ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Training and Mentoring of Chemists: A Studyof Gender Disparity

Susan A. Nolan & Janine P. Buckner &

Cecilia H. Marzabadi & Valerie J. Kuck

Published online: 1 December 2007# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This study was conducted to compare women’sand men’s retrospective perceptions of the mentoring theyreceived during their training and career development inchemistry. Participants were 455 graduates (135 women)who received doctoral degrees from 11 top US chemistryprograms over a 5-year period (1988–1992). In 2003,graduates completed surveys of undergraduate, graduate,post-doctoral, and initial employment experiences. In linewith Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., Journal ofVocational Behavior 45:79–122, 1994), which posits thatperceptions of barriers can affect career decisions, resultssuggest that women perceived that they received lessmentoring than men at the undergraduate, graduate, andpost-doctoral levels of training, likely related to genderdifferences in eventual career success. Possible interventionsat the individual and institutional levels are discussed.

Keywords Chemistry . Science .MentoringGender equity . Social Cognitive Career Theory

Introduction

“Raise your hand if you’re a woman in science” (p. B01,Valian 2005) urged one of the hundreds of headlines thathave proliferated in the popular media in recent years. Themedia, along with myriad academic venues, have increas-ingly documented the obstacles faced by women in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). It’s nosecret that women are underrepresented in these fields,particularly at the highest levels. The obstacles that lead tounderrepresentation appear to be twofold; at the develop-mental level, gate-keeping effects limit women’s entry tothe higher levels of these fields, and at the retention level,environmental effects limit women’s longevity in thesepositions. Mentoring might be central to both of thesefactors. In line with this, the current study aims todocument the mentoring-related obstacles to developmentand retention with respect to women’s advancement in thefield of chemistry. Male and female doctoral recipientscompleted a survey to ascertain their perceptions of theirtraining at the undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctorallevels, as well as during early career experiences. Anunderstanding of gender differences in perceptions oftraining and careers would document ways in whichwomen are disadvantaged in comparison with men, andwould elucidate ways in which chemists and academicchemistry departments might respond to decrease genderdisparities.

Despite considerable progress toward gender equity inthe labor force over the last several decades, womencontinue to be in the minority at the highest levels acrossa range of fields (Valian 2000). The STEM fields are repletewith examples of the problems faced by women; indeed,there are fewer and fewer women at each succeeding levelof education, a gate-keeping pattern often described as a

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9310-5

S. A. Nolan : J. P. BucknerDepartment of Psychology, Center for Women’s Studies,Seton Hall University,South Orange, NJ, USA

C. H. Marzabadi :V. J. KuckDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Center for Women’sStudies, Seton Hall University,South Orange, NJ, USA

S. A. Nolan (*)Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University,400 South Orange Avenue,South Orange, NJ 07079, USAe-mail: nolansus@shu.edu

“leaky pipeline” (e.g., Kuck 2001). Even more problematic,for women who do enter the upper levels of the field, thereis a perception of a hostile environment that leads todifferential retention rates for women (Preston 2006). Therehas been frequent postulation that a lack of mentoring forwomen has contributed both to the leaky pipeline and to thehostile work environment (e.g., Rosser and Zieseniss 2000).

These patterns occur across STEM fields, and areobserved at all levels of training and career development—from the early years of training (when individuals form theircareer expectations, interests, goals, and identities as scien-tists), through the later years as women and men evaluatetheir outcome expectations and may revise their careerchoices and behaviors. Indeed, recent data suggest that inchemistry and mathematics, women received approximately50% of bachelor’s degrees in 2002, yet, in the same timeperiod, received only 34 and 29% of the doctorates inchemistry and mathematics, respectively (National ScienceFoundation 2002). Furthermore, across all doctorate-grantinginstitutions in the STEM fields for the years 1998–2002, theaverage doctoral attainment rate of women ranged from 68 to94% of the rate of men (Kuck 2001).

The decrease in the number of women continues intoemployment sectors (e.g., NSF 2001). The disparity isgreatest in the most elite positions, tenure-track professor-ships at the top 10 National Research Council (NRC)-ranked institutions. Both Long and Fox (1995) and Sharpeand Sonnert (1999) reported that women held dispropor-tionately more of the lower-ranked and less prestigioustenure track positions than did men. This pattern ofunderemployment of women is demonstrated vividly bythe low percentages of women who hold full-time facultypositions in engineering, mathematics, and the physicalsciences (5.9, 11.7, and 11.4%, respectively) at Research Iinstitutions (Long 2001; Long and Fox 1995). This lack ofwomen directly translates into a lack of female mentors androle models.

What follows from this mentor-related pattern of genderdifferences in training environments is a perceptibledisparity in the persistence of women and men in academicSTEM positions. Thus, in the formative periods ofeducation and career development, women and men mayface different obstacles to success and may utilize differentstrategies to enable them to make career decisions. Weanticipate that such obstacles will include mentoring-relateddifficulties among women more than men, a genderdisparity that would be apparent in an investigation ofwomen’s and men’s perceptions of training and careers.

The Case of Chemistry

Within the field of chemistry, there has been slow butconsistent progress with respect to the percentages of

women at the top ranked schools, but gate-keeping andenvironmental factors are clearly present. In 1994–1995,women held 6.6% of the full-time faculty positions at thetop 50 federally funded chemistry departments (Brennan1996). This increased to 10.7% in 2001 (Byrum 2001) androse slightly to 12% in 2003 (Marasco 2003). It isimportant to note, however, that during the years 1979–2000, the elite departments in this group of chemistry Ph.D.programs, namely the top 10 ranked chemistry programs,awarded nearly double the percentage (approximately 21%)of their doctorates to women (Kuck et al. 2004). This groupof graduates is the preferred applicant pool for facultypositions at these elite institutions (Kuck 2001). Thus,despite the anecdotal complaint that there are not enoughqualified available women with doctorates, the field ofchemistry is hiring well below the available pool of women.For example, one study showed that at the top 10institutions, among the STEM fields of chemistry, physics,electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and materialsscience, chemistry was the only field in which thepercentage of women at the assistant professor rank wasbelow that of the percentage of available female doctoralgraduates (Kuck 2001).

Although there is a large pool of women who could berecruited, it is crucial for faculty recruiting committees to beproactive in identifying, interviewing, and including wom-en in the final selection lists. A recent report by theNational Science and Technology Council (2000) docu-mented that the number of non-Hispanic, White men whograduate from programs in STEM disciplines, includingchemistry, will not be able to meet the future needs of thesefields. It is important both to increase the numbers of Whitemen and to recruit more women and ethnic minorities intothese fields. The reasons for the underutilization ofavailable women in chemistry, particularly when comparedwith other STEM fields, have received little empiricalattention. There are, for example, no data on whetherfemale chemists perceived that a lack of female mentorspresented a barrier for their success in training and earlycareers.

Social Cognitive Career Theory

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al. 1994)provides a framework within which to understand genderdisparities in training and employment patterns in STEMfields. SCCT posits that career development is shaped byvariables related to one’s self (person variables) and one’senvironment (environmental variables). The three primaryperson variables are self-efficacy, one’s belief that one cansucceed at a given task; outcome expectations, one’s beliefabout what will occur if one succeeds at said task; andgoals, or one’s desire to achieve a given outcome. These

236 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

variables interact with environmental variables, includinggender, ethnicity, social supports, and barriers, to influenceone’s career-related motivations, interests, decisions, andbehaviors.

These environmental variables can be viewed as integralcomponents of mentoring; specifically, gender and ethnicityaffect the mentoring relationships that one is likely to forge,and the social supports to which SCCT refers are likely toinclude mentoring relationships as a central component.SCCT further suggests that environmental variables, suchas mentoring, can directly shape person variables. Forexample, a lack of mentoring can decrease self-efficacy andnegatively color one’s expectations of possible outcomes,and, conversely, good mentoring can increase self-efficacyand positively color outcome expectations. In support of thestrong interplay among environmental factors, personvariables, and eventual success, Lent et al. (1999) arguethat actual outcomes are based on much more than one’sinterests. It appears that person variables and environmentalfactors, then, are likely to cull women from scientificcareers by erecting gate-keeping barriers that keep womenout and strengthening environmental variables that drivewomen out. In the current study, we aim to assessmentoring experiences, in an attempt to understand howwomen and men perceive this particular environmentalvariable. Differential perceptions of mentoring across levelsof training and career would suggest that women and menare likely receiving different inputs that directly affect theirperson variables, and thus, their career choices.

