NSF Employment Study Confirms Issues Facing Women, Minorities

NO PROBLEMS? AWIS’s Catherine Didion comments that women often are not willing to acknowledge impediments to advancement. Women and underrepresented minorities-African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans-generally are paid lower salaries and occupy fewer supervisory positions than their white, male counterparts in industry, according to a recent study conducted by the National Science Foundation. The study also sheds light on the issues that women and minorities say often impede their chances of entering or advancing in the workplace. Women, for instance, report fears that their careers may be incompatible with raising a family. Minorities say it's hard to secure high-level jobs when they lack sufficient experience or education to compete. The results, reported in "Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996" (National Science Foundation, NSF-96-311, 1996), revealed a host of discrepancies in education and salary among different groups. The nearly 300-page report (available on the Internet at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96311) compiled a wealth of 1993 employment data in an effort to address ongoing concerns about the lack of equal opportunity for women and minorities. For example, the study found a notable difference in the average salaries of male and female researchers with Ph.D.'s. The average salary for female doctorate holders was $50,200, compared with $63,600 for men. In other words, women made 79 percent of what their male counterparts earned. Discrepancies among racial and ethnic groups also were clear. Science and engineering Ph.D.'s who are African American, Native American, Asian, and Hispanic made an average of $5,875 less than their white counterparts. "The picture is still bleak," says Joan Burrelli, a senior science resource analyst in the Science Resource Studies division at NSF, who helped prepare the study. However, she adds, "things are improving faster for women than for minorities. The percentage of science and engineering degrees [awarded] to women, for instance, has increased at a faster rate than for men. But change is slow." In 1993, for example, women made up 20 percent of the doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States labor force, up from 19 percent in 1991. Of the 470,500 estimated science Ph.D.'s in the labor force in 1993, approximately 11 percent were Asians, 2 percent were blacks, 2 percent were Hispanics, and less than 1 percent were Native Americans (see chart below). A gender gap was evident in most of the report's findings. The study placed a value on several factors that account for the salary gap between male and female doctorate holders (see chart above). About 10 percent, or $1,300, of that gap was accounted for by employer characteristics. The private sector, for instance, generally pays more than the public sector. Yet, the study found that only 21 percent of female science Ph.D.'s were employed in the private sector-compared with 33 percent of male Ph.D.'s. And within industry, women were less likely than men to be in management positions. Work-related employee characteristics-including additional degrees, enhanced job skills, and professional licenses- accounted for another 19 percent, or $2,500, of the salary gap. Field of degree contributed 11 percent, or $1,500. For example, the study found that women are disproportionately represented in psychology and social sciences, which traditionally pay less. Type of work performed-meaning occupation in general and whether the position was a management or a postdoctoral post-explained 15 percent, or $2,000, of the gap. Another factor was years since receipt of doctorate, which explained about 24 percent, or $3,200 of the salary difference. The study found that in 1993 the average female Ph.D. received her degree 10.4 years before the survey date, vs. 15.7 years among men. About 10 percent of the difference, or $1,400, was listed as "unexplained." According to the report, "some or all of the 'unexplained' gender salary gap may be attributable to 'unequal pay for equal work.' Indeed, the size of the unexplained gap may even be underestimated." Perhaps the most controversial gender-related finding was the significance of "life choices," which accounted for about 10 percent, or $1,400, of the salary gap. It underscored the decisions some women make to juggle the responsibilities associated with nurturing both careers and families. The study noted that "employers are likely to find that they can offer relatively low salaries to fill positions with high non-salary rewards or low non-salary costs. Men and women may place different values on these non- salary aspects of jobs, and this may result in salary differentials. For example, if, on the average, women place a higher value on having a short work week than do men (i.e. because of greater responsibilities for child care), women may be more likely to choose positions with relatively low salaries and fewer hours per week." In fact, the study explored the compatibility of marriage and science for women. It found that female Ph.D. scientists and engineers are less likely than men to be married-66 percent of women are married compared with 83 percent of men. Women with Ph.D.'s are twice as likely as men never to have married or to be divorced. The study also found that about 54 percent of women, compared with 35 percent of men, were married to another scientist or engineer. "The climate in industry may be perceived as less favorable to women for a number of reasons, including recruitment and hiring practices, a corporate culture hostile to women, sexual harassment, lack of opportunities for career development and critical developmental assignments, failure to accommodate work-family issues, lack of mentoring and lack of access to informal networks of communication," the study concluded. In the view of Catherine