Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2006: Findings on International Collaborations of Academic Scientists and Engineers

Transcription

1 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2006: Findings on International Collaborations of Academic Scientists and Engineers Lisa M. Frehill and Kathrin Zippel October 2010 Lisa M. Frehill, Ph.D. Director of Research, Evaluation and Policy, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering; Senior Analyst, Energetics Technology Center; and Senior Program Officer, Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academies; Kathrin Zippel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology, Co-PI and Research Director NSF funded Advancing Women in Interdisciplinary and International Networks ( ), Northeastern University, Boston and Affiliate and Co-chair of the Gender, Politics, and Society Study Group, Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University, This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, OISE Any findings, conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation. al Review Board approval for the study was granted by the Northeastern University IRB in July, This report can be found at

2

3 S cience and engineering, as with many other enterprises in today s world, have become increasingly global. Companies conduct business in multiple nations and, in the past couple of decades, have expanded research facilities outside the United States to take advantage of a globally diverse workforce. Labor markets for scientists and engineers are increasingly less geographically bounded: talented scientists and engineers are recruited by employers without regard for their citizenship. Anecdotal evidence reported by engineers at various U.S. firms, for example, highlights the shrinking globe, as project teams in some companies have been collaborating on projects across international borders for 20 years or more. In the academic setting, too, international experience has started to take center stage. Like companies, many universities are becoming global, establishing campuses and recruitment offices outside the United States. Students are encouraged to study abroad, while U.S. institutions continue to attract graduate students from around the globe. For faculty, an international reputation is becoming an increasingly important criterion in post tenure academic advancement decisions. However, there are many ways in which men and women face different worlds when it comes to working outside the United States. In the corporate sector, in some cases, companies might protect women by not sending them to locations that might be considered too dangerous, or presume that women would not wish to go to these locations due to safety concerns. Additionally, if not to protect women from potential harm, some companies who have engaged the other nation s taste for discrimination, have also prevented women from traveling abroad (Benokraitis and Feagin 1994). As more women have become heads of state or traveled as diplomatic envoys, even nations that, from the outside, appear to have very strict rules regulating women s behavior, have shown that these rules can be flexible when necessary. Many of these subtle discrimination practices may be less common 15 years after Modern Sexism first appeared, but it seems that women may still have less access to international collaborative opportunities. Figure 1 shows that when we look at the extent to which those who have received doctoral degrees in science and engineering in the United States collaborate as a function of Figure 1 International Collaboration by by Employment Sector of of U.S U.S.. Scientists and Engineers, Females Males Males % 29.3% 27.7% 29.3% 26.8% 26.8% 23.4% 20.8% 23.4% 20.8% Educational institution Government Business/industry SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 1

4 their employment sector and sex, we see two important findings: (1) that women, regardless of employment sector, lag men within that sector in international collaboration and (2) those in educational institutions lag scientists and engineers employed in government and business/industry in international collaboration. Indeed, women in business and industry settings report a level of international collaboration that reveals a wider sex gap than in any other sector, yet, the 27 percent of women scientists and engineers who did collaborate internationally was similar to the representation of men in these kinds of work relations from educational institutions. Appendix A provides a series of graphs showing these same data within selected science and engineering disciplines. Looking now at how field and sex interact to produce different outcomes with respect to international collaboration, Figure 2 shows, again, broad differences across fields and within field. Within each of the five science and engineering fields, without controlling for employment sector, women s reported rate of international collaboration lags that of men but the sex gap across the fields Figure 2 In International Collaboration by by Field Field and and Sex, Sex, Females Females Males Males % % 37.1% 37.1% 34.6% 34.6% 32.9% 32.9% 31.7% 31.7% 29.8% 29.8% 27.7% 25.4% 27.7% 25.4% 24.3% % % Comp Comp uter uter a a nd nd Life Life and and related related Physical Physical and and related related Social Social and and related related Engineering Engineering mathematics mathematics varies greatly. The widest gaps are in those fields in which women have made greater inroads in recent years: life and related sciences and social and related sciences. The gap is less than 5 percent for computer and mathematical scientists and physical and related scientists. The lowest rates of international collaboration are reported by social and related scientists of both sexes. This paper makes use of nationally representative data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) to answer a series of questions about international collaboration by U.S. academics with doctoral degrees to better understand the differences shown in the two figures, above: Among those who collaborate internationally, to what extent are men and women similar or different in terms of the travel they do for these collaborations? To what extent does international collaboration vary by race/ethnicity and sex? How do tenure status and rank impact international collaborations? In what ways are international collaborations impacted by family status issues (such as marital status and children)? To what extent does international collaboration differ by citizenship? SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 2

