The first MSE symposium was a success!

Last week, the Microbes and Social Equity working group hosted its first ever symposium! We hosted 15 talks over 5 days, with each session melding presentations and active discussion groups.

In total, the symposium had 254 participants (467 registrants) from 22 countries, and including researchers from various fields and career levels, as well as members of the Maine State Legislation, and members of the general public.  The breakout rooms resulted in 16 draft documents collaboratively written by meeting ideas, which highlight issues/barriers to social equity in research and practice, resources and policy ideas to resolve inequity, research questions yet to be answered, and ideas for curricula development and integrating research and policy into education.

STEMMinists of Maine inaugural meeting announced!

One of the biggest challenges faced by STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math, medicine) advocacy groups is finding the time and resources to propose and execute initiatives, as well as find the time for social media engagement to grow the group. There are a number of groups already established in Maine which seek to promote STEMM advocacy/education, accessibility, diversity/equity/inclusion, campus community members, and the general public. 

STEMMinists of Maine is a newly-formed STEMM advocacy group, which seeks to bring together these various groups. Our goal is to act as an umbrella organization, to create a cohesive social media presence that makes it easier for people interested in STEMM advocacy and inclusion to find resources, coordinate events, and get the message out.  All participating groups will remain autonomous, but participation (which is free) will hopefully allow us all to reach a broader audience and have a greater impact in both campus and state-wide initiatives.

Our inaugural meeting will be held at the University of Maine campus, 57 Stodder Hall, to introduce STEMMinists and invite others to be part of our work to promote a better STEMM community. All are welcome!

Shortly after, our website and social media will be finalized and launched!

Expanding Your Horizons for Girls workshop, MSU 2017

Yesterday I participated in the Expanding Your Horizons for Girls workshop at Montana State University!  EYH brings almost 300 middle-school aged girls from all over Montana for a one-day conference in STEM fields.  Twenty-seven instructors, including myself and other female scientists and educators, ran workshops related to our current research.  My presentations were on “Unlocking the Hidden World of Soil Bacteria”, with the help of undergraduate Genna Shaia from the Menalled Lab.

I gave the girls a brief presentation on microbial ecology, and how bacteria and fungi can affect plants in agricultural soil.  We talked about beneficial versus pathogenic microorganisms, and how different farming strategies can influence soil microbiota.  This was followed by two hands-on activities that they were able to talk home with them.  First, the girls made culture plates from living or sterile soil that was growing wheat or peas to see what kind of microbes they could grow.  Then, they planted wheat seeds in either living or sterile soil so they could track which soil made the seeds germinate faster.


The girls were enthusiastic to learn, asked lots of insightful questions, and it was awesome being able to share microbiology with kids who hadn’t given it much thought before!  If you are a woman in STEM, and have the opportunity to participate in a workshop or mentor a young scientist,  it is not only rewarding but can make a huge impact on encouraging women into STEM.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Slideshow photos: Genna Shaia, reproduced with student permission.

Where are the women in STEM?

The “Women in Science” debate has been raging on in a variety of ways, from wondering why there aren’t more of us to whether or not a mixed-gender lab is too distractingly sexy.  The amount of women in science, the pay gap, and career advancement potential varies wildly by country and research field. So does public opinion about whether or not there is an actual problem, what might be causing it, and what we might do about it. In 2011, women only earned about 18% of undergraduate computer science degrees, down from its peak of 37% in 1985. The percentage of women earning graduate-level degrees has been slowly increasing since 1970, with 28% of the masters degrees and 20% of the doctoral degrees (Ph.D ,s) being earned by women in 2011. Women make up roughly 41% of total STEM doctoral degrees earned; however, women only fill 24% of STEM jobs in the US, and only 25% of STEM managers are female. Universities are only slightly better, with 28% of tenure-track faculty positions being held by women in the US, but only 12% worldwide.

This debate isn’t just specific to science in academia, but a lack of diversity in the educational system can have interesting effects.  First, a lack of female (or other demographic) role models means that female children are less likely to go into that field: if they don’t see anyone paving the way, then the idea that they might also become a physicist doesn’t occur to them or doesn’t sound like an attractive career.  While boys and girls are taking math and science in equal numbers in grade school, this doesn’t translate into the same number of men and women in math or science undergraduate fields, where women only earn 18% of undergraduate  computer science degrees, down from 37% in 1985, and only 11.5% of software developers are female.  Part of this is the perception that men are better than women at math and science, even though women have been shown to be better at writing computer code than men, but only when reviewers did not know the coder was female.  Science faculty, regardless of their own gender, were more likely to hire a male applicant over an identical female applicant, and offered them several thousand dollars more starting salary for the same position. The male applicant was perceived as more competent, more hirable, and more in need of mentoring than the identical female applicant.