An important feature of SCCT is the emphasis on theperceptions, and not just the reality, of barriers. Albert andLuzzo (1999) go so far as to say that “even those barrierswith no basis in reality can, and often do, have a directimpact on the career decision-making process of anindividual” (p. 431). Brown and Lent (1996) note thathaving high levels of all three person variables (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals) is not necessar-ily sufficient for a successful STEM career, particularlywhen individuals perceive overwhelming barriers, andthereby reduce their persistence and motivation to succeed.Several studies have examined gender differences in STEMfields in an SCCT context (e.g., Lent et al. 2001, 2003,2005; Luzzo and McWhirter 2001; Nauta et al. 2002), andhave appropriately cited this model as a possible explana-tion for the lack of women at the highest levels of STEMfields. In fact, relations between efficacy and career-building choices have been observed as far back as highschool (Ochs and Roessler 2004; McWhirter 1997).

Such a model would view perceived barriers, including alack of social support such as mentoring, as potential causalfactors in lowering women’s self-efficacy. Decreased accessto mentoring and advising throughout training—at under-graduate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels—and career

development may also be directly linked to an ensuingdecrease in career interest in STEM fields. And, conversely,better mentoring, which might be derived from strongadvisor–advisee relationships, might decrease perceptionsof barriers and increase the person variables of self-efficacy,outcome expectations, and goals. To our knowledge,however, no study has directly examined women’s andmen’s perceptions of their mentoring experiences across arange of contexts. Documentation of differential percep-tions of mentoring would provide important evidence forthe environmental aspects of the SCCT model.

Experience of Training

It is clear from previous research that the environmentalvariable of mentoring is an important ingredient in successin training. For example, research across a range of fields(e.g., Jacobi 1991; Thile and Matt 1995) has documentedthe powerful role that faculty mentors play in undergraduatestudents’ development; outcomes have ranged from in-creased retention of students to improvement of academicperformance. There are fewer studies of mentoring at thegraduate level, but the results of these studies suggest thelikelihood that mentoring also plays an essential rolethroughout one’s academic career. In fact, Preston (2004)has shown that mentoring appears to lead, among femalescientists, to a greater likelihood of completing graduateschool and of successfully attaining employment, whereasher studies suggest that mentoring does not seem to havethe same beneficial effect for male scientists, whose successrates are similar regardless of the presence of a strongmentor.

Some researchers, across a range of disciplines and levelsof training, have examined specifically the role of femalementors for women, with several researchers commenting onproblems with cross-gender mentoring relationships (e.g.,Gumbiner 1998; Jacobi 1991; Schlegel 2000). Moreover,Gilbert and Rossman (1992) described three ways in whichmentors might help female students. They suggested thatfemale students benefit specifically from exposure to newmodels for careers, feelings of acceptance and empower-ment, and sponsorship by a mentor (i.e., introduction intothe social systems of the academy).

Any gender differences in students’ perceptions may bedue to differences in the mentoring styles of female andmale faculty members (Fox 2003). For example, femalefaculty members are more likely than male faculty membersto emphasize participation in laboratory meetings, frequentinteraction with faculty, and acquisition of a broad range ofskills, and they set higher standards for female students inseminar presentations. It would follow then, that if womenbenefit from having a female mentor, the lack of availablefemale mentors might be particularly detrimental for them.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 237237

There are several reasons specific to STEM fields,therefore, why women may be at a disadvantage comparedto men with respect to mentoring. Sharpe and Sonnert(1999) reported the absence of a “critical mass” of seniorwomen available to mentor female junior faculty membersand graduate students, which may leave many womenwithout a necessary support system (e.g., Riordan et al.1999). Preston (2004) found that, despite the particularbenefits of mentoring for women, women were less likelythan men to have reported having a “strong” mentoringrelationship in graduate school. In addition, women withoutmentors find it more difficult to make contacts with therecognized authorities in their fields and do not have criticaladvocates to push for their promotion, tenure, and nomina-tion for awards (Farley 1990). Recent data on the top 50NRC-ranked chemistry departments noted that, on average,there are four female faculty members out of an average of33 faculty members per department; 12 departments have 2or fewer female faculty (Marasco 2003). This trend appearsto be continuing, rather than improving (Kuck et al. 2007).Despite the documented importance of mentoring, particu-larly for female students and particularly by femalementors, research has not documented whether womenand men perceive their mentoring experiences differently.The perception of barriers, such as problems with mentor-ing, is the link by which SCCT posits that person variableswould be affected in ways that might affect career decisionsand career outcomes.

The Current Study

In line with the need to understand perceptions of barriers,the aim of our study was to elucidate differential patterns infemale and male doctoral recipients’ perceptions of trainingenvironments and subsequent careers, particularly as theyrelate to mentoring experiences. Our motivation was tounderstand why there are smaller proportions of women ateach ascending level of academia. Much of the research onthe gender disparity in chemistry has been based onanecdotal evidence or on studies drawn from small samples.Although these small studies are important in highlightingareas in which women have fallen short of men, and inidentifying factors that may impede the progress of womenin chemistry, they cannot be used to elucidate perceptionsof specific environmental variables—particularly mentor-ing-related variables—that may mediate the performance ofwomen in general.

As described above, SCCT provides a framework for thequestions we asked our respondents and for our hypothesesabout the patterns of responses. Specifically, we queriedrespondents to assess their retrospective perceptions of theenvironmental variable of social support, particularly withrespect to the mentoring inherent in the advisor-advisee

relationship. For example, we asked graduates questionsrelated to how much interest advisors took in aspects oftheir training, how much help advisors gave with respect tocareers, and how respondents would qualify the quality ofthe overall relationship with advisors. Other areas of socialsupport were assessed as well, including the presence ofsupport groups and the respondents’ reliance on otherpeople including peers and faculty. It is important toexamine the perceptions of women and men in order toascertain how training and career development are different,whether in reality or in perception, for women and men.Such data might lead to change at individual, social-relational, and policy levels, and, therefore, assist in themove toward gender equity.

Although there are numerous archival studies thatoutline gender disparities in employment inside and outsideof academia (e.g., American Chemical Society 2000a, b;Kuck et al. 2004, 2007; Tullo 2006), we chose to usesurvey methodology because, to our knowledge, there areno direct examinations of the perceptions of graduatesthemselves regarding career preparation in chemistry andthe effects of these perceptions on subsequent training andcareer decisions. Further, we targeted both women and mento allow for a comparison of experiences, rather than just adescription of the perspectives of women.

We focused our questionnaire specifically on graduatesfrom the most elite institutions because of the preponder-ance of these graduates in the most elite academicemployment positions. For example, since 1979, 60% ofthe hires at the top 50 ranked schools earned their doctorateat a top 10 school (Kuck et al. 2004). Moreover, 91% ofwomen and 75% of men on chemistry faculties at the top10 institutions received their doctorates from these eliteschools. Based on these data, one would expect thatgraduates from elite institutions—both men and women—would have the best opportunities to obtain prestigiousemployment positions. Thus, any gender differences amongthis group in career attainment should be attenuated,relative to other applicant pools.

It is important to remember that, in line with SCCT,career attainment is often affected by career perceptions,including perceptions of barriers and expectations ofparticular outcomes. Findings suggest that female scientistsare less likely than are male scientists to choose positions attop research universities (e.g., Schneider 2000), perhapsbecause of perceived barriers. For this reason, it is quitevaluable to study the environment variables that mightinterplay with person variables in order to determinereasons that women might make different choices frommen, particularly given that a prestigious graduate educa-tion ostensibly provides access to the most prestigiousemployment positions. Fox and Stephan (2001), forexample, studied 3,800 doctoral students in STEM fields

238 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

and found that subjective views about what opportunitiesactually are available—outcome expectations that are basedin part on person variables such as gender and in part onenvironment variables such as mentoring—can affect careerdecision-making. With this study, we intended to examinethose subjective perceptions to better understand genderdifferences in career outcomes of top chemistry graduates.