5 Data and Methods Data The SDR is a nationally representative survey with data collected every two to three years with both longitudinal and cross sectional features. Data are longitudinal in that, once impaneled, respondents are tracked and complete the survey in each administration after earning their doctoral degree. New respondents are added to the program via a sample of the respondents to the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates 1 (SED), which is administered to all research doctorate recipients from U.S. colleges and universities with a better than 90 percent response rate. Included in this sample are (1) U.S. citizens or those who indicate on the SED that they planned to remain in the United States after receiving their doctorate; (2) individuals under age 76; and (3) non institutionalized individuals living in the United States during the reference week (April 1, 2006). For this paper we used the 2006 SDR, in which a set of questions was asked about international collaboration in a new module, as discussed, below. The 2006 SDR administration had 30,800 respondents representing 711,800 doctoral degreed scientists and engineers. Analytical Approach As will be discussed, below, all dependent and independent variables are categorical, often with simple yes/no response categories. The principal analytical strategy we used was the cross tabulation, often with multiple variables or with selection of a limited group for analysis. SPSS windows was used to analyze the 2006 SDR restricted use dataset. Further, due to the complex stratified sampling plan 2 the National Science Foundation, Science Resource Statistics division recommends the use of sampling weights in analysis of the SDR data. Weighted analysis permits the generalization of results to the population from which the sample was drawn. In many cases, we will highlight important group 3 differences, usually those for which the sex gap exceeds 5 percentage points. 1 More accurately, the sample is drawn from the Doctorate Records File, DFT, which is a cumulative population associated with the SED. 2 See for details. 3 In this brief, the use of the term group is not meant to imply the usual sociological meanings associated with groups, such as a sense of belonging or solidarity around a set of common interests. Instead, we use the term here to refer to sets of individuals who share a particular characteristic. The more appropriate term might be category, which carries a stronger statistical rather than behavioral connotation. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 3

6 Dependent Variables The specific questions of interest here (the dependent variables of interest), both with simple yes/no answers were: (1) In performing the principal job you held during the week of April 1, 2006, did you work with individuals located in other countries? (International collaboration) (2) In your work with individuals located in other countries, did you travel to a foreign country for collaborative activities? (Travel abroad) Other items included in the module 4 were not used for this paper. Independent variables Sex was the critical independent variable: most analyses compare women and men. Another key demographic variable of interest was race/ethnicity, which was coded as a three category variable: Asian (included Pacific Islanders) Underrepresented minority included African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics (and noted as URM). White (non Hispanic whites). Anyone for whom race/ethnicity was either unknown or marked as other was omitted from most analyses, except as noted. We used the respondent s doctoral degree, which is provided at various levels of detail within the SDR dataset. We used the broadest level and omitted those who were in Science and engineering related or Non S&E fields. This meant that we retained a substantial number of cases (only 1,465 of the more than 30,000 cases were individuals in these two categories). This left the following five categories: Computer and mathematical sciences. Life and related sciences (note: health and medical fields are not included in this category). Physical and related sciences. Social and related sciences (includes psychology). Engineering. Since we were interested, specifically, in issues for U.S. academics, we also restricted our analyses to only those who reported being employed in an educational institution. While this includes K 12 (n=412) and two year colleges (n=510), the overwhelming majority of cases (n=12,128) are people employed in four year colleges and universities, medical schools and university affiliated research centers. With both 4 There were an additional six items beyond those described here. According to the National Science Foundation, the data from these items were not released due to data quality problems. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 4

