Why are there fewer women in the
sciences? This question has
recently appeared in the headlines of many popular media sources, including The New York Times, and has been the
focus of an incredible amount of scientific studies (Pollack, 2013; Halpern et
al., 2007; Ceci & Williams, 2010). Many studies have examined innate
cognitive differences and early socialization factors as the root of these
differences (Halpern et al., 2007; Ceci & Williams, 2010). Despite significant
differences in these early factors, there seems to be no drastic effects on
women’s early participation in science related fields overall:[1]
throughout high school, women tend to outperform men in math in science classes,
and enroll in the same number of science and math classes as men (Halpern et
al., 2007; Ceci & Williams 2010). Furthermore, according to the National
Science Foundation (2013), women earn about 50.3% of all science and engineering
bachelor degrees. After graduation, however, the attrition rate of women from
science related fields drastically increases (Halpern et al., 2007). This
suggests that the substantial decrease in the number of women in the field must
be more heavily related to factors that become increasingly relevant during and
after women’s undergraduate years, like the development of mentor-protégé
relationships. In this post I will investigate potential sex differences in
access to, benefits of, and level of support in mentor-protégé relationships
and ways in which they may facilitate the attrition of female participation in
the sciences.
Mentor-protégé
relationships: Definitions and benefits
Throughout the literature, the definition
of a mentor, as well as the mentor-protégé relationship, varies (Jacobi, 1991).
Despite general differences, there are many common underlying themes present in
the definitions used across studies – definitions all focus on an established
personal connection between a protégé and a more senior mentor that is
reciprocal, and highlight similar ways in which the relationship functions. The
primary functions of these relationships are to influence and foster protégé
success through emotional and psychological support, direct assistance, role
modeling, and professional development (Jacobi, 1991).
The support of mentor-protégé relationships
during undergraduate years, and throughout the course of one’s profession, is
instrumental in later success. Many studies have documented the positive
effects of such relationships, including: higher compensation, more promotion
opportunities, increased chance of early success, and increased career satisfaction
(Young et al., 2006). These relationships, explicitly during undergraduate
years, could also work to keep women engaged in male-typical majors, like the
sciences, and work to buffer women from forms of discrimination that may cause
them to leave the field altogether (Jacobi, 1991; Ragins and Cotton, 1999).
While the benefits of protégé-mentor relationships may work to decrease the
attrition rate of women in the sciences, often times women have limited access
to mentors, establish different mentor relationships than their male peers, and
tend to have differing outcomes as a result (Young et al, 2006; Jacobi et al.,
1991; Milkman et al., 2014; Johnson, 1989; Bushardt et al., 1991; Ragins and
Cotton, 1991; Klabflisch and Keyton, 1995).
Sex
differences in factors of mentor-protégé relationships
Johnson (1989) found that women were less likely than their
male peers to have a mentor during their undergraduate years. Furthermore, many studies document a
significant difference in the way professors respond to particular students’ initiation
of mentor-protégé relationships (Young et al., 2006). A
more recent study that investigated differences in professors responses to
student inquiries in terms of sex and ethnicity/race (Milkman et al, 2014). In this study, researchers sent out 6,500
emails to faculty at 259 top institutions across the country pretending to be
students – every email was exactly identical with the exception of the name
(the name was either male or female, white or nonwhite). Within the emails, “students”
would discuss their interest in the professor’s particular field of study, ask
if they had any potential insights, and whether they would be willing to
discuss potential research opportunities. Professors across 89 disciplines
responded to emails that contained a white male name more often than they
responded to emails that contained a white female name, or a male or female
nonwhite name. In particular, professors in the life sciences, health sciences,
and physical and mathematical sciences, responded to emails sent by women of
all ethnic and racial backgrounds (with the exception of black male and
females) significantly less often than they responded to their ethnicity/race
matched male counterparts. These findings suggest that men, and particularly
white men, tend to have greater access to potential mentors than women do
within the sciences. Lack of responses to informal mentoring inquiries may
cause women, as well as those of color, in the sciences to lose interest or leave
the field because they are unable to compete with their male peers with greater
access to the benefits of mentor-protégé relationships.
