I have to admit that, selfishly, getting to do this project and reading these letters has been a fantastic opportunity. The thoughtfulness of what has been written and the insights the women participating have provided are amazing. I am personally learning so much. I like today's letter because it offers a bit of very specific advice for success. It's a piece of advice that I had never heard, but has sure gotten me to thinking. We can discuss it in the comments after you've all read the letter.
Our fifth letter in the series comes from Pamela Carmines, PhD, FAHA, FASN. Dr. Carimes is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Cellular & Integrative Physiology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine. She is an R01-funded renal physiologist interested in the "intracellular signaling mechanisms involved in the evoking renal arteriolar contractile responses." She's the author of 76 publications and, as chair of the Section Advisory Committee, is an active member of the American Physiological Society. With that, here are her thoughts on serving on committees...
We know the statistics: Women scientists are lost from academia at all career stages. It's not a matter of filling the pipeline. Rather, the vestibule into which the pipeline flows is extremely leaky. As I cannot plug the leak, I at least want to bring to our daughters attention two under-appreciated phenomena that may limit the advancement of women in academia and/or the seriousness with which our activities are perceived.
1) When I sat on the American Physiological Society (APS) Committee on Committees, I became aware of the following phenomenon: When an enthusiastic young woman accepts a faculty appointment in a physiology department, she is almost immediately nominated by her chair to serve on the APS Women in Physiology Committee. This nomination is so predictable that it must be routinely tendered without any consideration of whether this new faculty member might prove to be more interested in and/or more effective as a member of any of the 20+ other APS committees. I believe strongly that many/most of our male colleagues view the Women in Physiology Committee (or the Women in Nephrology organization, etc) as simply a distraction from the primary goals of advancing the Society or the scientific discipline. Of course, they are mistaken; but, is it possible that compartmentalizing ourselves into the women's group associated with an organization might actually impede our efforts to have "equal" (or higher) status in the eyes of our male peers? Might we more effectively advance the acceptance/status of women in our disciplines by becoming fully integrated into the mainstream "workings" of our Societies? Food for thought...
2) The high muckety-mucks are under pressure to have women serving on every committee in your university. As there are considerably fewer women than men in academia, this results in women faculty members bearing a heavier committee burden than men at similar career stages. Moreover, women who actually take committee assignments seriously end up appointed to even more committees! (Maybe some men faculty members avoid committee assignments by being completely useless as committee members, but I doubt they are clever enough to routinely pull off this ploy en masse.) The usual consequence of an excessive committee load for women faculty members is that they have less time available for generating hot science, papers and GRANTS! These women's careers are adversely affected. A few years ago, I pointed out to my chair that I had been appointed to 3 departmental committees (I was the only woman faculty member in the department), and I asked if this workload could be spread more broadly as, after all, some faculty members were not on any committees. He responded, "Really? Who?" I mentioned several names, and he looked at the assignment list in complete amazement... Within a couple of days, a revised list of committee assignments was produced, and the time available for my scholarly activities increased simultaneously. Sometimes, you just need to open their eyes in order to advance your career. Otherwise, just say "No."
Pamela Carmines
Education & Careers
Medicine & Health
Comments
Great post - both #1 and #2 make a lot of sense, but aren't things I would have thought about a priori. Thanks for passing on the insight to those of us youngins - hopefully we can learn from your experience and avoid some of these issues. On the flip side, I do think that having "women"-focused committees is an implicit message to the unenlightened that No, This Problem is Not Resolved. But I totally see the double-edged sword in compartmentalizing ourselves, and that's a very valid point and something to be avoided. Wouldn't it also be helpful to have a more equal balance of men on the women-oriented committees? These issues affect them as well, and my understanding is that the "women in physiology" committee, for example, is predominantly female. Perhaps if it was a more 50/50 balance...for that matter, it would be nice if all the committees had a better balance...but I digress. :)
Posted by: anon | May 15, 2009 7:30 AM
This is so true! A friend of mine, the only woman in her department, was on TWO search committees this past year, whereas her male colleagues were on at most one (and some were on none).
In addition, we are asked to do more recruiting and outreach than our (non-underrepresented minority) male counterparts. I spent two hours a couple of weeks ago in a promotional photo shoot (with another woman and one man -- the exact gender balance of our workplace, of course!). I'm often asked to attend conferences and visit my alma mater in order to recruit. And I get recruited to give talks at schools.
All of these are worthwhile activities, and I firmly believe that I should do them. But it's volunteer work on my own time -- it's not valued at all. My friend could have spent the time she was doing committee work on writing another paper or two; in the name of gender equity, her performance review won't go as well as her male colleagues'. Likewise, while I'm getting all glammed up for my photo shoot, or traveling across the country to recruit, or speaking to middle schoolers, I could be doing some hot science instead. And my record is going to be adversely impacted unless I work extra hours to make up for it.