Hypotheses

Based on existing research on mentoring in the sciences—particularly in chemistry—as well as on existing researchon and the structure provided by SCCT, we expected thatwomen would have more negative perceptions of mentor-ing-related environment variables at all levels of theirtraining and early careers as compared with men, likelyleading to a difference in important person variables, asposited by SCCT. Based on these premises, severalhypotheses guided our investigation.

1. Mentoring at the undergraduate level: We hypothesizedthat men would be more likely than women to reportthe kinds of mentoring that ameliorate students’progression to graduate school, including help obtain-ing research experiences and choosing a graduateschool.

2. Mentoring at the graduate level—dissertation advisors:We hypothesized that men would be more likely thanwomen to report positive experiences with theirdissertation advisors, as assessed by a range of criteria:satisfaction with the advisor selection process, whetherthey changed advisors, how frequently they met withadvisors, how helpful advisors were, how positive theirrelationships with advisors were, and whether advisorshelped them identify their post-doctoral advisors or firstemployment positions.

3. Mentoring at the graduate level—other sources: Wehypothesized that men would be more likely thanwomen to report receiving mentoring from individualsother than their dissertation advisors, as assessed byothers’ help in choosing an advisor.

4. Mentoring at the post-doctoral level: We hypothesizedthat men would report higher ratings than women withrespect to their post-doctoral advisors’ interest in them,and with respect to general mentoring experiences andinteractions. We also hypothesized that men would bemore likely to report that post-doctoral advisors helpedthem find their first employment positions.

5. Mentoring related to employment: We hypothesizedthat men would have higher ratings than women withrespect to mentoring-related employment experiences,including their perceptions of gaining the respect andsupport of colleagues and managers or department

chairs, of having mentors, and of having access tohelpful information.

6. The presence of a female mentor: We hypothesized thatwomen with female mentors would have better out-comes than women with male mentors in terms ofsuccessful progression to a post-doctoral fellowshipand desired employment position, and in terms ofemployment criteria such as salary raises, increasedfinancial and non-financial research support, andadditional monies for instruments.

Method

Participants

Three hundred fifteen men and 135 women responded to thequestionnaire; see Table 1 for the breakdown of participantrace, citizenship status, and other variables by gender. In oursample, 361 reported that they were married (80.4%); therewas not a significant effect of gender on marital status,χ2(1)=3.06, p>.05, Cramer’s 7 =.08, a small effect. Therealso was no significant effect of gender on number ofchildren, χ2(1)=3.17, p>.05, Cramer’s 7 =.09. Therewas, however, a statistically significant gender differencein percentage of time involved in childcare, t(266)=6.17,p<.001, R2=.13. Of participants who responded to thisitem, men reported spending 34.9% of their time, whereaswomen reported spending 56.8% of their time, involved inchildcare, a large effect.

Targeted participants included all women and men whoreceived a Ph.D. between the years 1988 and 1992 fromone of the top 10 ranked chemistry programs, as identifiedby the NRC. Participants also included graduates in thesame 5-year period from a large, public, Midwesternuniversity (Purdue University) that is not ranked as a top10 school, but is ranked as the 11th “supplier” of doctoralgraduates who seek and attain academic employment at atop 50 school (Kuck et al. 2004). The inclusion of Purduein the pool evened the distribution of the number ofdoctorates earned at private and public universities. The top10 universities included, in rank order: University ofCalifornia, Berkeley; California Institute of Technology;Harvard University; Stanford University; MassachusettsInstitute of Technology; Cornell University; ColumbiaUniversity; University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,University of Wisconsin–Madison; University of Chicago.All contacted universities agreed to participate.

The particular 5-year range utilized in the present studywas chosen because graduates in this cohort would havehad ample time by 2003 to complete post-doctoral training,embark on a career, and become familiar with the demands

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 239239

and expectations associated with their first employmentpositions. We also anticipated that individuals in this cohortwould have begun to evaluate whether their training hadappropriately prepared them for their current employment.

Materials and Procedure

In 2002, a letter from the president of the AmericanChemical Society (ACS) was sent to a faculty member,departmental chair, or college dean at each participatinginstitution. The letter outlined the study as an investigationof the training and career development of chemists, assuredthe participating university’s anonymity with respect tospecific findings, and documented the receipt of Institu-tional Review Board approval by the authors’ university.Moreover, the letter stated that the study had the fullsupport of the ACS. Institutions were invited to mail aquestionnaire and letter of solicitation directly to theirgraduates from the selected time frame (1988–1992) in pre-stamped, pre-sealed envelopes, or to release the mailingaddresses of this select group of alumni to the investigatorsof this study who would do the mailing themselves.Regardless of whether the institutions or the investigatorssent the questionnaires and letters of solicitation, thesepackets of materials were identical; potential participants

would have no way of knowing whether packets were sentby their alumni institution or the investigators.

In these packets, sent in 2003, letters from the ACSpresident, similar to those sent to the faculty members,chairs and deans, were included. They described the studyas above, indicated that the participant’s name was receivedfrom her/his institution, promised anonymity of surveyresponses, avowed ACS’s support of the study, andencouraged participation. Reminder postcards were sent toall chemistry graduate participants 1 and 2 months after theinitial mailing of the questionnaires. Participants returnedthe questionnaires in pre-stamped envelopes to the ACS.The ACS subsequently mailed the completed question-naires to the investigators, thus assuring the anonymity ofparticipants.

Questionnaires were mailed to 1,932 doctoral graduatesin 2003. Two hundred eighty-three questionnaires werereturned unopened by the post office. Of the remaining1,649 questionnaires, 455 were completed for a 27.6%response rate. However, analysis revealed that the responserate is more likely to be 32.1% because of a problem in thedistribution of the questionnaires. We initially divided theinstitutions into three groups. Group 1 (response rate of33.3%) included schools with nearly equal Ph.D.-attain-ment rates for men and women. Group 2 (response rate of

Table 1 Demographicvariables by gender (countsfollowed by percentages—forthose of a given gender whoresponded to that question—inparentheses).

n=454*p<.001

Demographic variable Women(n=135)

Men(n=315)

Marital statusMarried 101 (75.4%) 260 (82.5%)Other 33 (24.6%) 55 (17.5%)ChildrenZero 33 (33%) 54 (19.71%)One or more 77 (77%) 220 (80.29%)Percentage of time spent doing childcare* 33.6% 55.2%CitizenshipUSA 121 (93.08%) 271 (91.86%)Other North America 3 (2.31%) 3 (1.02%)Europe 3 (2.31%) 10 (3.39%)Asia 3 (2.31%) 11 (3.73%)RaceAfrican/African-American 2 (1.71%) 3 (1.13%)Asian/Asian-American 8 (6.84%) 34 (12.78%)Latino/Latina 1 (.85%) 4 (1.50%)European American 104 (88.89%) 223 (83.83%)Middle Eastern 2 (1.71%) 2 (.75%)School groupingGroup 1 (about the same percentages ofwomen and men completing grad school)

21 (15.79%) 44 (13.97%)

Group 2 (women completing grad schoolat somewhat lower rates than men)

77 (57.89%) 191 (60.63%)

Group 3 (women completing grad schoolat much lower rates than men)

35 (26.32%) 80 (25.40%)

240 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

27.0%) included schools with somewhat lower rates forwomen than for men. Group 3 (response rate of only10.98%) included those schools with a much lower rate forwomen than for men; the low response rate led us toquestion whether all schools in Group 3 participated. Fortwo of these schools we sent surveys directly to graduates,whereas the third school said they sent the surveysthemselves (after repeated reminders). It is possible thatthe surveys from this school were not sent; without thisschool, the response rate for Group 3 was 29.4%, in linewith the other two groups, and the recalculated overallresponse rate was 32.1%.

The measure employed in the study was a four-pagequestionnaire that we developed in consultation withnumerous chemists in academia and industry; items werecarefully tailored to match the experiences of these highlyqualified female and male chemists. We also consulted withthe Survey Subcommittee of the ACS Committee onEconomic and Professional Affairs during the developmentof the questionnaire; they have successfully used questionswith similar content and in a similar format for previousresearch in assessing the training and careers of chemists. Inline with SCCT, items assessed participants’ perceptions ofthe environment variables related to social support, and inparticular, to mentoring. We asked participants to evaluatetheir undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral, and careerexperiences, including the support of mentors in influenc-ing their career choices. The questionnaire items addressedhere focused on issues related to social support, particularlymentoring; however, these items were part of a larger, moregeneral study on education and career trajectories ofchemists.

