deans of his college that have been women. He says some fields are harder for women to move up in than others, but they have tended to do well ‘Svhen it is a matter of intellect." Of the sciences, there are very few women in engineering, but in biology and chemistry there are more women than men in the student population. He has watched women function in this country and thinks that “if you work hard and with education" you have the opportunity. He sees women participate in all the activities of his department and even chair some committees, so they seem to be involved as much as they want. He does not try to be very inquisitive about their personal feelings, so he has no real idea how they feel about the setting. He finds the environment very pleasant and has never really talked about gender issues with any of his colleagues, male or female. He is not sure women have to work harder than men and suggests it might be on a “borderline” where it is hard to distinguish “how much is hard and how much is harder." He figures he “works hard, trying to publish and work with his students as much as he can.” He would be of the same mind and do that if he was white and that is the way he thinks people should think about it. ***$*$$****$*$$*********$*$**$**$**$***********$****$***$*$***********

Gendered Difference

The number of women in scientific fields has dramatically increased throughout the 20th century (NSF, 1996). The considerable attention that gender representation has gotten in the sciences has led to clear reduction in the levels of overt discrimination face

109 in the sciences. On the other hand, subtle harassment and covert treatment has taken the place of explicit discrimination in the sciences (Benditt, 1992).

The struggles of early female scientists who broke through barriers to participation are becoming less the exception to existing rules of exclusion. Most academic departments have at least one female faculty member and in some biological sciences the representation exceeds forty percent (NSF, 1996). This is not, however, a mix of all women; female scientists come almost exclusively from the majority culture.

Caucasian women, who will be discussed first, share the cultural background of their male counterparts. They face the complexities of changing sex roles, but share many of the social values held by the men they are woridng with. They discuss a variety of strategies for negotiating difference with the white male powerbrokers of science.

*******

I still think that for people of color and women students there is still this feeling of being other. So much more than active discouragement, I would think this is the reason they do not persevere in the way the young white male does. They are still always thinking I don't belong here, so why am I banging my head against the wall when I don’t belong here?

As the first woman to complete a doctorate in her field at a very prestigious research institution, one scientist began developing her own set of survival skills very early in her career. She recalls working very hard on her own “mental attitude” and developing the personal mantra “nobody is going to make me feel like I don’t belong here!” She still remembers a senior faculty member approaching her in an undergraduate physics lab with a “great look of surprise on his face” and saying “you could be a woman physicist.” From her first year in graduate school, when “the professor knew my name immediately” she knew she was “going to stick out like a sore

110 thumb no matter what happens,” so she just got “used to being ‘other’ and it feels

comfortable” to her. She also admits that she is not sure how eager she really is to have

female colleagues. The ambivalence exists because it will result in the loss of her

“uniqueness” and she has gotten used to the “ability to speak out authoritatively” as the female voice on certain issues.

There are still blatant reminders that she does not satisfy the stereotypical image of a scientist in her field. “A week doesn’t pass that someone doesn’t mistake me for a secretary,” and if that is not bad enough, male colleagues have asked her to “get some copying done” for them. She reports that “students are more likely to call me Mrs., whereas they will call male professors - professor. Dr. and so forth.” She tries “not to be too sensitive” and keep “blinders on” just not to spend too much time on these things, but she has some choice rejoinders for the more common situations. Gender issues are “constant in the sense that if I let this stuff get to me it is happening all the time.” She says few women really want to admit that it is a problem, because as female scientists they are trained to deal with problems and a “problem involves something they need help solving.” It is discouraging to see “what a waste of time” campus-wide diversity efforts have been. The administration “cares so much about looking good, but nothing about doing good” and many campus leaders will no longer be involved in something that is “just for show.”

She remains an advocate within her college, trying to open their eyes on other aspects of equity for the sake of her field. She has tried to show search committees how

“the processes they are using privileges people who are the people who we already know” rather than those “who might come from other nontraditional situations.” “It is

111 not that they are actively against Black people or anything like that, they don’t care,

which is almost a worse sort of attitude.” She raises the subject of stereotyping of

scientists as nerds. As an undergraduate, she was “typed as a math and science nerd and

could not get out of that foxhole” until she went off to a bigger institution for graduate

school. Interestingly she thinks the label is deserved and says, “the guys do tend to be

nerds in the sense of being totally focused on their work.” “The stuff they do care about

outside of work isn’t considered cool” and “they just don’t dress well” “because they

just don’t care about it.” She does not “know very many” other women in her field, but

makes it clear she is conscious about her own image. As the only woman on her faculty

for a long time she could “set the standard for what women wear, but now there are

other women.” She is conscious of the image campus-wide saying “I do find on days I

think I am going to be meeting with a group that is more fashion conscious. I’m

probably more careful about what I wear.” She “thinks very carefully what she wears”

for teaching, trying to “look good but not too good” and be sure she “exactly matches

their expectations so that they are not thinking about what I am wearing.”

As someone who cares about teaching, she seems to feel institutional priorities

that “value research over teaching and service” are misplaced. The teaching “awards

are an admission” that teaching is not valorized “within the system” in the important

ways such as promotion. She is disturbed by the possibility that this could be due to the perception that “research is a more masculine-oriented activity whereas the more feminine activities are teaching and service and they are the ones that are devalued.”

For example, she thinks “mentoring fi’om faculty to faculty is very important” and goes out of her way to talk to new male and female members of her department.

112 Recognizing that “not all of my colleagues do that” and she does a lot of it, raises the suspicion that she is doing ‘"the things that are more naturally female and get less reward around the university.” “The reason we are doing the research is so that we can be doing the graduate education.” “The research money is going to the university so we can educate graduate students” and that priority is lost as “the language sometimes gives research more attention than graduate education.” “The primary thing a faculty member should be doing is caring about students.”

*******

There are some men who would scrutinize a woman more closely than a man in terms of qualifications, and something that would not disqualify a man from consideration for joining a lab would disqualify a woman

The realization that she “thought about science differently and wanted to go into more depth” than friends who were pre-med and taking courses with her was the first evidence of “a scientific interest” for another scientist. Rather than just learning the material “thoroughly enough to pass an exam,” she ‘Yeally wanted to find out how people knew.” There were not a lot of women in science courses when she was in college, but it was during the 1970s when “everybody wanted to show off how they were different from other people, so it was okay.” She looks back realizing she “did not have enough information” to know what the career choice would mean, but she would probably not drastically change her ideas even if she had the information she does now.

She cites the respect given her position as one extrinsic reward of being a scientist, but for her “the intrinsic reward is still a driving curiosity.” She still enjoys reading journals even outside her field to “figure out what people are studying, how they’re studying it and why they are interested in those particular problems.”

113 In science, relationships can be both competitive and collegial “because

competitiveness does not have to be cut-throat.” She “thinks it is very difficult to do

science in isolation.” “Some of the people she views as the best colleagues are the ones

who will come and challenge” her. The gender distribution among students in their

courses starts out to be “close to 50-50,” but they “tend to have more women either

dropping out of the program entirely in the first year or two or getting a masters degree

and not going on for their PhD.” She thinks this is “the old leaky pipeline thing” and

“there is no one hard and 6st reason why women tend to drop out.” It is hard for

women to see “a career in a male-dominated world.” When they do “not see

themselves as fitting in” they reinforce the problem because ‘If they stayed with the

program, then once they got to her level the ratio would be better than it is now.”

Another factor is family pressures since women “either want to start a family or want to

have a life of their own” or “stay with a boyfiiend or significant other or husband or

whatever and that person moves.” Women “tend to end up in technical positions or

sometimes in a different field entirely." Women that end up on the faculty can “be

reasonably content” but she does not think “anybody is blissfully happy about their job.” “There are different levels of acceptance” when it comes to females and “different undercurrents” are “sometimes less positive than in other cases.”

“One of the hardest things about teaching is doing it over and over again the same way” so she changes her course every year. She is a popular teacher and thinks that students might like her because she is different and does “not do things quite the same way the other professors do.” A great deal of the subject matter in her field is taught in a way that is fairly abstract and therefore considered difficult. She thinks that

114 it is entirely possible that some people who have been teaching classes a long time

“have gotten themselves into some Idnd of abstract formalism instead of really

teaching” the content When “you just get into more and more abstract reasoning, for

the good student the logic is still there and they can see the underpinnings, but the

student who is struggling with it is just thrown off by the approach.” She seeks students

who are curious and is “always disappointed when she sees students who are not driven

by that.” On the other hand, “it can also become an impediment, because if you are too

driven by that you get too much of a scattershot approach to science.” “You do have to

be directed” and another important trait is “an ability to synthesize information” and a

“mental capacity” to “synthesize facts” which she thinks is “something you are simply

bom with.” “You can train people a little bit but some people just don’t have it and

some people do.”

Good scientists “can think of a number of explanations for a finding.” She

looks for evidence in applicants “from their personal statement that they are inclined to think at a sufficiently advanced level to be able to go on for a doctorate.” She enjoys participating in graduate student education because “you can see them progress over the years,” and you actually see them change because it is not just a short contact. Her program happens to attract many foreign applicants for graduate study and they actually do “affirmative action to get in domestic students” because the NIH offers training grants that go to programs that “do a lot of training of domestic students.” If they ‘just went strictly by the GRE’s, they would never get a domestic student,” but she believes the GRE “should not be the only criterion for admission.” They have made a choice to accept all the domestic students “who are most likely to succeed in their program” and

115 if there are additional slots left over they offer them to the international students.

Interestingly enough, when it comes to afhrmative action gender issues or with respect

to recruiting African American she has heard people say they object to considering this

issue because they do not want to lower their standards.

*******

Exceptional women are more driven. We want to do this in spite of the fact that they don't want us there or in spite of the fact that maytw they are amtwalent about us being there. They are not giving us any help in being there or even if there is no anxiety expressed on their part, it is just flat uncomfortable being in situations where there is no one like you

One realizes just how well one woman negotiates gender issues when she tells

you that she has come up with a way to try and describe it and the technique she uses

when she is “working on a team project where she is the only soprano.” As the first woman ever on her departmental faculty, in a discipline that has only begun to show minor signs of opening up and token diversity, she has a wonderful sense of confidence and security. She gets a kick out of playing up feminine issues by dressing in unexpected ways in some of the more grungy or masculine aspects of her fieldworic.

She describes the women who had been going into her field as exceptional or “students who had exceptional grade point averages or exceptionally tough personalities or they had something really special in their background.”

She seems to think that at the student level they are beginning to see evidence they have arrived at critical mass since there are finally “average women students” coming into the program. She is well aware of the importance of mentoring and while she always had a science interest, her disciplinary choice “really clicked” through her first scientific mentor. This was a high school biology teacher who recognized the fascination with science in her and a few other individuals and did his best to cultivate

116 that by giving them access and help initiating a big project. She has gone on to

specialize in this particular area, but looks back at the origin of her interest as her first

exposure to the scientific method. She self-describes as “pretty much of a social outcast type, nerdy person who walked around with a slide rule.” She had “adopted a fascination for the world around her at an early age” and it went on to jell through books when the “books about science really were the ones that seemed to fascinate her.” She drew a picture of herself as a scientist for a seventh grade art assignment to picture themselves in their careers.

Growing up in a large Amily, she attributes some academic motivation to the presence of a younger brother who was “really a genius and skipped ahead in school” so that they were in the same grade together where they could share intellectual experiences. Her gender consciousness as a child included resentment of the things her brother could do and she could not, but she usually just tried to do them anyway. She feels strongly that “these discussions right now in the political arena about affirmative action” and wanting to back off indicate to her that “the people who are really uncomfortable about affirmative action or affirmative action policies don’t get it.” She tries to raise the consciousness of such people when the setting is appropriate by asking them if they have ever “found themselves in a situation where they were in the minority?” She follows up finding out whether they voluntarily placed themselves in it, how they felt and how they reacted.

Such thinking seems to help white men realize “that it is uncomfortable when you are the only one.” She understands that comfort is the issue and people find comfort being around people like themselves. It is such a “very natural thing for people

117 to want to be around other people like themselves” they are usually unaware of how it

impacts their decisions with respect to hiring. She has long accepted that by being a

scientist, especially in her field, she puts herself in “minority situations constantly and is still uncomfortable about it but it doesn’t stop her” because “the thing she wants to get means more than the discomfort she subjects herself to.” When she interviewed for her current position, she was afiaid it was an affirmative action interview and she refuses to get involved in situations where departments are looking for female candidates just to report that they have been considered. In fact after assuming it was and even thinking it felt like one, in the negotiation process it became clear they were really interested in her because of her unique qualifications.

Now she is very willing to serve on search committees because she knows that she has “a unique value system and a unique approach to things.” She feels her department “goes out of its way to meet all of the affirmative action requirements” and consider candidates of color as well as women. They have several nonwhite members of the faculty, but they are all fi'om other countries. There “are very few American

Blacks in the pool and the few that are in the pool are in high demand.” Asian

Americans are more common in western schools and Latinos tend to be drawn into lucrative consulting opportunities in South America. She feels her field would be a very natural place for Native Americans. Their values, concerns, and upbringing would make them “very well suited to this particular discipline, but they are not involved.”

When she went to school as an undergraduate with a number of First Nation students, she noticed fi-om their body language and the high attrition that they were not very comfortable.

118 *******

Where did being nice ever get you? In a competitive kind of world of grant getting and publishing and all that, you have to fight, fight, fight. I feel like I am constantly getting, still, clashing messages about what you are supposed to do

In spite of being in a field that has a fairly good representation of women and a

subdiscipline that could be described as predominantly female, another scientist

experiences a profound sense of isolation due to her sex. There are multiple stories of

interactions with male colleagues that make it clear she feels she will never quite be a

legitimate part of the whole group and she sadly notes, ‘T am still an outsider in my own area." She says that she “is not going out in the chute as a competitive person who is going to shove their ideas down somebody's throat.” She “can’t do the fights and even the scientific fighting part.” She sees this as “crazy behavior” and “really unpleasant” and even when “you do a collaboration, it is to fight against some other lab or to join forces and make alliances so that you beat someone else to the findings.”

Unfortunately, science has not turned out to be what she expected. She chose not “to be in the business community or out there” because of “all the competition, the back-biting.” She seems disappointed to admit, “I always thought science was above that because when you read about it, it sounds like that.” She says she was “not prepared for the aggressiveness of these guys.” She first noticed it in college when

“you knew you had to protect your lab notebooks because people would steal them and wreck them and then you’d screw up and they would do better in the class. There was this whole population, mostly guys who were the pre-med guys and they were just cut­ throat. You could tell when they were around and there was a kind of - they were cocky and confident and there was a selection for a certain kind of person who was

119 going to be pre-med.” She had originally intended to be a Veterinarian, but was so

offended in an interview when an older male professor commented on her lack of

children, she decided “if it is the discipline or if it is the school, I will not be part of any

profession where this is an attitude that is prevailing.” She ended up shifting to another

science area, not “really even thinking about what graduate school was or what that

would mean for a career or a job.”

Regardless of their numbers, women are seen as relatively unimportant members

of her scientific community. “Even if their numbers are there, they’re not in positions

of power to mandate any kind of policy or whatever. Very few women are sort of interpreted or perceived as significant/powerful and deserving that kind, that level of respect and respectability.” “It is very comparable to sort of the glass ceiling issues in the business world.” “You still see in terms of who runs the organization and who has the power on committees and who is represented by grants. It is still strongly biased toward males.” To cope with the gender issues, she adopted a “corporate male model of how she was going to behave.” By reading business magazines, she set out a five-year plan with “goals and a mission statement and things people were talking about in the business community.”

She decided she “was not going to try seductive” behaviors as “ways of getting ahead.” She often saw women as “less competent and less together than men” because there “were not really good models of women in collections that looked like they had power and could accomplish stuff.” Rather than providing like-minded colleagues, the women around her show little inclination to form a community and give each other support. Women that do well seem to become “Queen Bee Women” or those who say,

120 ‘TU be damned if I am going to make it easier for some other woman. She can just go through what I went through.” This scientist is also disgusted “seeing what younger women behind her are doing.” “They think everything is fixed, everything is hookey dory, and they are going to be surprised.” “The discrimination is just more subtle. It is just more insidious, but is definitely -it is all there.” She feels like women have ‘lost our momentum - what we had gained through some inroads of the women's movement.”

Part of female enculturation used to involve learning not to “like women and trust women,” but now as “more and more girls are growing up doing soccer and all this other...”

When asked about the racial/ethnic diversity, she describes her field and those closely cormected to it as being “a white thing.” She sees race as “different types of physical features and facial characteristics and the amount of melanin expressed in the skin, as well as the cultural overlay.” She does not think there is a significant difference between the distribution of intelligence among groups. She speculates that it has been so hard to get where she is that “somebody else with other things up against them, other prejudices and biases and history of discrimination would have given up a long time ago.” She notes that “socio-cultural Actors impact on early childhood education.” In reference to generating interest in science participation, “we’re crossing them off the list way back when. We’re losing them in grade school and for sure in the middle school with such pivotal vocational/career choices.” Attracting people to science careers is

“fighting an uphill battle” with ideas like a “woman scientist for example is old, ugly, unmarried, no fashion sense, works long hours by herself.”

121 *****

I think that these guys now resent the fact that they just can't open their mouths and say whatever is on their minds. That they have to at least - they call it being politically correct, not saying things in a certain way. So I think that's what I see as this rançaging resentment, this rage that they have to control their behavior. I don't see a fundamental change in that behavior or the thinking that leads to that behavior and that is what worries me- that what we are seeing is irritation

A different scientist sits in the enviable position of having achieved considerable success as is measured in terms of sponsored funding and invitations to speak about her research, but “after waiting her whole life to do it” she clearly questions whether it is

“really worthwhile” and wonders why she does not have “a feeling of satisfaction or reward.” She says she sort of stumbled into this as a 24 year old PhD and if anyone had told her when she first became a professor that she would eventually spend all her time doing paper work, she would have thought they were crazy. She says she “didn’t get into this business to sit there and write manuscript after manuscript that a handful of people are going to read,” so she is interested in teaching and would like to get back into it in a meaningful way. Her own style of training students is patterned after that of her own advisor. She insists she was “ambivalent about science” and “had no particular love for their area” but by working with him could do the research she wanted to do.

He was an eminent and influential scientist whose care, advisement and eventual recommendation put her on the path to a faculty position. “He was completely hands off,” rarely discussed research with her, and for the most part told her to figure it out for herself.

She thinks, “a lot of people have the hope that when women come into these positions, they are going to impart some sort of new characteristics. Maybe be more

122 warm, more nurturing, more understanding, but the problem is by the time you get to the stage you have been so well trained by men that you are like them. It is real tough to turn around and behave in a vastly different manner than that which you have been trained in.” She likes her own graduate students to be willing to take the financial support and get their work done in a very unstructured environment with minimal attentiorL This enabled her to have large numbers of students and a very productive laboratory, but she has cut back after making a decision to ‘‘pay more attention to what they are doing and also try to treat them as human beings rather than production units.”

She confesses, now, that the biggest challenge of having all those grants and all those students was the annoyance of their needing attention and never being able to find time to think. She thinks, “women are very good at picking up on cues in their environment and then figuring out the boundaries that their behavior has to be.” It is “mostly done by observation,” seeing “the kinds of behaviors that are permissible by watching other people do their jobs and then you begin to emerge successfully and you figure you need to emulate the things that you are seeing.”

Women are “trained fi’om infancy that they are responsible for other people’s behavior and they must adjust their behavior so that other people’s behavior stays in bounds.” She learned fi’om her mother “that her behavior was going to control how men interacted with her” and she thinks “because of their training that women just grow up figuring out what we need to do to fh in.” With respect to her own job, she realized that while it was “technically okay for me to do something like have a child, I had better not let that in any way become an issue on the job.” She felt like she needed to

“become a man in order to act as if you don't have a personal life and the only interest

123 you ever had was doing this job.” Certain things make you ‘Yealize that you really have to act in a constrained way and that you're not allowed to be a person in the job.” She mentions how schizophrenic such behavior feels and says that even though she got used to it, she “realizes how much stress that engenders.” “It is also very annoying because you realize you are not displaying key elements of your personality, of what you are simply so that other people around you don’t get threatened.”

