On Research…

Of women and a man . . .

Ohio State recently got $3.6 million from the National Science Foundation for a new five-year project to change the academic culture in disciplines where women are underrepresented – namely, the so-called STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The university issued a news release explaining the program on Sept. 25.

Male scientist in lab Just two weeks later, the president of the Ohio Association of Scholars complained in an online column that the new program could lead to “hiring discrimination and quotas that are illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the university’s mission of academic excellence.” George W. Dent Jr., a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, called on Ohio State and the NSF to delay implementing the program until it can be proven that no laws will be broken in carrying out this initiative.

The column attracted the attention of some Ohio news media. It appeared as an opinion piece in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and was the impetus for a story in the Columbus Dispatch on Nov. 1.

Sadly, a multimillion federal grant intended to foster gender equity at the nation’s largest single-campus university warranted very little news media attention by itself. But when one man complained about the program, it suddenly became news.

Dent made a pretty bold statement suggesting that Ohio State is prepared to use federal funding to launch into illegal hiring practices. But worse, he made the highly offensive suggestion that an effort to improve the status of women faculty at the university automatically means new hires under such a program will be unqualified

Dent might not have made that leap explicitly, but the implication is plainly there.

He based all of his arguments on the university announcement of the grant — a news release that I wrote — and asked for empirical evidence of the need for and benefits of such a program. He seemed to rely on the 800-word news release for all of his information about the initiative. In fact, the news release summarized a 9,000-word grant proposal, which did not include references and appendices. The empirical evidence Dent is looking for is most likely available there.

His column also pulls from the news release a line saying “Ohio State has adopted progressive policies that allow for flexibility on the tenure track and has created support offices promoting gender equity.” But he omits the rest of that sentence: “(u)niversity surveys show that women faculty have heavier family obligations than men, and female professors are more likely to report that they work in unsupportive department cultures.”

Glass ceiling for women It seems obvious that just because the institution promotes gender equity, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t individuals practicing discrimination every single day within the confines of an academic department. Ohio State has publicly available human resources data that imply this is the case, and the data are cited in the grant proposal.

Also, Dent’s employer, Case Western Reserve University, also received a similar NSF grant under the same national program – called ADVANCE – to promote the full participation of women at all levels of faculty and academic leadership.

It’s puzzling that the president of the Ohio Association of Scholars didn’t do enough research to recognize that his own institution competed for and received a federal grant for the exact same kind of program he now criticizes Ohio State for.

Ohio State can take the heat. We’re a big university. We get lots of complaints. But why do women still have to take shots like these and be criticized for seeking equality in the workplace? –Emily Caldwell

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
7 Comments »

News and the blogosphere . . .

The world for journalists and science writers is changing. It’s inevitable. More than ever, we find ourselves using other venues to disseminate information and learn about the world.

Reporter at work For example, nearly every major news outlet has a blog these days. Instead of writing lengthy stories in print, we blog professionally to tell the public what’s new. I used to think negative comments about a news story were just ways for disgruntled people to vent after a bad day. But the truth is that many writers, myself included, learn more from the public than they learn from us.

Reading one reporter’s opinion, and those of people who choose to subscribe to a blog, only widens our knowledge partially. But in non-news blogs, the public unintentionally informs us the details that we’ve overlooked. The general public may not understand the complexities behind each story, but their comments can tell us more about our writing than we know.

People don’t hold back in blogs and they often point out the holes in research or important, missing facts in a story. They also comment on what they want to see more of in future pieces. Some people may miss the point of a story completely but others will ask insightful questions, consider the unknowns, and think in broader terms.

This information is so important to understand how to write for different people. Their views can help me and other writers judge how well our writing anticipates readers’ questions. It’s often regular people, not other journalists, who help us question what is truly substantive in our writing.

blogs It’s also interesting to see what people agree and disagree with. That offers us a window into how people think. We can delve in the psyche of readers without their knowledge and build future stories based on what we learned. Even if they didn’t intend to teach reporters, their comments soak into our brains and reshape how we write.

From blogs, we can learn what people want and expect from their news. It’s a new facet of news that should be utilized by all writers developing their skills to better serve the public. To waste this opportunity or simply shrug off the intrinsic value of knowing other people’s opinions would be insanity. Knowing how people think and what interests them is a key part of writing.

It’s inevitable, the way we used to think about news has changed. If we don’t utilize the resources around us, especially those that appear useless, we lose sight of why we became writers. __Jenna McGuire

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks