Engineering Diversity Update

Spring Advisory Committee Meeting

April 19 & 20, 2007

National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering Program Director for Diversity & Outreach Mary C. Juhas, Ph.D. mjuhas@nsf.gov

The Storm is Here

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

2

American Competitiveness Initiative – An Opportunity
• 300 grants for schools to implement research-based math curricula & interventions • 10,000 more scientists, students, post-docs & technicians provided opportunities to contribute to the innovation enterprise • 100,000 highly qualified math & science teachers by 2015 • 700,000 advanced placement tests passed by low-income students • 800,000 workers getting skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century
3

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

Outline
• Diversity and outreach goals for ENG • Statistics for ENG
– Observations of the demographics of proposal submissions and funding rates – Funding rates for CAREER proposals – Demographics of technical staff – current snapshot

• Current and potential diversity-related initiatives in ENG for FY07 & FY08

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

4

Diversity & Outreach Goals for Engineering at NSF
• Excellence and innovation through diversity • To enable the integration and success of a diverse engineering workforce, both inside and outside NSF • To make the demographics in engineering disciplines representative of the US census
– The challenge is preparing for the demographics of the FUTURE. K-12 outreach simply cannot be separated from any research or diversity initiative.

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

5

To achieve excellence through diversity and workforce development…
K-20 Faculty & Post-doc

Industry & Gov’t

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

6

Observations of Recent Funding Rates for Women and Minorities in ENG • There is a low number of proposals submitted by women and minorities for research awards. • Women tend to declare their gender when submitting a research proposal. • Minorities may not declare their ethnicity when submitting research proposals.

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

7

Ratio of Research Proposals with Gender or Ethnicity Declared to Undeclared
8.0 7.0 Gender/Ethnicity Declared/Undeclared 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2003 2004 Gender Ethnicity 2005 2006 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 7.0

6.5 5.3 4.9

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

8

Comparison of Funding Rates for Research Proposals among All ENG, Women, and Minorities
7000 6000 N 5000 u m 4000 b 3000 e r 2000 1000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006
9

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 P e r c e n t

A ctio ns fo r ENG A ctio ns fo r Wo men A ctio ns fo r M ino rities ENG Funding Rate Wo men Funding Rate M ino rity Funding Rate

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

Comparison of CAREER Funding Rates between Women and All ENG
200 150 100 50 0 2003
Awards - Women 23

22% 19% 18% 15% 13% 111 14 25 139 12% 26 16% 163 14%

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2004 2005 2006
% Women % ENG Actions - Women

103

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

10

Comparison of CAREER Funding Rates between Minorities and All ENG
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
10% 52 9% 19% 15% 58 14% 72 12% 59 11%

5

5

7

8

20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

2003
Awards
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

2004
Actions

2005
% Minority

2006
% ENG
11

Comparison between the % of Women Eng Faculty Nationwide* and Research Proposal Submissions by Women in ENG
20 15 Percent 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 9.9 14.6 10.4 14.1 10.6 14.6 15.0

% of Women Eng Faculty Nationwide Proposal Submissions by Women
* Source: ASEE, “The Year in Numbers 2005” AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 12

Comparison between the % of Minority Eng Faculty Nationwide* and Research Proposal Submissions by Minorities in ENG
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent 4.4 6.6 4.7 6.7

5.8 4.6

6.1

% of Minority Eng Faculty Nationwide Proposal Submissions by Minorities
* Source: ASEE, “The Year in Numbers 2005” 13

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

Current Demographics of Technical Staff in ENG

CBET Male Female Black/AA Hispanic Native American 14 6.5 1 0 0

CMMI 15 3 0 1 0

ECCS 8 3 1 1 0

EEC 4 9 3 0 0

IIP 14 2 1 1 0

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

14

Diversity-related Initiatives in ENG

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

15

To achieve excellence through diversity and workforce development…
K-20 Faculty & Post-doc

Industry & Gov’t

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

16

New Membership in the Engineering Diversity Working Group (EDWG)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Stephanie Adams, EEC Juan Figueroa, IIP Garie Fordyce, ENG Rick Fragaszy, CMMI Deborah Jackson, EEC Bob Jaeger, CBET Mary Juhas, OAD, Chair Olufemi Olowolafe, ECCS John Regalbuto, CBET Mike Reischman, OAD Judy Vance, CMMI Usha Varshney, ECCS
17

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

Current & Potential Diversity Initiatives in ENG
• Unintended bias training for panels – more later • Diversity included as part of new & existing program director/program officer training • Gender Equity Workshop for department chairs
– Chem Eng & MSE coming soon!