Interestingly, she now worries a great deal less about the feelings of her male colleagues. She has gradually become aware of a change in her own power and respect, but finds it strange that it comes not fi-om having achieved the penultimate rank of full professor, but fi’om the massive amount of grant money she has brought into the university. She finds it disheartening that there has also been petty jealousy and disrespect ranging firom comments about the prestige of the source of her grants to a demeaning sexualized caricature of her that was placed in a public location. She attributes it to “fear on their part.” “Women are still women on the job. They are viewed in a sociological construct and so they can have a PhD and they can have a high- powered job, but when men and women come into a conference room, men still look at women as women, not as scientists.” Most men are shocked and offended to have this pointed out. They do not recognize it because of the way they are socialized to assume

“that everybody should respect them and look out for them and they don’t have a clue why other people do what they do or why they are motivated or why they are behaving the way they do.”

124 *****

W kai liotken me ia (keac gays arc my ooUeagaea. Tkcy see ii and (key don't do anytking. Tkey indirectly kenefit &om nm keing treated kadly. Tkey are not doing it, kut if tkey don't aay anytking tken tkey indirectly kenefit. If yon arc not given appropriate lak «pace, tken tkey get it. So tkere is a reaaon wky tkey don't neceaaarily apeak up

While she might have liked and had an aptitude for math and science when she was young, one particular scientist insists that she only considered traditional feminine career roles such as “nurse, secretary, and stewardess” until her eyes were opened by a special male teacher who “was instrumental in letting her know you can still be a girl and be good” at other things. Her eventual career path to an academic position was indirect, including several years of teaching science after getting a degree in education.

She seems to have run into a real mixture of men that have either promoted or attempted to interfere with her chances for success in science.

Throughout her graduate education she was constantly faced with people who let her know they did not expect “a divorced woman with a child” to be able to succeed.

She admits that such a thing made her probably succeed with a vengeance because she felt like she had something to prove to herself and also to all those people who did not think she could do it. Women have many unexpected trials thrown at them all the way to and after they join the faculty ranks. Besides the issues involving their male contemporaries, there are often staff members who actively resist their presence. It becomes fairly obvious that “if you go through the list of people that have trouble” with certain people, it is often specifically the women. She talks about secretaries in the days before computers who would type for male students but not for her. She has seen research associates vdio would wash the glassware and clean up after guys in the lab,

125 but would not help women.

Even more damaging are obstacles thrown in the way by administrators who

have “a real problem with women \^ o got themselves an education.” When

department chairs are very busy or absent a great deal of the time they often delegate

responsibility to someone who essentially takes over and runs the department and

assumes inordinate power and leadership if the chair is not paying attention. She has

watched the standard response to complaints about such things be the formation of some

powerless committee that wastes people’s time but serves to localize the issues,

collecting complaints until the furor is defused. The representation of women in her

specialty is not as good as it is reputed to be. On the national level, it is improving, but

was very poor when she started out. In her current department, the chair is “very proud

of the number of women he has hired,” but it is fairly well known that the initiative was

in response to incentives from the administration that paid substantial portions of their

salaries when they started. “He can say he hires all these women, but he does not treat

them well when they get here.”

She thinks it is “pretty safe to say” that “most of the women in the department

are not happy.” She thinks some of her male colleagues would admit that “it is an issue

and she thinks some would choose to ignore it.” It is hard for men to accept the

problem and raising the issue often leads to heated discussions. In some cases, she does

not bring things up “because she thinks it is a gender issue.” In others, she does things

to let them know how she feels such as making sure they “will not be comfortable

having your colleague do your typing for you” and they “know every time that she really does not appreciate being their secretary.” She thinks it will take a while to

126 change the sciences. She does “not think women will make a big change” without the

support of men since they have the power. “Unless you get some of the ones in power

on your side,” she does not think there is much of a chance. She has seen the evidence

of this in personal experiences when different people have come out as “real supporters

of women.” It is not always younger men, but very often they are the ones who have

‘gone through graduate school, competed with women who did just as well as he did or

better and so he has more respect for women's performance” than some of the older

guys. “It is getting to be a bit of a better place because you can get by with speaking

up” but women still “get punished more for speaking up.”

*******

flOlDCniC JClCriQC U a COnPLCTCLT MMFKCJCK1PC5 rORflM W. CVCKT JIMQLC WOrWN QCTJ flCKC DHTCRCMTLT

Most scientists are relatively unconscious o f if not almost oblivious to, the

characteristics of the culture that surrounds them, but this is not the case with this

scientist. She is clearly quite aware of the social and political dimensions of her

professional community. She talks about “academic science” as being “the hardest in

the world to get into because it is the smallest and most competitive.” Her entry into the

sciences was nontraditional, to say the least, and this could be part of the reason she is

so acutely aware of what is going on around her. After completing her doctorate and a

post doc she struggled for fifteen years to obtain a legitimate academic position as a

tenure-track faculty member rather than an auxiliary science instructor.

Female colleagues seem to have great value in her life and she says “the women

in science that I know are absolutely unique.” She has given a feir amount of conscious attention to studying her contemporaries including formal research done with sponsored 127 funding. She has a theory that a common source of motivation to enter the sciences

comes from a desire to compete for attention with male siblings. She has friends who

have indicated 'they wanted to be showing up a big brother in their family’s eyes”

because their “brothers were the ones who were recognized in the family.” “A lot of the

impulsion to excel in male-dominated fields comes from trying to get the recognition of

their family .” In order to be successful in the sciences, women have to learn for

themselves how to engage in behaviors that are not necessarily natural for them. She

sees “the idea of selling yourself, exhibiting yourself,” as a “male thing and we don’t

know how to do it.” Men “make their ranks amongst each other” by posturing. They

“assert their credentials” and “report their valor” to gain acceptance. Science requires

“people who are excellent and women are excellent, but they don’t know how to show

it.” “No one is telling you that you are any good and we women do not know how to

sell ourselves.” She thinks women are more interested in doing “what is really

important to them,” often content “to be anonymous and do it on the inside.”

Yet, when it comes time to get a job, women have to “put themselves out there

with their name.” She is convinced “we don’t educate women one way or the other

about this.” She has seen women get feculty positions but fail to achieve tenure

because they do “not know how to run themselves here,” and establish an “independent

research” program. She has a very interesting take on the way in which she sees the

sexual dynamic playing out between scientists. She is convinced that “because we are

animals there is a level of metacommunication” on a sexual level between men and women in any situation and science is no exception. “Sexuality is there” and she insists that it takes primacy in human interactions. She thinks men of science have not really

128 figured out how to “play this game” or handle the women who are moving into their

field. Women have “to figure out the give and take” of how to fit in and “get along with

them.” Mentoring is a tricky thing in a male-female situation and men do not seem to

want to know a woman as an individual because that becomes “a personal relationship

rather than a professional one” and creates problems with other women, such as their

wives. Men “do not dare be your mentor, even if they want to, because their wives will

get all over them.” As a result, women do not receive the advice they need because

“there aren’t any women to mentor you because the women are all too busy leading

these chaotic lives they’ve got.”

She sees the issue of race being linked to “a male to male competition” for turf.

White men in her field are threatened by size. “Turf and power are associated with

size" and “power comes fi’om having turf.” “Bigness in our society is associated with

men of power” and “stature is a reflection, maybe not a direct correlation, but a

reflection of a more important thing to males.” “Black men are bigger” and “when

white males see Black males, they see size and they see size in a couple of ways.” In

science, certain “colors that are acceptable are Asian and Hispanic.” She points to the

limited financial support of historically Black colleges and universities as evidence that

“they have been castrated by society.” She expresses disgust with the inability of

sponsored initiatives to “change the number of women practicing science.” “The

number that come in is balanced by the number that roll out.” She questions whether the objective is “to have more female academic scientists literally or is the objective to have the world of academic science open up for everyone?” She thinks the exclusivity is due to the fact that “there is no one way to get there” and the route to science is

129 incomprehensible. “It is the hardest thing on earth to describe to anyone else.”

*******

They do say thay get that kmd of prejudice from men trying to make them feel less even though they are some of the best people in our dass. They are stil trying to knock them down in a way. I dont think meanly. I dont think maBdously, but they want to keep them in their place. I think k's subconscious How times have changed! When this woman started out, her “original goal was

to be an engineer and engineering was pretty well closed to women.” There were some

places in the country that took women, but her school did not. She graduated with a

dual major and was prepared to go into teaching, but circumstances led her to another

field. She eventually went back and got the premed requirements because she wanted to

be an MD, but when she got married “again there were closed doors - you couldn’t go to medical school if you were married,” because they “were afraid you were going to get pregnant.” “They just told you they didn’t take women. They just closed you out.”

Even when she went into graduate school, she ran into explicit discrimination being told

“she could not do her doctorate in a particular area because she was teaching full time in the department and they said it would be a conflict of interest” even though three men were allowed to do exactly that. During her general exams, an issue was made of her marital status that left her considerably upset. She says these “were just those things that used to happen.” “You worked around them and you worked within the system and you made yourself better than any of the men so that they couldn’t do much other than ask you to stay on and finally get tenure.”

When she became a faculty member, her department chair decided to deal with the fact that large numbers of students were failing by putting her in a key teaching role.

She was told they “needed her creativity and sensitivity to students.” “They needed

130 somebody to help students, help understand student's problems” and she did that. The

teaching had “become much more science and not science and an art as it used to be”

and they wanted to “put some humanism into it.” She thinks “that some people are far

better teachers and 6 r better woiking with students” and others are “far better scientists

but they can’t deal with people” and can’t lecture or teach. These people don’t want

their experiments interrupted and are more interested in their projects. She thinks, “we

ought to let everybody do what they do best.” She works as part of an interdisciplinary

research team and was the only woman until very recently. There is a Latino on the

team and there was a Filipino in the past. Her field has been and still is “predominantly

white male.” Slowly and with a lot of work they have worked on minority recruitment

and programs to enhance their science skills when they do not have an adequate

background. “They haven't been encouraged to do too much science or too much

math.”

There is an extensive program of remediation that has improved their retention

rate. An early consequence of their recruiting efforts was “such preferential treatment

they weren’t adequately prepared.” They “took people they should not have taken. It wasn't kind to them.” Many of the students who had “problems were some women who had gone to smaller colleges and some of the colleges were Black colleges.” They were “always low in organic chemistry, they were always low in math, and of course one sort of hangs on the other a little bit and that was their biggest hang-up and they just did not have a strong undergraduate program.” Women tend to come in better prepared than the men, but actually have a harder time because of the way they are treated. They still have a lot of older men who are blatant male chauvinists. “We still have people

131 around that will say to the women, you should not be here." They actually say, “you are taking a man’s place.” “When you've been knocked down all that time, it takes them a while to get their confidence.” She thinks the men on the faculty do this because “they have been taught that the male should be dominant.”

She does not think they do it with animosity or malice; “they think it is a right.”

“They do it with intent, they just think it is OK.” “They still seem to think they ought to be able to do whatever they want in their classroom. That is their domain and they resist this idea that they need to police themselves and their language.” They do not call on women and “if they do say something they gloss over it and if a guy says almost the same thing, then he’s great.” They “are not doing it to be mean and nasty.” She thinks it is because of their beliefs and they think “women should be home with children, taking care of children and the children suffer when women aren’t there.” She does think their sensitivities are getting better. When things are brought to their attention they understand the way she feels and try hard not to do anything like that again. She thinks her field is rapidly changing. They are “getting a bunch of younger men coming here now who have had their sensitivity raised. It's totally different.”

Distinctive on Both Counts

Positioned at the intersection of subordinate status on both the basis of gender and race/ethnicity. Women of Color negotiate what is clearly the most difficult position in the scientific community. These people face the “double jeopardy” of subordinate status twice defined (Schaefer, 1990). Careful examination of both status variables actually confirms the importance of the degree to which they interact (Reid and Comas-

132 Diaz, 1990). “Women of Color are the most underrepresented of all groups in these

fields, and they are doubly disadvantaged by impediments created by race-plus-sex bias,

stereotyping, and discrimination” (Clewell and Anderson, 1991). These authors point

out that Women of Color are seriously neglected because research on race often

overlooks the needs of women and women’s programs often overlook issues of race and

ethnicity. Additionally, the distinct considerations of African American, Latina, Asian

American, and First Nation women are rarely given the individualized focus they

deserve.

Nonwhite women cannot use the camaraderie of male bonding or the sexual

dynamic of flirtatiousness to placate any discomfort the white masculine majority has

with their difference. They are “other” on both important levels and rarely have

colleagues like them with whom to share experiences. When faced with discrimination,

it is usually impossible for them to distinguish whether it is racism or sexism. Unfair

treatment does not usually carry a label that clarifies its source and these women seem

to wonder if it really matters what the root cause is. It is clear that while their biological

sex guarantees they will be treated in whatever way women are, the social perception of

their ethnicity can carry varying levels of marginalization and discrimination.

* $ * * * * *

Among women in tfnsjieùfw e Rave one o fthe RigRest suicide rates oftR e profissions. HJiey

As a woman of color whose ethnicity is not outwardly apparent, one scientist functions with a discrepancy between her strong self-identity and connection to students of color and the way she is perceived by her colleagues. She does not “take advantage

133 of it” since she has reasons to avoid discussing her background and essentially “passes”

for white since most people are unaware of her ancestry. Although well established in

her field with a degree fi-om one of the most prestigious institutions in the country, she

gives the impression she does not quite feel like an insider in the community.

She says there is a disciplinary culture that “a lot of people don't realize” but she

claims is obvious enough to make it easy enough to identify male scieirtists fi-om a

distance by “the clothes they are wearing, their attitudes toward each other, a certain

griirmess.” She “has never gone out to dirmer with them that they didn't have to make

some sort of calculation in their heads” just to see ‘Vho can do it faster and they set up

their hierarchy.” They always have to work their acadentic pedigrees into conversations

when meeting each other and the quickest way for her to lose the invisibility of being

female is to drop hers into the conversation. On the other hand, women have to learn to

fit into science without many models to pattern their behavior after. In graduate school,

women in her program actually got together to practice talks knowing they had to “learn

how to give a talk differently” in order to present themselves in a way that is acceptable

if they were going to survive.

The gender distribution in her field is dismal with (at last report) women

comprising only three percent of the feculty in doctoral granting institutions. It is a

huge discipline with “one of the biggest professional societies in the world.” Most of the women are at universities that only do undergraduate education and those on faculty

are predominantly at the assistant professor level, so there is a great deal of turnover when it comes time to actually get in by going past the tenure gate. She has looked closely at hiring practices and noticed that the women who tend to be brought in are far

134 more qualified than men who are interviewed and tend to get competitive offers from

much betto* schools. This demonstrates that female candidates are selected according to

different criteria. It also allows the department to say they interviewed a woman, but

when she took another job, they hired a man. Women are earning 30% of the doctoral

degrees in her field, so the applicant pool cannot be empty unless these women are not

doing post docs. An unrecognized problem could be a subtle form of sexism that goes

on in the application process. Since most senior faculty are men, they write the letters

for candidates and they have no idea how important their word choices are. They are

more likely to say, “gets along well with everybody versus really gets things done.”

One of the other most flagrant places she has seen sexism come into play is

during the review of grants for sponsored funding. When “you are getting down to the last ones that are on the edge” the numbers that were attached in preliminary review lose their significance and subjective assessments come into play. She has noticed that invariably the predominantly male review panels will try to switch men with higher ranked women using excuses that they “know him or he is a really hard worker.” When she brought it to the attention of one panel “they got really offended” as if she was

“attacking their integrity.” She is a strong activist for students of color and she sees many parallels to gender issues such as the cracks these students are likely to fall through when being groomed for graduate study. When “expectations are so very different” the assumption can be that “they are not quite good enough” to go to the best schools. These students never get in that system because they never know how to apply. The importance of grades, cormections and recommendations is unlikely to be clear unless the students receive strong undergraduate counseling.

135 It is particularly important to realize that ‘Vhhe folks are scared to death of

them” and “actually a Black woman is more scary sometimes to them than a Black

man” due to some of the carry over of the power Black women had in the south. Both

students and 6culty are undermined constantly with people inferring that they have

been given advantages that they do not deserve. There seem to be de&ult assumptions

that they all come from the ghetto, do not have a good background in math, and will

give up because someone has given up before. She sees mentoring as one key to

changing the pattern and is actively involved in an organization to promote science

mentors for minority studems. The other step she has taken is to become involved in

training workshops to raise the racial consciousness of scientists.

She is particularly pained by explicit admirtistrative efforts to discourage faculty members frrom supporting equity issues. Her department chair told a junior white male assistant professor that “he should work to get tenured and not be involved in” a program for minority students. In the big picture of things “they don’t understand that they are privileged because we live in a whole culture of presumed meritocracy.” She points to the issue of privilege stating “if everyone shares an assumption, they don’t know it is there.” She sadly wonders “about the women who survived or the minorities who survive and whether they came fr'om abusive homes and this just feels like the way it should be.” For her, maintaining a low profile was the key for a long time. She was taught and now teaches her students to be very cautious of how they establish themselves in any new professional group setting. From clothing to taking notes to getting coffee, everything a woman does impacts the way she is perceived. She has learned now “not to merge over to them, but stand right where she is and just be real

136 clear where she is.’

*******

E v e n t h o u g h I h a v e m y d e g r e e s , s o m e h o w t h a t 's n o t e n o u g h TO SAY I' m c o m in g in o n EQUAL FOOTING... Even in this presen t cum ate, I come in with a Ph D degree and somebody else comes in WITH A Ph D degree and somehow there's this sense th at somehow mine doesn't c o n fe r upon me th e sam e LEVEL OF AUTHENTICITY AS A SCIENTIST

Personal visibility is very much a part of the professional life of another

scientist. Her descriptions of the scientific community include frequent references to a

“dominant group” to which it is clear she does not feel she belongs. She came into

science with the idealistic impression that it was a collaborative enterprise involving

people working toward the same goal that is the “quest for new knowledge.” She has

discovered that scientists only “collaborate when it is beneficial” otherwise “there is no

need to collaborate.” Scientists are no “different from any other group of people

working together. They are subject to the same frail conditions of competition, of

inclusion or exclusionary behavior.” People can have the same “admission passes” and

receive varying degrees of support and guidance.

She discusses the differential treatment she receives in science as probably being

no different from what she would expect in another employment setting. The issues are

not peculiar to the academic environment and would be found “in industry or

elsewhere.” With respect to distinguishing minority issues from gender issues, she talks

of feeling “like I go through a double filter trying to figure out what is going on.” “As a

representative of both (groups),” she very often cannot make a distinction between the

two sources of oppression. She laughingly laments the fact that she does not have the proper controls to really study the situation because while she does have white female colleagues, there are no men from her ethnic group in her department. Exclusive 137 behavior among scientists is described as “no different” than group dynamics whether it

was a group of businessmen or a group of lawyers or whoever else. It resembles what

is seen with “children at play or interactif^ with each other where you have dominant

personalities and there is a group to be associated with and then there are people on the

fiinges who may be included or excluded from that dominant group based on whatever

the dynamics or the needs are in that environment.”

She feels that the treatment minority scientists receive depends a great deal on

which ethnic group they belong to. “Some minorities are more welcome than other

minorities” and “if you really look at minorities you would find some are more

representative than others.” She thinks the reason Asians are well-represented and other

people are almost “nonexistent” has to do “sometimes with the comfort level.” Some

minorities “might fit in more than others” or “blend into the overall population” due to

“looks, even appearance.” Some Hispanics or Native Americans can be

“indistinguishable from a European American, but African Americans are always

noticed and have to overcome a particular stigma and the burden associated with it.”

She has actually been told that the only reason she is on the faculty is because she was that “rare precious find” in terms of her ethnicity and gender.

The scientific community mirrors the rest of society. Like other academic disciplines, it is devoted to the generation of new knowledge. She does not think the scientific method or the people who are doing it are particularly unique. Science, itself is seen as a methodical approach to inquiry. She says there is a “human condition of tiying to understand nature or the way things are.” Scientific methods are in “place to ensure that results and conclusions are valid and not just based on personal beliefs.”

138 She believes “much of what we do is based on some prior knowledge” and so science is

a way of building up “a greater understanding of some principle that has been

established.” The scientific process is seen as giving evidence “coherent thought” and

making sound interpretation that because of “prevailing knowledge in the field” would

also be made by others who did a similar study. Since scientists have concrete evidence

on which they base their claims, the use of the passive voice is a way of “letting the data

speak for themselves” and declaring that these are the results of experiments and

substantiated by testing.