7 the field of study and the employment sector restrictions, the overall number of cases in our analyses was 12,351, which represents 276,541 U.S. doctoral degree scientists and engineers employed in academic institutions. We used several family status variables to capture gendered impacts described in previous work by Malcom, George and Frehill (2008). First, the SDR asked about marital status, which we consolidated into three categories, consistent with those used in most social science reporting: Married or in a marriage like relationship (which we refer to as married/partnered). Widowed, separated, or divorced. Never married. There were quite a few items that asked about the presence of children in the respondent s home, so that we can identify those respondents who did have children of various ages. We, therefore, used the following categories, which are non mutually exclusive to capture the potential impacts of children upon international collaboration and travel abroad: No children living at home. Children under 2 living at home. Children aged 2 5 living at home. Children aged 6 11 living at home. Children aged living at home. Children 19 and older living at home. Any children of any age living at home. We did not compute a total number of children, which may have an effect on the likelihood of international travel, nor did we form a variable by crossing the marital status with the children variables, which is often done in the literature on the impact of family status on occupational outcomes. Hence, the analyses we present are somewhat simplified in terms of the potential impacts that having children of various ages may have on international collaboration and travel abroad. Although it would seem simple, measuring citizenship is not as completely straight forward as just using the four category variable available in the SDR, which includes: U.S. citizen (native born), U.S. citizen (naturalized), Non U.S. citizen, permanent resident. Non U.S. citizen, temporary resident. The U.S. citizen, naturalized category is the group that poses the most theoretical challenges when studying how citizenship impacts educational and occupational outcomes because of the heterogeneity of this group. That is, it includes individuals who arrived in the United States as children and, SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 5

8 fundamentally, were raised within the U.S. system as well as individuals who arrived quite a bit later after having gone though other educational systems. The social forces associated with each of these groups, obviously, are quite different. Therefore, we also used another variable as a proxy for age of arrival (which was not available in the SDR data): the world region in which the individual received her or his bachelor s degree. 5 The regions were: United States, Americas (rest of North America, Central and South America and the Caribbean), Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific Islands). Finally, we look at how rank and tenure status impact international collaboration and travel abroad. The relevant SDR variables i.e., rank with its 8 categories and tenure status with its 5 produces a 40 cell matrix but we simplified/reduced these to the following categories: Tenured full professor. Tenured associate professor. Tenure track senior faculty (associate or full). Assistant professor (or junior faculty, includes tenured and untenured tenure track junior faculty in assistant professor, lecturer, and instructor positions). Non tenure track (all ranks faculty not tenured and not on a tenure track). 5 In some studies, location of high school completion is taken as a good proxy for whether the individual would be considered more a product of the U.S. versus some other educational and cultural system. Here, though, we lacked that measure. Since it is still relatively uncommon for non U.S. students to travel to the United States to earn a bachelor s degree, this may be a valid demarcation point for defining those who are more culturally U.S. versus non U.S. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 6

9 Results Table 1 shows the overall sex distribution within each of dependent, demographic and work related variables, while Table 2 shows these same data for the family status variables used in our analyses. On most of the key demographics, there are few differences between women and men. The largest differences are in the way women and men are distributed across the categories of Rank/Tenure status and fields. Nearly half of the men but just over one in five women are in tenured full professor positions with women much more likely than men to be in non tenure track positions. A far higher proportion of women are in the social and behavioral sciences than men, while men are much more likely than women to be in the computer and mathematical sciences, engineering, and physical sciences. Indeed, more than 80 percent of women are in the life and social and behavioral sciences, while men are less concentrated. (Note: unweighted n s are shown in this table.) Table 1. Dependent, Demographic and Work Related Variables by Sex, Holders of U.S. Doctorates Employed in Educational s in STEM Fields (Weighted) Female Male Total International Collaboration 20.9% 27.7% 25.6% Travel Abroad 46.3% 49.9% 49. Minority Status Asian 13.4% 14.1% 13.9% Underrepresented minority % 8.2% White 76.1% 78.8% 77.9% Rank/Tenure Status Full, tenured % 37.4% Associate, tenured 21.1% % Senior, tenure-track 22.8% 15.7% 17.8% Junior, tenure-track 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% Non tenure-track % 20.7% Field Computer and mathematical sciences 5.1% 9.8% 8.3% Life sciences 33.6% 29.2% 30.6% Physical sciences 9.1% 18.3% 15.4% Social and behavioral sciences 47.8% 27.9% 34.2% Engineering 4.4% 14.8% 11. Citizenship U.S., native 79.1% 76.4% 77.2% U.S., naturalized 9.7% 12.6% 11.7% Non-U.S., permanent resident 6.6% % Non-U.S., temporary resident 4.6% Region of bachelor's degree institution United States 85.8% 83.4% 84. Americas 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Europe 2.3% Asia 9.6% 11.1% 10.7% Africa 0.4% % Oceania 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% N 4,409 7,942 12,351 SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 7

