For our blog post this week, we were asked to read and then reflect on a paper discussing the experiences of non-male graduate students in STEM. Below, I noted my initial reflections as I read the paper in little blurbs, and then reflected on the conclusions of the paper as a whole as the bottom of this post.
I thought that the number of people who participated in the study was interesting. 11 people doesn’t seem like very many, but I wonder how they compare to the overall demographics of the departments from which they were recruited, and of the school as a whole. The author notes that the answers were starting to yield similar results, so I wonder if the results as a whole reflect most of the thoughts of the community.
I also thought the results regarding body language were very interesting. I don’t think I would have thought about how that discomfort in classes or in certain academic situations would be reflected in their behavior during the interview.
I didn’t have an immediate feeling about “STEM Culture” as a concept, but I think that that is an interesting reflection of the fact that my department was not considered for this study. We have to much of a gender balance, and so I wonder if that is reflected in my immediate gut reaction. However, I note that this does not mean that we don’t experience gender-based discrimination within my department.
I was surprised by the comment made where a student was judgmental toward a TA when they didn’t immediately know the answer to a question. I haven’t had this type of experience, though I do more frequently work with students in their first two years, so they may not have that type of confidence or arrogance yet. They haven’t been indoctrinated into the “toxic” “STEM Culture” being described in the article.
I thought the distinction between mentors and supervisors was very interesting, and I like the emphasis on the importance of mentorship for graduate students, even as some of the interviewees had mentors in undergrad as well.
In addition to my more specific reflections above, I found that my biggest reflection ties to what I said above about my department being excluded from this particular study. Earth science is part of STEM, but was intentionally not included. On the one hand, this is great as the reason was that we have a more even gender distribution than other departments. On the other hand, this doesn’t remove gender based discrimination. Interestingly, I do think that I have not had the same types of experiences as some of the interviewees, potentially because of the more balanced distribution. But instead I actually think of different types of gender-based experiences as being more typical in my department. However, these track with gender-based experiences outside of academia as well. Most things I’ve heard or experienced surround sexual harassment rather than mis-use of representation by my department. However, as I said, the more standard discriminatory behavior is also not entirely absent. Being talked down to, much like the researcher addressed as “honey” is not unheard of. While this has not been part of my experience, I do agree with the conclusions regarding allowing students to choose a supervisor, as well as to choose their type of TA assignments. I have been allowed to do both of these things, which I think has positively affected my graduate experience.
I’m curious to hear what others in my lab thought about this report and their interpretations of differing gender-based experiences in STEM and in our department. In particular, I’m curious about the experiences of those who have backgrounds in physics and whether they feel that being in Earth Science has changed their experiences with STEM culture.
Commenti