The public is seen as having only “a rudimentary understanding” of what

scientists do. Scientists are seen as using an eclectic vocabulary that impedes chance of

effective communication with anyone outside their area of expertise. While she does

not give the impression that she regrets her career choice, she sounds as if science has

not turned out as what she expected it to be. She went into science because she found it

interesting, choosing her specific research area out of interest and humanistic concerns.

The constant burden of dealing with racial and gender issues seems to drain her.

Another social concern, that she raised repeatedly, was ethical issues. The individualism

of science seemed to manifest itself in a prevailing sense of selfishness. She thinks a scientist should have a “strong sense of ethics,” but is dismayed by a climate that lacks honesty to the extent that people are likely to even corrupt the science they do by things like “fudging data.” She talks about the need for stronger ethical education for students making them aware that “we can use the knowledge to do good or to do something destructive.”

139 *******

TMtfstrfiy ( ffiliüctfi4tteitiieete|ust'«st4eisf4se«uytfifn£elfie. PiesuiiMbly tdentfstc owgfif to be more retfonei, more defeefcd Theg owgfif to be eble to took etound end leelly see whet Is gping on, rether then let themseJees be Influenced by their upbrlngfng. The feet thet these gyys turn etound end see thet 50% of their coJIeegues eerlelniy eren't women end yet thmf don't notice there's e problem there. They think hedng e couple of women colkegues In e deportment with e couple of dozen peopleIs fine

For another scientist, the choice to go into scientific research involved going

against family expectations for a more “admirable” and well-paying career in medicine.

To members of her community, “it was an indulgence” to “develop herself’ and “do

what she wanted to do” while “contributing nothing to the family.” Twenty years later,

she “is still viewed that way” and she thinks “that is a major factor that is keeping

people (in communities like hers) from becoming scientists.” This leads to an

unrecognized classism in the sciences. People “from working class backgrounds” and

“inner cities” are “kind of rare.” Top tier institutions “prefer middle class” who are

“less likely to rock the boat” especially among students of color. Nfiddle class students are “comfortable with” existing levels of representation and “don’t see anything wrong with being the only one at a place,” while the other students “tend to sort of look around and say hum - what is wrong with this picture?” Sadly, she also gets little encouragement on the career front, where “scientists still ask questions they would not ask of anyone else.”

She has come out of excellent schools and labs, but has always known that her

“qualifications would have to be really damned good” to have a chance. In her position

(as a woman of color), she does not “think you can afford to be mediocre,” if you care to “last very long.” She “knew if I was going to be a scientist, I would have to be a first-rate scientist. Otherwise, there was no reason to bother.” During her doctoral 140 program, she was “under a lot of pressure” acutely aware that anything she did would

“eflect on other students” and she “was never as a person, allowed to screw up.” When she interviewed for jobs, she ran into scientists that “were quite racist” and put her through general knowledge interrogations that were “like general exams.” “They don't say it, but they treat you as though, show me. I know if you are a minority you are probably not that good.” Her response “was to answer their questions fully and then discuss subtleties that they missed.” In sphe of her strong record, they still want to know her scientific pedigree. That scientific pedigree includes training with two world- renowned scientists and obtaining a doctorate from one of the most prestigious institutions in the country. Science is a tough world and “there most definitely is an old boys’ network.” “Science is white, male, and middle class” in the eyes of this woman.

She has experienced a profound difference in the way people of color are treated in European science labs. She “found that in Europe, it was infinitely easier to be viewed as just a scientist” and be treated “more as a colleague.” In Europe, you are

“viewed as an American scientist.” She feels that she is treated “more as a colleague by

European scientists than by Americans.” She recommends a European stint for any scientists from minority groups as an important part of their careers. She does not think

American “scientists are any different in attitude than plumbers or construction workers,” “they simply have got less competition from minorities.” “They are quite liberal when it comes to having students, to having post docs, but when it comes to viewing somebody as a colleague, as an equal, that is when the racism appears.” As an example, she points to the number of Asians who are graduate students and post docs and “then you look and see how many of them are faculty,” even though they probably

141 view themselves “more as white Americans than they do minorities.”

She “finds it very difficult to separate racism from sexism in any situation.” “It

is difficult to say what is gender and what is race.” She supposes, that “it amounts to

the same thing” but “sometimes it would be nice to know.” As far as survival, her own

strategy begins by being strong. “You have to be pretty tough and you must set your

own standards.” Her self-confidence is patterned after the example of her mother who

‘Vas definitely somebody like the kind of person who did exactly what she wanted to

do and didn’t care what anybody thought about it.” There are a variety of ways that

discrimination manifests itself in the sciences. She has known other female scientists of

color who have gone through things that are “too painful to even tell” because the “story

was so bad.” Some women of color speak out about their experiences with discrimination, making their stories “public” and showing what really goes on. Other people are “deliberately extremely quiet about everything” because they are plotting their way to another position or they think “if you don't make trouble, your chances improve.” She says, “you might as well be forthright.” She does “not think it can hurt,” because “if you are going to get hurt, you are going to get hurt, and it doesn’t matter anyway.” In her opinion, science is “the kind of profession where you can never really point and say there, this person is a racist.” Most of the discrimination is very subtle. “In most cases, all they have to do is ignore you and allow you to flounder.”

*******

I think the way a lot of administrations want to deal with this issue is throw the money out The fellowships get created and then when we have these high attrition rates, someone can turn around and say look I told you so. They are just not capable

142 Coming through school with a strong math/science background and opportunities for accelerated course work, it is hardly surprising that the daughter of a mathematically inclined mother and scientist father ended up in an academic science career field. Her appreciation of the importance of teaching may well have to do with both parents being teachers who “instruct all the time, in and out of the house.” As a new teacher, she is in the process of trying to figure out how she wants to do things.

She has been warned, “that if she is not consistent with type, a nurturing female, that she will get lower ratings” and she has seen it happen. Her field is currently plagued by

“tremendous attrition and people are trying to figure out ways for enticing people into the major and trying to keep them.” This is in dramatic contrast to “a time when there were far too many students” and “a weed out mentality” existed. She thinks “there is a hazing process” in “all of academia” and seems determined to challenge the tacit assumption that this is the way things have to be in her program.

She is also particularly disturbed to see the “way affirmative action or inducements to encourage minority students” are used without ensuring that the students are prepared to successfully complete the program. She suspects that a “very large number” lack adequate background courses and they are thrown in to “sink or swim.” This “builds upon some of these really heinous attitudes about African

American students or other students who are not represented, including women.” It is no favor “to tempt students to attend schools that are probably not commensurate with their abilities.” Her field does several things to earn its rather foreboding reputation. At the undergraduate level she identifies a problem with the traditional course sequence that almost discouraged her fi-om continuing in the field. The standard introduction is a

143 “really painful course which would be much easier if you had the higher math” and

could operate in a “different mathematical domain.” Since some of the top schools have

revamped their curricula, she seems to think there is hope things could change.

At the graduate level, “there are so many hoops the students have to jump

through” in terms of exams and defenses. She thinks “different people are going to

have different ideas about this,” but as students, women are particularly likely to ask,

“why should I put up with this?” This is why she thinks “a lot of women don’t go through grad school and beyond that dont go through and become professors.” She does not think “it’s that women dont have the stamina or the guts,” she thinks they are

“better at gauging what is a healthy environment.” The realization of this, she hopes “is going to help her get through this” because “all through grad school” there were “both implicit and explicit messages” from collègues and feculty members that “you are supposed to be striving for an academic position and that if you are not striving for an academic position after you finish your Ph.D., that must mean that you’re not good enough.” She marvels at how “it is so ingrained in their brains to strive to be faculty.”

In the culture of her field, “this is the only worthwhile job that there is in the world.”

She concedes that with academic jobs, “a lot of the draw is this conjured up prestige value,” but people really should not “run around working way too hard for no good reason.” “You should know why you are putting in these hours and it should not be just to get tenure.” She says the other reasons should include other things you get out of it and “the everyday experiences.”

She is definitely very savvy with respect to the politics of her position. Some of it must have come from growing up with a father who was a university professor, but a

144 lot is clearly based on observation and direct advice she has been given. She says she

“always seeks advice from people” and is likely to ask several and then decide what she

is going to do. She likes taking “lots of information and then you sift what you want.”

She has “mixed feelings about this whole mentoring thing” because “it is supposed to

fix things somehow and make life easier for you.” Some of the best advice she has

gotten is from her chair who has given pretty strict instructions that her “professional

objectives should be to be successful in her profession which means writing papers,

doing research, and having graduate students.” Like many women of color, she

comments that “she can never really tell what is coming into play when she gets treated

poorly.” She thinks “it is very easy if something does not go your way or someone

treats you in a certain manner” to try to figure out what it is and “the woman thing is

like this easy thing that we fall back on.” Since she “can never really tell why someone

is being an ass to her,” she thinks maybe that makes it easier in some ways since she

can’t fall back on only the one thing. She has “learned to try to chose her battles and

not speak out unless she thinks she can make an effect.” She does not plan to “do

anything until she has tenure.” “If people think somehow that the women and the

minorities present in the system are somehow supposed to shoulder the burden and

change things, forget it.” She accepts her automatic visibility, realizing that she “can’t

do anything without being noticed, so if you make mistakes they are much more

noticed” and “if you do well it’s also noticed and remembered.” She has taken the

advice of successful women who say “you just have to be aware of that and use it to your advantage.”

145 *******

I would not call it sexual harassment, but they are so uncoffrfortable working with women they do not know bow to act and it makes it so much worse.

A s a relatively new member of the professorate, another scientist is extremely aware of how important the negotiation of social issues will be to her chances of success in the future. She gives a great deal of attention to ‘learning about what their expectations are,” because “it is hard to know that before you start.” She knows very well that in the culture of her field success comes from getting a job at a big school with an academic research career that brings in dollars through grants. At most interviews for such things “if you mention one word about loving to teach, forget it. You aren’t going to get the offer.” “You don’t gain notoriety by being a good instructor.” She was beaded for a science major in college, but the actual disciplinary choice “was a pretty mindless decision” based on good grades. She got excited about a subject she had hated in high school but was taught enthusiastically in college. As a member of the

“first of the TV generation” she realizes people “really have to put on a show up there” to capture the attention of today’s students. She is not “doing as good of a job as she hopes to be doing in a few years,” because she gets “caught in the fear of wanting to be relaxed in the classroom” at the same time you present “almost too much information because she wants to be sure she has covered all the angles.” She wants to “try to become more discussion-oriented” but says that is “hard to do in the sciences because you have to distribute the frets.” She realizes it “can be a disservice” if it “turns them off’ and even if she “feels like she wants to tell them everything for completeness” they

“do not need to know everything right now.”

146 She seems amused that because she is young and female, the students can’t seem

to use her title and will ask “should I call you Miss or Mrs.?” She has been advised by

women faculty to maintain the formality and insist on it because doing so “just helps

with maintaining respect.” “Scientists have done themselves a huge disservice by not

being public friendly.” She thinks the newest generation of scientists can no longer

count on “the Ivory Tower it used to be in the 60s” and they are more likely to realize

that science “is starting to have to validate itself.” In the past, “a lot of people wanted to

be a scientist,” but now there is an impression that “we do bad things, we are nerds.”

She has noticed that the proportions of students of color and women going into the

sciences differs at different types of schools and seems higher at those with strong

academic programs than at state institutions. She has noticed some troubling

stereotypes with female students majoring in the sciences. They seem to fit in one of

two extreme categories that are those who ask questions and those who don’t say a

word. She also has noticed that some of the female students in her classes already seem

to look like stereotypical women scientists who are “dowdy” and “don’t wear makeup”

or “don’t wear anything that looks remotely nice.” She sort of expected the male

students to fit the stereotype with “the thick glasses, pen protector” nerdy looks and no

manners, but they have not. She seems annoyed that she fells into the trap and is so

guilty of stereotyping, but “we are all socialized into that behavior.”

She has never known another person in her field from her own ethnic group, but there is a decent representation of women in her sub-discipline. She has had the good fortune of working in places where there are other women. It was “not related to the

real world, but it was a great environment.” It was a real shock to move from “working

147 with people in a non-gender way” to a more traditional setting where the dynamics were

dictated by a “bunch of men over 50.” Her first negative gender experience came as an

undergraduate while presenting a poster at a research conference when an older man

wanted to talk to her advisor, not believing she had done the woiic on her project. She

calls herself a “double check” even though she hates checking the box denoting her

ethnicity because “she feels uncomfortable” like she is “trying to take advantage of her

background.” As a woman of color, she feels that her “ability in her field is

questioned.” There is a “visualization thing where people will look at you and say you

are different and so you may run into blockades along your life fi’om being

stereotyped.” She speaks of “having a chip on her shoulder” because she knew “a lot

of people thought she was there because she was a quota-filler.”

In her current position, she is the first woman on the faculty, but feels good that

the faculty “were really psyched about bringing her in” to encourage female students.

“They felt like they really needed a woman who was young and into research and into

science that could come and show them it is not just a bunch of old stuffy guys.” She

knows she faces challenges ahead especially when it comes to balancing her family life

and the career she has chosen. She thinks women “in almost any non-traditional field”

“have to develop a really good sense of humor or just have a good sense about who you are and what you know.”

*******

I think it is part of the rejection. I am just not playing to the stereotype. I am not kissing up or soft-talking. I see some of the women doing that and maybe they have to. Maybe they feel it is necessary, but I think the bottom line is that your record should be okay

148 The early stages of another scientist’s career “certainly did not give the

impression that there were gender differences in the science culture.” If she had known

the magnitude of the “barriers to women,” she would have made a different career

choice. She does not think that “color is an issue as much as gender,” but admits that

this could vary for ethnic groups other than her own. She came into science believing

that it was a meritocracy, “thinking all you have to do is just do good science, be critical

of your work and be very careful and meticulous and be creative, of course.”

Unfortunately she has discovered that this is fer from the truth and women can pay

dearly for being exceptionally good scientists. She has outstanding scientific

credentials, but “is not accepted” by her male peers. In spite of a national and

international reputation, she is not treated with respect in her own department. She

thinks there is “just really a lot of jealousy” and “they feel castrated because she does so

much more than they can.” She has worked hard for her success, going in to work on

weekends when she rarely sees her colleagues in their labs, so she feels it is particularly

unfair. “It does not reconcile” that with her reputation, she is treated so badly in her

own division. Men of lesser status “demand and get respect.”

She knows her own experience is “very common” for women in the sciences.

Men expect her to have a submissive personality and have a “hard time adjusting to” the

fact that she does not. She insists that “if a man tells you there is no gender difference, then they are dreaming. Even the younger ones still have it, so it is not just the age.”

‘The white man has his club.” “A lot of decisions are made in the men’s room, the men’s bathroom. That is where they do it.” In instances where she has chosen to make an issue of rude public behavior, such as being cut off when speaking in a faculty

149 meeting, men claim that is the way they also behave toward men. She insists that 'this

is a consciousness-raising issue” and they should know how she feels and recognize that

“we are in a diversified environment, now.” She is especially conscious that with “a lot

of junior women on the faculty” she does not want them “to think it is normal for men”

to treat a senior female colleague with a lack of respect. She has seen the scars this

behavior can leave on women that must “have had very embittering experiences”

ending up with “such a chip on their shoulders.” She sees part of her role as a

successful established scientist to “be a role model and help women overcome that, but

it is not easy.”

Gender discrimination seems to be compounded by the “culture they have in this

part of the country.” Gender is a “general” issue in science, but it is especially

pronounced in the Midwest. Women here are socialized into believing they are “not

capable of competing when they finish.” “A lot of women are brought up that way in

their families. Their mothers are often homemakers and either do not desire to fight for

their rights or do not believe in their daughters.” Her early training took place in “one

of the more liberal cities in this country” and she was not exposed to such attitudes in her “formative years.” Men in this area have their “own general stereotypes for women.”

She is “always very sensitive to the hiring of new faculty.” When women and minorities get special consideration, she “always says that they should not bring someone in if they do not think they are going to cut it because you destroy the person.”

She has seen “people do that to get their quotas met and then they come in and they do not mentor them and let them fall by the wayside.” She “always wanted to be a

150 scientist” and while her “dream of getting the Noble prize” may not happen, she know

she is making significant contributions. She takes pride in “coming up with good ideas,

moving knowledge, and training students.” She “likes science because it is black and white and is much easier that other things because you are right or wrong.” “The way it is done, you come up with a hypothesis, you test it, you publish it, and it corrects itself if you are wrong because someone else will find out if you are wrong.” Her suggestion for female survival is “find a mentor. You have got to find a mentor or someone who will show you the ropes.” “In an academic institution there are a lot of things you need to know about the rules and how you get tenure.”

*******

He said we are going to train you and you're just going to get married and have babies and we will have wasted our time

Having grown up in a very different era, when it comes to sexism, one scientist considers it “amazing that we tolerated that kind of behavior as norm” in those days.

When she was in school, there were certain traditional female careers that had lots of women, but it was very unusual to see them in the math physical science areas. In one introductory course she was the only female undergraduate in a class of 600 budding scientists. Only certain careers were “considered to be acceptable careers for women.”

When someone said something sexist, she was not likely to be offended. “You either hear those comments or you don’t.” “If you don’t believe you’re supposed to hear those comments and you’ve never heard them and you suddenly run up against them, your reaction is going to be very different than somebody who has spent their lifetime hearing them.” In that day and age, “women aspired to be mothers and wives and to have a career was something that you did if you were not a mother or a wife.”

151 In choosing a science career, she “expected to have to deal with the fact that she did not fit into the cultural norm and that she wanted something that was not acceptable to the vast majority of people who were in authority.” Since she chose to “play ball in a man's world,” she considered it “perfectly normal that it was a man’s world and it never occurred to her to question that she had to play by men’s rules.” She expected to be

“relatively isolated, it’s kind of the king of the hill philosophy.” You do whatever is required to be more competitive and it seems to her that it’s a fairly isolationist approach to doing things as opposed to a team approach to doing things. She learned early in grad school to survive in a “competitive as opposed to a supportive” environment because they encouraged the “sink or swim, every person is an island, if you win somebody else loses” type of attitude. Even as times have changed, women still have “a very fine line to tread.” If a woman is too aggressive she can ruin her career for “being hard to deal with,” but if she is not aggressive enough, she will “lose any chance to move up in the rank and get good jobs.”

Women have to make some sacrifices and she did not think she could do the kind of job she wanted to do with children, so she chose not to have them. The same things are not problematic for men because they tend to be more focussed and get less distracted fi-om their primary agenda. They decide what they want to hear and ignore any side issues that distract them fi-om whatever directional orientation they have chosen. While she considers her current department fairly egalitarian in that it does not do things that split on gender with female faculty members against male faculty members, she says there is a differential when it comes to the way males and females are treated. She has seen women be criticized unfairly when their evaluations are based

152 are treated. She has seen women be criticized unfairly when their evaluations are based

on only scientific productivity and not other aspects of their academic work. It is not

right to make such a judgment when workload distributions can be so different. Very

often even if people have the same number of actual courses, a woman might be

teaching an introductory course with an enrollment o f600, doing a great deal of

academic advising and serving on numerous committees while her male colleague has

an assigned postdoc, two or three graduate students provided with department funds and

only is teaching two graduate level courses.

She faces women’s issues more than those of race/ethnicity because her

background is not readily apparent. She says, that on any day that she “does not want to

deal with the problem,” she is a white Anglo Saxon Protestant. On any deal when she

feels like fighting, she is not. Her assessment of the issues of members of her ethnic

group takes on the perspective of white outsider because she does not have to deal with

the problems and does not have the same investment in the problem. She declines to

speak for others saying “1 have the same reaction when someone puts me on a

committee and says we need a woman’s voice on this committee. 1 don’t pretend to

speak for all women. 1 am pretty well clueless when it comes to what other women

need, want, or don’t want. 1 know what kinds of things 1 want. 1 know lands of things are important to me but when 1 serve on a committee, 1 don’t represent a constituency and 1 resent being on a committee to be the woman’s voice.” She does not see men being put on committees to represent the male voice and she wants to be “on a committee, in a classroom, or a research area because 1 have something to contribute and the expertise to accomplish whatever the goal at hand is.”