That's why I think they should have some sort of equivalency tradeoff, where one search committee == one paper, one week of recruiting == one paper, etc. But most institutions don't value service and outreach.
Posted by: Rebecca | May 15, 2009 8:48 AM
Absolutely true, both points. On search committees - the burden is actually mandated somewhere up the line to "ensure diversity" - but has negative effects for sure.
We do have some sort of equivalency tradeoff in our institution - our teaching dean has a formula into which many things get put. Unfortunately the tradeoff isn't so favourable as Rebecca suggested! And what it ends up doing is highlighting disparities in teaching loads within departments, so not sure it helps. I think spreading the load is the best solution, but you can't meet diversity guidelines and spread the load unless you've really already balanced the system ...
Posted by: Drew | May 15, 2009 9:23 AM
I have couple of comments:
1) The Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy is mandated to have at least two men on the committee: http://members.aas.org/comms/women.cfm . This is a Good Thing. I can't say I know much about the politics of the appointments of the other American Astronomical Society committees...
2) Women (and minorities) in science also take on an extra share of mentoring, too, precisely because there are so few of us. This is a valuable service, but again, a service that is not necessarily valued by our evaluators.
Posted by: Hannah | May 15, 2009 10:04 AM
I'm not familiar with the workings of universities, but I figured that they are lately more and more interested in money. Outreach and committee work don't (in most cases) get grant money for the university, and probably won't get enough publicity to help the university, while papers help the university get grants, which is cash in pocket. So I assumed that the Us treat outreach and service as matters of conscience, as acts they know they ought to support but get no profit from and so don't really care so much about. Universities can't admit to their funders that they don't care about outreach and service, but Us get no pay from outreach and service (and so have no self-interest in caring), so the Us simply impose the duties on others and then forget. Unless funders (states/grant agencies) make the outreach and service goals important for funding, they probably won't be rewarded by Us.
Posted by: Hap | May 15, 2009 10:05 AM
Great letter from Pam, "my sister in science."
I would like to make a pitch for "Women in _____" committees. First, they do raise the sexism issue and keep it in the minds of men that in most scientific circles females are still a minority. Second, some have done really good things with mentoring; Women in Nephrology puts on a career symposium at the American Society of Nephrology Meeting that has been very well attended. The other task this group has taken on is getting women to apply to committees within the ASN. It's really important to work on these "groups within the group" if you want to ascend the power structure someday. Men automatically get mentored to do this; women are less likely to be on important committees (both in organizations and their institutions).
Posted by: Pascale | May 15, 2009 11:39 AM
It is true that the "Women in _____" committees serve important functions, including putting on symposia. However, I have also overheard men at meetings when considering which symposia to attend simply blow off such symposia with the comment, "Oh, that's the women's session." They don't usually seriously even look at the topic! Also, FYI, I think that the APS just approved appointment of a man to the Women in Physiology committee. So, some progress is being made in that regard.
Posted by: Pam Carmines | May 15, 2009 12:06 PM
Pam, I guess I could just go upstairs and talk with you but then other would not have the benefit of my words of wisdom! Certainly, I agree with all you have said and I think all women in academic settings should be aware of this problem. I'm glad you showed me the light, and that I was able to reduce your administrative burden. To be honest my motivation for nominating you for whatever committees I did related more to my assessment of your capablities and hard work than to your gender. Inadvertently, I think you were overburdened. Now that you are running the graduate program and doing hot science, all is calm right? From my perspective gender balance should always be kept in mind but not to the degree that any one individual is drowned the administrative quagmire.
Irv
Posted by: Irv Zucker | May 15, 2009 12:35 PM
Another excellent letter! I am really happy that the first few commenter have affirmed the need for Women in____ Committees, They exist because they do serve a purpose, they fill a need that is out there.
I have to say that I did not read Pams letter to say that those committees should be eliminated, just that we need to advocate for equality from both inside and outside the mainstream groups. I know many men that would be happy to serve on a women in ___ committee, from CPP to men IRL who have been nothing but fierce in advocating for equality. Many of the issues (NOT all) that are thought to be "women" issues really are becoming parental issues and need to have both men and women advocating for their removal.
Posted by: ScientistMother | May 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Thanks, Irv. Also, ScientistMother is correct -- the idea is to advocate not only from Women in ____ Committees but also within the mainstream groups!
Posted by: Pam Carmines | May 15, 2009 1:00 PM
I agree with ScientistMother that Women in ____ Committees are not dealing exclusively with "women" issues - this is a good point. The things they try to address include both both "parental" issues and "minority" issues (which apply to a lot of minorities other than women).
Posted by: anon | May 15, 2009 1:11 PM
Are we sure that came from Irv - and that we're not being zuckered?
Posted by: Pascale | May 15, 2009 1:23 PM
Pam highlights two very important issues for young women starting out in science careers. I've heard the extra service load that women faculty (and faculty members from other underrepresented groups) referred to as the "minority tax". Enlightened administrators need to help ensure that junior faculty members don't get overburdened by committee work, even if they are very good at it, when they need to be establishing their professional credentials. I also second the comments about the importance of both "Women in ___" committees and active participation of women on other committees in professional societies.
Posted by: Peggy L | May 15, 2009 1:41 PM
In addition, we must note that many (but not all) of the now women leaders of other committees (and council) in the American Physiological Society did start with the Women in Physiology Committee. The Women's committee has been a great training ground for capable women leaders to be recognized by the society (and I was never on the committee).
Posted by: Barb | May 15, 2009 2:01 PM
This is so true, and starts way earlier than professorship. Already as a grad student, I am supposed to take every female potential student out to a meal, meet with every female being interviewed by the department or simply visiting, and mentor any female undergrads. I am also expected to represent the student body at any official occasions and be a visible part of student committees and organizations. My long list of "service" activities gives me a lot of experience but does limit the time I could be doing research. I am still learning how to say no, especially since many of the activities seem to have a good cause, but there is no question that I am recruited for service jobs far more often than my male peers.
Posted by: sciencegirl | May 15, 2009 2:08 PM
I also was never on the Women in Physiology committee. I got my training wheels through involvement in the Renal Section (a subfield-oriented group within the APS), and shed those wheels by serving on the APS Membership Committee. While serving on the Women in ___ committee can be a great training ground for capable women leaders, this should not necessarily be the default training ground for women. Moreover, in composing this comment, it occurred to me that Women in ____ committees should probably not be viewed as a training ground, as these groups have very real/necessary/sophisticated purposes. Every committee needs newbies, as well as more established participants!
Posted by: Pam Carmines | May 15, 2009 3:18 PM
While I agree that we (women and other minorities) must "protect" ourselves from excess committee work, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
I'm reminded of one colleague (a man) who was always complaining that Hispanics were not represented on every major committee; however, he had time for only one or two himself. At that level of commitment, there simply weren't enough Hispanic faculty to serve on every committee! There are generally a few more female faculty at the med center level, so an important committee without a woman is wrong. Within departments this may not be the case, especially in basic sciences. Thus, we have to be careful that we don't demand something that is going to make us do too much committee work or look foolish.
Posted by: Pascale | May 15, 2009 4:58 PM
Can't emphasize point #1 enough. The women's committees in my two relevant societies have been (a) completely ineffectual and (b) abolished, thanks largely to the continuing conservative movement overtaking my field.
I think we could do a lot more good if we had women on other committees who looked out for other women. Instead we only have women who are looking to further their own careers.
re: point #2, this is old news. Everybody needs to learn to say No sometimes, and diversity is a good thing. If some people aren't serving, then by all means point it out to the chair or the dean or whomever. But be prepared for the backlash. Your life might get better in the short run, but not everyone will thank you for your thoughtful input that got you off the hook and put them on it.
Posted by: msphd | May 16, 2009 3:13 PM
It isn't just about the time spent on committees. It's also about the opportunity to volunteer. My closest friend and collaborator in the department is a woman hired the same year as me. We both got put on the same number of committees, but she got the heavier load--not all committees are created equal, with some having bigger workloads than others, and the more important ones tend to have bigger workloads. Then she got "asked" by the Dean if she would "agree" to serve on a few other things. Meanwhile, I volunteered for a few other things relevant to my research and teaching interests, and started another service project on my own. I could do this because nobody was dumping stuff on me. She has less flexibility.
So even when women and men are apparently on the same number of service tasks, it may be that the men got to volunteer and shape their load to suit their interests, while women got pushed into committees by administrators eager to display numbers.
Posted by: Alex | May 17, 2009 2:59 AM
G'day from Australia.
All I can say is YESSSS! This, indeed, happens everywhere.
Learning to say 'No' is a very important skill, and one which some of us did not learn early enough.
Daughters-in-Science, and busy people everywhere should take this wise advice.
(And if you are interested in committees, you can learn to say 'No' to other things instead, just as long as you learn to say it when it is appropriate).
d.
Posted by: d. | May 17, 2009 8:34 PM
wow. Excellent point, and I'd have to say I agree with it, from what I've seen of my female professors over the years who do serve actively on committees. It seems there's a particular balance that many are not able to attain. They want to serve well on committees, be taken seriously, and be respected within the committee group. They can exact change, help people along, etc, depending on the committee's function, but often at a sacrifice of their own time and research. I will try to keep this concept in mind when I eventually get to this point in my own career, trying to remember that although I want to help out everywhere, perhaps everyone and myself would be better suited for me to be selective.
Posted by: katiebug ladydid | May 20, 2009 10:50 AM