Most questionnaire items involved closed-ended choices;often participants were asked to rank their experiencesrelative to others in their peer group. With one exception, ascale of 1 to 7 was used such that 1 corresponded to thelowest ranking (e.g., “little,” “minor,” or “worse than”), 4corresponded to a medium ranking (e.g., “neutral,” “sameas,” or “neither worse than nor better than”), and 7corresponded to the highest ranking (e.g., “a lot,” “betterthan,” or “major”). There also were several open-endedquestions that invited participants to provide additionalcomments where appropriate.

As an example of a survey question about environmentvariables, participants were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to7, the interest their post-doctoral advisors showed in arange of variables, including the post-doc’s researchfindings and employment search. With respect to graduateschool, participants rated, on a scale of 1 to 7, the amountof help/support they received from dissertation advisors in arange of areas, including learning the necessary labtechniques, overcoming research difficulties, and developingcareer goals. Another question asked participants to evaluate

their situations relative to others in their graduate schoolresearch group (e.g., their interactions with their dissertationprofessors). (The questionnaire is lengthy which precludes itspublication with this report. Please contact the first author ifyou wish to receive a copy of the questionnaire.)

Undergraduate research assistants who were blind to theresearch hypotheses entered data from the questionnairesand coded the responses to the open-ended questions.Research assistants utilized a coding scheme developed bythe investigators after examination of the variability inparticipants’ responses. Reliability coefficients of this post-hoc coding scheme were calculated between principalcoders (the investigators) and these carefully trainedresearch assistants. Inter-rater reliability between the prin-cipal coders and research assistants was greater than .85 forall items.

Results

Representativeness of the Sample

Because several institutions chose to mail questionnairesdirectly to their alumni, we do not have demographicinformation on our targeted sample. However, we examinedthe representativeness of our sample by comparing aspectsof our results with data from the ACS Early Careers ofChemists survey (2002), a dataset that included demo-graphic variables of ACS members. We expected percen-tages in our dataset to be comparable to those reported inexisting data sets, a finding that would support the validityof our overall results. We were able to examine data forgraduates who received Ph.D.s from 1988 to 1992, theyears targeted by our study. In support of the representa-tiveness of our sample, 70.2% of participants in the ACSsurvey were men, whereas 29.8% were women, almostexactly the same as the 70 and 30% rates of men andwomen, respectively, in our study. Thus, neither male norfemale graduates appeared to be more likely to respond toour questionnaire or to the ACS questionnaire.

We also were able to compare data on marital status. Inthe ACS study, 86.5% of men and 74.4% of women werecurrently married. In our study, there were similar percen-tages, and a similar gender difference: 80.3% of men and75.4% of women were married. In the ACS study, 72% ofmen had children, whereas 58% of women had children. Inour study, these percentages were higher for both genders:80.4% of men and 72% of women had children. However,our representativeness is bolstered by the fact that, in bothcases, the direction of the gender difference is the same.Although the ACS questionnaire was general, rather thanfocused on gender, there was one question that askedwhether participants had ever experienced discrimination

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 241241

based on gender. In agreement with the gender differencesthat were found in this study, 3.5% of men and 45.9% ofwomen reported such discrimination, which further enhancesthe likely external validity of our findings.

The remainder of the results is organized by hypothesis.

Mentoring-Related Gender Differences in Training

Mentoring at the Undergraduate Level

We hypothesized that men would be more likely thanwomen to report the kinds of mentoring that facilitatestudents’ progression to graduate school. To this end, ourfirst set of analyses indeed revealed significant differencesin the proportions of men and women with respect to theirresponses to the question: “Who helped you obtain (yourundergraduate research) experience?” [χ2(4, N=438)=12.51, p<.05, Cramer’s 7 =.17], a small-to-medium effectby Cohen’s criteria. A higher percentage of male (62.1%)than female (53.8%) respondents reported receiving helpfrom a professor. Women (18.2%), on the other hand, weresignificantly more likely than men (9.5%) to report havinglearned about research experiences as part of their academicprogram or through a placement office; women (7.6%) alsowere more likely than men (2.9%) to learn about a researchexperience through an individual other than a facultymember (e.g., peer, teaching assistant, family member).There were similar proportions of women and men who didnot respond (male, 18.0%; female, 13.6%) and who said“myself” or no one (male, 7.5%; female, 6.8%). Thisfinding is an indication that men might be receivingmentoring more readily within their departments.

Second, we found a gender difference in response to thequestion: “At your undergraduate institution, who helpedyou the most in choosing a graduate school?” [χ2(3, N=438)=8.70, p<.05, Cramer’s 7 =.14], a small effect. Wefound that men (83.3%) were more likely than women(71.2%) to report that a professor had helped them tochoose a graduate school. In addition, the second mostcommon response to this item (either “myself” or “no one”)was reported more frequently by women (15.2%) than bymen (7.8%). Interestingly, in line with research thatsuggests that women receive better mentoring from women,when we asked participants to provide the gender of theperson who helped them to choose a graduate school,women (13.5%) were more likely than men (4.6%) to reporthaving received help from a woman, χ2(1)=9.54, p<.01,Cramer’s 7 =.16, a small to medium effect.

Mentoring at the Graduate Level—Dissertation Advisors

As hypothesized, men tended to report more positiveexperiences with their dissertation advisors than women

did, although not on all assessed criteria. First, a higherpercentage of women (35.1%) than men (23.9%) respondedyes to the question: “In retrospect, should you have useddifferent criteria in selecting your dissertation professor?”[χ2(1)=5.93, p<.05, Cramer’s 7 =.12], a small effect, but apossible indication of less satisfaction with their graduatementoring situation. Similarly, a higher percentage of women(14.2%) than men (7.7%) responded yes to the question:“Did you switch dissertation professors during graduateschool?” [χ2(1)=4.58, p<.05, Cramer’s 7 =.10], again asmall effect, but further evidence of women’s greaterdissatisfaction with the mentoring that they received.

There was not, however, a significant gender differencein response to the question: “How often did you meet withyour dissertation professor (e.g., weekly, monthly)?”(p>.05). Overall, 47.1% of graduates reported that theymet with their dissertation advisor weekly, and 23.4%reported monthly meetings. On the other hand, a MAN-OVA revealed gender differences in average ratings of theamount of help received from dissertation professors acrossa range of specific areas, from help with aspects of researchto assistance in obtaining a job, F(12, 400)=1.98, p<.05,R2=.06, a medium effect. Univariate analyses indicatedgender differences on 10 of the 12 variables included in thisanalysis. See Table 2 for the individual variables with themeans and standard deviations for women and men, and theeffect sizes for the gender differences.

A MANOVA also showed a significant effect forvariables related to participants’ relationships with theirdissertation professors, in comparison with other graduatestudents in their research groups, F(8, 382)=2.56, p<.01,R2=.05. Univariate analyses indicated that women gavehigher average ratings to their interactions with theirdissertation professors, F(1, 389)=7.96, p<.01, R2=.02,the appropriateness of the criteria they used to choose theirdissertation professors, F(1, 389)=6.56, p<.05, R2=.02,and the interest their dissertations professors had in theirresearch projects, F(1, 389)=11.10, p<.001, R2=.03, allbetween small and medium effects. See Table 3 for meansand standard deviations for men and women for theseitems, and for those that did not show statisticallysignificant differences in univariate analyses.

Finally, significantly more men (78.6%) than women(63.4%) responded “Yes” to the question: “Did you seekthe advice of your dissertation professor in choosing a post-doc advisor?” [χ2(1)=6.84, p<.01, Cramer’s 7 =.16], asmall to medium effect. Moreover, of those who receivedhelp from their dissertation advisors, men (M=4.07, SD=1.10) reported higher average ratings than women did (M=3.77, SD=1.34), on a scale of 1–5, in response to thequestion: “[If yes,] how helpful was your dissertationprofessor in your efforts to obtain the post-doc position thatyou wanted?” [t(267)=1.97, p<.05, R2=.01], a small effect.

