Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: MentorNet (one woman's response) - PART 1



The post whose first part appears below was rejected by Phys-L and
Physhare because it exceeds their 300-line limitation. I am,
therefore sending it in two parts. This is

PART 1
Please excuse this cross-posting in the interest of intergroup
synergy to discussion lists with archives at:

Phys-L <http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,
Physhare <http://lists.psu.edu/archives/physhare.html>,
AP-Physics <http://lyris.ets.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ap-physics>.

The current "MentorNet" plus "MentorNet (one woman's response)" thread:

(a) PhysLrnR's with 19 posts at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=physlrnr&X=-&q=&s=MentorNet&f=&a=&b=>
(as of 18 Oct 2002 13:19:00-0700); and

(b) Phys-L's with 49 posts at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=phys-l&q=&s=MentorNet&f=&a=&b=>
(as of the same time)

raises some important issues regarding the participation of women in physics.

For internet ethnographers (MacIsaac 2000), this thread was initiated
by the PhysLrnR/Phys-L cross-post "MentorNet" of Warren Hein (2002);
plus the Phys-L post "MentorNet (one woman's response)" by Fran
Poodry (2002), with a cross-pollination assist from the
PhysLrnR/Phys-L/Physhare/AP-Physics post "Re: MentorNet (one woman's
response)" by Hake (2002a). All this suggests that cross-posting may
not be ALL bad, even despite the protestations of some list
subscribers.

For example, the cross-posting has led to some valuable PhysLrnR
exchanges initiated by Diane Grayson's stimulating post of 17 Oct
2002 15:53:43+0200 titled "Re: MentorNet (one woman's response)."
Diane wrote: (My CAPS):

"I suspect that one of the reasons that many women do not reach the
higher levels of physics as senior researchers and academics is due,
at least in part, to the COMBATIVE attitude that prevails in much of
the physics community, at least in the west. At times it seems like
discussions are as much a clash of egos as a clash of ideas (maybe
more so). A lot of women, I think, do not want to subject themselves
to this experience, preferring to exchange ideas with colleagues in a
constructive (but still critical) way rather than participating in a
form of academic interchange that involves laying into an 'opponent'."

Apriel Hodari then responded in her PhysLrnR post of 17 Oct 2002 10:23:31-0400:

"It is well-documented by many researchers (Sadker & Sadker, Belenky,
Seymour & Hewett, Tobias, etc.) that many women prefer collaboration
rather than competition in both academic and professional work.
Virginia Valian has looked closely at how this plays out for women
professionally, and has even modeled how various forms of gender bias
in decision-making propagate through organizations, and limit the
upward mobility of women."

I'll spare the lists yet another rerun of my futile plea for
scholarly referencing (Hake 2002b,c). However, for those wishing to
following up on Apriel's leads, I'll give a Sadker & Sadker (1995)
and some Valian (1999a,b) references, and even throw in for free a
reference to the prolific Mary Frank Fox (2002) [NOT to be confused
with the postmodernist Evelyn Fox Keller - see e.g. Koertge (2002).]
I'll also point out that annotated references to the work of Belenky,
Seymour & Hewett, and Tobias, and many others of like caliber are
available for free at Mallow & Hake (2002).

Among the many candidates for Apriel's "etc." in "Sadker & Sadker,
Belenky, Seymour & Hewett, Tobias, etc." are physicists Gehring et
al. See the review below by MacLeod (2002):

MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD
The authors. . .[of "Women Physicists Speak," a team of senior women
physicists, led by Professor Gillian Gehring, of Sheffield
University, and writing after an international conference looking at
problems and possible solutions [see, e.g., Tobias et al. 2002),
Feder (2002), & Anon (2002)]]. . . conclude:

"MANY WOMEN ARE CONDITIONED TO BE POLITE, DIFFIDENT AND COOPERATIVE
FROM THEIR EARLIEST CHILDHOOD. THIS MAKES THEM LESS ASSERTIVE (AND
MUCH LESS AGGRESSIVE) THEN MANY YOUNG MEN. These same features that
are so valuable in a team are also the characteristics that cause
some women to underplay themselves both when they write CV's and job
applications and also perhaps in making grant applications.

What is needed here is a real change in the way that women scientists
are assessed. This is preferable to the other approach - train young
women to become as assertive as men. . . . And to those who argue
that it doesn't matter that there are fewer women in physics, the
report responds: 'There is ample data that INTELLIGENCE IS
DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE SEXES. Girls are performing well in
all school and university examinations. IF IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE
THE MOST ABLE SCIENTISTS IN THE BEST-EQUIPPED LABORATORIES TO
MAINTAIN THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BASE, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO
CHOOSE THEM FROM THE WHOLE POPULATION RATHER THAN JUST THE MALE HALF.
In so far as women are different, they bring important team working
skills to the science environment. . . ." (My CAPS.)
MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD-MACLEOD


Also of interest are the views of Harvard high-energy theorist Howard
Georgi (2000a,b,c), Mallinckrodt professor of physics and former
department chair who wrote (Georgi 2002a):

GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI
"Our selection procedures tend to select not only for talents that
are directly relevant to success in science, but also for
ASSERTIVENESS and SINGLE-MINDEDNESS. This causes a problem for women
(and others as well). There are probably other gender-linked traits
that we also select for, but I will focus on these two because I
think they are particularly obvious and damaging.

DO WE REALLY SELECT FOR ASSERTIVENESS AND SINGLE-MINDEDNESS?

This question hardly needs an answer. There are many obvious examples
of situations in which this selection is almost explicit. One of my
favorite examples is the Physics GRE exam. I can expand on this if
necessary. It is not impossible to succeed as a scientist without
being assertive and single-minded, but the system encourages and
rewards people with these traits in a number of ways . . . . .

Are assertiveness and single-mindedness really necessary (or even
desirable) for a scientist? This question is more difficult to
answer. I am not sure that any controlled experiments have been done.
MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT WHAT WE WANT IN A SCIENTIST IS NOT
ASSERTIVENESS, BUT INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY AND THOUGHTFULNESS, AND NOT
SINGLE- MINDEDNESS, BUT DEDICATION AND PERSEVERANCE. For the moment,
I hope that you will accept this as a working hypothesis. . .(My
CAPS.)
GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI-GEORGI

Rick Tarara, in his PhysLrnR post of 17 Oct 2002 09:41:22-0500 raised
an important point:

"No one seriously talks about changing the rules of football or
basketball to present at 'level playing field' for say a person (of
either sex) who was 5 foot tall, to be able to compete. The argument
is primarily it would 'ruin' the game. TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE CHANGE
THE RULES OF THE GAME OF SCIENCE. . . . (see, e.g., Ziman 2000). . .
. IN THE NAME OF EQUITY (RACIAL, SEXUAL, ECONOMIC, ETC.) WITHOUT
'RUINING' THE GAME. A tough question in my opinion." (My CAPS.)

Howard Georgi, not a science amateur, thinks that the "science game"
would NOT be ruined if the rules were changed so as to emphasize "not
assertiveness, but intellectual curiosity and thoughtfulness, and not
single-mindedness, but dedication and perseverance."

Furthermore, according to the report my McLeod (2002) the authors of
"Women Physicists Speak," sagely (IMHO) make the important point that
the results of the "science game" might be enhanced if the rules were
changed such that the most able scientists were chosen from the whole
population rather than just the male half, and that "in so far as
women are different, they bring important team working skills to the
science environment."


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.