“Are we there yet?” Women in shark science
Our small pangas bob in the steadily rising waves as we take turns swimming the in-water transects to survey reef-associated sharks and rays (while avoiding the crocs). We are far offshore on Mexico’s Banco Chinchorro atoll and I am the only woman among 16 traditional fishers. With many kilometers to swim I have time to ponder the sex ratio of my current team (distinctly skewed, but that’s my norm), but it leads me to contemplate the status of women in science and focus on my field of elasmobranch research and how gender issues contribute to the decline of shark and ray populations today.
Science is experiencing a paradox: more women are enrolled in universities than men, yet they comprise only a small percentage of those studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The initial rivulet of reports on women’s status in science, professional advancement, lack of pay parity and struggles to juggle demanding jobs with parenthood is now a torrent. A double-blind study conducted by Dr. Corinne Ross-Racusin of Yale University revealed that male candidates for lab manager position are viewed as more competent than women with identical qualifications. Student applications for a lab manager position were randomly given male or female names and rated by faculty of both sexes, revealing significant preferences for hiring and mentoring of male students with offers of higher pay.
Media spotlights on high-level biases in academia against women are too many to quote but include the recent and now infamous Nobel Prize winner Prof. Tim Hunt who reportedly said “Three things happen when they [women] are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.” The consequent massive outcry and social media campaign, with a mocking Twitter handle “distractinglysexy” raucously countered Prof. Hunt’s supposition. From an early age, girls are expected to be more accommodating, diligent and less boisterous, habits that become entrenched. Additional studies reveal that women’s ingrained subtle behaviors and choice of language further place them at a disadvantage in group situations with men. Ideas quietly proffered by women are often either discredited publically and/or trumpeted by their colleagues without giving appropriate credit. No wonder Sheryl Sandberg the COO of Facebook and co-author of “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,” exhorts women not to cower in the background and “lean in” to take their rightful place at the professional table.
So what do women bring to the scientific table? Although generalized, women have been proven to be better multi-taskers than men, better communicators who reach out to others when looking for a solution, more empathetic, and also risk averse. Scientific puzzles often require a range of approaches to solve and the qualities possessed by women are complementary to men’s, notably women’s greater ability to see the “big picture” and seek consensus, key qualities to advance our field of elasmobranch research and conservation.
Yet even with the many advances women have made in numerous professional fields over the past century, there remains an unmistakable glass ceiling: for example, only 26% of women are college presidents in the US. According to John W. Curtis of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), women faculty in 2009–2010 made 81% of men’s pay despite their academic position, which represented no change from the similar survey conducted in 1975–1976. Greater pay parity exists in community colleges; however, women hold a greater proportion of lower academic positions also associated with lower pay Recent studies show that women are more readily passed over for promotions, not given credit for their findings, and undermined by male colleagues covetous of their posts. Virgina Valian noted in her 1999 book “Why So Slow?” that women in academic posts are subjected to a “death of a thousand cuts” — the accumulation of slight disadvantages every step along the career path.
The situation is further compounded by cutbacks in academia that threaten tenured positions and justify hiring cheaper adjunct faculty. Women suffer these changes disproportionately and often find themselves unable to remain in their chosen field when they start a family. The former dean at one of the US’s largest universities once told me he loathed having to hire women because “you invest all this time in money in them and then they leave and start a family.” Although the same statistics are hard to find for the conservation fields discussions with peers in this sector indicate that gender discrimination in professional advancement and pay is also rife.
Biases that restrict women’s success are also borne by ethnic minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people. Although studies that look at the impacts borne by gay men and women in science are lacking, Mitchell Waldrop noted in the journal Nature that “People who identify as LGBT have long faced discrimination or worse: they are still considered outcasts or even outlaws in most Muslim nations, as well as Russia and Asia…. Many LGBT scientists fear coming out — if only because publications, career progression and promotion are based heavily on the judgment of fellow scientists, which might be influenced by conscious or unconscious bias. And many students may be avoiding a research career entirely — although no one knows, because no one has counted.”
Most of the studies concentrating on gender discrimination in women scientists have focused on developed countries. Yet the situation may be more acutely felt in developing countries, where coincidentally most shark and ray species occur with relatively fewer researchers focused on their study and conservation. A large longitudinal study examining gender biases towards working mothers led by Kathleen L. McGinn, at Harvard Business School surveyed 31,478 adults in 24 countries in 2002 and again in 2012. The study noted that Chile, Philippines and Mexico fell into the category of “Stagnating conservatives” where no difference was noted in attitudes towards gender equality between 2002 and 2012. Entrenched gender roles and beliefs bodes ill for the launching, advancement and future success of women scientists.