Women who attempt to establish
mentor-protégé relationships report encountering obstacles, like lack of
responses to inquiries, more often than their male peers (Young et al., 2006;
Ragins and Cotton, 1991). Ragins and Cotton (1991) surveyed employees (229
women and 281 men) from three research and developmental organizations about
their experience with mentors and their perceived obstacles in obtaining a
mentor-protégé relationship. They found that men and women reported no
significant difference in extensive mentoring experience,[2]
however men experienced more moderate levels of mentoring than women did. In
addition, women reported having a more difficult time obtaining a mentor than
males did, even after controlling for age, experience, rank, and position. While
it is possible that the observed difference in perceived obstacles may be due
to women overestimating difficulty, the findings may also suggest that the
women in the study may have had to work harder to obtain the same mentor
experiences as their male colleagues.
Perceptions of protégés may contribute to
a mentor’s decision in selecting a protégé, and may serve as an obstacle to
gaining access to a mentor. Mentors often assess, implicitly or explicitly, a
student’s fit within the field in question and potential before pursuing a
mentor-protégé relationship (Young et al. 2006). As the success of protégés
often leads to rewards within a mentor’s career, including increased peer and
manager recognition, and failed protégés, who are unable to accumulate success
or drop out of the field, diminish their mentor’s success, selecting the right protégé is important for a mentor (Young
et al. 2006). As such, strong negative stereotypes about women in science,
including diminished capabilities in visuospatial and quantitative abilities,
may decrease the likelihood that a mentor will select a female protégé. The accuracy
of such perceptions does not entirely matter as the perceptions themselves may also
work as a barrier for women seeking access to informal mentoring.
In addition to perceptions of the
protégé, Scandura and Ragins (1993) found that the gender of the field is an
important factor in predicting access to mentor support (as cited by Young et
al. 2006). If the field is more masculine (defined as having at least 70% male
representation), female protégés tend to have less access to mentors. Decreased
access to mentors in male-dominated fields may simply stem from there being fewer
women in higher tier positions to serve as mentors for female protégés.
As there are more male scientists than female
scientists, female students have less access to same-sex mentors as their male
peers do. As a result, females who develop mentor-protégé relationships within
these fields tend to have a male mentor (Young et al., 2006). Many studies have shown that female
protégés tend to actually benefit more from having a male mentor than they do
having a female mentor (although data is inconsistent within the literature), however,
cross-sex mentor-protégé relationships may be more difficult to establish than
same-sex mentor-protégé relationships (Young et al., 2006).
Several of studies have shown that male mentors
and female protégés tend to report fear that mentorships may be perceived as having some sort of sexual undertone
(Young et al. 2006; Bushardt et al., 1991; Ragins and Cotton, 1991). This fear
often prevents the initiation of such relationships. Bushardt et al. (1991)
suggests that these fears also prevent established cross-sex mentor-protégé
dyads from engaging in informal interactions, such as meeting behind closed
doors or eating meals with one another alone. Decreased access to informal
social encounters due to social reasons prevents cross-sex mentor-protégé dyads
from establishing closer and long-term bonds with one another, factors that promote
later career outcomes typical of such relationships. Perhaps as a result,
several studies have shown that males tend to have longer-term, more enriching
mentorships than their female peers (Young et al., 2006; Ragins and Cotton,
1999).
While male-female cross-sex
mentor-protégé relationships are harder to establish, in male-dominated industries
and in more masculine positions, they tend to yield the highest benefits. Dougherty
et al. (2013) examined differences in mentor relationships and outcomes in male
dominated fields. They based their research on the signaling theory, which proposes
visibility of the relationship with high status mentors, namely males in more
senior positions within a company, signal the protégé’s high potential and lead
to increased career outcomes. The authors posited that females should benefit
the most under the framework of this theory. While males should benefit the
most when we consider all other factors, signaling theory posits because those
kinds of relationships are more common, the tokenism of the senior-male and
female protégé is more salient and amplifies the signal that she is a contender
for upward mobility (Dougherty et al., 2013).
In
their first study, Dougherty et al. (2013) collected questionnaires from male
and female professionals who graduated from an undergraduate state business
school program 11 years earlier. The questionnaire collected information on the
subject’s mentor-protégé relationship experience, their gender, and their
career outcomes (salary and career satisfaction). All respondents (n=356) used
in the data analysis were employed in full-time positions, 98% self-identified
as Caucasian, and they all worked within male-dominated business firms. After
controlling for confounding factors (years with employer, number of company changes,
level of education, socioeconomic status, organization size, protégé job level,
etc.), they found that females with experience in mentor-protégé relationships
with a senior-male mentor did not report higher career outcomes than males with
similar relationships as they had expected; women and men with senior-male
mentors actually fared about the same. However, there was a greater difference
in career outcome reports between females with and without senior-male mentors (those
who had senior-male mentors had greater career outcomes) than between males
with and without senior-male mentors. This suggests that the role of a senior-male
mentor may offset potential sex differences that may deter or prevent women
from achieving similar levels of success as their male counterparts.