Didion, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Association for Women in Science, many women are not willing to acknowledge these impediments. "I think we still want to view everything through a filter that shows how good your research or hypothesis is, as opposed to chat-chatting with the right people. Often, women don't want to complain because it'll seem they can't get along and will be labeled a troublemaker." Although there is little difference between the unemployment rates of female and male doctorates in life sciences-1.8 percent compared with 1.4 percent-some female Ph.D. researchers are worried about their employment prospects or their ability to advance, given the concerns about discrimination or the difficulties in balancing work and family life. "Family status influences exit rates out of science and engineering employment," the study notes. "Married scientists and engineers and those with children are more likely to leave science and engineering employment than those who are not married and do not have children." "When I got out of grad school, I didn't think these issues would be a problem. But after I got my doctorate and tried to get a faculty position, I saw it was a striking trend," reports Jong-on Hahm, a 37-year-old neuroscientist and postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University, who is married with two children. She is about to begin a job search among biotechnology companies. "I doubt if someone will ask a guy if [his] personal life will affect the job, but from what I've heard from other women who are job-hunting, it comes up a lot," she notes. Underrepresented minorities face similar problems when it comes to salaries and opportunities. The study found that African American Ph.D.'s in science and engineering made an average of $7,100 less than their white counterparts (see bar chart, above left). Native American and Hispanic doctorate holders also made less than whites-$6,500 and $5,700 on average, respectively. Asians, who aren't considered underrepresented, had a $4,100 salary gap. As with women, two categories-years since receipt of doctorate and employer characteristics-accounted for a substantial portion of the respective gaps. For instance, the fact that African Americans earned their Ph.D.'s later than whites was responsible for a $2,300 average salary differential, and employer characteristics accounted for another $2,500 in differences. However, Asians did not experience such difficulties, in part because they tend to be employed in higher-paying engineering jobs and, like whites, occupy jobs in industry to a greater extent than other minorities. The findings don't surprise John Alderete, a professor of microbiology at the University of Texas Health Center in San Antonio and president of the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science. He attributes the differences to systemic problems heavily ingrained in society (R. Finn, The Scientist, Feb. 17, 1997, page 1). He cites soaring school drop-out rates, poverty, little or no health care, poor environmental conditions among urban poor and migrant farm workers, homelessness, teen pregnancies, and domestic violence as overwhelming social issues that, through neglect, have accounted for the lack of minorities in a position to pursue careers in science. Alderete also criticizes universities for relying on standardized high school tests administered to ill-prepared minority populations and for not doing enough to recruit minorities into the sciences. "Most institutions just send out administrators who have their hearts in the right places but just aren't scientists," he explains. "We're all too busy getting data and publishing papers. And there's a lack of bona fide mentoring." Without a sufficient number of minorities in key positions- which provide role models in the lab, in the corporate office, and on the campus-finding one's way into the corporate world seems like an insurmountable challenge to minorities, he says. Kathleen Mullinix, chief executive of Synaptic Pharmaceutical Corp., a biotechnology firm in Paramus, N.J., agrees that there are relatively few African American or Hispanic Ph.D.'s in the pipeline. Despite her staff's efforts to seek them out at university recruitment drives, she says, "we're not overwhelmed with such candidates." However, she adds, Synaptic employs a large number of women. Of four department directors, one is female. And one of nine Ph.D. researchers in the company's chemistry group is a woman. However, Mullinix contends that she doesn't come across such representation at most other companies, which confirms some of the findings of the study. The observation only strengthens her belief that women will continue to find it difficult to secure high-ranking jobs. "Overall, the NSF data is very depressing when you look at the [number of] higher-level jobs out there." AVERAGE SALARIES OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Ph.D.'s (in thousands) By Gender: Men $63.6 Women$50.2 By Race: White $61.7 African American $54.6 Hispanic $56 Asian $57.6 Native American $55.2 Source: NSF's "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996," Appendix Tables 5-2 and 5-5; totals have been rounded. By Gender: Men 74% Women 26% By Race/Ethnicity: White 87.3% Asian 8.7% African American 1.9% Native American <1.0% Hispanic 1.8% * All percentages are rounded Source: NSF's "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996," Appendix Tables 5-1 and 5-33 By Gender: Men 77% Women 23% By Race / Ethnicity: White 84.3% Asian 11.2% Native American 2.1% Hispanic 2.0% African American <1.0% * All percentages are rounded. Source: NSF's "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996," Appendix Tables 5-1 and 5-33 Edward R. Silverman is a writer with the Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J.

NSF Employment Study Confirms Issues Facing Women, Minorities

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of