Shark Science
The field of shark science is fueled by testosterone. Testament to this is the television program “Shark Men” and male dominated “Shark Week” shows … disregarding the significant number of women scientists the field. And who can forget that gruff male posse who started the whole shark media frenzy by delivering the infamous line -“we’re going to need a bigger boat”. Speaking of Jaws — it’s the 40th anniversary of that iconic movie — let’s look at it through a gender-sensitized lens. Who got eaten? The woman. Of course. Penalized for luring a guy to the beach, stripping off her clothing and enticing him with her Siren-song to the sea, the young woman was a veritable model of sexual freedom. Nope, can’t have that, so bring up the music, munch, crunch, and goodbye. Oh, and guys save the day, again, as they do in most action movies. In fact, according to the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media only 23.3% movie roles are led or co-led held by women, and women continue to be widely stereotyped and sexualized in movies. Moreover, roles depicting STEM are disproportionately acted by men by a 7:1 ratio[1]. But I digress.
Gender discrimination is the elephant in the room of shark science. Loud and clear, though, from my discussions with women scientists: although all experience gender discrimination in a myriad of forms, NO ONE wants to be perceived as a victim. This stops many women from coming forward and revealing issues. The women interviewed also noted that standing up to clearly discriminatory practices earns, at the very least comments, such as “you’re so sensitive…”, “you took it the wrong way…” and my personal favorite “I was just joking”, to the the egregiously dismissive “what a bitch”. It impacts women’s abilities to gain valuable skills when men are chosen for field work and women relegated to the lab because men were considered able to handle sharks, notably large sharks, better than women. Several women with whom I spoke had borne professional and academic bullying from peers or supervisors: male colleagues were supportive of them so long as the woman maintained a subordinate role, but were then penalized and subtly or even overtly undermined once the woman had reached the status of peer and therefore viewed as a competitor. Several women I have spoken to have employed a strategy that can prove to be a time-bomb of stress: to confine the issues to a “box” and try to forget about them and move on. But the burden can take an unfathomable toll.
On condition of anonymity, due to fear of reprisals, several women I spoke with for this article would only tell me their stories of life as a shark scientist on a purely confidential basis. All bar one had — myself included — suffered sexual harassment. This supports a recent study published in PLoSOne[2] that found that 64% of the 666 field scientists surveyed in several fields had been subject to sexual harassment and 20% had suffered sexual assault. The majority of harassment and assaults were borne by women, mostly in student or trainee roles. Women scientists shared with me that harassment is also subtle, where their intellectual capacities are dismissed and they are reduced to pretty objects useful only in a subservient role as male scientists call them “baby” (or other similar denigrating endearments) or exact hugs for completing a professional request. The power dynamics in shark science between men who are more often in supervisory roles, and women who are more often in trainee roles, making it difficult for women to speak out against bad behavior and discrimination.
The 2014 Sharks International Conference hosted the majority of shark scientists around the world, with a hearteningly large number of women. Yet the four keynote speakers were men. So many excellent women shark scientists including Dr. Michelle Heupel, Dr. Heidi Dewar, Dr. Patricia Charvet-Almeida, Sarah Fowler, Dr. Shelley Clarke, Dr. Sabine Wintner, Dr. Rima Jabado, Sonja Fordham, Dr. Julia Baum, to name but a few, could have presented as keynote and provided role models for the many young women at the conference. It also saddened me to hear that few shark scientists, male or female, had solid prospects beyond graduate school or post-doc. They suffered from a lack of funding and career prospects and possessed limited opportunities to start a family due to professional and financial instability.
Parenthood and science
Women in science face many challenges: one of the largest is the timing of career development a ticking biological clock, and for those with children, juggling a family with a successful career. Which brings me to an anecdote on the subject. I joined a week-long National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) organized survey for juvenile blue and mako sharks off the coast of California in 2007 at the invitation of Drs. Suzie Kohin and Heidi Dewar of the SW Fisheries Center. The survey team notably consisted mostly of young women. On one occasion as the longlines soaked, Heidi and I sat in the mess and commiserated on sleep deprivation induced memory loss and missing our respective boys (4 years old at the time) and we made a list of the women we knew globally who were actively engaged tagging and tracking sharks. The list contained fewer than 20 names. We then looked to see who had children. Stunned, we looked at each other realizing that we were the only two women with children who were active in the field. We do take our collective hats off to our role model, the fabulous and sadly late Dr. Eugenie Clarke, who balanced child-raising and a career in marine science so many years ago.
