Women in Ecology

This is the topic of my graduate seminar course this semester.  We started the course by reading Jean Langenheim's "Address of the Past President: Davis, California August 1988: The Path and Progress of American Women Ecologists".  It is a great introduction to the history of women in ecology (even if plant biased) and provides great examples of the non-traditional paths women have forged for themselves.  Jean Langenheim's work to highlight the importance of women in ecology is remarkable and important to all women ecologists today.  The questions and discussion that arose after reading this seminal paper do not reflect criticism of her efforts, rather questions and issues that still remain. 

17 years later, there is a real interest to create a network of women in ecology as many women feel alone in a field that has made leaps and bounds to be inclusive, especially compared to other scientific disciplines.  After reading the speech, numerous questions arose. For example, what was the social-economic status for these early women?  Is it harder for lower income women to pursue non-traditional paths?  The speech is heavily biased towards academia. What are the other ways to measure success in science and in life? How can this be quantified?

Ecology is an ideal field for non-traditional paths since you don't need a large budget to observe patterns and quantitatively assess measurements.  However, these non-traditional paths mean women had (have) less money for research (and thus, less money for students or post-docs) which may have kept women from achieving "award winning" ecological status.

The list of achievements (e.g. positions and awards) given in the address is remarkable, but today students want to hear more personal facts about people and highlights of their research.  In a recent workshop on women in ecology, several notable women introduced themselves and only one identified herself as a mother (which in fact almost all were).  These are important to the new generation of women in ecology because we want to feel a connection with the women who are in leadership now.  There is still the perception that there is a bias in the present towards unmarried, childless women in science as they will be more dedicated to their work. 

Regarding the balance of career and home life, we feel that the focus is heavily on motherhood and marriage.  However, attaining any kind of work-life balance requires an elaborate set of personal adaptations which should be learned and sustained with the help of mentors and other resources.  These should not be innate qualities women should be expected to possess.

Our class will explore many topics around women (and men) in ecology.  Topics of interest from the students include: How does the economic status add to the barriers women face in ecology? Do lower income women have a harder time succeeding as scientists? How do these issues influence men and other minority groups? How do LGBTQ issues influence the success of women and men in science?

Students think there is a lot of emphasis on how children influence women in science.  Women (and men) may want to invest time in other personal development or may have other family issues (i.e. caring for an elderly parent).  Just because a woman is childless does not mean she will not face significant work-life balance issues and have to make sacrifices.

As we go through the semester, we will first highlight various women in ecology (or related discipline), both historical and contemporary.  As these stories unfold, we will explore the different paths women take, the challenges each woman has faced, and what challenges still remain.  Through this process we will bring attention and find inspiration to move us towards an accepting, inclusive discipline where women and men feel valued and able to access the resources they need to be successful (in any definition of the word).

Reference:
Langenheim, J. 1988. Address of the Past President: Davis, California August 1988: The Path and Progress of American Women Ecologists. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 69: 184 - 197.