153 *******

I W Nof grow «P ia a lodelg «Aère goa learn Fraai i k start Hiat gov are JiscriminaleW against. IW not k n e tkis thing ahoat anghoWg telling me mhat I coaU anJ conM not Jo. So mhen I auJe mg Jedsion to go to graJnate school I thought of mgselF as one other stnJent pursuing a science Jegree anJ I nener for one seconJ thought t k t I urns a minoritg or I mas a uenuan or anglhing lik tk t

In an interesting international contrast, the scientific career field of yet another scientist is as traditionally female in her country as it is male in the US. She liked science and math courses even if they were the toughest and chose her particular field because it was more accessible to her than other scientific professions. She happened to end up in a specialization that was less traditional and fi'om which most women dropped out, but she headed toward education and a Acuity type position. She ended up in the

US in a doctoral program at one of the largest programs in her field but it happened to be at a school that had only been coed for five years and her graduate program was only twelve percent female. She eventually found out she was only the 8th or 9th woman to graduate with a doctorate from there, but at the time she felt like ‘just another student going through the hoops.” She never looked for motivations or hidden agendas in the treatment she got from other people and because she did not react, those things did not seem to have an effect.

There were explicit acts of discrimination during her graduate program. In particular, there was a professor in her first semester in a key class that used to mispronounce her name on purpose in front of a huge class. She noticed that after a few sessions, the other women in the class dropped out of his section. Considering the attitude of the professor, she thought she had done well to stick it out and get a passing grade. She was particularly disgusted when she finished that program to find out that in spite of the fact that she always wore a lab coat, one of the faculty members centered his

154 recommendation on the fact that “she always was properly dressed and nice and presentable in everyday life.” She was lucky enough to connect with a fairly large group of international graduate students who provided a necessary companionship even though they were from many different countries. They had enough in common that they filled a need to share and communicate in a comfortable way during that experience and still remain friends many years later.

She has never had a strong afiBnity for exclusively female activities in the sciences. They did not seem critical and she was not willing to be considered any more or less of a scientist because she is one thing or another. On the other hand she says she is “aware of the inequalities that women scientists have to deal with” and has experienced the consequences of those inequalities in her own career. She looks back now and realizes she was very lucky to have done a post doc in a prestigious lab where she had no problem being a woman or being even a working mother because there was plenty of flexibility and she was lucky enough to find good day care. Early on, she never tried when she went for job interviews “to be defensive or to play her minority status or try and read between the lines when people said something to see what their attitudes were.”

For the most part ignoring any possible bias kept it from having an impact on her life. Recently she experienced a very blatant act of ethnic discrimination at work when a white person was asked to verify something that she had done that was clearly in her area of expertise. She thinks women react too much and “get caught on trying to rationalize the treatment they get as a consequence of their being women.” She does admit that there is hard data to show that while the situation in science has improved

155 over the last fifteen years, there are still serious problems. “Equal pay for equal work does not exist, yet.” If you take women who were at entry level fifteen years ago there is a tremendous problem with how few have made it to full tenure positions. These

“facts are talking to her these days.” She says she is “part of a generation that genuinely thinks that gender is a non-issue” and some old timers will never change their perception of women scientists being out of place. There are also “males that grew up with us in the same classrooms and labs, for whom the only issue is that of being faced with the toughest competition.” While this continues to impact management decisions and promotions, we can “hope that as the older ones get phased out, we will see better times.”

*******

THflT IJ WIMT TMC PKOPLCTl i J WTTM WOflCM IM JCICNCL THE MCTTIMT PCOJMQTnCTflRC INCOnPtTCMT IJTHCKC NO rvm TK WfMTTllCT DO. rr IJ NEVER JfliD m j o TUffr m u m or anqek noym-j peoimje i t i j never ExoiANQEb. pvir PEOPLE LET TOM KNOW PTTHE1R flCHON J. PT EXCLMDIHQ TOM

In school as a child another scientist was so good at math and science and so bad at reading and languages, she is convinced she would be labeled dyslexic. She would have gone into a medical field, but could not stand the sight of blood, so she ended up in a very clean field that has no associated gore. In an effort to understand what is going on with women in science, she has been talking to the ex-spouses of women in her field.

She thinks women in science commonly blame themselves for all their problems because everybody around them blames the women. It is “a typical abuse situation.”

Her own strategy is to change areas and be “like a mint plant, pull it up and she will shoot up somewhere else.”

156 This scientist thinks the current situation in science is analogous to the high priests of ancient religious cultures. There is an existing climate of fear because anybody who tries to even question authority is automatically eliminated. The high priests used to set the rules and get people to believe a certain way and if anybody did not agree with the status quo, they made sure they were eliminated from the scene so that they could continue working that way. In science, she says there are certain people ruling science by creating a “particular sense of science” and if you don’t follow their way of thinking, then “they essentially make sure you have no fiinding and nobody supports you and they are in key positions always to make sure you don’t get a chance.”

She says they are able to perpetuate myths because they control the way things are supposed to be done. Since they have the name of science, everyone “thinks they are following the scientific method,” but they are not. Things like The Bell Curve can be created because “they designed their measuring instruments to be only sensitive to measure” what they want to measure.

She thinks there is a definite hierarchy in US science. There are the white men.

Then the white women and men of color are about the same in terms of status. In some areas, the white women would be more accepted and in others the men of color have an easier time. “The reason white women have the advantage is because men are used to white women in their household, as sisters, mothers, whatever.” They have dealings with them and respect them and if they call themselves gender-blind, they will be supportive of them “as long as they keep their place.” At the bottom of the hierarchy sit the women of color. It sets up another version of a caste system because people can not easily move from those fixed categories. She uses the system of granting sponsored

157 funds as a concrete example of what she says. She has sat on review committees and

“seen shoddy work get very high ratings because a person is well known.” They say

“this person has gotten grants for so long, we can’t now not give it to him.” She might be “the only one who would give a lower rating” and the project would get funded. In other cases she watched people “get money under false pretenses” by putting their name on grants that they have nothing to do with. “If you never go near the lab, you never see the quality. You never see what data is collected.” “Then you get people’s names on the paper because of their reputation and political power and clout which was carefully cultivated by wining and dining them, just because nobody ever tries to find out the truth and because those that do will soon find themselves on the persecution list.”

158 CHAPTERS

AN ANALYTIC MOSAIC...

The experiences of demographically traditional (white male) scientists differ dramatically from those scientists who are, by virtue of their biological sex and

race/ethnicity, nontraditional members of the profession. The opinions and views of these groups o f people do not fall into discrete categories, and the power of the data seems to lie in the picture that emerges from a more composite representation of the whole group of people. By blending their voices and losing most of the individual speaker identifications, a more complete portrait of the complex human side of the sciences emerges. The collection of their decontextualized comments into thematic arrangements shows a very interesting view of the discourse around marginalization. It also seems to yield important clues as to the underlying reasons most of these people never quite feel part of the inner circle.

Who Joins This Club: The Issue of Representation

The topical focus of these conversations centered on the views these individual scientists hold with respect to issues of gender and racial/ethnic representation in their professional community. While there has been some progress over the last few decades

(NSF, 1996) there is still a serious level of underrepresentation among all women and

159 people from most nonwhite racial/ethnic groups. I was most interested in how research scientists felt about the numbers of all women and men of color in their own professional community. Science is very much what Hazel Carby (1987) describes as a society whose cultural production is undeniably structured in dominance by race and gender. The demographic composition of the scientiEc community is certainly a reflection of its sociopolitical structure. Scientists’ comments on representation reflected their admission that science is;

Not very diverse Predominantly white male One c f ibe last basHons o f lubSe male dominance Pretty much white moles

Special reports, conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and published annually starting in 1992 in Science examined two generations of struggle to prevent people of color and females from leaving the “obstacle-strewn path” to science careers. These articles concluded that the enterprise remains overwhelmingly white and male. They assert that the results of thousands of programs that had been started since the 1960s have yielded only dismal results. The people I spoke to made it quite clear that they agree when they commented on knowing places where:

In their whole college, there is not a single minority faculty It is still a very traditional field, by which we mean all men The women students, the faculty women, we don't have many of them oKOAùamaiùf ^ tu t y lfftice u/AwWkw. t r u t I don’t recall ever seeing an African American There are few women

Race and gender, considered separately as unitary categories of identity, tend to show quite specifically the biases and tolerances of people (Caraway, 1991). There has

160 been unbalanced success in increasing racial/ethnic diversity compared with gender participation:

The racial composition has been heavily Caucasian There ere very few minoritfes, guider (T: pretty gxxi, we have e pretty gpod belence For the most part pretty homogenous and still predominantly white J/ÔC mac^ to-tooti^ a6otit ÛV term» o/^ÿeneür-, ôatconcemeeicoe't&fv'tAaooa/f^nùnoriCies- There are no American Blacks. There are very few American Blacks in the pool and the few tfa t are are in high demand and so there really aren’t any in the pool

There is a great deal of disappointment on many levels that efforts to increase the numbers of nontraditional scientists have been so unsuccessful. Billions of dollars have clearly been spent on intervention programs (Sims, 1992) yet many people are not satisfied with the levels of representation, saying:

Ik ftil need dopenttfy to tm sort mnei iri Bbds vrf KijBiw in tiK Academicians benefit by producing replicates of themselves You really need to get things up to that critical mass level before it's justified backing off I can't believe that sometiody actually thought after 15 years that it was all fixed and we don't have to have (Aftrmative Action) anymore

The reticence among traditional scientists to talk about issues of race and ethnicity was somewhat problematic in this project. In many conversations it was extremely difiBcult to collect much useful information on racial topics, but underrepresentation in the sciences was attributed to:

That is only a reflection of the wider society. There was nothing unique going on in science versus nonscience, it was just another arena o f activity that reflected the fundamental society They don’t necessarily think about science when they are going through high school and what we want to do is let them know there are opportunities. Too often females of whatever group they belong to and minorities don't get encouragement to enter the field and take a look at it

Other scientists tried to justify the situation by using what Audre Lorde (1995) refers to as contextualizing difference. In this process of relational understanding, the meaning of

161 difference is exaggerated when group differences are compared in a purposeful contrast that is sculpted from the point of view of those making the comparison. For example, some of the explanations I heard included;

African American students just don’t choose this career We have got togn/e these people who have been cSscriminated against a break unSI we get a snowtyatt going at a certain level, so atHrmaGve action is imperative It is not part of what they grew up with and they will go into medicine or law or politics or something With Blacks I figure, things like that (science) are just not part of the inner city experience These kids go to schools t^ere there is a higher proportion of Blacks and when they come here I will het this place does look real white I also think that the lack o f adequate preparation, both mentally and intellectually of some of the students coming into the system also leads to high drop out rate or below average performance in a lot o f cases

tr wos 0 man’s woHd, nor resistanr t o women, women were not inrerested. I don't think they discriminoted liVomen saw a narrower role for themselves in terms of their life purposes. Conversely, the men felt as though that was just the way it was Men woHced In all field: and that wa: it. Thete were a few that were not that wag, but not many. 1 don't think any prafeuion: that way back were not male dominated

This is what Asante (1992) would describe from an Afrocentric view as the Eurocentric tendency to ascribe the problem to those that are perceived to be the problem. He identifies it as a practice of conferring negative attributes to others in order to promote the interest of one’s own group. The position of one’s own group is seen as reasonable while the position of outsiders is denigrated by refusing to recognize its legitimacy.

Always at the Edges: The Sense of Marginalization

There were many narratives that emphasized the degree of marginalization the nontraditional scientists felt. The sacrifices endured for the sake of education can be costly choices for members of different cultures (Sowell, 1994). These people of color and white women have made sacrifices that are supposed to grant them membership into

162 this professional community. The pain they feel from continued exclusion is evident and

they begin to show signs of refusing to invest emotionally in the idea of ever becoming

part of the privileged class (Cose, 1993). Disenchantment of this sort is a common

consequence of discrimination when people lose faith in the promise of education

because the associated promise of success and acceptance is not realized (Grier &

Cobbs, 1980). I had intended to focus on the process of enculturation or how people are

socialized to fit into science, but discovered there were serious limits to which those in

different demographic groups had actually been assimilated;

Theyoil hove the some pedigree and whatever Its very toiyhmJtfiere most definrtéy is an old boys’network The thing is the netwoik, that network will have people who have some kind of cultural connection, social connection, anything I'm not sure what they view as unifying them or maybe they all worked in the same lab Science funding is getting so tight, people will have organized into little groups so that they can carve out some piece of the funding for themselves and it's nearly impossible to break into these groups

This testimony tends to emphasize how deeply the combination of exclusionary and inclusionary practices can impact intellectual and political practices (Caraway, 1991).

Science is a system in which the white man participates visibly in the public sphere. All others are denied access to the associated authority of the dominant society by their distance from the center of activity (Lewis, 1990). Nontraditional scientists may seem to have been absorbed into the system, they might appear to conform to the normative culture, and they might resemble their white male colleagues on the surface, but they are not fully vested in the scientific system. The comments came from people in all three of the groupings of nontraditional scientists, but was most pronounced in women of color who as Audre Lorde (1995) reminds us, are oppressed by both the gender power

163 structure as well as the system of “whitesidn privilege.” Isolation seems to neutralize their emotional commitment and the evidence of this appears in the testimony.

I think part of the problems that minorities face is very often you’re not naturally one of the boys and it is an old boy network There's a difietence between something being a novelty and something getting over that critical mass. So you’ll back ofif of that discomfort leveL Just having one or two others takes the novelty edge off but it still doesn't get you to that comfort level. I don't know if that makes sense. There's this window. There's none; there's like a handful and then there's enough that you don't feel like you're in the minority any more, even though you are in the minority. If you count heads you know there's less than half of you I would say more of my female colleagues are unsatisfied than my male colleagues I can't find people to sit down and talk over issues with

Such comments are evidence of the frustration that Lewis (1990) says manifests itself when members of a group become frustrated that structural opposition exists to impede the legitimate expectation that they should be participating in the public sphere. It is very common in this community to overlook the responsibility that science has for this situation. The very culture of science itself is certainly part of the problem (Massey,

1992). Senior scientists stated:

Tech is like a priesthood and it is exclusive and has a long tradition of people on the faculty who it doesn't surprise me one bit do not accept women professionally ^ dott'trea^cAini/cAere’»arA^pi/àke/iAoodtÀat^am/eoer^poi^C0-fpnore'tÂe>fic^tAaitÂM iKiJlmale /ôr-*ocia/^^oattiJt’^tAe'tdeaÜ^tettiqpi, to-^tuf^otccAat'itia£o

Science, according to Nel Noddings (1995), demonstrates its fundamental raasculinist

(and also ethnocentric) ideology through the language, methods, and the results of the disciplines. Science reifies the position of the dominant group in the way it objectifies human subjects and genderizes nature. Such values seem to permeate the climate of the environment in which science is conducted. There was not one nontraditional scientist

164 who failed to share some aspect of their career that testified to the marginalization that occurs for those who are not part of the inner circle of white men. Some seemed to want to prove that they were well amalgamated into the mainstream culture of science, but the subject matter invariably brought out the ways in which they know they are held out of the center of the power structure of science. Although I was probing issues of race and gender, I had definitely believed that most of these people would be more fully acculturated into the system. The degree of marginalization varied, but it was always there and linked to their feelings of social isolation;

ImikMmgminlntlKiWiooimrliimiiyiif tkmllcp I am the only Black female In a department of 20-something There was one Black man, but not too many minorities I was the only woman student and the last one before me was 15 years before me It Is lightening even In this (Mtticulqt collie that there ate fewer and faver In terms of doing basic research

Square Pegs in Round Holes: The Process of Enculturation

There have been recent attempts to recognize the contributions of nontraditional scientists and include their accomplishments in what has for so long been an exclusively masculine/monocultural history of science. While these stories reveal the tremendous fortitude it took to overcome the barriers to their participation in science, there always seems to be a disclaimer that attempts to justify the discrimination they faced as if it were an artifact of history. Tierney and Bensimon (1996) identify the feet that women and people of color or individuals who differ fi'om the norm tend to experience a sense of divestiture when they are compelled to conform to situations with values that are not their own. From the conversations I had with nontraditional scientists, feelings of loneliness and isolation on the basis of sex and/or racial/ethnic group are anything but

165 extinct. As bell hooks (1990) points out there is an importance to understanding difference and a need to recognize the ways in which racism and sexism are interlocking systems of domination. In the sciences they quite clearly support and sustain each other.

When I look at a situation and if there aren’t at least about 25% of the people who look like me and sound like me and think like me 1 feel uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean I don’t do it That doesn’t mean I don’t do a good job but I do have this discomfort and I'm one of those people that puts up with it. There are lot of people w ho justifiably wouldn’t put up with the discomfort They (women) don't fit in as well and probably will never fully fit in either I think they have been taught that the male should be dominant and the metle should keep the female barefoot and prenant all the time

Evelyn Fox Keller (1992) and other scholars point out, that while schemes for classifying people and defining privilege vary across cultures, every group sorts human beings on the basis of biological sex. Respect for gender difference rather than a quest to understand sexism has become the hallmark of postmodern feminism (Gagnier, 1990).

Women, regardless of race or ethnicity, find it hard to feel like an integral part of the picture and most certainly feel different in their scientific professional communities:

I am an assadare professor wn+i tenure, but my wolk w as very difficult arc I constantly remind myself why did I think I w ant to be an academ ic scientist We have one of the highest suicide rates of the professions. They did a study and they wanted to know if we have more cancer and they found out like 13% of the women’s deaths were suicide. The men didn’t have any elevated rate JMC VAJ AM AÇKNOÏLCDQCD KCJMKCHCKIM TMIJ ARM AMD JHC W09 LD JAT JOnmilMQ. rrWAJ UKC JHCTAJ AQHOJT. TMCTVOVlDMTMMKrr. 50nC5ODTCUCWOMLb JATTMT ANDTHCNTMCTD JTAKTDIJCyjJiriQIT. ITCHADTtl/TTMAFFCNTOnC. rTMJCbTODKIVCnC QKAZT. Thn «I diloint lodt ofxainna an! I tliik iHnnBHf 111 tlR in nif dcpiitnienr apn dBtit50KfiirnietoklKn.l)tt«itlMttBrtli(artHiniiffi8irm The kind of jokes people make, I find tiring I realized that there are 40 of us, but my professor knows my name nnmediately, so I am not going to fit in, I am going to stand out like a sore thumb no matter what happens There ore little subtle things that odd up to making it seem impossible to fit in I worifiC redly W o n my methd oMifude % say nobody is going to moke me fed like 1 do not belorg here What I have backed into is the survival technique. Where you go crazy is to keep trying to go across that line, be accepted. Trying to go across the line and different women do it different ways. Some of them will do it by working 70 hours a week

166 People of color can have a more difiScnlt time becoming part of the scientific community.

Discrimination has always had an obvious influence on the outcomes of American ethnic groups (Sowell, 1981). There is a certain ambiguity that begins to be a strategy for avoiding the issue of race depending on who is supposed to be distinguishing the diversity or difference (Anzaldua, 1990):

W hen / was there, there was a class of25 and there were 2 Blacks. When we left after 5 years, no other Bbcks had been admitted The few Native American students I Interacted with in the classes didn’t seem to appear to be very comfortable You can’t do anything without being noticed and remembered. You have to prove yourself to them About really all I have in common with my scientist friends is th at we do science I f everyone shares an assumption they don’t know it’s there. So they share ail these assumptions I see this a lot wth the attiude towards Chinese people and I see this a let in the attkde towards Black people. There are a lot of parallels and I also see this to some degree in the attiudes to some women, not all women

Sandra Harding (1991) cautions that there is actually a distinct bias against women of color that carries out both a racist and sexist agenda when the special nature of their position is ignored. Explorations of gender center on white women’s issues and examinations of race tend to focus on men of color. Studies of diversity have been seriously deficient through the conspicuous absence of women who are both (Uttal,

1990). Race and gender are inseparable for those who live at the intersection of both forms o f discrimination, bell hooks (1991) talks about a western tradition of a sexist/racist conception of who can be an intellectual, which can easily be applied to the idea of a scientist. The testimony of women of color reveals that it is often difficult for them to decipher whether the discrimination stems from racism or sexism:

167 There is a definite hierarchy. There are the white men, there are the white women and men of color who are about the same, then there are the colored women It’s very easy - if something doesn’t go your way or someone treats you in a certain manner you might try to Ggure out why that is. I realty think that the woman thing is this easy thing that we fall back on and I don’t know if it’s alw ^s appropriate. I think msybe one of the things that hets helped me in that regard is I can never really tell what ism is coming into play when 1 get treated poorly is it because l^i Asian? Is it because I’m from the west coast? 9 Ibmk {here are qu3e some barriers lo momen. more to toomen than to color mbich à less o f an issue Actually a Black woman is more scary sometimes than a Black man

A woman of color has interests in common with both other women and men of her own race/ethnicity, but she also lives in two simultaneously subordinate positions (Lewis,

1990). She shares a sense of powerlessness with them but lives a reality in which her own situation is compounded by the additive effects of both forms of oppression:

it is very difficult to soy whot is gender and whot is roce gender issue? Or is it a minority issue? ^fe e l Idee go fbrou^ a double filler o f trying lo figue out nobal's going on There are no Black m ales in that same category or another Black fem ale where I can say OK now I observe this to happen in whatever group but not in the other group, so therefore and by deduction decide whether it was a gender or race issue For me a lot of times f can't separate the two because I'm representative of both and unless, and this comes back to scientific inrpiiry and the need to be careful when one does scientific questions. To me oftentimes I cannot separate the two or observe which It Is because I don't have all of the control groups necessary to do that

My conversations with some men of color gave me the impression that there was a degree to which they seem to be able to buy into the systemic values in a way that bell hooks and Cornel West (1991) discuss as a colonizing of the mind This was in contrast to others who were not as fully acculturated and said:

It mcy be subconscious, but I think the exoecrction is nor usually os greet There is an extra burden of proof, w hen my grad student gave h er first seminar, there were people there who never come. I am sure they were there to see how my student would do. That is an example of the extra burden arafirofiasor^ eAat are. c/earfy> racisa irv tAeû^ ttatemenl^ a6aat GAiaese student», are oat tA» Aùtd cAat to-firomote tAos» student», Aef^ tAenv^nd^JoA», Asfi-cAenr^pain'academic position»

168 The expecrotions ore net os high for Africon Americon folks and there ore cleoriy rocist professors in this college There are definire racer mcrors fhar wiii p m a person down, rheie are anaertytng racer fdcrars wifnin the s^erem Esoecially 'f you ore in o hostile envirorrmerrr. The firsr Thing you hove to do is diffuse the Tension. If you increose the Tension, rr becomes unbeorobie, s o The first thing I worrr to d o is establish the degree I can find som e rapport wrth th e people arourd me

There are even cases where the traditional sex and skin color are not enough to automatically guarantee white men will fit in. One scientist describes colleagues who:

(ftesHonitg 3 because one is the only one ofa particular minion IfMormon) and 3 affects his lifestyle and the other one is prob

Who Says This Is Not Fair. The Delusion of Equity

Ann Fausto-Sterling (1985) points out that it is very hard for members of a society that pictures itself to be just and impartial to see discrimination. In the sciences, where value-neutrality (Proctor, 1991) is such a delusional, but central, belief it seems very difficult to accept the idea that anything other than a meritocracy is in place. The testimony by women of color about the limits of acculturation or not fitting in stands in startling contrast to the pronouncements of their white male colleagues who make up the majority population. In what I came to see as a prevalent “fantasy of fairness,” I heard over and over how equitable and fi'ee of any bias these scientists felt their particular department or field was:

Aiy perception is that there are no proUems The sTudents Thor are really good seem to be irrregroTed The ovtrwbebrting irrtprtssion I bave is that there is not much dfrferena in the rvcg people are treated I think we have removed almost all the obstacles that I can think of that are clearly structural things I don’t see any dH fem e ana usually because of my posiiion here, I get the complaints either drechy or ityjiredy

169 0 £ course 1 am not living tliose problems or tkey are not making tliose aware to me There isnt the complaining during lunch, usually they seem as satisfied as anyone else Tbere are no barriers now and no barriers at tbe university level as far as I know I don’t perceive that they have felt especially well treated or especially hadly treated

Such attitudes are rather typical of a vocal commitment to equalitarian principles that sits in stark contrast to great inconsistencies in the process of application. Disparities like this indicate the importance of implementation of measures to reduce the discrepancy between organizational principles (Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985) of the university that espouse diversity and the reality of the setting that works against any change. Even more so, it argues for creating some understanding and awareness of the perceptions of the mar^alized, which do not support the dominant group’s analysis of the situation.

Many traditional scientists see the presence of women as an indication that gender issues have been resolved. These white men are particularly confident that sexism has been taken care of:

I THINK IT (SCIENCE) IS PRETTY GENDER-FREE 1 don't think we hove much to wowy about In tenns of gendei balance If I HEAR SOMEBODY COMPLAINING ABOUT A GENDER ISSUE, I WILL LISTEN TO THEM, I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT A GENDER ISSUE, THOUGH

IJou Jo ieianco €uxonhn^ fo Jonto InnJ OfyfjroaJi iLal is fanJarnon-Spoti^

However, numbers are only part of the story and unless certain imbalances of gender power are reconciled not just in science, but throughout society, apparent gains could be

170 more cosmetic than real for women in science (Harding, 1996). When I challenged the traditional scientists’ comfort zone with the testimony that I was hearing from the other side of the coin, I got a variety of explanations. There was the “historic disclaimer,” attributing problems to their predecessors or older colleagues who are in the process of retiring and dying off;

In people my age or younger it is greatly reduced, hut I don’t think it is gone ^knom lhal momen ofmÿ generoKon mere told thatAeÿ could not be a xienlisl by foatdy when 9 moa o student I have known one or two, who are much older, who did regard science as a man's world I think something that has happened starting about the same age I am and younger, you1l find pretty significant representation of women In people older than me, I think it is still there. It is not uke it was 2 0 3 0 years ago ^ùd^kem&>oneoAaù/l>ercentq^qfcAe>fica^art>o&lco

things to w om en b ecau se w om en, b ecau se w om en don't b elong in scien ce anyw ay.

What Is Natural about This Selection: The Hiring Process

Exclusivity within the scientific community has been maintained through the control of who has access to professional opportunities. The pretense has always been that of an objective process that could only result in the selection of the best candidate.

The demographic homogeneity of the people chosen has led to a great deal of suspicion on the part of some women and men of color that the process is hardly as fair as it is purported to be. Since scientists cannot reproduce themselves biologically, they can only replicate themselves through the process of whom they allow to train for and eventually join their society. Regulation of membership is carried out through a system that has

171 traditionally encouraged some and excluded others;

t toet'eni tAere «w elû/til rise ù> iAe i«cctu6e

JmlJùlrùtÂavetke cvetUnUtiA tAat tA« oiAen^ did. Once you get to a certain level the exercise is no longer based on merit, it is based on who you want to play racquetball with and if that is the source ofour decsion making, the only way to combat it is to mandate we must change :d ie w<ÿ^fiet^lcr^petrailjo6*»eArotfpA’tome£o^toAo-Âao

oeen on applicont w ho w a s in o m inority grou p w ith th e excep tion o f w om en , and th e w om en ju st n ever surfaced

to th e top o f th e bunch b eca u se fh ey sim p ly w eren 't in th e d iscip line th ct w e n eed ed to fill

To others, hiring is widely perceived as the means by which scientists control the demographic composition of the profession. The discourse about hiring practices was as volatile as any issue I discussed with these people. There were very strong feelings with respect to what actually happens in the selection of new hires:

h Is back to that comfott, they snot people Ilia themselves, so they {ust tend to bring that out and make points about tt I think th ere a re m ony. th ere ore som e m en w ho w ould evolu ote, w ho

w ould scru tin ize c w om an m ore closely th an a m an in T erm s ofou olificotion s Wet oAoat tAc'ofiC'canc&eliU» ado-» best fua^ted, no- maOer- loAo- it' isycu' can a/iay^^^nd»>metAifiÿ' lAatjfou- dofv’t ùÂo adout tAe/rv andlAat> could 6c w oaùdreasonfir-not Airiffy'tAeni' Something that would not disqualify a man from consideration for o position or from consideration for joining a lob would disqualify a woman

Cornel West (1993) talks about America’s historically weak will toward addressing racial injustice and the need for substantive redistributive measures. He feels that Affirmative Action may not be the most important issue for racial progress, but it certainly is part of a chain that must be strengthened if change is to take place. It is his feeling that racial and sexual discrimination will not be abated through the good will of

172 those in power and it is a mistake to assume the concept of AfBrmative Action is no

longer needed. Scientists on the margins who are interested in change have suggested;

M*gbe tfiat': wfig mb do need ofRrmotive ocMon becwite whet they'le going to do is they'te gplngto hiie people with whom they feel eomforteble end they'ie gplngto feel comforteble with some othes white guy. They'te not gpbigto hlie somebody thet they'ie ping to be demonstiebly uneomfoiteble with. They'ie not ping to meke their lives heider lust for the seke of setlsfying some remote soclel pel thet they don't undeistend end they don't egree with ^ H ^ s A o a M 6e’^^yioen’Jiresan^>tioe>priori^ sùr^t^ôecaïue^tA^arC'juH xlauH ^Âr to- anel^cA^'ro^^ootlenott^ to- 6 0 Aero eax/ut£f^tAem/AaS'6 ee/va/sociologicalfuestùm- I think that is the only way to combat this attitude . We are not going to foe the problem by mandating affirmative action and forcing the white guy to take on different people The way tbe due process should work with something like tins you pu t out ajob advertisement You ^ through the cppBcations and create a short Bst based on the merits o f each person and the kin d o f research they do cmd how ÿ>od they me and then f there's a woman or minority in that short Bst they should be hired

Many nontraditional scientists talked about the widespread mythology that they

presumably have unfair advantages on the job market:

H e c a lle d me in and said you know you have been very lucky and you are going to have a really easy time o f it because you are Black and you are fem ale and you come from a good lab mat ctx^ tla£ lave ever yotten lea ieenwlile wasfol AurUin^ anltleU uxa nty meilepeen. wa&, you Inoev‘you are^oin^ to-yet aje>i leceuue you a/te a utomem, Tngre was c hiring freeze or whorever when you come ond we sold to our dean oh here's fhis - here's this find. Here's the rore Africon-Americon femole thot's qualified to be on our fdcuhy and becouse I wos such 0 rare precious find and they rescinded somehow thct hiring freeze to moke - to hove this precious find on their fdcuhy When people talk about affirmative action, the one I hear most deals with a person of lesser quality being given the position I've heard specifically with respect to recruiting African Americans. I've heard people say I object to considering this issue because we do not wont to lower our standards. Lowering our standards was not ever in question We were tqlkfng ebout tnjliig to lecralt eddftionel Aftfceo-AmeHcens but they equate that with loweririg our standaids I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few v4io still suspect that hy getting more women into the field we're doing the same thing (lowering standards)

In reality, some of those candidates have to be extremely well qualified to even receive consideration:

173 They tip the scales because they are really strong I f the oTÜy acceptable woman walks on water, but the men are dawn in another category, then you have always got the story that we interviewed one, but she went some place else There are probably one or two women out there that are getting every job ofHar, but they are also really strong and what is happening is that they are the maniage of two desirables m one candidate tSo-ÎÙ tAe^ a m a ia ^

There is the impression that some people are more likely representatives of racial/ethnic diversity because the hiring group feels more “comfortable” with them than with

members of other groups:

There ore minority hires that are made, but I think there are some minorities that are more what I should say welcome than other minorities ^WJq can kavQ a ..J'Jispanic hire thal is non disUn^uiskalsia ^ront a £uropaan-,'4merican. Lut Las J4ispanic as a minority taLoi They could be Native American by som e definition, but they are non-distinguishable from whatever the dominant group Is. Some people are more comfortable with some minorities than others, some minorities might fit in more than others, and some minorities may blend into the overall population more than others If we pdl ail if Nr nwitiei ari rciiÿ MIt mrilMi ]N mM fU Itat Mac nirfliH arc nre rcfresMtatm itu (Am ‘TRat group into wRicIi tRey are Being R itaf migRt Be more comfortaBCe w itR tRat incoming minority. 'iRis is not to say tRat tRe minority tRat is going in is going to Be more confortaBCe, it isju st tRe already ejgsting groupJtruü it more comfortaBCe to -welcome tRem in

Twice as Much, Half as Good: The Perception of Quality

Years ago a slogan circulated within women’s circles that said:

.4 woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be considered h a lf as good. Luckily that is not difficult!

I remember being given a copy by a female doctoral student while I was in my Masters program. At the time, neither of us had any clue of how true it was because that program was as gender-equitable as any science setting probably is. The motto came

174 back because it was such a recurrent theme in this project. It was also actually brought up in one of my interviews by a participant who said:

ni tell you a specific incident that happened. Shortly after a feminist faculty member joined our department, she put this famous quote on her door that said something to the effect to get the same rewards as a man a woman had to be twice as smart and work twice as hard

When nontraditional people do actually make it into professional positions in the scientific community, their struggle is far from over. This perception of the need to work twice as hard to be considered half as good is very real for scientists out of the mainstream. The concept has clearly been internalized and the idea that those on the margins still have to work twice as hard to be considered comes from many sources:

They don’t understand that they’re privileged because we live in a whole culture o f meritocracy. They think they’re there because women are inferior. I f women were as good then there would be more o f them I think that people watch me more closely I knew that if I was going to be a scientist, I would have to be a first-rate scientist, otherwise there was no reason to bother I don’t think you can aflFord to be mediocre if you are Black and female .State' Aoneit^ .Xfjy/o-rocess continues am/cAat'is not ayroa/tAprocess. ^ A a t's to e/estrtuXit>eprocess. If I # here anJ I’m not meJiocre riien Hicg can't be either hecaine we're all pvt on the lame itamlard, the same measure... 9 tiisA tu * fieuos estss. psstietissttf i» tie batted tuulit (e A*e isetAnpUue* t». éut earning àn u s» j4(/desit jf mtsle*» ttae i t tA it tff^mut *} tAlmA lA at one isA t t mesA tt eteteome. “7Aeie it tAst ittae tf At oia^ tt fiatte ytasttif iteaate tf tAe Aittsasf sad tAe eaat extas l sad etatem^eassf ittatt ùt /4aasies. Çaat tAe aaat {/set tAsi tfsa essuf AtseA tAie esatiet tAit iaadea af fisaa^ Aeesaae fata. tAla edss tsy t {^ata tie Aisûaicst fsia t a^ aitm tA st tfsa sue mat s esfis/U fUMoa The problem with women in science is the feeling they are incompetent is there no matter what they do. ^ hod lo ocbieoe o h i more ond'J hod lo go through at owful h i o facnàinÿ loocbieoe Ibol in otDOÿ Ihol^ Ih in k-if^ hod been VI a etcÿ Ihol 9 Ihink bjos perhaps notfair. Sh d - but 9 Ihink that if ^ hod been sui/ect lo such negoHoe pressure throughout oBm tjbfe'J am sure that 9 voould hooe chosat a differentpath that the one Ihot 9 chose in fact when I first came here I had twice the normal teaching load that the average Acuity member did so I did a lot of teaching in my first six years

175 These feelings were not just based on perceptions; nontraditional scientists documented

evidence of their extra accomplishments and the lack of recognition they receive:

mas funnyfora while and 3 mas disbeariening to me Ibol ofter’^ storied bringrtg h lots o f money 9 tbou^pe(y>le w tt respect me and be nice lo m and be happyforme. Nothing could be furtherfrom tbe tru&. was so threatening lo tbe 0 iys lo hooe a woman doing this that they actweiy - this is not entirely true but there were a couple o f people who were genumely pleased for me and genuinely congrdulatory and oery nice about 3 but most o f them eSbersatd notbmg oractmely tried to demean or deride in some voays I had to get two presidential young investigator awards and all sorts of other things to be considered suitable for tenure I w jid soy nor so much of os o result of becoming o fill professor but os o result of laving brought in two million dollors in grant money I now fgure I con ploy by your rules ond I con still come out oheod so if you're oiroid of me you ought to be ond just don't bug me There are 40 feculty here and I account for 50% of the (sponsored) funding. W hat does that make them look like?

Yet, there are traditional scientists who can be very explicit about how their colleagues

are not carrying their weight:

W hen it comes to professional qualifications for tenure, numbers of publications, whatever is used they have fewer of them than comparable males have. And the/ve gotten tenure with that. Tne resrr of the women are on tenure trcdc oncd ever\ one of them th c t h as been here long enough to be tenured has gotten tenure. My point is -They not only hove tenure, they did less to g e t it than men did o r th e som e time

Although some traditional scientists admit:

They are not allowed to be just ordinary scientists. They have got to be representative I would expect th at women probably have to overcome feelings and these feelings may be based on fact that they are less a part of it one

How Blue Is Your Blood: The Power of Pedigree

A predominant theme in the scientists’ narratives was their fixation on what is literally referred to as their scientific pedigree:

176 My research advisor when I was an undergraduate said to me that if you are going into academics, you are going to have to be very careful about pedigree ir TCN tMVC OlO JU1TOMR PttlQREC FOOKLT. FT DCQOnCJ MWOIHOKC MmCMLT TO rWKC QOrmqWTIONJ TIMT AKC ICLL KCCCIVCb 4Mb FT IJ FMRDCRTO OCT PflPCKJ PMPUJFICb Just because you are maybe from a school that doesn't have a big name, you can only go to a school without a big name S tis a siral^ d merSocracy in tbe sense that 3 is oery bard lo. regardless o f wboi you do. lo mooe out o f ibe Her mbere 3 is happening Science does have an old boys’ network, but it is not necessarily old boys so much as it is simply intellectual snobbery T h ere o re still strata w ith in th e in tellectu al leagu e. I w ould n ever ev er in a m illion y ea r s g e t a job offer a t H arvaro.

If I w on a N ob el p rize. I w ou ldn 'r and th e reason is m y acad em ic p ed igree

The reputation and prestige of the institutions they are associated with can sound very

significant:

There is a top tier which is sort of the Ivy, MIT, Stanford and a tow places like that, and then you go one fier down and that is where you are at toe big ten schools and then you go down to a third tier ai a^male, notfnoan a im&ùUe, ukm U a/lAave ttiiay ii wtUtoAen u>OiatC^triielepÿettin^ my andutdderUy Aave yaintd taûtmce é«catiie U cione oftie tcAooA in tAe counTny T here are real class distinctions, but you do see chat th ere are places in the second tie r th a t have first class program s The quality of the work has very little to do with it, it is people who happen to lue In the right place that have wide connections C errciniy T here is som e b ias for p eop le from th e H orvords and th e Y cies and C h icago and B erkeley NotXJdy who is a snob takes a Job where there is state money

The reputations of the people they trained with seem to also have great presumed importance:

There is not as much merit and a whole lot more lineage in the system than is healthy or good for anybody —% i} roaitf funny wkal lltay wi&Jo in order lo f n j out if you are someone .3 skouÜ listen to or not is tltey l>riny out titeir peJiyrees They will work into the conversation some place or other, their pedigrees Who you studied with is a big thing of how you are going to rank people who are applying tor a job A review er looks or t and so y s, so and so com e ou t o f such and su ch ...

Yet, these factors do not seem to balance the equation in the case of some:

177 9 baoe my adoâor mho mas a ^obel laureak and mas oery supportioe o f me. one o f my posl dodoral advisors mas a VXabel laureate and 9 baoe spoken to friends Ibol tell me they misb they mete ^la ck and female because tixre ore so many breaks There are not enough jobs for everybody. There are very good people from very good schools that don’t have jobs

Other scientists seem to challenge the importance of this saying:

Science is something that if you have good ideas, if you do good work with good ideas you are going to be accepted ickaoi mnü ^itmifau d tt tools and tka mackanics. (Ion yog* la v o to yo and it domS not mattar i f yo« yo/tka da^rom jron

O kio .Stato or ^am aii or^Jdarvard tka parson is tka ona wko isy*tny to maka tka tkffaranca. Basically, people get jobs based on their abilities and on merit

Behaving Badly: The Harassment and Hazing

There seems to be a public desire to believe that explicit discrimination has been removed from the sciences. Benditt (1992, p. 1365) says that “in many fields the era of out-front discrimination is fading.” “ While he was specifically talking about women, it might be safe to assume the same ought to be true with respect to people of color.