242 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

Similarly, we asked participants: “How did you find your first[employment] position? (Check all that apply).” One possibleresponse was Dissertation Professor. Significantly more men(9.2%) than women (3.7%) reported that their dissertationadvisors assisted them in finding their first positions, χ2(1)=4.10, p<.05, Cramer’s = 0.10, a small effect.

Mentoring at the Graduate Level—Other Sources

As hypothesized, men were more likely than women to reportreceiving mentoring from individuals other than their disser-tation advisors. Specifically, we conducted a MANOVA to

explore gender differences in participants’ ratings of howhelpful a range of people were in assisting them in choosingan advisor. The variables and the mean ratings (and standarddeviations) for women and men are presented in Table 4. Theoverall MANOVA was statistically significant, F(7, 347)=3.04, p<.01, R2=.06, a medium effect. Univariate analysesindicated that, on average, men reported having receivedsignificantly more help than women did from several of thesources we assessed: the administration, F(1, 353)=15.70,p<.001, R2=.04, graduate faculty, F(1, 353)=8.80, p<.01,R2=.02, and post-doctoral fellows, F(1, 353)=8.35, p<.01,R2=.02, all between small and medium effects.

Table 3 Means and standard deviations for responses to the question: relative to other graduate students in your research group, rate the followingitems.

Rating item Men Women

M SD M SD

Your interactions with your dissertation professor** 4.74 1.31 4.32 1.41Your interactions with the post-docs in your research group 4.73 1.09 4.83 1.10Your interactions with other graduate students in your research group 5.05 1.09 4.93 1.14The appropriateness of the criteria used in choosing a dissertation professor* 4.44 1.22 4.08 1.35The interest your dissertation professor had in your research project*** 4.66 1.35 4.15 1.41The potential value or impact of your thesis research 4.30 1.32 4.10 1.33The complexity of the experimental aspects of your research 4.56 1.19 4.33 .95The complexity of the theoretical aspects of your research 4.36 1.22 4.18 1.07

Ratings were on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1=“worst than most,” 4=“same as,” and 7=“better than most.”*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for men’s and women’s ratings for the question: rate how much help/support your dissertation professorgave you.

Area Men Women R2

M SD M SD

In ensuring that you:Learned the necessary laboratory techniques 4.03 1.97 3.90 2.15 .00Knew how to do Independent research** 5.03 1.78 4.52 1.97 .02Could properly evaluate data* 5.28 1.63 4.82 1.84 .02Had access to the proper equipment** 5.73 1.34 5.28 1.55 .02Clearly understood your thesis requirements 5.02 1.66 4.77 1.81 .01Knew your research goals* 5.29 1.63 4.88 1.78 .01Knew how to overcome research difficulties** 4.93 1.77 4.32 1.99 .02Understood the teaching/research balance** 4.31 1.78 3.80 1.93 .02Worked on a project that would have impact*** 4.96 1.67 4.35 1.91 .03Supportive of your career goals* 4.99 1.80 4.56 2.13 .01Knowing your personal motivators** 4.08 1.87 3.52 2.06 .02In obtaining a job* 4.82 1.89 4.28 2.19 .02

Ratings were on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1=“very little,” 4=“neutral,” and 7=“a lot.”*p<.05**p<.01

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 243243

Mentoring at the Post-Doctoral Level

We hypothesized that men would report better mentoringexperiences than women would at the post-doctoral level.We conducted a MANOVA to examine participants’ ratingsof their post-doctoral advisor’s interest in them with respectto a range of variables, F(8, 382)=2.56, p<.01, R2=.05, amedium effect. Univariate analyses indicated significantgender differences, on average, in perceived advisor interestin participants’ research findings, F(1, 259)=13.98, p<.001,R2=.05, research ideas, F(1, 259)=6.00, p<.05, R2=.02, andpublication opportunities, F(1, 259)=5.50, p<.05, R2=.02,all small to medium effects. In line with our predictions,men reported greater advisor interest in these three areasthan women did (see Table 5 for means and standarddeviations for these items, as well as those that did not showsignificant univariate effects).

In addition, participants also were asked to rate theirmentoring-related post-doctoral experiences in comparisonwith their perceptions of the experiences of other post-

doctoral fellows at their institutions. A MANOVA, howev-er, did not indicate an overall statistically significantdifference for these variables, F(8, 189)=1.10, p>.10,R2=.04. The medium effect size indicates the possibilitythat there are differences that do not attain statisticalsignificance due to the relatively low power for thisanalysis as compared to others in this study. Means andstandard deviations for these items are presented in Table 6.

Finally, as noted previously, participants were asked“How did you find your first position? (Check all thatapply).” One possible response was post-doc advisor. Therewas no significant difference in reports that post-doctoraladvisors helped participants to find a first job (8.4% overallreported that their post-doctoral advisors provided help;p>.05). Note: We were unable to assess the two possiblesources of assistance, Dissertation Professor and Post-docAdvisor, in one chi-square analysis because six participants(all male) indicated that they received help from both theirdissertation advisors and their post-doctoral advisors. Thissmall number meant that two of the six cells had expected

Table 5 Means and standard deviations for responses to the question: rate how much interest your post-doctoral advisor showed in.

Area Men Women

M SD M SD

Teaching you new skills/lab techniques 4.46 1.94 4.04 1.90Advising you about your research efforts 5.16 1.60 4.88 1.89Being available to discuss your career goals 4.54 1.91 4.55 2.06Your research findings** 6.01 1.17 5.33 1.67Listening to your research ideas* 5.47 1.58 4.91 1.92Helping you find employment 4.49 1.95 4.14 2.10Being supportive of your career aspirations 4.89 1.87 4.77 2.02Helping you to get publications* 5.28 1.71 4.71 2.01

Ratings were on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1=“very little,” 4=“neutral,” and 7=“very much.”*p<.05**p<.001

Table 4 Means and standard deviations for ratings for the question: rate how helpful the following individuals were in identifying criteria for youto use in selecting a dissertation advisor.

Assisting individuals Men Women

M SD M SD

Experienced graduate students 4.73 1.86 4.45 2.03Student organizations (if in existence) 1.62 1.17 1.41 .98Administration (e.g., Dept. Chair, Dir. Of Grad. Studies)** 2.09 1.58 1.43 .97Other graduate school faculty* 3.21 1.80 2.59 1.80Research/intern supervisors 2.41 1.84 2.05 1.82Post-doctoral fellows* 2.63 1.76 2.06 1.60Undergraduate advisors 3.06 2.22 2.72 2.12

Ratings were on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1=“very little,” 4=“neutral,” and 7=“a lot.”*p<.01**p<.001

244 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

counts less than 5; thus, we did not meet the assumptions toconduct a single chi-square analysis on both types ofadvisors.

Mentoring Related to Employment

We hypothesized that men would give higher average ratingsto mentoring-related experiences within their first employmentpositions. We asked participants: “For the following items,compare your experience to that of other individuals withsimilar backgrounds at your first place of employment.” Thepossible responses included the following items related toformal and informal mentoring: gaining the respect ofcolleagues, gaining the support of colleagues, gaining thesupport of managers/dept. chair, having mentors, and accessi-bility to helpful information. A MANOVAwith these items asdependent variables did not indicate significant overall genderdifferences, F(5, 399)=1.05, p>.10, R2=.01, a small effect.

The Presence of a Female Mentor

Finally, we hypothesized that women would have betteroutcomes on a range of variables if they had female mentorsthan if they had male mentors. If the presence of a strongmentor is necessary for professional success, and if women,on average, are receiving less mentoring from male advisorsthan are men, we would expect that outcome variables, such assalary raises, increased financial and non-financial researchsupport, and additional monies for instruments would bebetter for women with female advisors than for women withmale advisors. To examine this possibility, we had planned tocompare women who had had female advisors with womenwho had had male advisors. We did not plan to include menwith female advisors, due to the expected paucity of suchpairs, nor did we plan to include men with male advisorsbecause of the likely presence of numerous confoundingvariables.