Dougherty et al. (2013) conducted a
second study to determine whether these findings could be replicated in a more
male-dominated field and a male-dominated specialty position –software
engineers at a major aerospace manufacturing firm. They collected
questionnaires from males (n=292) and females (n=56) with similar educational
backgrounds and experience in the firm. The questionnaires, like in their first
study, reported the subject’s gender, mentor relationship, and career outcome
(salary and career satisfaction). Again, they found that women with senior-male
mentors fared about the same as men in the field while females with non-senior
mentors fared far worse than males with non-senior-male mentors. This supports
the previous suggestion that having a senior-male mentor could potentially offset
sex differences in career outcomes in male-dominated fields, like the sciences,
for women.
While
the study conducted by Dougherty et al. (2013) presents interesting data, there
are many flaws that make the conclusions less reliable. First, the degree of
the relationship the subject has with their mentor may differ within the sample
and could have potentially skewed the results. Second, the number of female
respondents was significantly lower than that of male respondents, which could
have again led to skewed data. And in addition, we cannot determine that the
mentor relationship was the cause of enhanced career outcome, as other factors,
such as the protégé’s individual achievement and personality, may have
independently led to their success. Furthermore, those with higher achievement
and potential may have had increased access to mentors in general.
A similar study, conducted by Ragins and
Cotton (1999), investigated career outcomes in relation to mentor-protégé
relationships. Female (n=654) and male (n=500) subjects across fields were
assessed using standard surveys used to determine history of mentoring
relationships, including The Mentor Role Instrument (MRI), and standardized
career outcome surveys, including Duncan’s Multiple Range test. Overall, they
found that women and men across fields do not differ in the likelihood of
having mentor. They also found that those with male mentors tended to have enhanced
career outcomes than other groups and that mentor-protégé relationships were
less effective for female protégés than male protégés overall. This difference
could be due to the differences in the type of relationship that female
protégés develop with their mentors.
The amount of support provided by the
mentor may differ on the basis of sex, causing differences in career outcomes. In
male-dominated fields, even when females obtain a male mentor, stereotyping may
lead mentors to diminish the contributions of a female protégé, or prevent them
from developing a closer relationship (Young et al., 2006). Furthermore, the mentor-protégé
relationship may be more centered around male-relationship patterns than
female-relationship patterns, causing them to be less beneficial for females. Klabflisch
and Keyton (1995) propose that mentor-protégé relationships develop in a
similar fashion as female friendship relationships, which may account for
differences in levels of support and resulting outcomes. Females tend to
develop their relationships by sharing personal accounts and interacting with
others one-on-one, while males tend to interact in more of a group setting. These
differences in interaction style, may affect the closeness and development of
the mentor-protégé relationship.
Another explanation is that protégés may
be more liked by their mentors based on interests, values and sex (Young et al.
2006). Ensher and Murphy (2007) found that those who considered themselves to
be more similar to their mentors tended to have more positive and increased
interactions with them. As a result, since females tend to have more
cross-gender mentor-protégé relationships within the sciences due to the nature
of the field, females may be unable to develop closer, more meaningful
relationships with their mentors because they have different interests based on
their gender. A study by Olian et al. (1988) however suggests that gender is
not a significant factor, and that the field of interest and future career
goals are more important factors in developing close and meaningful
relationships (as cited by Young et al., 2006). In addition, Ragins and
McFarlin (1990) found that there were no sex differences in terms of the amount
of support female and male mentors gave to their protégés (as cited by Young et
al. 2006). While the amount of support a person receives may be dependent on
gender, determining the roots of differences in support and making sense of the
contradictions in the field is rather difficult due to the plethora of other
potential factors, including academic achievement, socioeconomic status, and
race.