• K-12 workshop for advisors/counselors
– Project Lead the Way – Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) – Junior Engineering Technical Society – Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 18

Current and Potential ENG/OAD Diversity Initiatives, cont’d
• Broadening Participation in Engineering
– PD for Diversity & Outreach serving on Foundation-wide Broadening Participation Working Group (BPWG)

• Frontiers of Engineering event at a minority serving institution
– Visit to NCA&T in May

• Tribal College initiative
– SGER at Oglala Lakota College, South Dakota

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

19

Example of Unintended Bias Training (1 of 6)
Minimizing Bias in Evaluation – Implicit bias toward a group: “schemas”
• Unconscious hypotheses/stereotypes, often about competence

– Lack of critical mass

greater reliance on schemas

• Few women and minorities in engineering

– Accumulation of disadvantage
• Small bias in same direction has large effect over time • Very small differences in treatment can have major consequences in $alary, promotion and *prestige* Valian (1998)
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 20

Schemas are…
• Widely culturally shared – All people, even members of underrepresented groups, hold schemas about these groups – People are often unaware of them • Applied more under circumstances of: – Lack of information – Stress from competing tasks – Time pressure – Lack of critical mass
Fiske (2002). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128.

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

21

Impact of Orchestra Blind Auditions: Gender Bias
When orchestra auditioners were behind a screen, the percentage of female new hires for orchestral jobs increased 25 – 46%.
Goldin & Rouse (2000) The American Economic Review, 90, 4, 715-741. (14,133 auditioners over 25 years)

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

22

Evaluation of Identical CVs: Race Bias
• “Jamal” had to send 15 resumes to get a callback, compared to 10 needed by “Greg.” • “Greg” yielded as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience for “Jamal.” • The higher the resume quality, the higher the gap between callbacks for “Greg” and “Jamal.”
Jamal

Greg

Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) Poverty Action Lab, 3, 1-27.
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 23

Evaluation of Fellowship Applications: Gender Bias
“…the success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the [Swedish Medical Research Council] during the 1990s has been less than half that of male applicants.”
Wenneras & Wold (1997) Nature, 387, p. 341
Average rating of applicants as a function of their scientific productivity 3.00 Competence Score 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 20-39 40-59 60-99 >99 Total impact* One impact point = one paper in a journal with an impact factor of one. 0-19 males females

Women had to be 2.5 times more productive to receive the same competence score.

*Cited by Richard Zare, Stanford chemistry professor and former NSB chair, editorial in 5/15/06 Chemistry and Engineering News
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

Similar findings: GAO report on Peer Review in Federal Agency Grant Selection (1994); and European Molecular Biology Organization Reports (2001)
24

Ways to Mitigate Evaluation Bias
1. Increase awareness of how schemas might bias evaluation 2. Decrease time pressure and distractions in evaluation process 3. Rate on explicit criteria rather than global judgments 4. Point to specific evidence supporting judgments
Bauer & Baltes, 2002, Sex Roles, 47 (9/10), 465-476

AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007

25

Diversity & the Normal Distribution
Will Never Get It Could Get It with Enlightenment & Training

Get It

Number of People

The Diversity “Get It” Index
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 26

Diversity is Everybody’s Job
Thank you! ¡Muchas Gracias! 感謝! Merci Bien! СПАСИВО! Vielen Dank! Grazie! 谢谢! Tak! Obrigado!
AdCom_April 19 & 20, 2007 27

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.