This book reports a 5-year policy study of women and science in higher education institutions in Australia. The study began with the hypothesis that women's lower participation in the scientific and technological workforce could be explained partially by the institutional ecology (i.e., discourse, role modeling and mentorship, image and structure, and content of discipline) of universities and institutes of higher education. Byrne collects and analyzes data that help discern which attributes of the institutional ecology must change to promote the acquisition and retention of women in the sciences. In particular, the author compiles student and staff statistics in a significant sample of Australian institutions of higher education and in a wide range of science disciplines, and interviews key academic staff as sources of field opinion. Findings include the following:
- Whereas in some disciplines there is little interinstitutional variation in the presence of women (e.g., physics, engineering), in other disciplines there is considerable variation between institutions (e.g., geology, chemistry). 2. The number of women on staff does not correlate well with the number of female graduate or undergraduate students. 3. Based on a literature review, mentoring (same-sex or cross-sex) appears to be more effective than same-sex role-modeling.
Byrne's primary audience for this research includes leaders in higher education who may justify their inaction by pointing to a single factor, out of their control, that determines women's participation. Much of the qualitative interview data is used to illustrate these attitudes among faculty. For example, some argue that the problem is a social and cultural one in which girls are perceived as unfeminine if they enter the sciences. Or they may point to the influence of parents, counselors, and precollege teachers as the source of the problem. Although Byrne does not deny the relevance of these factors, she argues that these factors cannot explain the wide variation in female participation in the same science discipline at different institutions. Clearly, the institution itself affects female participation. Similarly, Byrne uses data from higher education institutions to show how the mere presence of women on staff does not lead to greater female enrollments. This provides a compelling argument against those who would prefer to leave "the problem" of women's participation in science to other women who can serve as same-sex role models.
Byrne is concerned about designing policies that will retain women in science. She is also interested in challenging the leadership in higher education, where it may not be understood "that single-dimension strategies do not work and that programmes or strategies that use clusters of causally related factors are necessary " (p. 193).
Most people who design programs for women and girls in science have understood this for some time. To maximize effectiveness, most programs use multiple strategies that may include role models, mentoring, curricular changes, peer support, and altering pedagogy and learning environ-