Inconsistencies within the
literature
While there is a substantial body of
literature that suggests men have more access to mentors than female peers,
there are opposing studies that report men and women have similar access to
mentors, and some that even suggest women have increased access (Young et al.,
2006; Fuentes et al., 2014). Fuentes et al. (2014) examined student-faculty
relationships and contact throughout college and across all disciplines. Students
in the study took standardized self-report surveys prior to their freshman
year, after their freshman year, and immediately after their senior year. They
found that students who were higher achieving in high school, tended to have
less contact with faculty during their first year. In addition, they found that
students of color and those who were undecided about their major also had
increased early contact. While these groups had increased initial contact with
faculty, they tended to have less contact and experience with mentors after
completing their senior year. In addition, the study found that females tended
to have the most experience with mentor relationships by the end of their
senior year, perhaps due to a tendency for female-typical interaction patterns,
including participating in more one-on-one encounters. In addition, Erkit and
Mokros (1984) surveyed 723 students from 6 liberal arts colleges and found that
mentoring relationships may be more of a by-product of academic achievement
rather than gender (as cited by Young et al., 2006). These findings show how
many factors attribute to establishing mentor-protégé relationships and how
results of studies differ based on who is looking and what factors they are
examining. While such studies contradict previous findings, they are also not
specific to male-dominated fields; as such there may still be differences
within the sciences in regard to experience with mentor-protégé relationships.
Conclusion:
Do differences in access to and degree of mentor-protégé relationships
potentially play a role in increased attrition rates within the sciences?
The impact differences in access to, amount
of support, and outcomes of mentor-protégé relationships on female retention
within science related fields is hard to determine. Several studies suggest
that women have decreased access to mentor-protégé relationships due to a
variety of factors (Young et al., 2006, Milkman et al., 2014; Johnson et al.,
1984; Ragins and Cotton, 1991), may create a disparity within the sciences that
actively weeds women out of the field by causing them to be less competitive
than their male peers. While mentor-protégé relationships have clear advantages
in fostering interest and later success in an individual’s career, differences access
to, benefits of, and other factors of these relationships are too highly
debated within the literature to reach any definite conclusions. In addition,
research that explicitly focuses on women within science related fields and
during a more narrow time period (ie. undergraduate years) is largely missing.
In order to determine the potential impact of differences in mentor-protégé
relationships, more research needs to be conducted that explicitly focuses on
the role mentor-protégé relationships plays in the sciences.
References:
Bushardt, S. C., Fretwell, C., & Holdnak, B. J. (1991). The
mentor/protégé relationship: A biological perspective. Human Relations, 44,
619-639.Ceci, S. J., &
Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
19(5), 275-179.
Dougherty, T. W., Dreher, G. F.,
Arunachalam, V., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2013). Mentor status, occupational
context, and protégé career outcomes: Differential returns for males and
females. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
83, 514-527.
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender,
perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 50, 460-481.
Fuentes, M. V., Alvarado, A. R., Berdan,
J., & DeAngelo, L. (2014). Mentorship matters: Does early faculty contact
lead to quality faculty interaction? Research
in Higher Education, 55, 288-307.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C.,Hyde,
J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in
science in mathematics. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, Supplement, 8(1), 1-51.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and
undergraduate success: A literature review. Review
of Educational Research, 61(4), 505- 532).
Johnson, C. S. (1989). Mentoring programs. In M. L.
Upcraft & J. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year
experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 118-128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Keyton, J.
(1995). Power and equality in mentoring relationships. In P. J. Kalbfleisch
& M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human
relationships (pp. 189-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Milkman,
Katherine L. and Akinola, Modupe and Chugh, Dolly, What Happens Before? A Field
Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on
the Pathway into Organizations (April 23, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2063742 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2063742
NSF.
(2013).Women, Minorities, and Persons
with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/tables.cfm
Pollack, E. (2013, October 5). Why are
there still so few women in science? The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991).
Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a
mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4),
939-951.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L.
(1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal
and informal mentoring relationships. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529-550.
Young, A. M., Cady, S., & Foxon, M.
J. (2006). Demystifying gender differences in mentoring: Theoretical
perspectives and challenges for future research on gender and mentoring. Human Reseouce development Review, 5 (2),
148-175.
[1] There are differences in women’s
participation in certain sectors of science however; women only obtain 18.2% of
undergraduate computer science degrees, 18.4% of engineering degrees, and 43.1%
of mathematics and statistics degrees (NSF, 2013).
[2] While they did not find any differences
in extensive mentoring experience, the study only examined those within the
organizations and those willing to respond to a survey on mentor-protégé
relationships, which may have skewed the data.
No comments:
Post a Comment