Improving Educational Outcomes

Female faculty have a harder time working in academia than male faculty. Women report negative interactions with male colleagues make it harder for them to secure mentoring, resources, & career opportunities. Don't believe it? Ten years ago, Griffin et al. provided a masterful analysis of the issue, using qualitative methods & analysis of interviews with 23 female scientists. They found that: * academic value systems sometimes clash with the values ascribed to women in society. * women reported negative & marginalizing interactions with men in academic settings. * women lacked access to resources needed to succeed in academic careers. What can we do? * offer career development activities so everyone has equivalent access to develop soft skills. * monitor how people treat one another in academia, negative & marginalizing interactions should not be tolerated. * educate academics, so they understand how their actions impact each other. * create formal systems for allocating resources, such that everyone has similar access. * enforce rules for workplace civility, we need to stop looking the other way when a colleague is harassed. Read the paper, look around, & ask yourself is this still the academic world that I live in? If it is, become a change agent! The citation: Griffin, K., Gibbs Jr, K. D., Bennett, J., Staples, C., & Robinson, T. (2015). " RESPECT ME FOR MY SCIENCE": A BOURDIEUIAN ANALYSIS OF WOMEN SCIENTISTS'INTERACTIONS WITH FACULTY & SOCIALIZATION INTO SCIENCE. Journal of women & minorities in science & engineering, 21(2). The link: https://lnkd.in/eZPHUNwY The abstract: Disparities in representation in the professoriate and recent research suggest that women continue to face challenges throughout their training. This study examines a specific aspect of scientific training− interactions with faculty−due to their role in socializing students into academic norms and values which can promote retention and success in science. While studies have highlighted the importance of faculty relationships in socialization, few studies have done so using a Bourdieuian framework (social capital, cultural capital, habitus, and field) or simultaneously addressed postdoctoral and graduate training experiences. This study uses Bourdieuian tools to frame an analysis of focus group data collected from 23 women who have completed PhDs in the biomedical sciences, focusing on how their relationships with faculty throughout their training experiences inform them about what it means to be a scientist, their alignment with these norms, and their access to important resources (social and cultural capital). Findings suggest that faculty interactions often suggested to women or led them to surmise that academic norms and values conflicted with their own as women. Further, women described negative and marginalizing interactions as limiting their access to important resources key to advancement in science.

In the latest study on gender and perfectionism by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the majority of women in the surveyed group were perfectionists. What does this mean for female students in educational settings? Harvard economics professor Claudia Goldin conducted a study between 2010 and 2014 and found that women responded more negatively to imperfect grades than men. Specifically, the studies showed: - Women who got below an A in economics courses dropped out of the economics major more than their male counterparts.  - Men who got C’s in their first economics courses were about four times more likely to pursue an economics major than women who got C’s in their first economics courses.  - Men who received B’s were just as likely as male A students to choose an economics major, while female A students were twice as likely as male B students to pursue the major. - In general, only 29 percent of bachelor’s degrees in economics in the U.S. are awarded to women.  Women on average earn higher grades than men at each stage of schooling, so lack of intelligence seems out of the question. This hints that a different pressure weakens their confidence to proceed: the fear of failure.  Stereotypes may also influence women’s participation in STEM subject areas. Authors Carmen Astorne-Figari and Jamin D. Speer said that when a woman receives a less-than-perfect grade on her assignment, it reinforces the sexist social norm: “I’m not an economics person.' 'Sensitivity plays an important role within major switches,' said Jennifer Jackson, reflecting the research of Astorne-Figari and Speer. 'The lower the grades, the larger the switch.' In this situation, perfectionism poses a problem unique to women: They may be more sensitive to lower grades than men.  The late Sheila Tobias, former associate provost of Wesleyan University and co-director of the Math Clinic at Wesleyan University, found a similar problem in women with the study of math—which she explored in the September 1976 issue of Ms. magazine in an iconic article (which would go on to be a book): 'Math Anxiety.' She noticed women’s reluctance to take math courses like calculus, algebra and statistics in college, attributing it to performance anxiety from internalized sexist stereotypes. Specifically, she names the root cause as 'a culture that makes math ability a masculine attribute, that punishes women for doing well in math and that soothes the slower math learner by telling her she does not have a ‘mathematical mind.’' Tobias said this culture can manifest in microaggressions from fathers, with casual comments like, 'Your mother never could balance a checkbook.' Girls internalize these comments, and their learned attitudes carry into their careers. This can then block them from interviewing for potential jobs in math." #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels

A lot of research evidence shows that, given the option, women don’t opt into competitions. But what this often means is that women don’t get to showcase their skills or to demonstrate high ability as often as men do. You can’t win if you don’t play. Joyce He Sonia Kang Nicola Lacetera have shown that one way to get around women’s #competition aversion is to make #inclusion in #contests compulsory, rather than through self-volunteering. That is, right now, the #default is to assume that people don’t want to compete unless they opt to participate, rather than assuming that everyone who is eligible to compete will do so, and must ask to #optout. In their research, they find that when the default is to compete, men and women will do so to the same degree (i.e., women don’t ask to opt-out). In addition, there aren’t #genderdifferences in #performance, suggesting that when women don’t #optin to competition, it isn’t because they accurately understand themselves to be worse performers; it's that men are more likely to opt-in to competitions because of inaccurate #confidence in their own abilities. He, J., Kang, A., Lacetera, N. (2021). Opt-out choice framing attenuates gender differences in the decision to compete in the laboratory and in the field. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (42). New research from John Ifcher and Homa Zarghamee suggest a different way that organizations can get women to “compete” to the same degree as men: have others choose. What they find is that when people are assigned to enter men or women into a competition, there is no gender difference in who is chosen to enter, whereas when men and women are asked whether they want to be entered into the competition, they find the standard “women don’t compete” effect. Interestingly, they also find that the largest difference is between men who enter themselves into competitions and everyone else; men and women’s willingness to enter someone else into a competition doesn’t differ from women’s willingness to enter themselves into a competition. Meaning, a lot of gender differences in who competes – who is considered - is driven by men’s #overconfidence, rather than women’s underconfidence. These findings suggest that there are various procedural changes that can mitigate #genderinequality in #careeradvancement. One option is to make opting out of being considered for promotion the default, rather than making people have to opt in to be considered. Another option is to stop asking for self-nominations and use other-nominations instead. Now, there are issues with that option as well, in that relying entirely on others’ nominations might still land us back into the realm of gender inequality due to differences in who receives #sponsorship. But the real takeaway here is that there are ways to change the situation – and not the people in them – that organizations can use to address inequality. https://lnkd.in/gHty93r9

I'm running a workshop for women in leadership, in partnership with Understanding ModernGov, today. Some of the delegates are from higher education institutions, so I thought I'd share this interesting research from Fanika et al (2022). The research explored the potential reasons for differences in career success of women academics, compared to men. Two studies were conducted - the first, a qualitative study using a semi-structured interview; the second, a quantitative study using a survey designed from the themes identified in the first study. STUDY 1 revealed paradoxical findings. - The reasons for women dropping out of academia were mostly rooted in organisational narrative, such as work-family balance, and women not being ambitious or motivated enough. - However, when asked, a high proportion of participants (men and women) reported witnessing sexist behaviour such as differential treatment of male and female academics. - The researchers refer to the "chillly climate", i.e., putting the lack of career progression down to the characteristics of the women, rather than acknowledging the organisational hurdles they must overcome. STUDY 2 found that the female academics were just as ambitious as their male counterparts. However, the career experiences of women appear to be very different from men due to their differential treatment. - Those women who made it to a senior level reported having had to make more difficult career choices compared to male counterparts and succeeding despite of the lack of organisational support. In summary, the researchers found no evidence to suggest that the women in the two studies were less ambitious than the men, or that they preferred to "opt out" of an academic career. Instead, the findings suggest that women were having to make more difficult choices to advance in their career and were highly likely to experience a hostile work environment characterised by sexist behaviour and comments, and a lack of support from leadership and peers. While this study specifically looked at academia in a European context, I imagine many of us will be able to cite similar experiences in other organisational settings. While policies and initiatives continue to put the issue at the door of the woman ("you just need to be more confident", or "you can go part-time to support your family") this avoids confronting and tackling the systemic nature of the issue. Key is ensuring: 👉 There is fairness in access to jobs and promotion (including how, when and where these are advertised and to who). 👉 Providing equal access to being involved in stretching projects. 👉 Improving how performance conversations and appraisals happen. 👉 Providing access to mentoring. The paper is open access https://buff.ly/3JLWBRQ #women #womeninleadership #academia #psychology #research #diversity #equality #inclusion