However, because very few of the 135 women whoresponded to our questionnaire had female advisors, farfewer than expected, we were not able to conduct these

analyses. Only 11% of women reported having had afemale advisor as an undergraduate student, 7% as agraduate student, and 7% as a post-doctoral fellow. Only4% of men reported having had a female advisor as anundergraduate, 3% as a graduate student, and 3% as a post-doctoral fellow. Moreover, for the most part, these weredifferent people who had female advisors at different levels.No man or woman had a female advisor at the undergrad-uate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels, whereas 45% ofmen and 34% of women had a male advisor at all threelevels. No man had a female advisor for both graduate andpost-doctoral levels, and only one woman had both afemale graduate advisor and a female post-doctoral advisor.

Discussion

Several patterns emerged in our data that suggested thatwomen perceived more barriers related to a lack of socialsupport and mentoring than men did. First, our hypothesisthat men would be more likely than women to reportmentoring at the undergraduate level was supported.Specifically, men were more likely than women to reporthaving learned about research experiences from a professor,whereas women were more likely than men to reportlearning about research experiences through other avenues.In addition, men were more likely than women to reporthaving received help from an undergraduate professor whenchoosing a graduate school. Conversely, women were morelikely than men to report relying on themselves or on “noone” to make their choices.

Second, we found support for our hypothesis that menwould report more positive graduate school experiencesthan women with respect to their dissertation advisors.Women were more likely than men to say that they wishedthey had considered different criteria in selecting theiradvisors and to say that they actually had changed advisors.Women also reported having received less mentoring fromtheir advisors than men did. For example, men gave higheraverage ratings than women to interactions with their

Table 6 Means and standarddeviations for responses to thequestion: relative to other indi-viduals at your institutionholding a post-doc position,characterize.

Ratings were on a scale from 1to 7, with 1=“worst thanmost,” 4=“same as,” and7=“better than most.”

Rating area Men Women

M SD M SD

Interaction with advisor 4.88 1.65 4.62 1.75Interaction with other post-docs in group 4.99 1.19 4.83 1.30Interactions with grad students in group 5.13 1.13 4.85 1.30Appropriateness of criteria used to select advisor 4.42 1.25 4.43 1.36Interest of advisor in your project 5.11 1.42 4.73 1.54Difficulty of your experimental research 4.25 1.37 4.22 1.18Number of publication opportunities 4.37 1.64 3.97 1.40Number of grant writing opportunities 3.64 1.51 3.55 1.65

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 245245

dissertation advisors and to the interest their dissertationadvisor showed in them. Moreover, men reported havingreceived more help than women, on average, in ten out oftwelve of areas assessed on the survey, including conduct-ing independent research, properly evaluating data, havingaccess to the proper equipment, formulating research goals,overcoming research difficulties, understanding the teach-ing/research balance, and working on an important project.Men also gave higher average ratings than women to theiradvisor’s supportiveness of their career goals, knowledge oftheir personal motivators, and help in obtaining a job, threeareas that likely involve a more personal connection withone’s mentor. Similarly, men were more likely than womento say that their dissertation advisors helped them choosetheir post-doctoral advisors and find their first employmentpositions.

Although there were not statistically significant genderdifferences on all variables assessed in the survey, includingthe frequency of meeting with their advisors, overwhelm-ingly, men reported better relationships with their graduatedissertation advisors than women did. Importantly, theseexperiences included both more concrete learning experi-ences such as knowing how to formulate research goals, aswell as more abstract areas such as understanding theteaching/research balance. Such experiences and conceptsare of great import for individuals who wish to pursue asuccessful academic career in chemistry.

Moreover, the gender difference with respect to partic-ipants’ dissertation advisors helping them identify post-doctoral advisors and employment positions is potentiallyan obstacle with far-reaching consequences for women.Although upon first consideration, the decreased amount ofhelp in finding a post-doctoral advisor might not seem asimportant as the decreased amount of help in findingemployment, because of the large impact of the post-doctoral decision on career outcome, their decreasedlikelihood of having received this advice puts women at adistinct disadvantage. According to the Committee onScience, Engineering, and Public Policy (2001), “Thedecision about whether to undertake a post-doctoralappointment is seldom easy and should involve consulta-tion with one’s advisor and as many mentors or otherexperienced contacts as possible” (p. 21). Women clearlyare at a disadvantage compared to men if they are lesslikely to receive such advice.

Third, we found support for our hypothesis that men aremore likely than women to report receiving mentoring fromthose other than their dissertation advisors. Specifically,when choosing the all-important dissertation advisor, menreported having received more help than women did fromresearch and work supervisors, and their institution’sadministration, faculty members, and post-doctoral fellows.Although the amount of help that participants reported

having received from these sources was generally low,regardless of participants’ gender, this finding might meanthat male students who do need extra help are more likelythan are female students to perceive that it is available.

Fourth, our hypothesis that men would report better post-doctoral mentoring experiences than women was supported.Men gave higher average ratings than women to theirinteractions with their advisors. In line with this, menreported, on average, more advisor interest than women didin their research findings, research ideas, and publicationopportunities. In addition, men were more likely thanwomen to report that their post-doctoral advisors hadhelped them find a job. Although there were not significantdifferences on all assessed variables (e.g., in ratings of thepost-doctoral advisors’ assistance in finding employment),it does seem that, as in earlier stages of training, menreported preferential treatment in mentoring at the post-doctoral level.

Fifth, we had hypothesized that men would report bettermentoring than women in their initial employment posi-tions. We did not, however, receive support for thishypothesis. It is interesting that findings at the level of firstemployment did not coincide with findings throughouttraining; however, it is conceivable that neither women normen rely heavily on mentoring once in their careers. Datasuggest high rates of flight from the field of chemistryamong both women and men with doctoral degrees (e.g.,Preston 2004). The fact that there is no statisticallysignificant gender difference in mentoring that favors menat this level, is not an indication that both women and menare both receiving strong mentoring. Rather, it is possiblethat both women and men are receiving very littlementoring. We would venture that there is great room forimprovement in mentoring of both men and women early intheir careers.

Many of the above findings are consistent with ourSCCT-driven hypotheses. Given that women have poorercareer outcomes than men within the field of chemistry, weexpected that women would be more likely than men toperceive the existence of mentoring-related barriers. Theperception of such obstacles might diminish women’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations, leading women to makedifferent career decisions than they might have otherwise(e.g., Lent et al. 1994). Overall, our data are in line with theSCCT model, in that women are less likely than men toreport having received strong mentoring across all levels oftraining, likely because, at least in part, there are fewerfemale faculty members available to mentor them. Wereported, for example, that women were less likely thanmen to have undergraduate professors help them inchoosing a graduate school; yet, women who did receivehelp were more likely to receive help from a woman than aman who did receive help. Perhaps the gender disparity in

246 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

having received help at all would diminish were there morefemale mentors available. Because advisors at all levels oftraining hold enormous power in one’s preparation forfuture training and employment, as well as in the attainmentof prestigious training and employment posts, any disrup-tion or disadvantage in such relationships can markedlyshape, and even attenuate, one’s career prospects. More-over, disadvantages in such relationships can affect theperson variables of the SCCT model, such as self-efficacy(Lent et al. 1999), further compounding the detriments ofthis barrier.

It is important to note that most of the statisticallysignificant gender differences observed in our study aresmall to medium effects according to Cohen’s statisticalconventions. Thus, although the differences are statisticallysignificant and, therefore, likely to exist beyond chance,they tend not to be large in size, and may not be readilyobservable in these graduates’ training environments. Thefact that many of women’s disadvantages are “small” or“medium” and often cannot be perceived readily mayaccount for the fact that many deny the existence of suchdifferences and even decry the implementation of institu-tional change as unnecessary. But even small differencesaccumulate and can have a large negative impact on one’slong-term career, particularly because such perceiveddifferences exist on so many levels, and across a range oftraining and employment settings. Valian (2000) describedthe sociological theory of the “accumulation of advantageand disadvantage” (e.g., Cole and Singer 1991) which, asshe explained, “suggests that, like interest on capital,advantages accrue, and that, like interest on debt, disadvan-tages also accumulate” (p. 3). Valian has cited myriadempirical findings highlighting the career damage done bya series of small slights to women. Her convincing evidencesupports the need for elimination of even the smallestdifferences in favor of men, because, as she succinctlystated, “mountains are molehills, piled one on top of theother” (italics in the original; pp. 4–5).