While many more women have joined the ranks of shark scientists since 2007, the number of active field scientists with children has only marginally increased. With many governments cutting funding to science and pushing scientists increasingly towards soft money grants to maintain and grow their programs, few sources of funding exist for shark research and conservation and those that do often refuse to pay salaries, benefits and overheads. The lack of adequate health insurance, paid maternity leave and even child-care makes childbearing cost-prohibitive for most women. Mirroring global trends, several women scientists I spoke to who had a partner, had delayed childbearing as long as possible to ensure they shored up their career and established a modicum of financial stability. Because academia can be so unforgiving, many opted to transition to more flexible employment, such as management or conservation research run by private sector, government institutions or non-governmental organizations. I knew that I wanted to continue working with sharks, promote science based conservation and outreach and support traditional fishers who are keen to fish sustainably, so I founded the non-profit MarAlliance. Most of our staff are women.
The only way that a woman can succeed in science and have a family is if she has a strong support network. For those women lacking a supportive partner — or even a partner, a network of family and/or friends along with sufficient funds to pay for the additional child-care exacted by this field of work are essential. Solutions to keep women active in shark science throughout their career is important now as the large cohort of younger researchers grows older and faces the choice of starting a family. Depriving our field of women, just when their body of knowledge can best work to help understand and reverse shark declines, at a critical juncture when ever more ingenuity is required, could have long reaching and negative effects.
But all is not dire: A silver lining was recently identified in the study led by Kathleen L. McGinn, (see above) that revealed positive adult outcomes for daughters of working mothers who generally completed more education, earned more and occupied more supervisory positions. Although sons of working mothers did not benefit from the same professional advantages they were more likely to help care for children and do household chores, qualities that may help their future partners juggle work and family.
Of course, not all women scientists want or can have children. These women often have to cope with other men and women failing to understand their choice. For those who wanted, but were unable to have children because of a possible confluence of factors, the pain of regret in not having a child can be visceral. They often have paid a hefty price at the altar of science and yet still bear the same discrimination in the workplace and the glass ceiling.
So how do we ensure that shark science and management embraces women and provides them with the support they need to do their jobs well and create generations of shark ambassadors? I was lucky that my grandmother, mother and several of their friends provided fantastic personal and professional role models from an early age. I also believe it is key to engage and empower girls early on in science (The Gills Club and our very own Kids Meet Sharks program are some excellent examples). Further we need to provide greater professional support, mentoring and opportunities for young women and enable more senior women to break through the glass ceiling through formal opportunities to develop professional and leadership experience.
Donors also need to reconsider their refusal to fund salaries and benefits without which women will be forced to continue leaving the field. Conference and workshop organizers need to include sponsored childcare that covers evening functions to enable mothers to network and discuss the ideas with colleagues. Discussion groups must be held at meetings to share gender issues, inform and sensitize others to harmful and discriminating professional practices that are not limited to women.
The elephant in the room in shark science is finally being addressed by the American Elasmobranch Society (AES) that has created a committee to address gender issues and the treatment of women in the field. The discussion on gender has started and hopefully positive changes will permeate throughout the ranks and through active engagement with men and women in the field will reach other ocean basins.
After my many interviews with my female shark science colleagues I would also be remiss in not leaving some parting advice to our male colleagues and other men of science. For example, you need to ask yourself would you really make those quips to another man? Also stop with the “baby” or “babe” monikers and lay off the pseudo “fashion” advice like “wow, that shirt fits you very well”, “your legs look nice in those shorts” or “phew, nice cleavage.” And please lay off the condescending “you can’t possibly manage to hold a large shark” nonsense and more.
My advice to young women: There is NEVER a perfect time to start a family. I speak from experience having submitted my PhD thesis 36 hours before going into labor and taking my viva one month after my son’s birth. Frankly, don’t do that. Do your utmost to create a support network and then recognize that you can have a career and babies, but you will make sacrifices. You will miss key events in your children’s lives and always worry about how they are doing — ALWAYS. But when your child tells others that s/he wants to be a marine biologist like mum, you know you managed the juggle, somehow. A friend of mine once told me many years ago that “you will not want to hug your papers and acoustic receivers on your death bed. You will want to hug your family, whether you have children or not.” Science is important, it feeds us in so many ways, but ultimately it is not always the most important thing in life.
A bit cliché, but all of this makes me think of the Virginia Slims lady in the 1980s cigarette commercial, who extolls “We’ve come a long way baby”. Yes, we have made some considerable strides in gender equity and empowerment, but only in some respects as regards to science. And in the end it comes down to what my kids in the backseat of my car always say, no matter how long the journey — “Are we there yet?”- to which I invariably reply “No…not yet!”
Rachel T. Graham
Acknowledgements: I want to thank all the women who so kindly took the time to speak or write to me and tell me their stories — often with difficulty, of their challenges and successes as a researcher. Thanks also to Diane Kendall for her help editing.
[1] Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media: http://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/gender-bias-without-borders-executive-summary.pdf
[2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
