April 24, 2008

Where Particles Collide, Sexism Is Rampant, Study Finds

A study of postdoctoral researchers involved in a major particle-physics experiment reveals pervasive gender discrimination there, according to a physicist who formerly worked on the experiment at the Fermi National Acceleratory Laboratory, known as Fermilab.

The study, which was conducted by Sherry Towers, looked at the work output of 57 postdoctoral physicists associated with Fermilab’s DZero collaboration, an experiment that includes some 700 physicists around the world. Her review documented how many internal papers each postdoctoral researcher had written and compared that figure with the number of times that each was allowed by the collaboration to make presentations at academic conferences. Such presentations help advance the careers of young physicists.

Fermilab data suggest that female postdocs had to be three times as productive as male postdocs in order to be granted the opportunity to present work at academic conferences, according to Ms. Towers.

Ms. Towers is pursuing a master’s degree in statistics at Purdue University and has a statistical consulting service. She formerly worked on DZero at Fermilab as a postdoctoral researcher in particle physics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She left the field of physics in 2005 because, she says, her supervisor and Stony Brook engaged in gender discrimination against her following the birth of her second child. Ms. Towers is currently suing the university, as detailed in a 2005 article in The Chronicle.

An article about her new study appeared this week in Nature. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. Give them 6 months to make it Femilab.

   — Michael Pyshnov    Apr 24, 02:51 PM    #

2. This lady finds “gender discrimination” wherever she goes.

   — Armando    Apr 24, 03:31 PM    #

3. Likely this study is true, but is it entirely sound from an objective scientific perspective to be engaging in research which would DIRECTLY LEND CREDENCE to a lawsuit you are currently pursuing? Is the good Ms. Towers (I note with interest that there appear to be no co-authors) going to release a report indicating that her legal complaints against academia are purest hokum? Somehow it seems unlikely.

   — Daniel Polansky    Apr 24, 03:32 PM    #

4. Number 1 and 2, Michael Pyshnov and Armando, get over yourselves. As exampled by the first 2 comments, is it really surprising that women continually experience sexism in the workplace?

   Perhaps women find gender discrimination, aka sexism, wherever we go because people are constantly saying things and acting in ways which are sexist.

   — Josefina    Apr 24, 03:43 PM    #

5. Oh, just give it another 10 or so years, when all of academia is dominated by women. Males will not only be required to get the coffee, they’ll also be made to clean up the all the broken bosons and gluons, barefooted!

   — first marci    Apr 24, 03:54 PM    #

6. What are the internal criteria for giving a paper at a conference? Is the paper selected (as in history conferences) by the conference organizers or a program committee, or are papers certified by the lab as worthy of being given at a conference? We need to know more about the workings of the system before we assign a label of sexism, or at least before we know whose putative sexism to condemn. I note that this finding is akin to the debate over sexual discrimination in academic salaries. There is no dobut, statistically, that women are paid less then men, even within comparable ranks and positions. But the internal criteria for merit raises may explain something of that difference. If, for example, merit raises are based solely on publication, and the publication records are different, then the salaries will not only be different, but the difference will grow wider over time. Finally, I note with some regret that the responses to the news item seem to be both gendered and ad hominem [sic?]. That is unfortunate. All best, Peter

   — peter hoffer    Apr 24, 04:00 PM    #

7. They also made a substantial mistake in particle science. Particles must have gender. Positively charged particles are females; negative ones – males. The former are allowed a spin. The whole new Universe! Also, they counted particles instead of counting conference papers. If they continue doing this, go further, give them another 6 months to become Femilib. Name the next discovered particle Towers; teach them “to get over themselves” as Josefina, #4, suggested.

   — Michael Pyshnov    Apr 24, 04:12 PM    #

8. I’m astounded at how many posters on reading this article assume that a) the research is worthless, b) that gender equity somehow means women “taking over” (this reminds me of antislavery writings that argued that abolition would lead to white subordination to black rule), and that c) any finding of gender discrimination must be about personal grudges rather than systemic inequality. How many studies do we need before we acknowledge that women in the physical and natural sciences are expected to work harder, do better, and be more charming than their male counterparts, as well as putting up with fewer rewards and risking harassment or worse if they even dare to expect something close to a livable life? I do find Towers’ conflict of interest here troubling, but given the Chronicle’s ongoing exposure of the harsh gender inequities in the “hard” sciences, I’m not inclined to dismiss her findings out of hand.

   — Scooter    Apr 24, 04:42 PM    #

9. Who would raise this issue other than a woman subjected to the inconsistent treatment? Would a male who is in a more advantageous position study this issue?

   I love particle physics but left the field upon the advice of women who reported such treatment regularly. I did not want to invest 10 years training to be left behind when the rewards were earned.

