Abstract
Supporting and advancing women’s science careers continues to be of interest to researchers, scientists, science funders, and universities. Similarly, professional advice and support networks are important to understanding the advancement of scientific careers. This research aims to marry these two lines of research to investigate and compare the ways in which men and women scientists seek advice and support from women in their networks. Using a sample of academic scientists in nonmedical biology, chemistry, computer science, earth and atmospheric sciences, electrical engineering, and physics we assess the extent to which women and men scientists seek advice and support from women in their networks. We find that field of science is the primary predictor for the presence of women in scientists’ advice and support networks. We also find that citizenship, rank, age, and friendship are significantly related to the proportion of women in women’s networks, but are not consistently significantly related to the proportion of women in men’s networks. We conclude with a discussion of the findings and the distinctions between men and women scientists’ advice and support networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Non-responses due to bad addresses were removed for the calculation of response rate.
Exact question wording: Q1. Over the past two academic years, which individuals at your university have been your closest research collaborators? Collaboration includes proposal generation, working on a research project, writing/presenting an academic paper/book or book chapter, or developing industrial products or patents. Q2. Over the past two academic years, who have been your closest research collaborators outside of your institution (including other academic institutions, government, and industry?) Q3. With which individuals do you regularly talk with about research but have never formally collaborated? Q4. From whom do you seek advice about your career or professional development? Q5. With whom do you regularly talk about important university or department related issues?
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Browne, K. R. (2004). Women in the workplace: Evolutionary perspectives and public policy. In C. Crawford & C. Salmon (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology, public policy, and personal decisions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 367–375.
Curtin, J. M., Blake, G., & Cassagnau, C. (1997). The climate for women graduate students in physics. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3, 95–117.
Emmett, A. (1992). A woman’s institute of technology. Technology Review, 16–18.
Epstein, C. F. (1970). Woman’s place: Options and limits in professional careers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Etzkowitz, H., & Kemelgor, C. (2001). Gender inequality in science: A universal condition. Minerva, 39, 153–174.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., Uzzi, B., & Alonzo, J. (1994). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266, 51–54.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fox-Keller, E. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Handelsman, J., Cantor, N., Carnes, M., Denton, D., Fine, E., Grosz, B., et al. (2005). More women in science. Science, 309, 1190–1191.
Horning, B. (1993). The controversial career of evelyn fox keller. Technology Review, 58–68.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
Kemelgor, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2001). Overcoming isolation: Women’s dilemmas in American academic science. Minerva, 39(2), 239–257.
Konrad, A. M. (1986). The impact of workgroup composition on social integration and evaluation. PhD Dissertation, Claremont University, Claremont, CA.
Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2007). Lotka’s distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 308–337.
Kulis, S., & Sicotte, D. (2002). Women scientists in academia: Geographically constrained to big cities, college clusters, or the coasts? Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 1–30.
Kulis, S., Chong, Y., & Shaw, H. (1999). Discriminatory organizational contexts and black scientists on postsecondary faculties. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 115–148.
Kulis, S., Sicotte, D., & Collins, S. (2002). More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 43(6), 657–691.
Lee, S. (2004). Foreign-born scientists in the United States: Do they perform differently than native-born scientists? PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46, 393–405.
Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71, 159–178.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
National Academies of Science. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2004). Division of science resources statistics. Doctoral Scientists and Engineers: 2001 Profile Tables NSF 04-312.
National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering doctorate award. Survey of Earned Doctorates 1997–2006. Washington DC.
National Science Foundation. (2009). ADVANCE: Increasing the participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383.
Oliver, P. E., & Marwell, G. (1988). The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass. II. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 1–8.
Pepe, A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2009). Collaboration in sensor network research: An in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns. Scientometrics, Published online 31 December 2009. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0147-2.
Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., & Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond work-family balance: Advancing gender equity and workplace performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rodriguez, M. A., & Pepe, A. (2008). On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a coauthorship network. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 195–201.
Rosenfeld, R. (1984). Academic career mobility for psychologists. In V. B. Haas & C. C. Perrucci (Eds.), Women in scientific and engineering professions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sabharwal, M. (2008). Examining the job satisfaction patterns of foreign-born scientists and engineers in the academy: a comparison with U.S. born faculty. Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual APPAM Research Conference.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Stewart, A. J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 270–281.
Seymour, E. (1995). The Loss of women from science, mathematics and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 34, 110–131.
South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markjam, W. T., & Corder, J. (1982). Social structure and intergroup interaction. American Sociological Review, 47, 599–687.
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., Rhoads, R.A. (1993). Enhancing promotion, tenure and beyond: Faculty socialization as a cultural process (pp. 63–72). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6, Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Toren, N., & Kraus, V. (1987). The effects of minority size on women’s position in academia. Social Forces, 65(4), 1090–1100.
Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198–213.
Zuckerman, H. (1989). Accumulation of advantage and disadvantage: The theory and its intellectual biography. In C. M. S. Tabboni (Ed.), L’Opera di R. K. Merton e la Sociologia Contemporeana. Genoa: Edizioni Culturali Internationali Genova.
Acknowledgments
Data analyzed in this paper were collected under the auspices of the 2005–2009 project, “Women in Science and Engineering: Network Access, Participation, and Career Outcomes”, (NETWISE) a project funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant # REC-0529642; Co-PIs Dr. Julia Melkers and Dr. Eric Welch). All content is the expression of the authors alone and does not represent the views of the NSF or NETWISE principal investigators. All usual disclaimers apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix I
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feeney, M.K., Bernal, M. Women in STEM networks: who seeks advice and support from women scientists?. Scientometrics 85, 767–790 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0256-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0256-y