10 Table 2 shows how women and men are distributed across the categories on the three family status variables used in our analyses. Women are less likely than men to be married and those who are married or in a marriage like relationship are far more likely than men to report that their spouse works full time. Whereas 81 percent of married/partnered women report that their spouse works a full time job, just under half of married/partnered men report this. Nearly one in three married/partnered men report that their spouse is not employed. (Note: unweighted n s are reported here.) Table 2 Family Status Variables by Sex, Doctorate Holders from U.S. Universities Employed in Educational s in a STEM Field Female Male Total Marital Status Married or a marriage-like relationship 74.3% 85.4% 79.9% Widowed, separated, or divorced % 7.7% Never married 14.6% 8.4% 10.4% Children Living in Household No children 55.7% 52.8% 53.8% Child under % 16.8% 18.2% Child 2-5 years of age 30.9% 26.4% 27.7% Child 6-11 years of age 37.6% 37.4% 37. Child years of age 36.8% 43.3% 41.3% Child 19 or older % 16. Any child of any age 44.3% 47.2% 46.2% Spouse's work status Employed full-time % 58.1% Employed part-time 7.7% % Not employed 11.2% 30.7% 25.1% N 4,409 7,942 12,351 Race/ethnicity, sex and discipline To what extent does the likelihood of collaborating internationally vary by race/ethnicity and sex? How does field affect international collaborations? Figure 3 shows that when we control for both field and race/ethnicity, there are fewer substantial sex differences in collaboration among U.S. academics than when we fail to control for these three variables. That is, here we limit ourselves to the group in the first two bars shown in Figure 1 and then we drill down into disciplines while simultaneously controlling for race/ethnicity, suggesting that the explanations for the gender gap noted in Figure 1 are complex. Figures 3 and 4 6 are meant to shift our attention to the way that race/ethnicity and sex together impact international collaboration. Within various ethnic groups, there are some important sex differences. Among underrepresented minorities (URMs), men are more likely than women to 6 Graphical representations of the data shown in Figure 3 for each discipline are presented in Appendix B. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 8

11 collaborate in the engineering and computer and mathematical sciences, while women are more likely than men to indicate that they are involved in international collaborations in the physical and related sciences. For Asians, men are more likely than women to report collaborating in the life and related sciences and engineering. For whites, though, we see a substantial sex difference in international collaboration among those in the physical and related sciences with 31 percent of white males but just 21 percent of white females reportedly involved in international collaboration. The engineering sex difference that is on the order of a 10 percent gap in international collaboration between men and women in engineering is not seen for whites. Figure 3 Worked with individuals located in other countries Asian URM White Total FIELD Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Computer and mathematical Female , % 4,492 sciences Male , , , % 18,485 Life and related Female , , , % 29,351 sciences Male , , , % 55,303 Physical and related Female , , ,928 sciences Male , , , % 34,612 Social and related Female , , , % 41,665 sciences Male , , , % 52,845 Engineering Female , , % 3,807 Male , , , ,054 Note: URM = underrepresented minority, includes American Indians/Alaska Natives, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and Multiple Race. Source: Author's analysis of Survey of Doctorate recipients data, restricted-use file (2006). The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, reseach methods or conclusions. Among those who reported that they engaged in an international collaboration, one of the key follow up questions related to whether or not the respondent traveled abroad. Whereas many of the sex differences on the general variable measuring international collaboration were rather small, the sex differences in the percentage of respondents who reported that they traveled abroad are generally larger, as shown in Figure 4. For example, Asian males in three of the five disciplines computer and mathematical sciences, physical and related sciences, and engineering were much more likely than Asian females to report that they traveled abroad for their international collaborative work. URM males in computer and mathematical sciences were also substantially more likely than females in this same ethnic category to indicate that they traveled abroad. Engineering is interesting because even though URM females were less likely to indicate that they were involved in international collaboration than SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 9

