Modeling The Career Pathways Of Women Engineering Faculty Through Oral Histories And Participatory Research Methods

Women increasingly earn advanced degrees in science, technology, and mathematics (STEM), yet remain underrepresented among STEM faculty. Much of the existing research on this underrepresentation relies on “chilly climate” and “pipeline” theoretical models to explain this phenomenon. However, the extent to which these models follow women’s actual career pathways has been undertheorized. Further, alternative metaphors may more aptly describe the career pathways of women STEM faculty. In our broader research project, we examine the ways women’s career pathways into STEM faculty positions are similar to and/or different from chilly climate and pipeline models, and if they vary based on race and/or ethnicity. At present, we focus on the ways oral histories and participatory research methods allow us to model the career pathways of women STEM faculty. Our goal is to illustrate how oral history and participatory research are effective methods to: 1) identify women’s career pathways into STEM faculty; 2) compare and contrast career pathways to climate and pipeline metaphors as well as discover new metaphors; 3) identify critical points in women’s career pathways; and 4) discover new information about women’s paths into STEM faculty. We describe early results from a set of semi-structured interviews of women faculty in STEM disciplines collected as part of research done through an ADVANCE grant, a NSFfunded project intended to achieve improved career success for women faculty in STEM disciplines. Interviews begin with oral histories that give context, depth, and structure to women’s pathways into STEM faculty careers. Through participatory research methods, we tell participants the goals of the research and ask them to discuss, challenge, and suggest ways institutions may improve career success for women STEM faculty. Taken together, career pathways are modeled and compared with chilly climate and pipeline models. This innovative methodological approach will inform policy, recruitment procedures, and ways to retain women faculty. Introduction We describe the potential of two social science research methods to model women’s pathways into STEM faculty careers and develop new theoretical models to understand women’s underrepresentation as STEM faculty, with a particular focus on women faculty of color. We use data from a set of semi-structured interviews of women STEM faculty early in their careers to illustrate how these social science research methods may increase our understanding of women’s career paths and shed light on the ways university policies and department culture affect the career experiences of women STEM faculty. This purpose of the overall study is to examine the academic career pathways of women faculty in STEM disciplines at a large research university, with particular focus on women of color. The study investigates the extent to which their career pathways into and through academic faculty levels in STEM disciplines are modeled by pipeline or chilly climate models that metaphorically P ge 15882.2 explain women’s underrepresentation among STEM faculty. At present, we focus on the ways oral histories and participatory research methods allow us to model the career pathways of women STEM faculty. Our goal is to illustrate how oral history and participatory research are effective methods to: 1) identify women’s career pathways into STEM faculty; 2) compare and contrast career pathways to climate and pipeline metaphors as well as discover new metaphors; 3) identify critical points in women’s career pathways; and 4) discover new information about women’s paths into STEM faculty. The two prevailing metaphors to explain women’s underrepresentation among STEM faculty are chilly climate and leaky pipeline. Chilly climate contends the working environment is so unfriendly, or chilly, to some that they decide to leave 1 . Leaky pipeline is a metaphor describing STEM faculty career paths as a pipeline with a pool of potential STEM faculty at the beginning and completed STEM faculty at the end 2 . Women “leak” from the pipeline before entering STEM faculty positions at the end of the pipeline. These theories insufficiently explain women’s underrepresentation among STEM faculty because of gaps in their rationale. For instance, leaks in the pipes are random in terms of what “bits” of water drip out, and leaks imply water only flowing “out” of the pipe. But women’s experiences of choosing to leave (if temporarily) their scientific careers are rarely random in this way, and the outward leaking does not model many women’s choices to re-enter a faculty career later in life. Our goal with this overall research project is to develop new, more accurate models to understand women’s career experiences. In this paper, we demonstrate the methodological power of oral histories and participatory research to better understand women’s pathways into STEM faculty careers and examine the extent to which they follow chilly climate and leaky pipeline theoretical models. Oral history We use oral histories to understand women’s career paths into STEM faculty positions and discover significant career pathway points. The data we wish to capture with oral histories are women’s perceptions of their experiences into STEM faculty careers. Participants discuss what is important to them allowing chilly climate and leaky pipeline themes to emerge from them rather than imposed by the researchers, if they emerge at all. Oral histories capture the totality of one’s life experiences where participant talk about personal experiences demarking significant points throughout the life course 3 . Interviewers guide oral histories by asking the participant about points of interest particular to the study purpose 4 . Interviewers are active listeners and offer probes only as necessary. Traditionally, oral histories begin with the participant’s childhood experiences and continue chronologically through other significant personal and socio-cultural life events 4 . These interviews are semi-structured and include broad, open-ended questions that allow participants to choose life events that hold personal significance or carry broad social significance. Because participants control what P ge 15882.3 information they divulge, themes emerge more naturally, reducing researcher bias that is more problematic in other research methods such as surveys or structured interviews 4 . Oral history methods uniquely allow researchers to examine personal decision-making processes 4 . As participants detail critical points in their life paths, they often describe why they chose one path over another. If participants do not disclose the rationale for their choices, the interviewer may probe for additional explanations. Given the conversational nature of oral histories, researchers easily tap into the dynamics of decision-making thought processes 4 . In effective oral histories, interviewers build good rapport, establish non-threatening interview environments, and offer sufficient protection of participants’ identities 4 . Through the interactional nature of the interview, participants are encouraged to discuss information they might not disclose on a survey. A common critique of oral history methods is reliance on memory to recount past events 4 . The faults of human memory may be problematic for data collected in historical studies focusing on factual accounts of past events. In social science studies, however, individuals’ interpretations of past events are more important than the factuality of events. These interpretations are participants’ psychological realities and increase our understanding of individual thought and decision-making processes. To understand particular individual’s experiences in the context and situation of their lives, we use oral histories to: 1) uncover career path information not revealed by written documents, such as curriculum vitae; 2) understand decision-making processes at critical career path junctures and elsewhere; and 3) give context for the entire career path. Our oral history protocol begins with participants’ biographical information, including family life while growing up, parents’ occupations, and marital and parental statuses. This provides context and frames participants’ career paths. Next, we talk about first memories of being interested in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, followed by career beginnings in STEM disciplines, and people influential in encouraging an STEM career. We discuss in-depth participants’’ educational and employment histories as well as participants’ rationales for choosing an academic career over other STEM careers. Participants discuss their respective departments’ working atmospheres and feelings of “fit” within them. The interviewer asks participants to choose a metaphor to depict what working in their respective departments is like. Finally, participants are asked how their gender, race, and ethnicity affects the ways they are treated by others in their departments and how their own gender, race, and ethnicity affect their feelings of fit in their departments. We analyze the collection of oral histories for common patterns or differences among participants’ career paths. Such patterns are used to evaluate existing career path models, such as chilly climate and leaky pipeline, and to develop new career path models. Page 15882.4 Participatory research The goal of participatory research is to work with those affected by a particular phenomenon to change and improve conditions 5 . Together researchers and participants critically evaluate historical, cultural, political, and other contexts to identify areas that need improving 5 . Participatory research is a collaborative effort where participants know the research goals, are part of the research process, and suggest avenues to implement change. Using participatory research to study people of color helps establish trust by defusing the oftenunequal re