Another problem is that women are less likely to have people sponsoring or advocating for them in the work place (available here and discussed here).  People with sponsors were 30% more likely to be promoted or given raises.  As of 2014, only 23% of Americans polled preferred a female boss, which is and has always been lower than the number of respondents preferring a male boss, which may account for the lack of support women find in climbing the ladder.  Surprisingly, women were 13% more likely to want a male boss, which may be a reaction to fierce competition to become the “token woman” at a company or working group, as women or other minorities who advocate hiring another woman or minority are rated poorly.  There is also the perception among women that a female boss is less likely to promote you over herself, as she doesn’t want competition, known as Queen Bee Syndrome.  This too, has been refuted, as women are shown to be more likely to mentor and develop female employees lower down on the ladder (discussed here).

Finally, one of the reasons that women are not found in some fields or levels of management, which no one really wants to discuss, is the disparaging levels of sexism and harassment we may face.  For female graduate students, post-docs, or new professionals, sexual harassment at work can increase attrition rates.  Due to the close nature of the working relationship of graduates/post-docs with their advisors, many students feel they can’t report inappropriate behavior (of any nature) for fear of losing their position in the program.  As a student, you need your advisor to approve everything, from the courses you have taken to manuscripts before publishing, and a poor relationship with your advisor can make it nearly impossible for you to complete your work.  Tenured faculty who have been accused of harassment also seem to be acting with impunity, as it can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly to fire a tenure professor (in the absence of proven criminal activity).  In field situations, sexual harassment can take on a more sinister tone, as you may be the only female in a group and depending on your abuser to keep you alive.

So what can we do about this?  Because this isn’t just a woman’s issue.  That’s what I discussed here because I have some expertise with being a woman, but in general, diversity in society is a hotly contested issue.  It really shouldn’t be, increasing the diversity in a group can increase performance and improve decision making (discussed here).  Having a diverse group of people (in terms of gender, race, sexuality, education, economic status, birth order, pets owned, places lived, live experiences learned from..) gives the group a wider range of previous experience to lean upon when solving problems.  It’s why we evolved into a social society in the first place- it was better for survival.

The first step to solving our diversity issues is to let go of preconceived notions about yourself or others.  Stop thinking about life-related obstacles to your career trajectory, such as whether you want kids or having to relocate your family, and stop assuming that others might be better or worse at their job because they have chosen a certain family dynamic.  Stop thinking you might not get a job because of what the employer might thinking about women as bioinformaticians, and in turn stop stereotyping applicants based on your ideas of who they are and of what they are capable.

The second step is to be a role model, and to actively engage the next generations of computer scientists, astronauts, microbial ecologists, astrophysicists, and educators.  As a woman in science, it’s important to me to encourage other women and girls in science, because I would not be here today without the positive female role models I have had.  It’s important to support programs that encourage different minorities to achieve in fields where they are underrepresented, because it benefits all of us.

And the third step, perhaps the most difficult. is to have an open conversation about the difficulties and prejudices facing women, or anyone, in different science fields.  Often people can fall back on stereotypes or be sexist or racist without realizing it, and it’s important to speak up and have a conversation with them to come to a better understanding of how to get along.  When someone’s words or actions are creating a hostile work environment, tell them directly, as well as their supervisor or relevant reporting agency as needed.  If we don’t address the problem on an individual basis, then individuals will never amend their actions.  In addition, it’s important to validate the feelings of and listen to someone who has been the victim of harassment or a crime (of any nature), because it’s important to make them feel safe and believed.  Often, victims of sexual harassment state that not having their reports believed or treating seriously by supervisors was worse than the harassment itself.  And personally, I have plenty to do on a daily basis without having to deal with casual or institutional sexism.  Working women are simply too busy quietly doing well at ours jobs to deal with men’s feelings about us.




Sue wearing a paper hat shaped like a turkey.

Improving a child’s life is as easy as wearing a paper turkey-hat.