12 URM males, those who were involved in these collaborations were quite a bit more likely than men to indicate that they traveled abroad for the collaboration. Likewise, white females in engineering, who reported a similar chance of being involved in an international collaboration as white male engineers, were also substantially more likely than men to report that they traveled abroad. Indeed, three fourths of women engineers who were either URM or white and were involved in international collaboration traveled abroad some of the highest rates shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 Among those who worked with individuals located in other countries, percent who traveled abroad Asian URM White Total FIELD Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Computer and mathematical Female 48.1% % % % 1,073 sciences Male 69.2% 1, % % 3, % 4,671 Life and related Female % % 4, % 6,211 sciences Male 41.7% 1, % % 12, % 15,288 Physical and related Female % 1, % 1,708 sciences Male 52.8% 1, % % 8, % 10,283 Social and related Female 57.2% , % 6, % 8,399 sciences Male 60.7% % 1, % 12, % 14,424 Engineering Female 49.6% % % 866 Male 69.2% 1, , % 7,847 Note: URM = underrepresented minority, includes American Indians/Alaska Natives, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and Multiple Race. Source: Author's analysis of Survey of Doctorate recipients data, restricted-use file (2006). The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, reseach methods or conclusions. Rank and Tenure Status Tenure status and rank have a substantial impact upon rates and the sex gap in international collaboration (Figure 5). Those who are at the top of the academic food chain report the highest rates of international collaboration within their respective sex group: 36 percent of male and 29 percent of female full professors are involved in international collaborations. This sex gap is replicated for those who are untenured but in senior level ranks. It is noteworthy, though, that among associate (tenured) and assistant professors (tenured and untenured) there is no sex gap in international collaboration. About one in four assistant professors and just a little more than one in four associate professors of both sexes indicated that they were involved in international collaboration. These findings suggest that there are important cohort effects that impact the overall sex gap in international collaboration. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 10

13 Figure 5 International Collaboration by Rank and Tenure Status and Sex, % 35.8% 27.3% 26.6% 27.3% 20. Females 25.2% 24.8% Males 20.8% Tenured, full Tenured, associate Untenured, full and associate Assistant Non tenure track Note: Assistant includes tenure track assistant, tenured assistant and tenured lecturers/instructors. Non tenure track includes faculty of all ranks not on a tenure track and faculty at institutions without tenure. Family Status Marital status has a stronger impact on international collaboration for men than for women, although the graph shown in Figure 6 likely conflates age effects with marital status effects. That is, those who have never been married are likely, also, to have a younger average age than those who report any of the other marital statuses and, indeed, there is a rather narrow gender gap in international collaboration among those faculty members. Married men are the most likely group to report international collaboration (29 percent) and the sex gap in international collaboration is widest among those who are married. In the literature on the sex gap in pay in corporate settings, this has come to be referred to as the marriage bonus for men. While marital relationships have undergone important changes in the past 30 years, it is still the case that men are more likely to reap a range of health and personal service benefits from marriage in contrast to single men and to married women. When we turn our attention to the likelihood that respondents reported that they traveled abroad shown in Figure 7 among those who reported an international collaboration we see that single men and women, whether they have been married or not, are more likely than married men and women to indicate that they traveled abroad for the collaboration. The least likely group to report travel abroad was married women (at 44 percent), while the most likely group were widowed, separated or divorced women (57 percent). It seems that marital status has a greater impact on women s likelihood of traveling than on men s. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 11

