Ph.D. in physics as a hurdle race, and the "glass hurdles" for women
PPh.D. in physics as a hurdle race, and the “glass hurdles” for women
Meytal Eran-Jona a , and Yosef Nir b Feinberg Graduate School, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 7610001 Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics,Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 7610001 ∗ On their way to an academic career in physics, Ph.D. students have to overcome difficulties atmany levels. Beyond the intellectual challenge, there are also psychological, social and economicbarriers. We studied the difficulties experienced by physics Ph.D. students in the Israeli universities,with special attention to gender-related issues. Among the hurdles that are much more significantfor women than for men – that we call “the glass hurdles” – we find gender-related discrimination,sexual harassment, physiological and psychological health issues, and challenges related to pregnancyand parenthood. We make recommendations for ways to confront and remove these barriers in orderto provide female physicists with an equal opportunity to succeed.
I. INTRODUCTION
The proportion of women who acquire higher educa-tion has been increasing steadily from the 1950’s. Nowa-days, they constitute a majority among undergraduateand graduate students in many disciplines. In light of theabove, the lack of females among students and academicstaff in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathe-matics (STEM fields), has been the focal point of re-search and action in Western democracies for the lasttwo decades.In this study, we focus on physics. Physics as a knowl-edge field is characterized by consistent gender imbalancein most countries. For example, in the US, of all sci-ences, physics has the lowest female participation rates:21% of undergraduate students, 20% of Ph.D. studentsand 16% of faculty members in physics departments [1].These percentages, which have not changed significantlyfor over a decade, are similar in the UK, with some Eu-ropean countries having even poorer ratios [2, 3].The contemporary picture in Israel is even worse.Women constitute 16% of all Physics B.Sc., M.Sc. andPh.D. students, and only 6% of the academic staff withinIsraeli universities [4]. In life sciences, the picture is dif-ferent. For instance, in medicine, women constitute 69%of all Ph.D. graduates and 35% of the academic staff, andin biology, women constitute 58% of all Ph.D. graduatesand 30% of the academic staff.Doctoral students are an understudied group that isof particular interest in the context of investigating thegender gap in STEM fields. Previous research reveals ahigh attrition rate for women before and during the post-doctoral studies, a key period towards academic careers,where the numbers of women decrease dramatically [5–8].Therefore, it is interesting to examine how women expe-rience doctoral studies: Do they face different difficultiesthan men? Does this experience explain, even if partially,the lower percentage of women who choose to pursue anacademic career in physics? We used mixed methods ∗ a [email protected]; b [email protected] methodologies to answer these questions, combining na-tionwide representative survey of all physics Ph.D. stu-dents in Israel with in-depth interviews with Ph.D. fe-male students. II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the following we review the literature regarding ob-stacles and difficulties that graduate students in physicsface along their studies, with some references to otherSTEM fields and to research on academic staff. In partic-ular, we focus on gender differences and on the challengesfor female physicists within academy.
A. The culture of physics as a male dominated field
Traweek was one of the first social scientists that fo-cused her research on the physics community [9]. Shestudied the culture of physics in high energy laboratories,and found a community that is based on intense compe-tition. The available resources are, however, limited andare often distributed on the basis of biased decisions andsocial connections. She found people who see physics asthe pinnacle of rationality, empty of emotion, and voidof human influence.The culture of physics as a competitive and male dom-inated field that Traweek observed may imperil women’sparticipation in the field. If women are seen as contraryto science - particularly the ”fundamental” and ”objec-tive” science of physics - then they may be immediatelyseen by the gatekeepers of science and community mem-bers as being unfit. Physics is associated with rationality,objectivity, and logic, features that have been historicallyassociated with masculinity [10].Three decades after Traweek’s work, research into di-verse physics sub-fields in various countries reveals thatthe culture of physics as a male dominated field per-sists. The masculine working-culture, alongside grow-ing demands for competitiveness and dedication to work,pose an obstacle for women. Moreover, reconciling work a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] J u l and private life becomes more difficult in a more pre-carious model of career demanding mobility, and bringsnew challenges for partners in dual career couples [11].Women in the field of physics have not only to navigatethe masculine norms of the discipline, but also to nego-tiate the limited possible identities for female in physics[12].Discussing the power relation within academy as awhole, Bagihole and Goode [13] claim that there is afixed, standard academic career