➡️ Why Most High-Performance Advice Is Failing Women The productivity world wasn’t built for your biology. Most high-performance advice was designed by men, for men—and that’s exactly why it’s not working for so many high-achieving women. No shade to our hard-working men - we love to see you thrive, too! ------ ⬇️ Here’s the truth when it comes to high-performance for women: 1. Most Current Tips and Hacks are Based on a 24-Hour Rhythm, Not a 28-Day One 💡 Most advice assumes your energy, focus, and stress tolerance reset every day. 💡 But women operate on an infradian rhythm—your hormones fluctuate across a 28-ish day cycle (with special bonus versions in peri/menopause) ➡️ That means the “wake up at 5 AM, crush your goals, train hard daily” routine can lead to burnout when applied all month long. 2. Don’t Ignore the Power of Your Cycle 💡 Hormones like estrogen and progesterone impact your brain, motivation, creativity, and recovery. 📆 Your cycle can actually be your greatest tool for aligned performance—when you work with it, not against it. 💡High estrogen = peak energy and verbal fluency → great for meetings, launches. 💡High progesterone = more inward and detail-focused → great for deep work, planning. 3. Stop Pursuing Advice that Rewards Output Over Alignment 💡 Traditional high-performance culture glorifies nonstop output, but women’s biology is cyclical, and peak performance doesn’t mean performing at 100% every day. ➡️ Real success is learning how to ebb and flow intentionally—honoring rest + recovery as a strategic advantage. 4. You Need to Account for Hormonal Sensitivity to Stress 💡Chronic stress hits women harder. Many productivity protocols can inadvertently push our stress hormones into overdrive through overtraining, under-eating, and overworking—wrecking hormone balance over time. 💡 The same routine that energizes a man might push a woman into chronic low-level inflammation or cycle dysfunction. 5. Understand How Women Process Recovery - Physically and Mentally 💡“Just sleep 7 hours and meditate” is not enough. 💤 Female physiology needs more restorative practices based on where you are in your cycle. 💡 Luteal phase? You may need more sleep, slower movement, deeper nourishment. ---- ⬇️ The Solution? Personalized, Biology-Informed High Performance. This isn’t about doing less. It’s about doing it smarter—in rhythm with your body. --- 👋🏼 I'm Dr. Laura DeCesaris, Functional Medicine Strategist and Women's Health expert, and host of The Femme Factor Podcast ➡️ I've helped hundreds of professional women just like you take back control of their health, amplify their productivity and impact, and create more space for joy, vibrancy, and wellness in their lives. I'd love to help you do the same! Want to explore this for yourself? Let’s chat! DM me 'RHYTHM' and let's connect.

An all female sample of coaches! An evaluation of a women’s only leadership programme from coaches who participated in it - conducted by Jyoti Gosai, Katelynn Slade, PhD, Louise Davis and I. “The Female Coaches and High-Performance Leadership programme was not based on a framework that adopts an “add-women-and-stir” approach ….[nor] a framework that adopted a “fix-the-women approach” ….While both these approaches have aspects that can be useful to women (e.g., decision-making, feedback, support), they do not focus on the organisational realities women face that would be helpful to their leadership as coaches in the long run. Instead, the framework used … was based on specific leadership factors that women need to leverage to be effective as head or assistant coaches within their national sport organizations, where the focus is on high performance. Subsequently, the programme zoomed in on identity and gender bias to highlight how the latter can interfere with identity-building while honing on three sets of leadership skills: (1) vision, (2) networking and (3) negotiation…” The research article is open access https://lnkd.in/e8aW25Vu Loughborough University Loughborough Sport UK Sport UK Coaching #diversity #gender #leadership #coaches #coaching #sport #performance

