Exaggerating the Typical and Stereotyping the Differences: Isolation Experienced by Women in STEM Doctoral Programs

This paper describes the initial results of a qualitative, longitudinal study designed to understand how career and educational choices unfold for women in graduate school over the course of an entire academic year. Participants recruited from private and public research universities across the U.S. submitted Internet journal entries (blogs) and/or were interviewed biweekly during fall and spring semesters. Ethnographic techniques were employed to elicit details of concrete incidents. Constant comparative analysis was used for understanding journal entries and interview transcripts. A common experience among participants in both components of the study was “feeling different” from an implied institutional norm, according to preliminary results. Students sometimes self-isolated in order to meet a perceived need to present themselves as capable and as “fitting in” with the institutional norm implied in competitive departmental climates. Reliance on remote communication provided by advanced technology as well as the process of academic specialization are also related to the isolation experienced by the women participants. In the absence of the buffering aspects of social integration, discouraging incidents led students to question their competence, their “fit” in the institution and by association, the profession and future aspirations. The paper further explains how the process of academic and social isolation unfolds and is negotiated over the course of doctoral studies, as reported by the participants. Introduction and Literature Review Women are more engaged in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) than ever before, holding the majority of undergraduate degrees in certain STEM-related disciplines. However, there is evidence that what are known as leaky pipeline and glass-ceiling effects remain especially strong in STEM fields. Psychologists and educational policy researchers are urged to turn attention to the later stages of career development where women’s career aspirations often plummet and where women get stuck or drop out of STEM all together. This paper presents the preliminary results of a qualitative research project, with an analysis that focused particularly on isolating aspects that these female STEM doctoral students experienced during one academic year. The graduate school period along the academic science and engineering career pathway has received little research attention despite alarmingly high attrition rates 7, 8 , 9] that are strongly associated with gender and academic discipline. Women who leave graduate school before receiving a graduate degree either leave STEM altogether or enter lower-status STEM positions, moves that contribute to gender segregation in the STEM labor force. Without the PhD, women are generally not eligible for the research and development positions that are in high demand and that are required for the U.S. to maintain its science and technology strengths. Therefore, characterizing the experiences of women in STEM graduate programs that may increase the risk of their dropping out or dropping down is vital for planning ways of promoting retention and successful degree completion. P ge 22660.2 The background characteristics of students (such as grades and grade point average) have not proven to be helpful in predicting student persistence in graduate school. Claims that women do not persist in STEM because of innate or inferior abilities are unfounded. [6, 11 for review] Researchers have turned attention to the role of the department and academic environment in the high attrition rates of doctoral students. 12, 13] Isolation in graduate school The limited literature on the graduate student experience depicts an academic and social climate that is at best contradictory to female socialization, and at worst discriminatory, isolating, and hostile, 12, 14, 15] much like the type of discouraging and dismissive undergraduate climate famously illustrated by Hall and Sandler in 1982. Hall and Sandler (1982) coined the term “chilly climate” to describe such academic environments. One aspect of the “chilly climate” in graduate school we focused on is the common experience of social and professional isolation, a factor implicated in student attrition. 12, 17, 18, 19] Doctoral programs in the United States have been criticized for their inherently isolating structure; 20 the culture of science and engineering, and particularly in environments dominated by men, has been found to be particularly isolating for women. Women in STEM are often excluded from professional or social events [e.g. 12] and are less likely to collaborate with their advisors in research. 23 Such exclusion is not necessarily intentional or explicitly discriminatory. As clarified by Crosby (2007), group members (men, in this instance) naturally gravitate towards identifiable and similar individuals (“in-group members:” other men), thereby unintentionally ignoring or leaving out members of the “out group.” 24 In male-dominated disciplines like the physical sciences and engineering, women are the minority or “out group,” and are therefore at a higher risk for exclusion. According to the theory of the “null environment,” 25, 26 women are disadvantaged if advisors and others do not invest in their career development as much as their male protégés. On the other hand, women may stand out and receive more attention in male-dominated fields. Ironically, one longitudinal study found that female faculty members were often asked to serve on committees to increase women in the field, which pulled them away from collaboration projects. Women with “multiple marginal identities,” including women of color, non-heterosexual women, women with disabilities, and nontraditional students may be especially vulnerable to the experience of “chilly” climates and isolation. 28] For example, lower income or physically handicapped women might be unable to participate in departmental social events even if invited. Women with children may not have the time or interest to socialize outside of school. Whether intentional or unintentional, exclusion and isolation mean fewer opportunities to network, collaborate, bond with colleagues, and become socialized into science, engineering and academia. As conceptualized by Coleman (1988), isolated students are excluded from the “information flow” occurring between colleagues and will build less “social capital,” as a result. Social capital consists of knowledge about expectations and norms and is essential to student persistence and success. For example, access to “social capital” might help successfully P ge 22660.3 integrate engineering students in the racial minority who might otherwise be at higher risk of dropping out. Student integration is especially important for new doctoral students as they are confronted with a set of expectations and norms very different from what they might be used to. For example, doctoral students must learn to become independent, productive scholars and develop a network of professional supports; grades are no longer the primary measure of success. Unfortunately, the discipline of engineering is described as an “individualistic weed-out culture.” This type of competitive, hostile environment is thought to foster isolation. Ali and Kohun (2007) advocate for more research attention to the “emotional” aspects of isolation as related to student attrition. For example, severe social isolation is related to depression. Some of the more subtle effects of isolation in graduate school might include an impact on students’ perceptions of competency, or levels of confidence. According to Beeler’s (1991) model, successful graduate students progress through predictable stages of awareness with respect to competencies. They start graduate school highly confident yet ignorant (“unconsciously incompetent”), but quickly become aware of how much they still have to learn about their new field (“consciously incompetent”). Students might continue to feel doubtful of their abilities while developing competencies (“unconsciously competent”) but, ideally, will regain confidence (“consciously competent”) prior to completing graduate school. Beeler (1991) hypothesized that social isolation is a barrier to successful movement along these stages of awareness. Socially isolated students are unable to compare their experiences and developing competencies due to the sheer lack of interaction with others. Students do not know where they stand if they cannot talk to others about their experiences and might remain stuck in the “consciously incompetent” stage, Beeler (1991) predicts. Etzkowitz et al. (2000) also theorize that isolation and a lack of adequate mentoring in “chilly” academic climates relates to selfblame and decreased confidence in abilities. Fabert and Bernstein’s (2009) study with female non-completers of doctoral programs in STEM also found that women’s confidence eroded over the course of graduate school, especially when women had limited opportunities to compare their graduate school experiences. To summarize, literature suggests that social integration is important for student success and persistence, but women and other minorities may be especially vulnerable to the experience of isolation in male-dominated graduate school programs. Beyond this broad stroke, little can be concluded about how isolation and other aspects of the “chilly climate” are experienced and negotiated, or how they are related to important career decisions. While some researchers have explored aspects of the “chilly climate” for women in the undergraduate classroom or workplaces, what has been lacking is longitudinal, systematic research on women’s graduate student experiences. Explanations of isolation and other aspects of the “chilly climate” have to date been highly abstract and theoretical. Over the past several years, researchers with the CareerWISE program, supported by the National Science