Unfortunately any hope that discrimination has ended is misplaced. The people who participated in this study relay stories that make it clear that abuses of acceptable standards of behavior still exist even if they are somewhat less obvious. The collection of testimonials from the nontraditional scientists included a litany of outrageous behavior aimed at creating discomfort and undermining scientists’ confidence:

I asked the professor if he would loan me a book on just like simple electronics so 1 remember standing outside his office and he said I'm not going to waste my time. He says you’re female; you’re never going to understand it anyway. Now I had the highest grade in his course. There were 30 people there and a lot of them were engineering students I was the only woman in the course. I had the highest grade in the course and it didn’t make any difference whatsoever.. The very Srst quesSon from tNs old guy sitSng across from me was I see you have not had your children yet

178 It was my outside examiner and he met me before we even went into the meeting and he started asking me all these questions and he said I see you 're married and I said yes. He said what are you going to do? Get your PhD and leave your husband right away? Iwasshocked and he got me so upset I could hardly take my general exams. He was so upsetting I wound up with a project thatl was interested in, buteverytx)dy thougtitwas not important, t>ut it turned out to t>e the most important thing that happened in the lab. I wortred very, very hard and I came out with some good work and in the end My boss called me in and told me how lucky I was. I went in one day to my advisor to get my schedule and he said why are you here. I said I need my schedule signed for next quarter, I thought that was the question. He said the question was why are you here and I had not answered his question. He said we are going to train you and you are just going to get married and have babies and we will have wasted our time

Some actions are explicit and clearly designed to carry the racist or sexist political

objectives right on the surface;

There was a situation five years ago where I had gotten my picture in the newspaper and somebody had cut out the picture ond pasted my picture over a picture on another article about Playboy bunnies and that was posted up by the departmental coffee machine where it was sure to get maximum exposure, if you'll forgive the pun I have sim ply had a chairperson say to me, hey, the only reason w hy you're here is because you are a minority and then I said well gee you know, pardon my naivete. I thought I was here because I was capable or qualified

Other patterns are covert and necessarily more insidious because they are often not immediately recognized or possible to confront in some cases:

i hove freshmen who can't coll me thcr, so it is M.rs. or Miss. One csked me if ne should coll me Mrs. or Miss The interviewing process was horrifying. You get these people who will challenge you. They don't say it but they'll treat you as though, show me. I know you're a minority and you're probably not that good. You've probably gotten all sorts of breaks because you're a minority so now show me why I should have you as a colleague. In one interview this guy was treating me as if I was a student at a thesis exam. He was throwing these questions at me very fast and I stopped and first I answered his questions, then I explained to him subtleties that he was missing. [ ran into sàenùsts that I think were quite into sdence that I think were quite ra cist The students a re much more likely to call me Mrs. where they will call the men professor, doctor and so forth With ten grants the one they were trying to switch was a woman. They didn't even see that There was a pattern and if there was a woman in that top ten group, there would be some attempt to move her down, if she was near the edge. They got really offended when I brought that to their attention

179 Traditional scientists explain that some of what people go through is a necessary part of the process of science in their eyes:

am ÿoit>^ Co ée ^oifced ta lÂiiJterUicaUy tAcU tneaitt you <»pe yoiny to ée cAaUenyed, ^youtàA»lA

There are aspects of science culture that are patterned after an adversarial model that parallels almost a military model o^ in this case, mental hardening. Some behaviors that arise from this and are considered normal raise serious question for those who have different ways of looking at the world:

This is a tough field and you've got to learn to deal with it personally People tfiiow «t you moie then you een bundle beceuse you hove to leUHi whete is it thet I een't hendle it eng mow ^ cAùté emenftodif tuu tuuL # 6icu taU ttkm. (aoA. foa'io not cut o*t ^ tAci tutcC «ometimet dey mat» it oad aametùaei tieyie AyAy jait(a motivate S» 9 tAùd eaeayfodf ieOM tAat and «ametùaet # 6 * taomeniuvt tdat dey me éiemùif Mni^oéem maiuU SacMie fni'te « ntman 9 lold one abidenlone time ^aaidlook, you're notgettir^ beaiedcropfg became you're a loomon ^ou're gelHng healed croppÿ because you're a grodjofe aiudenl. Soerybod^ goes Ibrough Ibis. 'Jfs pari o f the lemperhgprocess lhal eoeryboc^ has lo go through lo make them lough

Act Like a Lady: The Traditions of Gender

Science is an example of the type of situation where Bem (1993) says that women are insidiously disadvantaged by androcentric policies that appear on the surface to be gender neutral. The social environments of men and women of science are inscribed around notions of masculinity and femininity that are perpetuated in elaborate traditions of gender. There is nothing traditional about being a female scientist, but female scientists have to be very careful not to stray too far from behaving like traditional women:

180 I socialize my students to Lave tkose coping skills.I Lave taugLt women in science Lere a couple of times and we talk aLout some of tLese tilings Women are still viewed as women on thejob. They're viewed in a sociological construct and so they can have a PhD and they can have a high-poweredjob but when men and women come into a cortference room men still look at women as women, not as scientists or not as board members or not as professionals but as women so thw expect us to be warm arul rmrturing all the time, even on theJob. Even in a situation where that behavior is clearly not warranted arul when they're not that's very scary and I think it’s mostly a result o f men being afraid o f women It's very annoying because you realize that you are deUberately not displaying key elements of your personality, o f what you are simply so that other people around you don't get threatened and now I am a full professor soI don't care what they feel like I ihink very carefully what I wear for example on days I am going to teach. I want to look good, but not too good When you are a woman and you come into that situation, you don't know anything except that you have got to not make waves

In a patriarchal social order that dichotomizes the issue of sex into one of control and domination (Bleier, 1984), the subordinate group learns to work around their lack of authority. There are certain ways women must negotiate gender within the scientific community:

WCMDTOflCTMLLTLMRN MOVTO QIVC A TALK hllTCKCMTLT. WC OOTTOOCTIICKTMC VOHCM. •mUKC WKCOHLT U K C SW O rO o v r o m i c ENTIKCTHINQ ÜNb WC n/lbTO QIVtTtlU PIQ JCniNflK KfAo told mo s/to real car^t/a/toatAoar-jjoa'sAoare^ to-cAesomeetiqy» 6ecausoi^jfOtùstare’^^o«l^anelyettù^cp^e^^r-eoerÿ6o<^tAo^rettimotAat'iscoAo-^yoU’aro Sh/a^yrot^^mo/vyoarn'’teoen/Â /iow it I think mostly it's just done by observation. You see the sorts of behaviors that are permissible by watching other people do their jobs and then you begin to emerge successfully and you figure you need to emulate the things that you are seeing White tvomen bait adtmtagL Tbe reason tvby rvbite women have adixmtage is because men art used to white women in their household. Sisters, mothers, whatever. Sometimes tbe mothers art very capable or their sisters so they have had respect So I ffiftik thof: 0 big port of It and I tfiink women are very good at picking up on cues in their environment and then ffguring out the boundaries that their behavior has to be

I looked for reasons for the sense of discontentment that was so pervasive in spite of the increased number of women in the ranks. I am not inclined toward an essentialist position that would assume this problem is due to something deficient in all women because as Nel Noddings (1995) cautions such things can be used to exclude women from the public and professional sphere. Somehow the survival strategies do not sound

181 too far from what goes on in the broader cultural context outside of the sciences:

I think they’re trained from infancy that they are responsible for other peoples behavior and they must adjust their behavior so that other peoples behavior stays in bounds nfe«fr«ty fWAvcfmhW itt tk e4^d⻫d matâtn mm « e u f a ^ e t t ùt^tùO ùif «m( (ia t mif mM (» caatui mem catewted mcti me ia *)'d ie tt^ 4e oeuf ieiutpdamt

For white women there is a certain degree of negotiation that can be made through sexual behavior

S ’oeseen- - tAc ofiem tauf to-saroioe te/udto-use tAeir^fiminirie fuadties to-eypemür-saf>A>ort. ^. f/icd tA/zC s not a 6atd Udctsfirooitdsedj^oU'cdofti't misuse tAat. ^oa-can-use tAat to- Aef^freopdefiedmorecomfirtaAde witAfjfOU/ Aat it couAdAcnususecd. SSutS^tAiaÀ/tAe-A^tAif^istenaci^or-6a/^sao^a6otittAeenoirom nenttAaty^ou âoe n-

T h e r e a r e t h o s e h i d d e n r u l e s o f b e h a v i o r , b e i n g a w a r e o f h o w TO PLAY THE PERSON SO THEY THINK THEY ARE IN POWER. W e h av e BEEN MANIPULATING MEN BY PLAYING THESE GAMES There ore ways of getting ahead that I have seen th a t I do not find particularly attractive I was not going to try to be seductive or use any of that level. I see plenty of it and it is disgusting to me She can dress like a certain, kind of woman and she shows a certain affect with her colleagues We don't like to talk about it because we don't want to say it is there, but sexuality is there Some of the most successful ones do it by flirting They can be shy and retiring, playing the female role...

There were very interesting appraisals of women by men:

I never oncegot ike impreiaion tkai ikie ii a female ikai Joein'i fit in. Tkrongkoni Igot ike impreition ikai ik:« ic a fem ale, and I Jiiln'i even ikink of ker a# a female, I jnai ikongki of ker a# a pereon wko i* jnai like one of ike kojc B a c k in t h e o l d d a y s y o u w o u l d s e e a w o m a n s c i e n t i s t AND PEOPLE WOULD START QUESTIONING HER FEMININITY 9 fitd ibal intelligent females fa ll into troo categories: those that are too aggressioe oery often mant to assert tbemseloes aimays and then those that are too submissioe. coho use tbe sort o f submissioe thing to sort o f gain sort o f acceptance from the males and 9 think oery fern fo il into that category ofhaortg the saooy ofknovng not only horn to achieoe cohat they coant to ochieoe but also sort ofthe saooy to piay the social gome I was just thinking about what really goes in to making up the totality of this person and it suddenly occurred to me that part of her success is based on her ability to socialize in a male dominated society

182 Issues of family life and childbearing impact women of science tremendously. Yentsch

and Sinderman (1992) found that women struggle over the balance between professional

and family life, often feeling one is being slighted for the sake of the other. Young

scientists in this study anguished over the impact of their decisions to start families;

I certainly think it is an issue and I have to admit that I am pregnant. My department chair knows but that is it I know very few pregnant untenured women or even those that are untenured and have kids I do not want people to think I am on the ‘'Mommy Track” and say she was a budding scientist I have decided that when I am here, I am not pregnant and will not tell anyone until it becomes very obvious There can be fam ify pressures and a lot o f them either want to start a fam ily or want to have a "life” o f their own. .Anotherfactor is very often a similarfam ily obligation that they want to stay with a boyfriend or stgnificant other or husband or whatever and that person moves and so what they do is they say I'll use the work I have here to get a masters and then when the other person is getting a post doc they're working as a technician still with a masters degree because they don't think theyll have enough time to start the PhD work

The answer may only rest in what bell hooks (1984) refers to as revolutionary parenting, with greater paternal participation, since senior female scientists hardly have the situation resolved:

! realized very quiatdy -her while rr w as Technicaliy ckoy fer rre re da somerhing like rove a child I had berrer not ler that in any way isecome an issue on your job. So h w as okay to hove children as long as they were way over There in thor realm and thar my professional obllgarions were not to be impacted in any way The key IS to have a supportive spouse who w ill pick up the kids, feed them , CLOTHE them , AND BATHE THEM OR YOU WON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SUCCEED I was very surprised to find out that there was a dichotomy in this sort of behavior. In other words it was expected that I would functionally not have children. It was okay to have them as long as I kept them over there in the closet somewhere but functionally 1 wasn't supposed to have them. 1 wasn't supposed to refer to them while 1 was here doing my job. 1 wasn't supposed to have to leave in the middle of the afternoon to take them to the pediatrician. OMCWrrCXCHCC rOK W OnCN AKC M n iL T U J ^ L f. VMCM DO TOM IM Vt TinC TO PEAR TMC CMILDRCM. KAIJC TMC CHILDKCN. PC wrm m en in m e caklt t c a r j o r u r c a n d c o n tin m c w im a jo ic im n Q c a k c c r ? i would be judged unprofessional if I spent the afternoon to tote core of my child. a male colleague doing the some thing would hove been hailed os o wonderfjl

Historically, women who chose to move into a professional sphere often remained childless because they were caught in the “double bind” of the womb and the brain

(Jamiesons, 1995). It might appear that some of the powerbrokers of science expect

183 women to make that decision when there is such a very stark contrast in the way some men look at the family issue;

The net effect of that is the women get away with what is perceived as getting away with murder around here because theyTe not here. TheyYe off playing mother and then when it comes to professional qualitications Aar tenure, numbers of publications, whatever is used they have fewer of them than comparable males have. Theyye gotten tenure with that Thafs reality. That has happened, fm not tddng about fabricating some scenario that could happen. It has happened

The Différence a Difference Makes: The Typing by Race

Science is presumed to be a universal enterprise (Harding, 1993) that could be conducted by anyone, but unfortunately there is tremendous evidence that racial discrimination has not disappeared. Rothenberg (1995) asserts that while the term discrimination is often preferred, it only masks the actual racism that is predicated on the emphasis on human ethnic difference. Johnetta Cole (1995) identifies the tendency when surrounded by both similarities and differences, to dwell excessively on difference. In conjunction with the participants’ statements as to what makes them feel like outsiders within their own professional community, there is a litany of documentation that attests to the ways they are perceived by others:

I know diat our students of color still feel different. I mean just dramatically different During graduate school, professors write up ’•ecommendotions thot go to the placement office end there was this comment by one of the grcduote student odvisors thct I olwoys was properly dressed and nice and presentable in every day life. And of course we're Talking graduate students where you have lob coot on top of very simple clothing becouse you don’t wont to mess up your clothes. I found It surprising thct he would focus on that ond bring ri up to the ottention of whoever riiot I olwoys wos conscientious obout the woy I presented myself

184 The feelings of African Americans;

That’s die stigma because you're not as good as - you have some kind of a deficiency as a scientist I think there's that burden to overcome. To prove yourself that even diouÿ I have my degrees, somehow diafs not enou^ to say ?m coming in on an equal footing I think as a person o f color, particularly in the United States and it might be true in other places too but coming in as an African-American there is this stigma I think that one has to work to overcome. There is that issue ofhaving to prove yourself because o f the history and the contextual and contemporary issues in America Just the mere fact that you carry black skin says carries this burden ofproof because your sldn color says from the historical point ofview that you are not a capable person lYhen one sees you eutometfcelly the Intuitive feeling Is thet well this guy is prabebly less then eveiege ot eerielnly not ebove everege. He must be evetege or less then everege. Certelnly not ebove everege. Certelnly not esceptlonel. Certelnly not ebove everege end it’s mote or less hevlng to prove yourself. The extre burden I think Is the right word

Racial/Ethmc stereotypes are nothing new and unusual, but the fi’equency with which they came up so in these conversations was striking. Comments about African

Americans include:

Ultimately I think this sort of expectation or lack of expectation in some cases leads to underachievement and drop out I had several of my colleagues when I brought up these students say that the Idds from historically black colleges always bomb. If they always bomb, why are we letting them in or why aren’t we taking some of this into consideration. I think the way a lot of administrations want to deal with this issue is throw the money out. It's a one line declaration. The fellowships get created and then when we have high attrition someone can turn around and say look, I told you so. They're just not capable Welt h r a minority tike that where the average educational background is less than the population at large, then those that do g et into the university will be overrepresented in remedial courses and so titose students will tend to stay out ofthe courses that they find difficult such as science courses, as many o fthem do Oriental students seem to do cpdte vueU and they’re highly motivated once they decide they want togo into research The black student, some o f them are probably more motivated to do a goodjo b For black students to go to college was even breaking the tradition. They had trouble in school. The programs for black students did not consider iher background which was not like for Caucasian students. It took a while finally for the black student, especiafly if they came from famSies that were not broken up or futt of strife to be able to adapt into a college life and take on the rigors of research Throughout my entire career, the Black students needed friat extra help. I have had to present it (course content) to them in more simplistic terms

Social class origins may be relatively invisible in the scientist as compared to race and

185 gender but it is seen as a crucial component of examination of the chances for individual success (Apple and Weis, 1983). Socioeconomic status is subconsciously linked very strongly to racial/ethnic status and was brought up often as a factor that especially confounds African American peoples’ chances of pursuing scientific careers. They talked about;

^ e«me « /w* fMt taeù** y#* d u t’t itu» «eeeM U tie »ame eduee/tiemet. efifuntuttltie» W1CKE TMC PflRCNTJ /IRC DCTTCK OIT AQIbCniQtLLT. TMC MRCNTJ MCI? nOTlYMTC TMC JTMDCNTJ TMMT JQHOOL IJ UTFOKTAMT Anybody that comes from a low socioeconomic status has a hard time Colle4£Mes Mytheft (Miietits wete (iiofiBSSioMls, they wete raised in the suburbs end went to suburben or prhrate sehoois Underrepresented groups are often not comity from very good schools or mcybe not really good family situations How we can get more young Black men out of ttie ghetto and into having some erpectabons

Asian Americans are subjected to a distinctly different version of racism (Sethi,

1995). The notion of the Asian American as the model minority was promulgated in the social unrest of the late 1960s. The loud protests of the Black community in the civil rights movement brought out an effort to compare the quiet maimer in which Americans of Chinese, Japanese, Indian and other Asian decent had quietly overcome racism by working hard to achieve relatively high levels of academic and professional success:

^7he/B axu a joke going around, sea booo many Vision sbidanis you baoe and Iben S mÊ gioe you an i/ea o f bom much you baoe lo work lo g a la n t in tbe class because Ibe more ^Isian-^merkons you baoe ibe more you baoe lo study logeianÇl. ^ ib e y apply the curve. Ibey can gel Ibe beslffados She has very much the traditional Asian female notions if they're a rung ahead of you then they can do no wrong. That's part of the Asian culture in general and I think especially for the women If they are a step ahead of you, you really recognize the peeking order and you never criticize anything from somebody a step ahead of you and so she definitely would never participate in a discussion in a fecuify meeting or would never challenge a decision the chair may make or bring up something that was a problem

The Stereotype of math/science superiority brings up that question of nature or nurture:

There is an expectation for Asians to be good at math for example.

186 Is this natural or genetically preprogrammed? The other myth thef s often |Nrt forth is that the Asians are very hard workers, actually Chinese and Japanese. I see as much variety in those students as in our students ^Theÿ grom up m afom i^ mbere Ibey mere bmgbi Ibolyou do Ibhgs because you baoe lo do H. regordhas of ttJjelberyou iked H. ^Ijou bare a fa n i^ dudpushes you. andyou lake claases that are bard bke algebra and caiatha m bigb schooland thatprepares youfo r the immersdy. ^îhtd^s my perception o f Ibe^mericans. ^TheSlxan cubure is oery sM d adlh oeryfem chokes Q^loio^QdiuaH itudefUSa/tmiKUieeito <^ùfa rt tie eullupe liâ tyoa arefm ieci very ia r jta strive

In the sciences, Asians are the only group other than white men whose proportional representation in the labor force exceeds their level of representation in the population (NSF, 1996). Interestingly, the concept of being “overrepresented” is constantly applied to people of Asian descent, but never to the white men whose numbers are also clearly in excess. The application of a term that implies overpopulation is enough in itself to raise the question as to whether Asians have overcome racism or just brought on another form of it. The overrepresentation/model minority concept plays out in ironic inversion of the notion of meritocracy in the sciences. Only 3% of the

American population is Asian, but 8.9% of the science and engineering labor force is. If science wants to claim that it follows the meritocratic idea and selects for the best and the brightest, it cannot actively exclude qualified Asian candidates. Nakanishi (1989) points out that certain long-standing premises of higher education are seriously challenged by Asian competence in the academic arena. Several scientists made comments to the effect that if admissions criteria were based strictly on the objective, scientific measures of academic potential there might be programs exclusively populated by foreign students of Asian descent;

187 There is such a heavy imbalance and influx of foreign students that if you just went strictly by GRET s you would never get a domestic student, so they are doing affirmative action to get in domestic students We heve to ettem^t to get the best of the domestic oMdiconts (to corn|iete with the foreigner) end try to reserve about % of the slots for American bom students

Despite the prevailing image that they are gifted scientists, there are biases in the

scientific system that impede the professional success of Asian Americans (Miller, 1992).