🌍 Transforming Education in Nigeria with Generative AI A recent The World Bank blog highlights an innovative pilot programme in Edo State, Nigeria, that used generative AI to support after-school learning. The results are inspiring, demonstrating the potential of AI to improve education outcomes, particularly in resource-constrained settings. 🇳🇬 Key findings from the six-week programme: ✅ Significant improvements in English language skills, digital competencies, and AI knowledge. ✅ Girls, who initially lagged behind boys, showed substantial progress, reducing gender disparities in learning. ✅ Remarkable gains of nearly two years’ worth of learning in just six weeks, exceeding the effectiveness of most other interventions. The programme also highlighted how attendance strongly correlates with learning outcomes. Despite challenges like flooding and after-school work, students who attended more sessions performed better—suggesting even greater potential for long-term implementation. This pilot offers a glimpse into how technology can bridge gaps and create new opportunities for learners everywhere. 💡 As we explore innovative solutions like this, it’s essential to focus on equity, scalability, and the evolving role of educators in this new landscape. What are your thoughts on AI’s potential in transforming education? 🔗 Link to the blog in the comments ⬇️ #Education #SDG4 #TransformingEducation #EdTech #AI

What happens when elite female athletes get to shape the research that impacts their bodies and their performance? We finally start asking the right questions. This new study—the first of its kind—centered on the voices of 40 Team USA Olympic and Paralympic athletes to co-create a research agenda focused on their performance, health, and well-being. (Yes, you read that right: female athletes told researchers what they need to know more about.) Using a modified Delphi survey, a process that gathers expert opinions (in this case, from athletes themselves) in multiple rounds, each building on the previous ones to reach consensus. Each athlete ranked research topics based on whether more science and education would help their performance and long-term health. They also gave feedback, because context matters. After multiple rounds, these were the Top 5 research priorities selected by elite athletes: 1. Menstrual cycle symptoms 2. Birth control 3. Mental health 4. Fueling 5. Fueling specific to the menstrual cycle The results are powerful because they: – Reflect lived experience from women at the highest level of sport – Reveal gaps where research is still lacking – Highlight areas where we already HAVE the data but need better translation into real-world practice This is why I love what I do. Because education = empowerment. And female athletes deserve science that fits their physiology—not science that ignores it. Let’s continue to listen, translate, and advocate. Because when we do, performance AND health thrive. As a female athlete, do you agree with these topics 5? #sportspharmacy #sportsscience #communitypharmacy #femaleresearch #femaleathlete #womeninsport #sportsmedicine #sportsperformance #athletehealth #womenmedicine #femalehormones Ref: McCleery et al. (2024). British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-107886

The World Bank published a blog with the preliminary results of an after-school program in Edo, Nigeria that proves how AI-powered technology can transform learning. Using generative AI, students significantly improved their English, AI knowledge, and digital skills in just six weeks—achieving nearly two years’ worth of typical learning. 😮 With tools like Microsoft Copilot, students received personalized tutoring, boosting their performance even beyond the program’s focus areas. Notably, girls—who initially lagged behind—benefited the most, highlighting AI’s potential to bridge gender gaps in education. 🌉 The success of the program was further amplified by consistent attendance, showing that deeper engagement leads to even greater learning gains. These results place the program among the top 20% of educational interventions worldwide, demonstrating the power of AI when thoughtfully implemented with teacher support. 🧑🏫 As Nigeria explores scaling AI in classrooms, Microsoft’s technology continues to play a key role in providing students with the tools they need to succeed, ensuring equitable learning opportunities for all. Learn more here 👉 https://buff.ly/3PLRrs4