One limitation of the current research is the low responserate. However, our response rate does appear to be in linewith those of related research. The ACS (2002) surveyedmembers under the age of 40, and reported a response rateof 44% of a targeted sample of 10,000 individuals; this isthe largest recent response rate for such a study. Althoughour response rate is lower than theirs, there are data fromother samples that suggest that we have an adequateresponse rate. For example, in a study comparing responserates to a mailed survey versus an emailed survey, themailed survey led to a significantly higher response rate(31.5%) than an emailed survey (20.7%; Kaplowitz et al.2004). In this same study, emailed surveys combined withreminder postcards in different combinations led toresponse rates of 29.7 (not significantly different from

mailed surveys), 28.6, and 25.4% (both significantly lowerthan the response rates for mailed surveys). All of theseresponse rates were similar or lower than that in the currentstudy. In addition, surveys of clinicians typically obtainresponse rates around 25% (Blashfield and McElroy 1989).Moreover, Blashfield and McElroy compared data from twosamples, one that was offered no incentive for participation(15% response rate) and one that was offered $100 forparticipation (67% response rate). Although one mightsurmise that the latter group would provide more valid data,the authors reported no differences on a number ofimportant variables, and concluded that there is a scantevidence for a meaningful self-selection bias in suchresearch.

On the other hand, it is possible that those whoresponded are those who felt most strongly about the issueswe were targeting. However, the fact that our genderbreakdown mirrors that of the target population suggeststhat women, a group that we would expect would feelstrongly about many of these issues, were not more likelyto respond than men were. It also is possible that those whoare least happy with the field of chemistry are more likelyto participate, a phenomenon that, if true, might lead tomore negative responses across the questionnaire. Clearly, ahigher response rate would provide more valid data. Futureresearchers might include the option of completing thequestionnaire online to make participation easier and thusto increase response rates; however, more empirical work isneeded to determine if online questionnaires will have thiseffect.

The examination of perceptions is both a limitation and astrength of our study. Although we could not ascertain towhat degree women actually have received less advice thanmen in various areas, it is very important to examineperceptions as they often dictate identity-formation and thedecision-making that is based on one’s identity and level ofself-efficacy. Moreover, choices frequently are based onone’s perceptions about factors such as available support,possible opportunities, and likelihood of success. Forexample, a woman who does not feel welcome in aresearch group might choose not to interact with thatgroup; this might limit her opportunities. A woman whofeels unprepared or unqualified might not choose to applyfor a particular job, or might choose to leave the field ofchemistry. Thus, perceptions not only reflect beliefs aboutappropriate roles and behaviors, but also can shapemotivation for and proclivity to make certain training,networking, and employment decisions. This very tenet is akey component of SCCT theory (Lent et al. 2003, 2005).

In a similar vein, our analysis of participants’ retrospec-tive reports and perceptions of earlier training experiencescould be seen by some as a limitation. The concern stemsfrom the belief that any report of the past is to some degree

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 247247

influenced by current beliefs, perceptions, and context.Although this is no doubt true to a certain extent, theintroduction of subjectivity does not necessarily invalidateparticipant reports. Any misgivings about a measure ofcareer development are far outweighed by the value ofsurveying participants’ reflections on their experiences. Asurvey of experiences can shed light on how the meaning ofperson variables, as identified by SCCT models, is shapedby the larger, contextual factors that surround individuals.Such factors inform us about the effects of historical, social,and professional/cultural variables on the evolution ofcareer identities. Thus, in our study we were concernednot only with veridical accounts of the past but also withperceived contextual factors that served to shape partic-ipants’ professional careers in chemistry. Reports on thenumbers of employment positions to which participantsapplied, the gender of mentors, or the number of hours onemet with advisors about the job-search process are allexamples of somewhat objective measures of successfuladvising relationships, but such operational definitions donot lend insight into the motivations and perceived barriersthat were involved in participants’ search for and receipt ofsupport. To this end, we viewed individual perceptions asan integral part of participants’ “meaning-making” process.

These findings have important implications for bothindividuals and institutions. On the individual level, it isimperative that female trainees become aware of the waysin which they might be excluded. Such awareness mightencourage women to be more active in seeking supportgroups, and getting involved in interactive activities, bothof which might maintain women’s self-efficacy andoutcome expectations in the face of mentoring-relatedbarriers. Such steps might also serve to build supportcommunities beyond formal mentoring relationships. More-over, with respect to student perceptions, building aware-ness of the perspective among female graduate students thatthey are excluded might lead female and male facultymembers to be more active in including women in post-doctoral and career-related guidance, as well as in formaland informal departmental networks.

Of equal, if not greater, importance is the task ofchallenging students and faculty to recognize that discrep-ancies may exist between female students’ perceptions oftraining and those of their mentors, who are predominantlymen. This incongruity may be of the utmost importance towomen because the mentoring relationships they experi-ence not only present the opportunity to glean knowledgeabout science from experts, but also serve as prototypes forskills in communication and collaboration. Women who aredissatisfied with their mentoring relationships cannot learneffectively about, put into practice, and receive appropriatefeedback on the skill sets necessary for their professionaldevelopment. As mastery experiences are an important part

of self-efficacy (Lent et al. 1994), a decrease in suchexperiences can limit perceived and actual career opportu-nities, and can have profound effects on attributionsregarding subsequent successes and/or failures. Such issuescan hinder or suppress the developmental trajectories ofyoung scientists in the formative years of their training andskill-acquisition.

At the institutional level, departmental and university-wide awareness of such gendered patterns in perceptionsmight lead to more formal mentoring and advisingprograms at all levels. For instance, universities mightdevelop formal support groups for women or for bothwomen and men. Such support might take the form ofsenior-junior partnerships, career workshops for graduatestudent and post-doctoral fellows, research and writingforums, incentives for collaborative initiatives and grantproposals, and networks for external contacts in the field.Institutions also might implement more active “marketing”of strong female candidates to the administrative leadersand decision-making committees at the best post-doctoraland employment positions. If such recruitment is successful,these candidates would become available to serve as rolemodels for the next generation of rising scientists—bothfemale and male—who emerge from their training programs.

Future researchers would do well to examine not onlythe perceptions of mentoring experiences and other aspectsof social support made available to rising STEM scientists,but also the mechanisms by which these experiences maydirectly or indirectly hinder women from passing the “gate-keepers” of employment success. For example, if femalechemists are subject to negative climates engendered by thelack of social support, they may choose to leave their careersin pursuit of more welcoming environments. Although ourdata suggest that these effects may work through an activeprocess (rather than merely being the result of women’sdefensive interpretation of social stereotypes), little work hasexplored relations between mentoring processes and otherforms of social support (e.g., peer networks).

Future work should also examine the outcome of theimplementation of measures like those outlined above, boththrough comparisons of institutions and departments thathave and have not developed such informal or formalprograms, and through experimental studies in whichfemale graduate students are assigned randomly to differenttypes of support programs. In addition, we are in the processof expanding our own research to other STEM fields,including chemical engineering, electrical engineering,mathematics, and physics. An understanding of howgendered patterns of perception differ across other STEMfields might illuminate techniques that lead to gender equity.For example, we might gain a better understanding of why,among these fields, only chemistry is hiring below theavailable pool of qualified women, why a lower proportion

248 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250

of women than men who receive doctoral degrees is applyingfor academic positions at doctoral institutions (Marzabadiet al. 2005), and why a higher proportion of women thanmen is leaving science (Preston 2006).

In summary, our investigation of the perceptions andexperiences of male and female graduate students at topchemistry Ph.D. programs revealed patterns in whichwomen felt less included and less aptly advised than mendid across all levels of training—undergraduate, graduate,and post-doctoral, but not to a statistically significantdegree at the level of first employment position. Thecurrent findings exemplify the processes theorized bySCCT to guide career decision-making. Moreover, theseresults suggest several areas that are ripe for intervention byindividuals and institutions. Despite oft-cited beliefs thatwomen have achieved equity, it is clear that important,deeply-entrenched gaps remain and that interventions arenecessary to move toward elimination of the disparitybetween female and male chemical scientists. It seems clearfrom SCCT that interventions that decrease barriers andincrease self-efficacy play a central role in career successand further enable women, as well as men, to act in linewith their career goals (Lent et al. 1999). Withoutinterventions to catalyze transformation, discrepant experi-ences and self-attitudes will remain an unfortunate aspect ofwomen’s and men’s careers as chemists and as scientists inSTEM fields more generally.