Even with the high levels of academic success, quite evident fi'om the numbers of Asian

surnames on publications in prestigious scientific journals, there are unrecognized

barriers that block the career progress of Asian Americans:

You SEE HOW MANY ASIANS ARE GRADUATE STUDENTS, HOW MANY ASIANS ARE POST DOCS AND THEN YOU LOOK AND SEE HOW MANY OF THEM ARE FACULTY. tVs VERY SIMPLE. Th e y g e t t h e s a m e t r e a t m e n t w h e n it c o m e s t o aga in b e i n g v ie w e d a s e q u a l s and BEING HIRED ON AS FACULTY AND THEY GET USED UP AND THROWN AWAY

Asian Americans negotiate a specific set of cultural expectations even in science:

IN MY CASE, I HARDLY FTT THE STEREOTYPICAL IDEA OF THAT SMALL SUBMISSIVE ASIAN WOMAN I think that part of the rejection is that I am not playing the stereotype, kissing up and soft-talking

The saddest part of all these labels was the perception that:

Whenever you find a minority who is doing some good work, he/she is the exception to this stereotype and Âat’s all

I still -Tilnk tHa-r for people of color ore for women students there's still this feeling

of being other. It's o pervcsive feeling of being other. And so more thon the active discouragement I would hnink thct the reason ftiey don't persevere in the way thot the young white male does is they're still always thinking I don't belong here so why am I beating my heod ogoinsf tne wall when I don't really belong here"? I can go over there and IH belong more

Persisting in Spite of It All: The Reasons They Stay in the Game

Perhaps most interesting is the testimony that indicates why the nontraditional members of this community are willing to tolerate all of this. The simple answer is that

188 they want to do science. I systematically queried each participant as to how they developed an interest in science and why they chose a scientific career, expecting to find indications that there was something unusual about the attraction. The motivations of traditional and nontraditional scientists are similar and their reasons for being scientists are indistinguishable. I never really answered my own question as to what keeps them going in the fece of such systematic marginalization, but maybe these statements yield a few clues:

Exceptional women are more driven. W e want to do this in spite of the fact that they don't want us there. Or in spite of maybe they are ambivalent about us being there Another thing that could be extrinsic is the respect you get But 1 gniess the intrinsic motivation is still a driving curiosity. I still enjoy reading the journals even when it's something that's not exactly in my area, figuring out what people are studying, how they're studying it and why they're interested in those particular problems I think throughout my whole life I was surrounded by people that were at least sort of sdentificaUy indined and I was exposed to sdentific concepts in a way that it became natural for me to want to head in that direction, so that is the context in which I grew up i hoi-rtTCT kind (Wti\jde in life, I wos dveys competiiive. I gaenjcymenr our of being csmpeiiiive ond coming out on top I bib HorqROw WIN A jo acn w o n rou lmui rRonmc JTAHTTiMrtom arc buonnMATCb aqaihjt. TO n c TO TnfflK THAT I cwflj) rc a o itn u T AUb i coqtb rc a ja n r n jT wa; coual tt r t u a ll ALowa I bib HOT HAVE TMU TlflHQ APCWT ANTPObT TCLLIHQ IT WHAT I QOMLb AMb COULb HOT bO. 50 WHCHI nAbC n r bCCUIOH TO qOTOORAbW JCnOOL I THOywror m JCLT AJ OHC OTHER JTVIbCHT ryRJVBHQ AFMbAHbl HEVER TOR OHE JECOHb THOUOtîT THAT IWAJ HUPAHIC OK IWAJ A WOHAH AHb AHTTHlHq UKE THAT. IWAJ A JTVbEHT raaOb. THAT WAJ nr OW WTEKMAL PERCEmOH AHb THATJ HOW I APPROACHEb THE WHOLE TTflHa THtf is not tfie easiest w otijn tRe worüfand tfyou don't Une it you cant put in tRe time tRat is necessaty to get tRe worRjou needdime. HUe tlOng tRat maRes science eicptingfor me is tRat I dim't Rave difficulty going to xvorRjn tRe morning at ad. I don't Rave difficulty xvalRing in tRose classes. I dont Rave dtffficulty trying to get tRe researcR dime Because every dity tRere's sometRing acçiting going on. So there is a lot of uncertainty, economic uncertainty for one's cRmb into the basic sciences. So it is a hard sell and I think my answer has to be it has to be in the heart One has to either have had an experience somewhere early or know someone that's in the field and really have research in their art

For the sake of both female and students of color, there is a crucial need for visible diverse participation by professors like themselves. Through personal interactions this can aflRrm that total assimilation and loss of identity are not required (hooks, 1989) in

189 order to study science or make a scientific career choice;

toen/^ÿoCar/nessq^y^omfOne'^tAc' stxic/enis^ te^n^mC’Aow-fir(Hu£sA£'ioae>to-se&a/C8ùuÀ/aHfmanr rm here because it's fun. Passion is sort of what drives me to be here and I enjoy what I do. I enjoy coming to work on Monday morning. I enjoy exploring questions in the field. I enjoy getting papers published and getting your grant funded and I enjoy training students. I enjoy inspiring minority students when I can

Tradition Wears a White Shirt: The Message They Do Not Seem to Get

The central goal of the scientific method is the quest for impartial knowledge.

Scientists have been trained to believe that their enterprise is objective and value-fi'ee.

Proctor (1991) allows that while there is a sense that science is unbiased, there is also a convincing history that documents how science serves social interests. “Despite its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society at each historical epoch” (Lewontin, 1992, p.9). Some traditional scientists go so far as to deny social value issues should be considered relevant to science:

I don't see any evidence that there has ever been any social agenda that has managed to work its way in Aly own personal philosophy is that in science, things like gender and race are irrelevant Our depcrrment has always been exceedingly supportive of anybody, a woman or a minority group My job is to make sure that women and Blacks anywhere In my horizon are treated fairly and no differently than anyone else

Social issues may be insignificant to white males, but they exert a pronounced influence on the level of professional satisfiiction experienced by members of other demographic groups. If there was one quote that sums up the discrepancy between male and female

190 perceptions, h would be this:

I keep seying thet I don't think gender is an issue, but all the women will tell you that it is

Other tractitional scientists seem to understand there are still problems:

My women colleagues tell me this, so there must be something to il I don't think they are nuts and I don't think they are liars and I don't think they are making excuses for anything, so they must be encountering barriers they see are gender barriers I have known colleagues, female contemporaries, who have told me about that (discrimination) 9 am not a voomon. jo 9 neoerjufired any o f tbb, but 9 am sum them must baoe heat a lot ofm ol andiorpercebed, ^fbobably n subtk voays. but 9 do hnoto o f contemporaries mho mem basically toldpoint blank by adoisors that this is not a career that is good fo r momen. I think some people were much border on women groduote students

Yet, most of them do not understand what others are going through:

nVe sboaxd these mooies lo the students and some o f them are old and there's no use making them again. One o f them loas an aüradioe female, and the landmarks on her physical anatomy are being pointed out hy this old male professor. ^These boo women mere talking about how unconfortable they mere mOh this old codgerprodding this female. 9 voas thinking ladies where are you going what are you seeing in thaf? ^fllbat is wrong with thaf? ^This is stridly cold science, instrudioe. 9 / has nothing to do wSb — 9 did not really see why they were offended. ^Then 9 started to think about ü maifbe - just a little bd c f me said well majfse they do haoe something to it

So many actions that are well intended demonstrate how dominant scientists fail to get the message. One male recounted trying to help a new female colleague understand how her actions would be perceived, when what he might really have been doing was stifling her expression of a feeling of difference:

191 I didn't go in and yell at her or anything. I just sat down quietly and asked her to think about... What do you think this does? i wont you to put yourself in the shoes of a man. This is the way a man is going to look at thot statement if you moke it like that. I said the thing that you hove to try to understand is that we need to bring people together and not push them opart. That's one of the things thot I’ve seen, it's a very easy thing to become the enemy. I think after a couple of incidents like thot she began to realize that she didn't hove to be defensive. That the people around here were going to be a supporter of her os a person and her os 0 scientist ond would regard her os a friend and she did not need to drive wedges. It doesn't hove to be on us and them thing and I don't think it is here

A very telling portrait of the contrasting views of the climate from two sides of the coin

is;

^lOSb Ibis polSical œm dness btiUsbS women con say anyfbhg and gal away w8b S around bare Çbiyibing Ibal implies ibaf a member o f the opposffe sex. ofanother race, religion is inferior ^lÜomen can s fÿ say Ibose tbings. ^Tbere's dozens o f examples around bere wbere women say things routinely, classroom sSuatkms. faculty meetings that f a male eoersaid 3 would be made a major production, ^hlomen say tbings routinely and get away mSb 3. ^Tbey can be discussmg an issue and label a person or a group as something negatme. ^Tbey can put a negotwe characteristic to any gvup they wont ond stÊ get away w3b 3 and males cannot do that. STXo/ around bere. ^Ibis place is like a-people are waOcmg on egg shells, ^den are waHàngcm eggshells I think that these guys, mostly guys, now are resenting the fact that they can't just open their mouths and say whatever is on their minds. That they have to at least - they call it being politically correct, not saying things in a certain way. So I think that's what I see. I see this rampaging resentment, this rage that they have to control their behavior. I dont see a fundamental change in that behavior or the thinking that leads to that behavior and thafs what worries me. That what we're really seeing is irritation

Traditional scientists summarized the situation when they said: You hod tietter work on fdenttfying tnembeis of those voHous cultures thot seem to l>e out of the meinstrem, but who ere most likely to edept to the dominent scientific culture The only way to fix the problem is to get enough people who are différent (in these places)

The answer from those who are comfortable seems to be an invitation to fit in if you want to be there!

192 CHAPTER 6

A REASONED INFERENCE...

Exploration of the impact of racism and sexism in the sciences is both nothing new and long overdue. There have been countless studies o f‘racial/ethnic and gender’ issues in the context of these disciplines, but few push the limits of comfortable discourse enough to name the sources of oppression that are the root of the problem. Antiracist and feminist scholars have frequently pointed to the ethnocentric and masculinist nature of the production of scientific knowledge, but such critiques have been dismissed within the sciences as being tainted by the sociopolitical agenda of these scholars. Part of the defensive armor used to blunt any formidable critical attack has been the prohibition within the natural sciences against acknowledging the legitimacy of the political within the realm of legitimate scholarship. Given the demographic composition of the scientific community throughout its history, how could scientific knowledge not have been shaped by the Eurocentricity and masculinity of its participants? How can it be surprising that the prominence of such values is part of the reason for persisting disproportional representation and the fact that all women and men of color remain marginalized within the educational process and professional community?

193 This study was conducted in the hope of providing credible descriptions that

might lead to a better understanding of the reasons for problems in participation by all

women and men of color in science education and representation in the scientific

professions. There is little question that the data is rich in its portrayal of social

dynamics among various professional scientists. These practicing scientists shared

details about the values and activities in their own community that clearly illuminate

aspects of marginalization. They explicitly documented problems in postsecondary

education, some of which can easily be extrapolated to the K-12 level. The most evident

among these is the pronounced but often unconscious stereotyping and associated

expectations for those outside of someone’s own demographic grouping. These

attitudes are at least as widespread in precollegiate educational settings and likely to have similar impact. The members of the dominant group see science as a meritocracy while the members of marginalized groups know they are held to different standards and judgments that are often unfair.

My aspiration was to begin at the hermeneutic level, seeking to capture the significance of patterns and contradictions in the experiences of traditional (Caucasian male) and nontradhional (all female and nonwhite male) scientists. I was interested in how notions of race and/or gender impact the experiences of everyone in the community and found extremely consistent patterns among the experiences of people in any particular gender or racial/ethnic group. The level of intersubjective agreement was far greater than I expected on issues such as sexism. Every single woman described in some way the feeling that she would never be allowed to completely be part of the accepted

194 group. On the other hand, even when acknowledging racism, men of color usually expressed a sense that they felt much closer to that inner sanctum. I wanted to explore how the process of scientific enculturation might contribute to the continued marginalization of some people within these professions. There is a great deal of evidence that scientists fi'om the oppressed groups try to assimilate, but their difference seems to cut off any possibility of complete enculturation. In spite of their marginalization, it does seem that just their presence is enough to impact the majority culture.

These interviews with practicing scientists examined gender and racial/ethnic issues in the professional domain of a variety of scientists for clues as to how that culture of science might influence demographic participation. In relatively unstructured conversations, participants were encouraged to voice their opinions and share stories about their own community. When their narratives were examined intact and clustered into four groups according to sex and dominant/subordinate racial/ethnic status, there were some differences of opinion within categories, but clearly strong common patterns within their realities. Men of color seem to be the most acculturated of the nontraditional groups. Their kinship and ability to afBliate with traditional scientists, as men, is an obvious advantage. Depending on their specific ethnicity, some males can use masculinity more effectively than others to be a part of the center of the community.

Populations differ dramatically in different parts of the country as do nuances in the manifestation of difference. Latinos negotiate around any language issue and blend in fairly well. Asians face reverse discrimination on the premise of being overrepresented (a

195 term that is never used in reference to white men) and ostracization as the model minority. My contact with First Nation people was very limited and these were people of mixed heritage who do not hold tribal afBliation and therefore pass as white with access to white privilege in the scientific community. The Black person, by virtue of the legacy of institutional slavery, being the most visibly difierent, and the deviance of the image created by the news media, is the least likely to feel accepted. White women live a very gendered reality in scientific communities in spite of the degree to which white men supposedly do not object to their presence. Sexual difference and its associated dynamic is always present and females are never actually one of the boys. The feet that being a woman always contextualizes one’s position exerts a strong negative impact on the professional satisfaction of female scientists. There is a much easier coexistence of white men with white women than exists for women of color. Thus, the people relegated to the furthest margins of the scientific community are women of color. Living at the intersection of the oppression by racial stereotypes and through gender roles, these women are different on both counts, lacking the entry that can be gained with masculine camaraderie or common ethnic heritage. Their stories were the richest sources of information, shedding light on the indignities of racism and sexism that are so common in the scientific community.

A very different composite representation of this glimpse of the natural sciences came through a systematic process of qualitative data analysis. Decontextualizing the vast collection of comments and subsequently reassembling them according to structural categories and eventually thematic relationships allowed for the construction of a very

196 différent depiction. The themes each told parts of this story. Who Joins This Club: The

Issue o f Representation outlined whom scientists see participating in their departments

and professional circles. Always at the Edges: The Sense o fMarginalization detailed

that apparent harmony on the surface is not an accurate reflection of the tendency for

nontraditional scientists to feel left out of the community to which they are supposed to

belong. Square Pegs in Round Holes: The Process o f Enculturation showed how race and/or gender play out depending on the individual. Who Says This Is Hot Fair: The

Delusion o f Equity countered the myth of the scientific meritocracy with testimony as to the prevalence of the unfair treatment certain people receive. What Is Natural about

This Selection: The Hiring Process exposed the systematic process by which scientists are able to replicate their own image through the selection of their successors. Twice as

Much, H alf as Good: The Perception o f Quality revealed that once different people gain that precious access to the community, they are still held, even if it is by self- imposed needs to overcompensate, to different standards of success. How Blue Is Your

Blood: The Power o f Pedigree uncovered the covert manner in which scientific families create opportunities and how connections to prestigious institutions automatically open doors. Behaving Badly: The Harassment and Hazing exposed the illusion that discrimination is a thing of the past by exhibiting the range of explicit and insidious behavior that all women and men of color are still subjected to. Act Like a Lady: The

Traditions o f Gender presented several facets of the ongoing battle of the sexes. The

Difference a Difference Makes: The Typing by Race looked at how deeply entrenched some racial/ethnic stereotypes are and how these structure the experiences of people of

197 color. Persisting in Spite of It All: The Reasons They Stc^ in the Game a. of the reasons these people tolerate what is still a fairly hostile environment. Tradition

Wears a White Shirt: The Message They Do Not Seem To Get indicates how much the white male scientists want to believe science is changing, but how they Ail to understand the reality of the gendered and racialized lives of their colleagues.

During the data analysis, I looked very hard for convincing evidence that the climate in the scientific community is changing as much as the Caucasian men seem to believe. They talked extensively about the older generation’s having different values and the ways in which the situation was improving. Unfortunately, the indications they give are minor when placed on a symbolic scale and balanced against the discrimination that nontraditional scientists still face. I sought evidence of a thematic category that could be called The Light at the End o f the Ticnnel, but there was not conclusive data to support such an idea. In fact, I could find almost nothing that gave such an indication. The text

I thought would build a case for hope of equity was often confounded by proximal testimony that negated any hopeful aspect. Thus, my assessment of the current climate for all women and men of color within the scientific community is not positive. The disappointingly negative picture I see does, however, hold definite clues to answers to the questions that prompted my research.

The scientific method and its associated worldview are what I see as the most readily identifiable source of the problem. The “Myth of Meritocracy” is a dangerous delusion that blinds the mainstream scientific community and prevents us from recognizing the fundamental problem in our profession. Scientists believe they can

198 remove subjectivity from their treatment of people because they are convinced they can do this in their empirical work. People in the sciences are not treated equally or equitably. The situation conceals itself in the sciences because of the aura of objectivity and premise of value-free activity that are part of what is supposed to be the scientific method. We are so convinced that we can purge subjectivity from our laboratories, we begin to believe we can do the same in our human interactions. Scientists delude ourselves into the belief that we judge people by measures that are as impartial as our bench techniques, but this is far from the case.

Representation in scientific communities continues to be determined by practices that replicate the demographics of the existing population. Traditional scientists select their proteges as students, selectively nurture their growth and academic development through various stages of postsecondary education, and eventually assist them in moving to the professional level. Other scientists choose new colleagues from an applicant pool that was determined by who was recruited and aided through the first part of the process. Eventually, permanence comes with the tenure that is granted when one satisfactorily negotiates initiation rituals and proves themselves to be worthy members of the community. None of the phases of these selection steps are objective and value-free.

Even the idea that achievement tests such as the SAT and GRE can be used as discrete numeric rankings is lost when we realize domestic students are given admission preference over foreign students who test higher and the cultural biases of the tests themselves tend to disadvantage difierent groups o f people.

199 Science is a social enterprise with human dimensions that give racial/ethnic and gender issues a great deal of influence over people’s experiences throughout the cycling process that connects science education and the professional scientific community.

Parallels between the scientific professions and the educational system are not coincidental. They are the consequence of the ways in which these two communties feed each other in a reciprocal manner. Starting arbitrarily at the earliest stage of science exposure for the young child, the images of science create the impression of a world populated by one group of people. Preferential encouragement is given throughout the educational process that increases the likelihood of members of that same demographic group having the experiences that enable them to join that group. When they reach the gates of science they are given preferential treatment that increases their chances of survival and success. As they become the established scientists they perpetuate the representation by following precedent practices that ensure the status quo.

Discrimination has not been purged fi'om the professional or educational dimensions of the sciences; it has just been moved fi’om its former explicit manifestation to a less visible and more insidious location where we can delude ourselves into believing it has been eradicated.

My involvement in both the pedagogical and research domains of the natural sciences has convinced me that there is an inextricable connection between these realms.

That interrelationship holds valuable clues to the reasons for the stubborn persistence of disproportionate demographic representation in both areas. There is so much parallel in the patterns of discrimination. There was a practical reason for conducting this study on

200 adults in the research science community that went beyond my interest in the long

neglected domain of postsecondary science education. Our children may not be able to

recognize discrimination when it happens to them, but the adults I spoke with are old

enough and have seen enough to put a label on it. By the time someone has gone

through the extensive preparation leading to a science career, th ^ have sampled science

culture and science education in a number of relevant settings. Because these people

have persisted in the face of all that apparently goes on, I knew they would be likely to

have informative stories to tell.

I also hold tremendous hope for the potential for an emancipatory outcome for this work. The evidence of my success in raising consciousness within the dominant culture showed in almost every interview with a white male scientist. Their reactions to questions very often made it clear these were not issues they usually thought about. My phrasing of the issues deliberately pushed the idea that we all hold responsibility for our own community and the values it espouses. The experience created occaisions for discomfort and embarrassment when participants had to admit that an appalling lack of diversity was characteristic of their community. A fundamental goal has been for this work to be presented in a manner that will serve to act as a mirror for the scientific community that is its subject, since the reflection of my interpretation of this image of the culture of science could possibly enable a move toward productive change fi’om within that community. I have already given several public talks on the preliminary findings in this study. When these talks are given in a way that “rounds out the walls behind the scientists” so that they are not “backed into any comers” or put on the defensive, true

201 dialog can ensue.