Encouraging girls to go into STEM fields is really important; studies show that female STEM high-school teachers and even online mentors increase the probability of female students following a STEM education.  Moreover, any child benefits academically and psychologically from having positive role models in their life, especially when they were role models that they interacted with as opposed to celebrity role models.  And the benefits don’t just extend to children, adults benefit from positive role models, too.  Certainly I have benefited from strong female role models in my life, from high school art teachers, to undergraduate lecturers, to family (happy birthday, Mom!).

This past fall I started putting my money where my mouth was- I started mentoring an elementary school-aged girl in Bozeman, MT through the Thrive Child Advancement Project (CAP).  So far, we have mostly been making art projects and talking about archaeology.  But we have been talking about trying to learn the Java programming language together!

There are lots of opportunities to mentor kids, either through CAP programs, Big Brother/Big Sister, Girls and Boy Scouts, etc., just a quick internet search brings up dozens of local options.  For less of a time commitment, you can also volunteer for community workshops, like the Girls for a Change summit in Bozeman or the Girls-n-Science in Billings.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

A rose by any other name doesn’t show up in search results

The convention of changing your maiden name to your husband’s last name after marriage is still overwhelmingly popular.  Several surveys estimate that 65% of US women still opt to change it, and it is something that is actually more popular now than in the late 1990s.  There are also persistent perceptions about women who do take their husbands last name being less competent, and they end up making lower salaries.  This debate takes on an extra dimension, though, when your last name will be tied to intellectual property, like works of art, music, publications, or businesses.

There are lots of reasons to change your name, and just as many to keep it.  In 2008, I changed from my maiden name, Pellegrini, to my husband’s last name, Ishaq.  At the time, I had graduated with a baccalaureate under Pellegrini, and while I was intending to go to graduate school I had not yet published anything.  Ishaq was shorter and easier to spell than Pellegrini, which I’d had to spell all the time growing up, so at the very least I thought it would save time when talking to customer service personnel. Seriously, on one phone call I made, the customer service employee thought I was spelling Pelllegrini (is there any last name with a triple L??).  I considered that I might have to keep my married name once I’d published even if I divorced, but at the time I was not attached to any last name, and did not think I would have any strong emotions tied one or the other, while taking his name meant a lot to my husband.

In 2014, when I divorced, I reconsidered my position.  For one thing, I was just about to graduate with a doctorate, I had several publications under Ishaq, and colleagues knew me that way.  For another, and this was a big one, it would make it harder to associate all of my materials, even online.  I would essentially be reinventing my professional self, at least for several years until the name change had permeated.  While some sites are dedicated to getting around this, however, you can still expect your h-index to be incorrectly low as your publications don’t compile.

At first, I made the decision to keep my married name, and over the course of a year realized that I did have strong emotions tied to my last name and my identity, such that I changed it.  Staying with my maiden name from the beginning would have certainly made things simpler.  All of my degrees, publications, professional self, and personal self would have been tied to a single name that predated my married life.  It would have saved me A LOT of paperwork, as well.  It’s fairly easy to change your name when you get married.  When you divorce; however, you may have to prove that you are allowed to return to your maiden name, as many states include that as a stipulation of the proceedings.  My ex-husband had to sign off giving me permission to return to my maiden name.  I had to include my divorce papers with every request to change my name at the social security office, and on credit cards, bank accounts, passports, insurance accounts, loan, etc.

I didn’t return to my maiden name, instead I legally became Suzanne Ishaq Pellegrini, and continued to publish as Suzanne Lynn Ishaq.  This makes things awkward, because MSU, grant funding agencies, and many scientific societies require and use my legal name, and list me in directories that way.  Thus, I still have the problem of having two professional identities.  And now I have the additional burden of having to explain my situation to clarify my different monikers to new colleagues that have never known me to be married.  To be clear, this isn’t a rant, a pitch, or a warning.  Just something to consider.  I don’t have any advice for this one, except to think it through.



A Lady on the Streets and a Tiger in the Sheets of Paperwork.

Stereotyping is a social adaptation which evolved to help individuals classify stimuli, and to make judgements about new, untested stimuli.  After all, once a crocodile ate your family, it was conducive to your survival to assume that all crocodiles were probably dangerous.  However, social interactions and the human sense of self is so much more nuanced today that stereotyping is no longer a valid social tool.  People make assumptions about others based on just about any aspect of their person, and this has very real repercussions for diversity and interactions in the workplace, though here I am focusing on preconceived notions of women.