Acknowledgement This work was supported primarily by theCamille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Special Grant Program inthe Chemical Sciences (SG-02-072). We also are grateful for thefinancial assistance of the Rohm & Haas Company and the financialand other assistance of the Survey Subcommittee of the ACSCommittee on Economic and Professional Affairs. In particular, wewould like to acknowledge Eli Pierce, past-President of the ACS, forhis support of our study in the form of letters to the participatinginstitutions and doctoral graduates, and Christine Pruitt, Assistant tothe ACS President, for her efforts in facilitating the participation of theACS in this study. We also thank our university, as well as the 11participating universities, particularly their faculty members, depart-ment chairs, deans of science, alumni offices, and doctoral graduatesin chemistry who assisted us in this study. Finally, we are most gratefulfor the thoughtful comments from colleagues with respect to ourquestionnaire, and for the conscientious work of our many researchassistants: Samuel Adjei, Prunella Booker, Tamoya Buckley, CelyMarieCabezas, Krystal Cooper, Anisha Hume, Maribel Munoz, ElizabethPrzybylinski, Niva Rao, Anthony Ritacco, Daniel Spezzacatena,Julianna Vroman, and Elizabeth Winberry.

References

Albert, K. A., & Luzzo, D. A. (1999). The role of perceived barriers incareer development: A social cognitive perspective. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 77, 431–436.

American Chemical Society (2000a). ChemCensus 2000: Analysis ofthe American Chemical Society’s comprehensive 2000 survey of

the salaries and employment status of its domestic members.Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

American Chemical Society (2000b). Women chemists 2000: Womenin industry: A report from the American Chemical Society.Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

American Chemical Society (2002). The early careers of chemists: Areport on the American Chemical Society’s study of membersunder age 40. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Blashfield, R. K., & McElroy, R. A. (1989). A benchmark analysis forpersonality disorder research: Studies using clinicians. Journal ofPersonality Disorders, 3, 174–179.

Brennan, M. B. (1996). Women chemists reconsidering careers atresearch universities. Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 6–16(June 10).

Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1996). A social cognitive framework forcareer choice counseling. The Career Development Quarterly,44, 354–366.

Byrum, A. (2001). Women’s place in ranks of academia. Chemical &Engineering News, 79, 98–103.

Cole, J., & Singer, B. (1991). A theory of limited differences:Explaining the productivity puzzle in science. In H. Zuckerman,J. R. Cole, & J. T. Bruer (Eds.) The outer circle: Women in thescientific community (pp. 277–310). New York: W.W. Norton.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, andthe Institute of Medicine (2001). Enhancing the post-doctoralexperience for scientists and engineers: A guide for post-doctoralscholars, advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disci-plinary societies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Farley, J. (1990). Storming the tower: Women in the academic world.In S. Lie, & V. O’Leary (Eds.) Women professors in the USA:Where are they? (pp. 194–207). New York: Nichols.

Fox, M. F. (2003). Gender, faculty, and doctoral education in scienceand engineering. In L. S. Hornig (Ed.) Equal rites, unequaloutcomes: Women in American research universities (pp. 91–109). New York: Kluwer.

Fox, M. F., & Stephan, P. E. (2001). Careers of young scientists:Preferences, prospects and realities by gender and field. SocialStudies of Science, 31, 109–122.

Gilbert, L. A., & Rossman, K. M. (1992). Gender and the mentoringprocess for women: Implications for professional development.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 233–238.

Gumbiner, J. (1998). Professors as models and mentors: Does gendermatter. Psychological Reports, 82, 94.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: Aliterature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparisonof web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly,68, 94–101.

Kuck, V. J. (2001). Refuting the leaky pipeline hypothesis. Chemical& Engineering News, pp. 71–73 (November 19).

Kuck, V. J., Buckner, J. P., Nolan, S. A., & Marzabadi, C. H. (2007).A review and study on graduate training and academic hiring ofchemists. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 277–284.

Kuck, V. J., Marzabadi, C. H., Nolan, S. A., & Buckner, J. P. (2004).Analysis by gender of the doctoral and post-doctoral institutionsof faculty members at the top fifty ranked Chemistry depart-ments. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 356–363.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Brenner, B., Chopra, S. B., Davis, T., &Talleyrand, R., et al. (2001). The role of contextual supports andbarriers in the choice of math/science educational options: A test ofsocial cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology,48, 474–483.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifyingsocial cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice,and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250 249249

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., &Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports andbarriers to choice behaviors in engineering majors: Test ofalternative social cognitive models. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 50, 458–465.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., &Closter, C. S., et al. (2005). Social cognitive predictors ofacademic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for womenand students at historically black universities. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 52, 84–92.

Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1999). A social cognitiveview of school-to-work transition. The Career DevelopmentQuarterly, 47, 297–311.

Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences inthe careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism andparticularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71.

Luzzo, D. A., & McWhirter, E. H. (2001). Sex and ethnic differences inthe perception of educational and career-related barriers and levelsof coping efficacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79,61–67.

Marasco, C. A. (2003). Numbers of women nudge up slightly.Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 58–59 (October 27).

Marzabadi, C. H., Buckner, J. P., Nolan, S. A., & Kuck, V. J. (2005).Gender patterns in training and career paths of doctoral studentsfrom top-ranked chemistry departments. Paper presented inNature/Nurture: Women in academe (C. Marzabadi, Chair).Mid-Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American ChemicalSociety (MARM/ACS), Piscataway, NJ, May 24.

McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived barriers to education and career:Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,50, 124–140.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science ResourcesStatistics (2001). Characteristics of doctoral scientists andengineers in the United States: 2001. Arlington, VA: NationalScience Foundation.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics(2002). Science and engineering doctorate awards: 2002.Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science and Technology Council (2000). Ensuring a strongU.S. scientific, technical, and engineering workforce in the 21stcentury. Washington, DC: National Science and TechnologyCouncil.

Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, J. W., & Cantorelli, E. A. (2002).Identifying the antecedent in the relation between career interestsand self-efficacy: Is it one, the other, or both. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 49, 290–301.

Ochs, L. A., & Roessler, R. T. (2004). Predictors of career explorationand intentions: A social cognitive career theory perspective.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 224–233.

Preston, A. (2004). Leaving science. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Preston, A. (2006). Women leaving science jobs: With specialattention to chemistry. In C. H. Marzabadi, V. J. Kuck, S. A.Nolan, & J. P. Buckner (Eds.) Dissolving disparity, catalyzingchange: Are women achieving equity in chemistry. New York:American Chemical Society (ACS) Books.

Riordan, C. A., Manning, L. M., Daniel, A. M., Murray, S. L.,Thompson, P. B., & Cummins, E. (1999). If I knew then what Iknow now: A portable mentor for women beginning professorialcareers in science and engineering. Journal of Women andMinorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 29–52.

Rosser, S. V., & Zieseniss, M. (2000). Career issues and laboratoryclimates: Different challenges and opportunities for womenengineers and scientists (Survey of Fiscal Year 1997 POWREAwardees). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science andEngineering, 6, 95–114.

Schlegel, M. (2000). Women mentoring women. American Psycho-logical Association Monitor, 31, 33–36.

Schneider, A. (2000). Female scientists turn their backs on jobs atresearch universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp.A12–A14 (August 18).

Sharpe, N. R., & Sonnert, G. (1999).Womenmathematics faculty: Recenttrends in academic rank and institutional representation. Journal ofWomen and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 207–217.

Thile, E. L., & Matt, G. E. (1995). The Ethnic Mentor UndergraduateProgram: A brief description and preliminary findings. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 23, 116–126.

Tullo, A. H. (2006). Women in industry: Women post gains in thechemical company executive suite but not in the boardroom.Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 22–23 (July 24).

Valian, V. (2000). Why so slow? The advancement of women.Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Valian, V. (2005). Raise your hand if you’re a woman in science.Washington Post. Retrieved on February 3, 2007 from www.washingtonpost.com/wp/dyn/articles/A46421–2005Jan29.html(January 30).

250 Sex Roles (2008) 58:235–250