The idea that science is a white male enterprise is well known and well documented. The history of science as it is usually written is a glorious tale of brilliant

Caucasian men who, through serendipity coupled with sheer genius, managed to engineer revolutionary new ways to understand the natural world. Any class of school children can be asked to draw a picture of a scientist and they will almost all produce images of masculine people of European descent. The data from demographic surveys of scientific professions will support this and graphical representations show clearly how white men dominate the science and engineering workforce. There has been interest in this membership of the scientific community for years because other professions have progressed much more easily toward representation that is proportional to that of the general population. The number of quantitative studies examining scientific representation is excessive. Graph after graph, in study after study, gives almost the same picture of the face of science. The amount of government money that has been wasted on intervention designed, but unable, to change participation is obscene. Yet, there still seems to be a fimdamental inability to understand why a universal enterprise such as the sciences continues to exclude certain groups of people and does not become more ethnically/sexually diverse. Few fields remain as resistant to the inclusion of women and people of color as the scientific and technological occupations do. Even taking into account the gendered and ethnocentric nature of most professional realms in

Western culture prior to the latter half of the twentieth century, science is something of a demographic anomaly.

202 Science is also unique in having the authority to covertly justify its own exclusionary practices via what is deemed to be the legitimate discourse of the enterprise. In the latter half of the 19“* century, women began to obtain access to higher education and the racial/ethnic composition of the population began to change with the emancipation of people of African descent and an influx of immigrants from other parts of the world. By what can hardly be deemed a coincidence, a vein of science known as

Biological Determinism developed as a product of Darwinian theories of evolution.

Concepts from this branch of knowledge justify the supposed inherent intellectual superiority of the white man and provide justification that his “Nature” was most suited to do science. It took years to challenge the scientific authority presumed to legitimate this position and only recently have efforts to demonstrate the fallacy of ideas of significant genetic difference begun to be accepted. There is now sufficient evidence to show that environmental factors contributing to the “Nurture” of a person exert a far greater influence on their scientific potential than sex or racial/ethnic background do.

Additionally, it has become quite clear that the “Niche” or culture of the scientific community has an additional impact on the simple matter of whether people desire to be involved in the sciences or not.

As I return to the questions that were used to focus my research, I remember the way one of those queries seemed to bounce back at me in the reactions of traditional scientists during the interviews. Why should we expect representation in the sciences to be proportional to that of the national population? The answer is not self-evident to most white male scientists. Many of them are quite content working in the comfort of an

203 environment that is populated by people like themselves. Science has been very successful in the hands of those who have always done it, so what reason is there to change the composition of the work force? Why create all the problems that arise when the majority population has to behave differently because others are around? They have no reason to believe there is anything wrong with the selection process that validated their legitimacy through access to a professional position. They have no reason to question the idea that stereotypical notions lead to assumptions that some groups of people are inherently smarter than others. I do not think the climate of science education or the demographic composition of the professional community are going to change until the Caucasian men I have referred to as traditional scientists begin to understand there is a reason that science ought to change.

The need to find ways to change the culture of the scientific community is an important implication for future research. I would like to systematically investigate strategies that prompt scientists to question the assumptions they hold about gender and racial/ethnic stereotypes. I do not believe most scientists will give up some of the deep unrecognized prejudices they hold without first becoming dissatisfied with such ideas and subsequently conscious that they hold them. I continue to be interested in the process of scientific enculturation or the way in which new scientists are socialized to fit into their professional community. I think enculturation holds important clues as to why the feeling of marginalization remains so prevalent among women and people of color in the sciences. At the level of science education, I intend to conduct a study to determine if my thesis of parallel culture is true. Interviews with secondary school science students

204 could give valuable insight as to the degree to which racism and sexism continue to impact their experiences.

On Sunday, May 11, 1997, as I put the final touches on what I hoped would be a

“défendable draft” of this dissertation The Columbus Dispatch (Woo, 1997) contained an article that is right at the heart of what I hope to be the implications for this study.

The piece, under a headline that read, “Girls don’t lag in math, study says,” dealt with the pronouncement by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) that long held assumptions of gender differences are being refuted. This report stated how belieft of male superiority are contradicted by a “massive study showing there are almost no areas in which girls lag fer behind boys.” The named study also found that the authors concurred with other studies showing that “the superiority of boys in math and science was found to be surprisingly slight and significantly smaller than 30 years ago.” My research took another approach to the problem of Math/Science achievement in school children.

Rather than looking for the deficiency in the people, I looked for the problem as being rooted in the culture of science itself. I found indications that unrecognized masculinist/ethnocentric bias still permeates the system and has tremendous impact on the experiences of all women and men of color. Regardless of a delusion of gender/racial equity in our schools, our children are impacted by the close relationship between professional science and science education. My suggestion is that we begin an uncompromising attack on racism and sexism at every level, with the intent of purging all vestiges of discrimination and oppression. For me, the ultimate significance of this newspaper article lies in its documentation of long overdue public dissemination of

205 evidence refuting archaic dogma supporting notions of masculine intellectual superiority.

I wait impatiently for the equally tardy, parallel evidence that we are giving up the racist beliefs that continue to impact African American, First Nation, Latino, Asian Pacific

Islander, and any ethnically difierent children in the science classrooms of our schools.

206 CITATIONS...

Achterberg, J. (1990). Woman as healer A panoramic survey of the healing activities of women from prehistoric times to the present. Boston, MA; Shambhala Publications, Inc.

Alcofi^ L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique. Winter 1991-1992. 5-32.

American Association of University Women,(1995). How schools shortchange girls. New York: Marlowe & Company.

Alic, M. (1986). Hvpatia's heritage: A historv of women in science from antiquitv through the nineteenth centurv. Boston, MA Beacon Press.

Anderson, M. L. (1993). Studying across difference: Race, class, and gender in qualitative research. In J. H. Stanfield & R. M. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicitv in research methods (pp. 39-52). Newbury Park, CA Sage.

Anzaldua, G. (1990). Marks and interfaces. In G. Anzaldua (Ed ), Making face, making soul: Creative and critical perspectives bv feminists of color (pp. xv-xxviii). San Francisco: aunt lute books.

Apple, M. W., & Weis, L. (1983). Ideologv and practice in schooling. Philadelphia, PA Temple University Press.

Asante, M. K. (1992). Kemet. afi~ocentricitv and knowledge. New York: Afiica World Press, Inc.

Atwater, M. M. (1986). We are leaving our minority students behind. The Science Teacher (May 1986), 54-58.

Atwater, M. M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558-576). New York: Macmillan.

Belenky, M. P., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's wavs of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

207 Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A Bell, & P. GrifBn (Eds ), Teaching For diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.

Bern, S. L. (1993). The lenses of sender Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Benditt, J. (1992). Women in science: Pieces of a puzzle. Science. 255. 1365.

Benjamin, W. (1978). Reflections. New York: Schocken Books.

Bernard, H. R. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bleier, R. (1984). Science and sender A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.

Bogdan, R. C , & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

BuUough, V., & Voght, M. (1973). Women, menstruation and 19th centrury medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 47 (Jan.-Feb.). 66-82.

Caraway, N. (1991). Segregated sisterhood: Racism and the politics of American feminism. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.

Carby, H. V. (1987). Reconstructing womanhood: The emergence of the Afiro- American woman novelist. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a- scientist test. Science Education. 67.255-265.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CleweU, B. C , & Anderson, B. (1991). Women of color in mathematics, science, and engineering: A review of the literature. Washington, DC.: Center for Women Policy Studies.

Cobb, J. P. (1979). Filters for women in science. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 323. 236-248.

208 Cohen, B. (1985). Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cole, J. B (1995). Gender and sexism: Commonalities and differences. In M. L. Andersen & P. H. Collins (Eds ), Race, class, and gender (pp. 148-154). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Collins, P H. (1991). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds), Bevond methodology (pp. 35-59). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up; A model for teacher expectation, communication, and performance influence. Review of Education Research. 49. 389- 410. Cose, E. (1993). The rase of a privileged class: Why are middle-class blacks angry? Why should America care? New York: Harper Perennial.

Culotta, E., & Gibbons, A. (1992). Two generations of struggle. Science. 258. 1176.

Curie, E. (1940). Madame Curie: A biography bv Eve Curie. New York: Garden City Publishing Co., Inc.

Degler, C. N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York; Oxford University Press.

DeVito, A., & Krockover, G H. (1980). Creative sciencing: A practical approach. (2nd ed ). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade. New York: Harper Collins.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M C Whitrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books.

Flick, L. (1989). Will the real scientist please stand up. Science Scope (Nov/Dec 1989), 6-7.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds ), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

209 Fort, C., & Vamey, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly white, mostly male, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children (May 8-13), 8-13.

Gagnier, R_ (1990). Feminist postmodernism: The end of feminism or the ends of theory? In D. L. Rhode (Ed ), Theroretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 21- 30). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. USA: Basic Books.

Gilbert, L. A. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles. 1211/21. 111-123.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded therorv. Chicago: Aldine.

Glesne, C , & Peshkin, A (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grier, W. H., & Cobbs, P. M. (1980). Black rage. New York: Basic Books.

Gross, A G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA' Sage.

Haber, L. (1970). Black pioneers of science and invention. San Diego, CA Harcourt Brace Janovich.

Haller, J. S., Jr. (1995). Outcasts from evolution: Scientific attitudes of racial inferiority 1859-1900. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Harding, J. (1996). Science in a masculine strait-jacket. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, & B. J. Fraser (Eds ), Gender, science and mathematics (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

210 Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. (1993). Eurocentric scientific illiteracy - a challenge for the world community. In S. Harding (Ed ), The racial economy of science: Toward a democratic future (pp. 1-22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Print.

Haring, M., & Paludi, M. A. (1992). Power, politics, and sexuality in mentor- protegee relationships: Implications for women's achievement and career development. In S. S. Klein (Ed ), Sex equity and sexuality in education (pp. 223-243). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Hayden, R. C. (1992). Seven Afncan American scientists. Frederick, MD: Twenty-first Century Books.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and white racial identity. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

IBll, O. W., Pettus, W. C , & Hedin, B. A. (1990). Three studies of fectors affecting the attitudes of blacks and females toward the pursuit of science and science- related careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 27 (4). 289-314.

Hoflfinan, K. M., & Stage, E. K. (1993). Science for all: getting it right for the 21st century. Educational Leadership (February 1993), 27-31.

Holden, C. (1993). Are foreigners squeezing minorities out. Science. 262. 1109- 1111.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From maran to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.

hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston, MA: South End Press.

hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.

hooks, b., & West, C. (1991). Breaking bread: Insurgent black intellletual life. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher. 13151. 20-30.

211 Hoy, R. R. (1993). Model minority speaks out on cultural shyness. Science. 262. 1117-1118.

Hubbard, R. (1990). The politics of women's biology. New Brunswick; Rutgers University Press.

Irigaray, L. (1989). Is the subject of science sexed? In N. Tuana (Ed ), Feminism and science, (pp. 58-68). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jamiesons, K. H. (1995). Bevond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, D. S. (1996). To fathom more. Lanbam, MD: University Press of America.

Kable, J. B., Matyas, M. L., & Cbo, H. H. (1985). An assessment of the impact of science experiences on the career choices of male and female biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 22 f5 \ 385-394.

Kable, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed ), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 542- 557). New York: Macmillan.

Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Keller, E. F. (1992). Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essavs on language, gender and science. New York: Routledge.

Kelly, A. (1981). The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from sociology of science. Science Education. 77(2). 207-220.

Kinchloe, J. L., & McClaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds ), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.

212 Klein, A. E. (1971). Hidden contributors: Black scientists and inventors in America. NY; Doubleday and Co., Inc.

Kluckhom, C. (1962). Culture and behavior. NY: The Free Press.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Harper Perennial.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kvale, S. (1996) Inter views: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kvale, S. (1992, April). Interviews and postmodern knowledge. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Lane, N. (1994). Forward., Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1994. (Vol. NSF 94-333). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research. Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange. 17I4L 63-84.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart. NY: Routledge.

Lewis, D. K. (1990). A response to inequality : Black women, racism, and sexism. In M. R. Maison, E. Mudimbe-Boyi, & J. F. O'Barr (Eds ), Black women in America: Social science perspectives (pp. 41-63). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lewontin, R. C. (1992). Biology as ideologv: The doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Perennial.

Lewontin, R. C , Rose, S., & Kamin, L. J. (1984). Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lincoln, Y. (1995). Standards for qualitative inquiry. Invited address at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newport Park, CA: Sage.

Linden, R. R. (1993). Making stories, making selyes. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

213 London, H. I. (1996). Finding a happy medium between facts and superstition. The Chronicle of Higher Education f April 12), B3.

Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

Lorde, A. (1995). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. In J. Arthur & A. Shapiro (Eds ), Campus wars: Muliculturalism and the politics of difference (pp. 191-198). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Manning, K. R. (1983). Black apollo of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. B (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marshall, G. A. (1993). Radical classifications: Popular and scientific. In S. Harding (Ed.l. The racial economy of science: Toward a democratic future (pp. 116- 127). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Martinez, J. V. (1976). Spanish-sumamed Americans in science: Availability and barriers. In V. L. Melnick & F. D. Hamilton (Eds ), Mhorities in science: The challenge for change in biomedicine, (pp. 9-15). NY: Plenum Press.

Massey, W. E. (1992). A success story amid decades of disappointment. Science. 258. 1177-1179.

Matthews, G. P. (1982). An example of the teacher expectation effect in mixed ability teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 19.497-502.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA Sage.

McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies. In M. L. Andersen & P. H. Collins (Eds ), Race, class, and gender (pp. 76-87). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Paric, CA Sage.

214 Mîller, S. K. (1992). Asian-Americans bump against glass ceilings. Science. 258. 1224-1228.

Morantz-Sanchez, R. M. (1985). Sympathy & science: Women physicians in American medicine. New Yoric: Oxford Uniyersity Press.

Nakanishi, D. T. (1989). A quota on ©ccellence? The Asian American admissions dd)ate. ChangefNoyember/December 1989), 39-47.

National Academy of Sciences. (1989). On being a scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation (1996). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1996. (Vol. NSF 96-311). Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation (1994). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1994. (Vol. NSF 94-333). Arlington, VA.

Noble, D. F. (1992). A world without women: The Christian clerical culture of Western science. New York: Alfred A KnopC Inc.

Noddings, N. (1992). Gender and the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed ), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 659-684). New York: Macmillan.

Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of Education. Boulder, CO.: Westyiew Press.

Olden, K. (1993). Bringing the science back to the neighborhood. Science. 262. 1116.

Olesen, V. (1994). Feminisms and models of qualitatiye research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 158-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orenstein, P. (1994). School girls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Doubleday.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Oualhative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearson, W., Jr. (1985). Black scientists, white society and colorless science: A study of universalism in American science.. NY: Associated Faculty Press.

215 Peltz, W. H. (1990). Can girls + science - stereotypes = success ? The Science Teacher (December 1990), 44-49.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21.

Poland, B. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 1 (3). 290-311.

Proctor, R. N. (1991). Value-free science? Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.

Reid, P. T., & Comas-Dias, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status. Sex Roles. 22 (7/8T 397-408.

Richardson, L. (1990). Narrative and sociology. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 19(11.116-135.

Riordan, C (1992). Single- and mixed-gender colleges for women: Educational, attitudinal, and occupational outcomes. The Review of ICgher Education. 15(31.327- 346.

Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Council's National Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34(11.19-37.

Ross, A. (1991). Strange weather Culture, science and technology in the aee of limits. New York: Verso.

Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rothenberg, P. S. (1995). Racism, sexism, and class difference. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed ), Race, class, and gender in the United States (pp. 65-69). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. NY: Oxford University Press.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Sarkar, H. (1983). A theory of method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

216 Sayre, A. (1975). Rosalind Franklin and DNA. NY: Norton.

Schaefer, R. T. (1990). Racial and ethnic groups. USA: Harper Collins Publishers.

Schoirich, J. J. (1996). The masks of validity: A deconstructive investigation. Qualitative Studies in Education. 9(1). 49-60.

Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schroeder, D. S., & Mynatt, C. R. (1993). Female graduate students' perceptions of their interactions with male and female major professors. Journal of Higher Education. 64(5), 555-573.

Schuman, H., Steeh, C , & Bobo, L. (1985). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (1964). Part B of P.L.96516, 94 Stat. 3010 as amended by P.L. 99159. Sec. 32(b).

Sebrechts, J. S. (1992). The cultivation of scientists at women's colleges. The Journal of NIH Research. 4 (June 1992), 22-26.

Sethi, R. C. (1995). Smells like racism. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed ), Race, class, and sender in the United States (pp. 89-99). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Seymour, E. (1995). Why undergraduates leave the sciences. American Journal ofPhvsics. 63(3V 199-202.

Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Reforming science education to include girls. Theory into Practice. 34(11.227-232.

Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sharpe, N. R. (1995). Sisters spell success in science. AWIS Maga^'ne 24f5~t 12-14.

Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Gender bias in the classroom: A self- evaluation. Science and Children. November/December. 38-41.

Shipman, P. (1994). The evolution of racism: Human differences and the use and abuse of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.

217 Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Sims, C. (1992). What went wrong: Why programs failed. Science. 258. 1 ISS­ US?.

Sowell, T. (19S1). Ethnic America: Ahistorv. New York: Basic Books.

Sowell, T. (1994). Race and culture: A woiid view. New York: Basic Books.

Spear, M. G. (19S4). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Research in Science Technolgical Education. 2. 55-60.

Spelman, E. V. (19SS). Inessential woman. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stanfield, J. H. (1994). Ethic modeling in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 175-lSS). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.

Stanfield, J. H. (1993). Epistemologjcal considerations. In J. H. Stanfield & R. M. Dennis (Eds ), Race and ethnicitv in research methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1991). Feminist research, feminist consciousness, and experiences of sexism. In M. M. Fonow & J. A Cook (Eds ), Bevond methodology (pp. 265-283). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education. 78f41. 387-398.

Stepan, N. L. (1996). Race and gender The role of analogy in science. In E. Fox Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds ), Feminism and science (pp. 121-136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, A , & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Suzuki, B. H. (1989). Asian Americans as the "model minority". Change (November/December 1989), 13-19.

Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development. Harvard Educational Review. 62. 1-24.

218 Tesch, R. (1993). Software for qualitative researchers: Analysis needs and program capabilities. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 16-37). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnographv. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tibord, M. (1973). Toward the development of an instrument to measure attitudes toward science in Negro students: A research paper. School Science and Mathematics. 73(51. 367-372.

Tidball, M. E. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates. Journal of Higher Education. 56. 385-395.

Tiemey, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Communitv and socialization in academe. New York: State University of New York Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Tobias, S. (1990). Thev*re not dumb. thev*re different. Tucson, AZ: The Research Corporation.

Travis, J. (1993). Schools stumble on an afrocentric science essay. Science. 262.

1121- 1122 .

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Uttal, L. (1990). Inclusion without influence: The continuing tokenism of women of color. In G. Anzaldua (Ed ), Making face, making soul: Creative and critical perspectives bv feminists of color (pp. 42-45). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

Valencia, R R (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R R. Valencia (Ed ), The evolution o f deficit thinking (pp. 1-12). London: The Falmer Press.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnographv. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Suny Press.

Van Seitima, I. (1983). Blacks in science: Ancient and modem. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

219 Warren, C. A. B. (1988). Gender issues in field research. Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

Washburn, S. L. (1993). The study of race. In S. Harding (Ed.), The racial economy of science: Toward a demoaratic future (pp. 128-132). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix. NY: Atheneum.

Wax, R. H. (1971). Doing fieldworic. Chicago; The University of Chicî^o Press.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.

Wolcott, R F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Woo, E. (1997, Sunday, May 11,1997). Girls don't lag in math, study says. Columbus Dispatch, pp. 6B.

Yentsch, C. M., & Sindermann, C. J. (1992). The woman scientist: Meeting the challenges for a successfirl career. New York: Plenum Press.

Yount, L. (1991). Black scientists. NY: Facts on File.

Zinn, M. B. (1970). Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological, and political observations by an insider. Social Problems. 27(21. 209- 219.

Znaniecki, F. (1980). Cultural sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

2 2 0