   Sexism is hard to see. I applaud her for raising the issue and am not surprised when the men of science discount her by calling on “scientific methodology.”

   — realist    Apr 24, 04:55 PM    #

10. The the initial posters of this article actually READ the article here?

    The article says that when women co-authored articles with scientists at Fermilab, they were 1/3 as likely to be the ones presenting at an academic conference than when male post-docs co-authored articles.

    — Nathan    Apr 24, 05:00 PM    #

11. Thank you, Scooter, for being a voice of reason. I find the instantaneous degeneration into name-calling a symptom of the lack of respect for people’s ability rather than their gender. My experience of over thirty years on a campus is that sexism is not at all hard to see when you are on the receiving end. The question remains- which came first, the discrimination or the lawsuit? Most mothers of two would not bother to take time to sue if there wasn’t a significant problem.

    — MAD    Apr 24, 05:01 PM    #

12. Now if we could only have the same study done to evaluate the female inspired sexism in social sciences….

    — hhgonzo    Apr 24, 05:08 PM    #

13. Thanks Scooter. I agree that these comments are troubling. Realist, you are right that sexism is very hard to see. Just as other isms are, like racism, classism, etc. As MAD said, “sexism is not at all hard to see when you are the receiving end” and I have to agree as a female scientist. But I also have more trouble noticing racism and classism because I’m white and upper-middle class. That’s one privilege I do feel I have as a woman — a better understanding of those who are oppressed because I can see how these things are invisible unless you’re on the receiving end. Thus, it is hard to find studies written by men about sexism.

    — privileged woman    Apr 24, 05:16 PM    #

14. Yes indeed. Perhaps Armondo makes his statement exactly because it is in fact true. Women, unfortunately, still DO find discrimination everywhere they go. Even within the (human) sub-atomic world.

    — SeenItAllBefore    Apr 24, 05:56 PM    #

15. For a detailed analysis and critical review of the article see a blog of a fellow physicist:

    http://okham.livejournal.com/9552.html

    — Mark de Goz    Apr 24, 06:03 PM    #

16. I also switched from physics to chemistry early on. At least now if I end up in a lab where people want to make an issue of my gender, I can just say @#$@ you and quit. Women in particle physics don’t have that luxury, where else are they going to go? The “other” Hadron Collider? I mean seriously. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just ask the cabals that run those large projects.

    — nonewsadly    Apr 24, 06:14 PM    #

17. Many of the key findings that we have regarding inequality and the social order come from those who have had direct experience in general or a particular area. It seems that Ms. Towers has a very good lens through which to view sexist behavior. Glad she is using it to help others see how discrimination works as well.

    — AMD    Apr 24, 07:04 PM    #

18. The question is: are men treated differently?

    Obviously, they are. I am suing a political science depsrtment at Kentucky Community and Technical College System because I was treated differently than the men in the department. No man was told to make his students do research for the Demcoratic party like I was told to do. And when I said no, and complained about being strongarmed to the Dean, my contract wasn’t renewed.

    Funny, the Dean that broke into my office and stole my property is still employed there.

    You can be a thief and still be treated better than a woman who acts ethically. I was put on administrative leave and the thief was unscathed. Why? Security called the police – and it was my fault for reporting the break-in.

    It’s always the woman’s fault. THAT’S WHAT DISCRIMINATION IS .. making everything the woman’s fault.

    — Muap Conners    Apr 24, 09:14 PM    #

19. On page 6 of the paper published on the archive is this line: “16 out of the 48 males, and 4 out of the 9 females went on to faculty positions, respectively.”

    — poynting    Apr 24, 10:55 PM    #

20. Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone discussed reviewing papers “blind” without names, or even place?

    — BE!    Apr 24, 11:42 PM    #

21. Muap Conners in #18, is the bigger problem that the Dean is insensitive to women or is it that he appears to be using institutional resources to shill for the Democrat Party? He sounds like a real winner — just the type that rises to the top in academia.

    And without bothering to read the research myself, if the information in the post (alluded to in the comment made by poynting in #19) is accurate and Ms. Towers is basing her research on a sample size of 48 males and 9 females, then I would suggest that she is totally unqualified to pass a general statistics course, let alone pursue a Master’s degree.

    — J. Ward    Apr 25, 12:06 AM    #

22. Oh, J. Ward, and if there aren’t enough numbers we can’t conclude anything?

    so because there are so few women, the numbers can’t be meaningful?

    Becuase obviously with so few women in a highly demanding profession, they must be the dregs?

    If you wait for large numbers, no studies will eer be done because there will never be large numbers.