14 Figure 6 Figure 7 2 International Collaboration by Marital Status Female Male 6 5 Travel Abroad International Collaboration by Marital Status (Among those who do collaborate internationally) Female Male % 28.6% 22.3% 25.6% 18.8% 20.9% % 49.3% 56.6% 54.3% 47.9% 53.6% 1 Married/partnered Widowed, separated, divorced Never Married Married/partnered Widowed, separated, divorced Never Married Figure 8 shows that the presence of children can have important implications for international collaboration and, especially, travel associated with these collaborations. It is important to note, however, that childless women were only ever so slightly more likely than women with children to report that they collaborated internationally (22 percent for childless women and 20 percent for those with a child of any age). Likewise, men s reported participation in international collaborations varies little for men with versus those without children. The sex gap, though, is quite clear regardless of children s ages. That is, the sex gap is smallest among those without children and is widest for those who report that they have at least one elementary school aged child living in their home. Figure 8 Figure 9 2 International Collaboration by Children's Ages Female Male 6 5 Travel Abroad International Collaboration by Children's Ages (Among those who do collaborate internationally) Female Male % % 27.7% 19.1% % % 29.6% % 19.9% 28.6% % 51.8% 42.2% 45.1% 36.1% 45.3% 45.7% % 50.3% % % 1 No children Under 2 years 2 5 years 6 11 years years 19 and older Any age No children Under 2 years 2 5 years 6 11 years years 19 and older Any age Women with children are less likely than men with children to travel as shown in Figure 9: 42 percent of women and 49 percent of men with children currently living in their home indicated that they traveled abroad. Ironically, though, when we look specifically at the likelihood of traveling abroad, the findings are rather different. At the most macro level, indeed, men are more likely than women to SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 12

15 report that they travel abroad regardless of whether they have children and the ages of those children. But while women who had children aged 6 11 were least likely to report that they collaborated internationally, they were not the least likely to report traveling abroad. Indeed, the sex gap in traveling abroad is lowest for men and women with 6 11 year olds at home than for any other group. Childless women were about as likely as those with children under 2 years or between to travel abroad. For both men and women, though, those with children 19 years or older living at home were the most likely to travel abroad again, though, this finding likely associated with an age effect. Figure 10 Figure 11 International Collaboration by Spouse's Employment Status and Sex, 2006 Female 32.1% Male 6 Travel Abroad by Spouse's Employment Status and Sex, 2006 (Among those who collaborate internationally) Female Male 54.1% % 28.1% 25.3% 20.4% 26.9% % 47.2% 47.8% 32.9% 45.1% Employed full time Employed part time Not employed Employed full time Employed part time Not employed Spouse s employment status also has impacts on international collaboration (Figure 10) and travelling abroad (Figure 11) for collaborations. Women who have a spouse employed full time or those with an unemployed spouse are less likely than those with a part time employed spouse to indicate that they collaborate internationally. A similar pattern is observed for men, but, as previously, regardless of spouse s employment status, men are more likely than women with spouses of similar status to collaborate internationally. Citizenship and Bachelor s Degree Region As shown in Figure 12, women s citizenship status has minimal impact on the percentage of women who indicate that they are involved in international collaboration, ranging from 20 percent among native born U.S. citizens to 24 percent among naturalized U.S. citizens. For men, though, citizenship has a larger impact on international collaboration. Just one in five men who were temporary residents reported an international collaboration but 32 percent of men who were naturalized U.S. citizens reported they were collaborating internationally. With the exception of non U.S. temporary residents, SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 13