Women often face a paradoxical set of rules for their personality and productivity, especially at work.  Sometimes we are perceived as being too talkative and willing to talk over others, yet a recent study showed that men do most of the talking in work meetings, and are much more likely to interrupt a woman and than man.  Women are perceived by men to be worse at problem solving, as being unreliable if they are working mothers, and as being worse team leaders or executives.  This is contrary to other studies which show women to be more effective leaders.  In that study, women were more likely to take charge, undergo professional development, be honest, and were better at communicative and collaborative skills.  Many women who were surveyed attributed their success to having to work much harder than their male counterparts in order to prove their competence.

Women are encouraged to be more feminine from many angles, such as societal norms, or product marketing and advertising, often with the perception that you will be more attractive and better liked if you exhibit predominantly feminine qualities (warmth, nurturing, patience). However, the perception of working women used to be (in 1984) that they were more masculine, and prior to that working women were seen as selfish, unfeminine, and cold.  While in 2014, working women were categorized as equally feminine and masculine, being more “masculine” (self-confident, self-promoting) is shown to increase your chance of promotion.  Women are also often expected to do workplace “chores” or to be altruistic (staying late, helping other employees, etc. at no personal gain) in ways that men are not.

Another problem is the perception of working women and their relation to their family, which has improved in the last century but still lags behind the times. It’s still assumed that women will at some point temporarily or permanently leave work to raise a family, and working mothers are commonly perceived to be unreliable in terms of performance and time spent at work.  There can still be negative attitudes towards women who work instead of staying home to raise children, even though countless studies across the globe have shown that working mothers (who want to be working) have a more positive attitude, act as role models, and reduce gender inequality in future generations (data from here and summarized here).

This also ties into theories about whether or not a woman should earn more that her man (arguments which ignore same-sex couple earning dynamics). However, this leads to the idea that women don’t work to financially support their families, but to feed an ambition, yet why can’t both be true?  Men responded that when jobs are scarce, men have more right to them than women, and were less likely to respond that a job was the best way for a woman to be independent.  Thus, women’s careers are incorrectly perceived as superfluous to supporting a family and leads to the idea that we don’t need to make as much as a man, who may be supporting his family.

I can personally attest to this.  For several years, I was financially supporting my ex-husband during his arduous job search following the 2008 recession.  It didn’t bother me, as I was applying to graduate school and preparing for the financial tables to turn once I transitioned to a student stipend.  However, our financial roles came as a surprise to many people, in that the thought hadn’t occurred to them that I was the prevailing breadwinner.  This was again reflected in people’s perceptions about what we would do after I graduated.  When I announced my interest in finding a post-doctoral position on the opposite US coast or internationally, people were surprised that I would ask my man to give up his job, start over in a new place, and move away from his family.  However, I would have been expected to do the same if our career roles had been reversed.

Luckily, attitudes about female bosses are changing, even if our paychecks aren’t.  Today fewer men responded that they would prefer a male boss to a female boss, and more had no preference, than they did 50 years ago.  Only 23% of Americans polled preferred a woman, which is and has always been lower than the number of respondents preferring a male boss.  Gender preference was also linked to the gender of your current boss, so it likely that people are as unsure of change in hierarchy as they are of specific genders in charge.  Surprisingly, women were 13% more likely to want a male boss, which may be a reaction to fierce competition to become the “token woman” at a company or working group, as women or other minorities who advocate hiring another woman or minority are penalized.  There is also the perception among women that a female boss less likely to promote you over herself, as she doesn’t want competition, known as Queen Bee Syndrome.  This too, has been refuted, as women are shown to be more likely to mentor and develop female employees lower down on the ladder (discussed here).    Interestingly, companies with higher numbers of women in leadership roles consistently do better financially than companies with low number of women in leadership roles.

So how do we act more confidently without being arrogant or dominating, prove that we are great at math and science without being narcissistic, or have a family but not make a big deal of it?  The best way to change public misconceptions is to prove them wrong.  My advice, for women, for everyone: just be yourself.  Be your best self. Be friendly and open, but judiciously say “no” to demands on your time.  Remember who you are, where you want to go, and be comfortable in your skin. Feel free to be feminine, masculine, or whatever (just remember to be professional).  As you work your way through your career, you should remember to be humble; after all, there is always someone out there that knows more than you do, but you also need to remember that you are intelligent, hard working, and you deserve to be where you are.