    I out-published and raised more grant money than my male colleagues in my first academic position. Yet the men were all promoted ahead of schedule and given numerous “seed grants” while I had to pay my own way and had my promotion delayed. But as one male colleague told me, when I challenged him on equitable treatment, “no one will ever know.”

    — biosciprof    Apr 25, 01:49 AM    #

23. J. Ward and biosciprof: I can see both of your points, but aren’t the starting figures (48 men vs. 9 women) significant in and of themselves? Is it just an accident that there are so few women in the profession—hence so few women in the study? Other posters pointed out that they chose not to go into the field because of its reputation for sexism. Clearly, that is the first problem that needs to be addressed. Another question is, why did so many women go on to faculty positions? Normally I (being in the humanities) would read this a good thing, but given the other data cited in this article, it seems more likely that they pursued faculty positions because they were pushed out of research. No “other” Hadron Collider at which to do your research, as nonewsadly pointed out. Lastly, in regards to the conflict-of-interest comments a few posters made: Will there ever be a anti-discrimination lawsuit that doesn’t have a conflict of interest? I mean, unless a bunch of straight white men start running to the ramparts to defend the women, minorities, and gay people with whom they work. Haven’t seen it yet, though…

    — madamesmartypants    Apr 25, 06:06 AM    #

24. I didn’t find a conflict of interest in the research and the lawsuit at all. I have been sexually harassed for almost my entire doctoral sojourn and I began to read everything I could about the topic. I would certainly like to engage in research related to those issues and should I sue the university for protecting the predator for the last 30 years, I wouldn’t find it conflicting whatsoever. Being a victim can make a heck of an advocate!

    — it's okay    Apr 25, 09:16 AM    #

25. There’s no question there are still significant problems with gender equity in research and the academy. One way to work against this is to identify accurately who is discriminating. Too often, the inanimate “administration” or the “institution” is named as the bad actor, when, in reality, it is the individual faculty members themselves who perform these bad acts. Sure, there are systemic changes to be made, but until fellow professors and researchers are willing to acknowledge that it is their own kind doing these bad things, little will be accomplished. Let’s put the blame where it belongs.

    — jpl    Apr 25, 09:18 AM    #

26. Smarty. It is interesting that the 48/9 starting figures are not taken into account. If we did we would quickly realize that Title IX is an abject failure vis a vis its original objective which was to redress the grievance of too few women studying math and science. Instead athletic programs were made the target wth many unintended and unfortunate outcomes. If one is concerned that the selection of papers is done primarily on the basis of gender, then the logical thing to do is select papers where the gender of the author is unknown. Presumably this would yield only the best papers without regard to gender.

    — David Holland    Apr 25, 09:21 AM    #

27. madamesmartypants (#23) – the conflict of interest is inherent to the report, not the lawsuit.

    Maybe if more women forced their way into the research science community (by being too good to ignore) rather than giving up out of fear of sexism it would be harder for those in charge to make excuses for any misogyny that may exist?

    Be a Rosa Parks for hard science research.

    it’s okay (#24) – there is a conflict of interest in your analysis of whether or not there is conflict of interest in this study.

    — a different Dan    Apr 25, 09:36 AM    #

28. A different Dan (#27): why should women have to force their way into the research science community? And does your comment mean that the women who are there aren’t any good? And who’s to say that the men there are good enough to not ignore? I’m reminded of a great quote…“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” ~Charlotte Whitton

    Unfortunately, in many cases the institution (and the people within, as jpl pointed out) can’t bring themselves to look beyond gender and at the work.

    — Beth    Apr 25, 09:56 AM    #

29. For a newspaper that’s supposed to represent the voices of the academic community, the replies on this blog post are pretty sad. If this is the state of academia today — as an incoming graduate student — that’s depressing.

    — not a chauvinist    Apr 25, 10:30 AM    #

30. Please, read this news article again. The only evidence of discrimination given here is this:
    “female postdocs had to be three times as productive as male postdocs in order to be granted the opportunity to present work at academic conferences”
    (Please, note that the words “how many internal papers each postdoctoral researcher had written” replaced in the conclusion by one word “productive”.)
    This is an interpretation of data which was deliberately made to look as if it was a RULE adopted by the institution, not a statistical data. However, the same data can be read in a different way and give entirely different conclusion, for example: that women were more prolific writers who just loved to make internal reports.
    This is the usual manipulation of statistics “proving” a political purpose with which a “study” begins.
    I used to give this example of statistical manipulation:
    The fact: two candidates had split a vote fifty/fifty.
    A newspaper said: there was a fierce struggle.
    I say: people didn’t give a damn who will win.
    Therefore, OTHER data are needed before we make far reaching conclusions.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Apr 25, 10:35 AM    #