16 men were much more likely than women within the same citizenship status to report that they were involved in an international collaboration. Figure 12 Figure 13 International Collaboration by Citizenship, 2006 Travel Abroad for International Collaboration by Citizenship (Among those who collaborated internationally) Non U.S., temporary resident % Non U.S., temporary resident 44.9% 48.4% Non U.S., permanent resident U.S., naturalized 22.6% % 31.8% Male Female Non U.S., permanent resident U.S., naturalized 50.1% 54.2% 65.7% 56.2% Male Female U.S., native 20.4% 27.3% U.S., native % Figure 13 shows that, while there were few differences in women s likelihood of engaging in international collaboration based on citizenship status, there were broad differences in women s reporting that they traveled internationally among those who were involved in international collaboration. The sex gaps in travel abroad were generally smaller than those shown in the previous chart for international collaboration. The most likely group to report traveling abroad for an international collaboration were U.S. naturalized men (66 percent), which was true for women too i.e. naturalized U.S. women were most likely among women to indicate that they had traveled abroad for international collaboration (56 percent). The least likely groups were non U.S. temporary resident men (45 percent) and U.S. native born women (44 percent). Figure 14 International Collaboration by by Bachelor's Degree Region 27.6% United 27.6% States States 21.1% 21.1% 23.4% Asia 23.4% Asia 17.7% 17.7% 27.2% Africa 27.2% Africa 24.7% 24.7% 43.3% Europe 43.3% % Oceania 42.4% 33.3% 33.3% 35.9% Americas 35.9% 35.1% 35.1% Male Male Female European origin men and those from Oceania were most likely to report that they engaged in international collaboration as shown in Figure 14. Within each of the regional groups based on bachelor s degree origin, men were more likely than women to report that they collaborated internationally. Women who had earned their bachelor s degrees in the Americas (35 percent) followed by Oceania (33 percent) and Europe (30 percent) were the most likely to SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 14

17 report that they engaged in international collaboration. Women who earned their bachelor s degree in the United States were among the least likely to engage in international collaboration. The sex gap among those who reported that they traveled abroad for an international collaboration varied greatly based on the bachelor s degree region, shown in Figure 15. Among those who received a bachelor s degree from a European, U.S., or African institution, there was a negligible difference in the percentage of men and women who reported that they traveled abroad for international collaboration. The gap was much wider for scholars who received their bachelor s degree from an institution in Asia (12 percent gap) or the Americas (16 percent gap). Men who had earned bachelor s degrees from institutions in the Americas were the most likely to report that they traveled abroad to participate in an international collaboration (68 percent), while 63 percent of women who had been trained in Africa were most likely to report that they traveled abroad for an international collaboration. Figure 15 Travel Abroad International Collaboration by Bachelor's Degree Region (Among those who do collaborate internationally) United States Asia 47.4% 44.2% Africa 59.3% 63. Europe Oceania 34.8% 28.6% 56.3% 56.6% Male Female Americas 51.9% Conclusions The likelihood of engaging in an international collaboration and of traveling abroad for collaboration differs due to discipline, race/ethnicity, sex, family status, and citizenship. In general, the key differences are noted on the first of these two variables international collaboration with smaller gaps on the second variable, i.e., travel abroad. It should be remembered that this second variable is contingent on the first: so that when we control for whether or not a person collaborates SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 15

18 internationally, the likelihood of traveling abroad is less dependent upon a host of independent variables. First, it is important to note that U.S. academics are less likely than U.S. doctoral degree holders employed in business/industry or government to engage in international collaborative research. In today s shrinking world, in which students are increasingly becoming involved in global issues, faculty involvement in international work, in general, should be a matter of public concern. Second, our findings show that the relationship between sex and international collaboration is quite complicated and, to some extent, affected by the interaction of sex with variables like field and rank and tenure status. Women s concentration in the life, social and behavioral sciences suggests a need to further examine the subfields within these disciplines as possibly shaping women s likelihood of engaging in international collaboration. Finkelstein et al. (2009), for example, showed that internationalization for faculty members in humanities and social sciences tended to involve incorporation of global content in the classroom, while that of STEM field faculty involved research with international colleagues. That 43 percent of the men who were in the five STEM fields and employed in academic settings were full professors compared to just 22 percent of the women and women s greater likelihood of being in non tenure track positions was quite important. Among tenured and tenure track faculty at the assistant and associate levels, there was no discernible sex gap in international collaboration but the gap at the full, tenured level was quite large. On the one hand, this suggests a cohort effect, possibly due to a mechanism such as cumulative disadvantage. On the other hand, it may indicate that caution needs to be exercised in monitoring faculty members as they advance to insure that women and men have similar opportunities to engage in international collaborations. The analyses we conducted are best described as exploratory, suggesting that subsequent multivariate analysis using logistic regression would likely be a fruitful analytical strategy to tease out the factors that are most salient. Being able to examine how marital status, presence of children of various ages, field, and rank/tenure status have differential effects for women s and men s international collaboration will be important in developing strategies for encouraging all faculty to participate. SDR, 2006 Findings on International Collaboration 16