31. While through my own experience I know that discrimination can and does happen in physics, I find the arguments in the paper rather a stretch statistically. Her measure of productivity results, to within the error bars, with productivities that are not patently different. Further, the assumptions based on the statistics in the paper (the raw data is missing unfortunately) are presumptive at best. 1. The assumption that co-authorship of internal review papers is directly related to conference presenter invites is not true in my experience. There are a large number of factors. Some males that are brilliant and highly productive also don’t get invites because they don’t speak in public. Ever. 2. It is true there are fewer females in physics in general, and HEP specifically. This is a problem that has been discussed and worried over extensively in the community. It is only in part due to a perception of discrimination. There are a number of other factors involved would require a great deal of space to discuss here. In the end, again mostly anecdotally, the females that are in physics programs are above the average for the entire population, making it not surprising to think they might be more productive. 3. The successful job search rates are not that different, and the presumption that obtaining a faculty position is based solely on publications or conference presentations is flat fictitious. The final group getting interviews are usually so even in abilities to make it mostly intangibles that lead to final employment. 4/9 compared to 16/48 employment numbers certainly doesn’t scream discrimination. Postdocs at Fermilab all have solid research creds. But can they teach? Do they interview well? 4. The paper overlooks the real possibility that from fear of being called discriminatory (and believe me people are worried about this appearance), females COULD have been added as co-authors more frequently simply to have a female on the paper. It happens. This would inflate the productivity numbers for the females. My point is there are way too many variables not considered to make the statistical analyses sound. Does GD exist, in all part of society, and particularly in physics? Certainly. Are there ladies that perceive setbacks in their careers as GD (or anything else) when it is their own failing? Also certainly. Females aren’t alone in this. Males find reasons to fail and blame it on something external probably more frequently.

    — W. Powell    Apr 25, 12:09 PM    #

32. I find the conclusions of W. Powell, #31, exhaustive. It is very sad that the question is treated, again and again, histerically.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Apr 25, 01:04 PM    #

33. You know, if the study was about a company that was run by women, and it was found that men were discriminated against, everyone would be up in arms about those “feminazi bitches”.

    However, when yet another study concludes that there is still sexism in the workplace we all stick our fingers in our ears and make increasingly insipid excuses for the continuation of the patriarchy.

    I wish I could forward all the opinions of misogyny-apologizers to their girlfriends, wives, sisters, and mothers. I am sure that women everywhere really appreciate you making excuses for the pricks that live to put more and more hurtles between a woman finally getting the same sort of recognition, be it pay or professional acclaim, that a man is entitled to just because his genitals jut proudly from his torso.

    — Jen    Apr 27, 05:43 PM    #

34. A different Dan talks about women “giving up out of fear of sexism”. I think this remark gets to the heart of why most physics academics can delude themselves into thinking they are acting ethically by ignoring the problem: they have no friggin clue of how difficult it is to combat this discrimination. For me, it started when I was about 2 years old and I threw tantrums whenever my family tried to stereotype me into being someone that I couldn’t possibly be. FEAR? You don’t know what courage is. I made the decision to remain alone for the rest of my life, have no children etc. I have been very, very ill on occasion due to the most common form of direct discrimination: people not listening to a word I said. Now I am back to waitressing again. And I keep doing this. Decade after decade.

    — Kea    Apr 29, 05:02 PM    #

35. #33 Gerard Harbison is a well-known fruitcake who likes to hate on women, just google him. Nice how he’s rewritten the story of his interactions to make him a victim. Kind of like how a lot of men keep reacting to valid criticism of the state of particle physics.

    — Another one    May 17, 06:41 PM    #

36. The universe and all matter is only an illusion anyway. The only thing that really exists, is consciousness. All of time and space, energy and matter are all that can be seen is a dot on the map of what could be. Or what will be when all wake up and balance there own yin and yang within. Equality exists in higher dimensions.

    — Lindsey    May 18, 10:23 AM    #

37. Someone is in involved in a lawsuit with an institution…they themselves set-up a study that backs their lawsuit claim…and only in America is it reported as news…sad beyond belief…get one other study to back the claim from a stats standpoint that has no prior relationship with the person who conducted the “first research” and get their stats to match and then we should all take notice…I personally think these lawsuits are counterproductive to research, and will eventually have their desire to drive the good from the academic world..

    — deadmonz    May 19, 07:06 AM    #

38. Does a variation of the Heisenberg principle apply here? As soon as one measures and reports sexism, racism, etc., do those conducting it change their methods and activities?

    — JS    May 19, 04:04 PM    #

39. I have to support Lindsey’s comment because that’s the Truth!!

    — MJLG    May 20, 10:56 AM    #

Previous: For Student Borrowers, Chase Proves Elusive
Next: Venezuelan Student Leader Wins $500,000 Award