19 Appendix A. International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex, 2006 for Selected Science and Engineering Disciplines International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Computer and Mathematical Sciences, % 26.2% 4-year College or Medical 34.6% 22.9% Government 28.1% 36.2% International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Biological Sciences, % 29.2% 4-year College or Medical 31.3% 36. Government % 1 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

20 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Other Agricultural and Environmental Life Sciences, % 42.1% % 37.7% 30.6% year College or Medical Government 6 5 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Chemistry, % % 25.3% 27.8% % 1 4-year College or Medical Government 2 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

21 6 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Physics and Astronomy, % % 35.1% 35.6% 32.6% 4-year College or Medical Government International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex 36.4% Other Physical and Related Sciences, % 44.1% % 45.9% 4-year College or Medical Government 3 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

22 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Economics, % 32.6% % 23.7% year College or Medical Government International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Political and Related Sciences, % 31.7% 28.1% 25.8% 23.3% % year College or Medical Government 4 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

23 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Psychology, % 8.9% 9.6% 14.1% 4-year College or Medical Government International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex 27.4% Sociology and Anthropology, % 18.4% 21.8% % 4-year College or Medical Government 5 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

24 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Other Social Sciences, % 34.8% 26.8% % % 4-year College or Medical Government 6 5 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Chemical Engineering, % 50.2% % 22.7% 1 4-year College or Medical Government 6 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

25 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Civil Engineering, % 32.8% 30.3% 27.2% % % year College or Medical Government International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering, % 40.6% 35.4% 24.6% year College or Medical Government 7 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

26 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Mechanical Engineering, % % 29.1% 28.2% 26.2% % year College or Medical Government International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Other Engineering, % % % 31.1% % 20.4% year College or Medical Government 8 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

27 International Collaboration by Employment Sector and Sex Health-Related Fields, % 4-year College or Medical 32.1% 29.2% Government 24.2% 34.4% 9 A ppendix A. International Collaboration by Sector & Sex within Disciplines

28 Appendix B. International Collaboration by Race/Ethnicity and Sex Within Broad Science and Engineering Fields Computer and mathematical sciences % worked w/individuals - other countries Female Male Asian URM White Source: Frehill, Lisa M Weighted analysis of National Science Foundation, restricted use Survey of Doctorate Recipients, The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, research methods or conclusions. This work was support by NSF # Note: URM = Underrepresented minority, includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics. 35 Life and related sciences Female Male % worked w/individuals - other countries Asian URM White Source: Frehill, Lisa M Weighted analysis of National Science Foundation, restricted use Survey of Doctorate Recipients, The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, research methods or conclusions. This work was support by NSF # Note: URM = Underrepresented minority, includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics. 1 A ppendix B. International Collaboration by Race/Ethnicity & Sex within Fields

29 Physical and related sciences % worked w/individuals - other countries Female 20.0 Male Asian URM White Source: Frehill, Lisa M Weighted analysis of National Science Foundation, restricted use Survey of Doctorate Recipients, The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, research methods or conclusions. This work was support by NSF # Note: URM = Underrepresented minority, includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics. Social and related sciences 35 % worked w/individuals - other countries Female 20.1 Male Asian URM White Source: Frehill, Lisa M Weighted analysis of National Science Foundation, restricted use Survey of Doctorate Recipients, The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, research methods or conclusions. This work was support by NSF # Note: URM = Underrepresented minority, includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics. 2 A ppendix B. International Collaboration by Race/Ethnicity & Sex within Fields

30 Engineering Female Male 35 % worked w/individuals - other countries Asian URM White Source: Frehill, Lisa M Weighted analysis of National Science Foundation, restricted use Survey of Doctorate Recipients, The use of NSF data does not imply NSF approval of the research, research methods or conclusions. This work was support by NSF # Note: URM = Underrepresented minority, includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Hispanics. 3 A ppendix B. International Collaboration by Race/Ethnicity & Sex within Fields