model that is not gender-neutral, but is based on a masculine model anchored inhegemonic masculine culture and a patriarchal supportsystem. In a study about MIT senior female faculty, itwas found that the “ideal” perfect academic is one whogives total priority to work and has no outside interestsand responsibilities [14]. What we see in physics is avicious circle, whereas the absence of women-physicistsgenerates reluctance among women to make the effortto fit into a field where they will be a marginal minor-ity. Physics as a masculine field is one of the persisting“castles” of gender imbalance.The perception of a profession as male or female is alsoinfluenced by the extent to which an occupation allowsor does not allow to combine family life with a career. Ina study of women who completed their Ph.D. in STEMfields with excellent grades, this component was found toplay a significant role in the decision-making of whetherto pursue an academic career in science [7].Lamont and Molnar [15] explain the preservationof segregation between women and men via the term“boundaries”. Boundaries are complex structures - phys-ical, social, and psychological - that produce commonali-ties and differences between women and men, and in turnshape and structure the behavior and attitudes of eachgender [16]. Social boundaries are used to distinguishbetween women and men in the workplace. Thus, maleemployees are perceived as more competent than femaleemployees. Those who violate gender boundaries andaccepted norms, such as the accepted norm of dedicat-ing yourself and all your time to work, may suffer fromstigma and punishment in the workplace [17]. Looking atphysics departments worldwide, it seems that there areclear boundaries that prevent many talented women fromchoosing a career in physics, and that those boundariesare closely related to the culture of physics as a masculinearena. B. Mental health within faculty and Ph.D.students in physics
Research on undergraduate and graduate studentsshows higher rates of mental health issues among stu-dents compared to the overall population. Literature re-view of mental health in research environment, mainlyin the UK [18], indicates that Ph.D. students face men-tal health issues. The proportions of both university staffand postgraduate students with a risk of having or devel- oping a mental health problem, based on self-reported ev-idence, were generally higher than for other working pop-ulations. Moreover, large proportions ( > C. Work-life conflict in academy
Work-life conflict is a source of stress related to work-load. A survey conducted among all active members ofUniversity and College Union (UCU) [19] and reportedin Ref. [20] shows that work demands are the strongestpredictor of work-life conflict. In that survey, the ma-jority of respondents reported that their ideal level ofwork-life separation would be greater than what they ex-perienced at the time of reporting [20]. Tytherleigh etal. [21] also found that work-life conflict and work over-load were sources of stress for higher education staff, butthat the stress levels associated with these stressors werelower than for individuals working in other areas [18].In a Belgian study, work-life conflict was identifiedAmong Ph.D. students as the most important predictorof mental health problems, followed by work demands[22]. This factor was also identified as important in aUK study of Ph.D. students, which found that “havinga high workload that impacts on your private life” was abothersome issue for respondents [23].Research focused on a worldwide sample of physicistsindicates that by an almost two-to-one margin, womenare more likely than men to say that becoming a par-ent significantly affected their work in various ways.Women were most likely to report changing their sched-ules, spending less time at work, and becoming more effi-cient (when having children). Those findings echo resultsfrom the first two IUPAP surveys, in which women physi-cists reported that having children forced them to becomemore efficient because they had to leave their laboratoryor office in time to pick up young children from childcare.The survey also asked respondents whether their employ-ers had assigned less challenging work to them when theybecame parents. The majority of physicists did not re-port a change. Still, women were more likely than mento report being given less challenging work, and the dif-ference was statistically significant [24].
D. Gender based discrimination in physics
Sexism occurs when men are believed to be superiorto women. It is thought to be one of the reasons forwomen’s under-representation in physics. The issue ofsexism in physics and astronomy has not been thoroughlyexplored in the literature and there is currently neithermuch evidence for it, nor even clear language to discussit. Ref. [25] is one of the few relevant research projects.It is based on interviews with women in graduate physicsand astronomy programs about their individual experi-ences of sexism. Although a minority of the women inter-viewed did not report experiencing sexual discrimination,the majority experienced subtle insults and microaggres-sions. Other participants also experienced more tradi-tional hostile sexism in the form of sexual harassment,gender role stereotypes, and overt discouragement.Microaggression is a term describing a subtle form ofgender bias. Among the dominating themes or forms, onefinds sexual objectification, second-class citizenship, useof sexist language, assumption of inferiority, restrictivegender roles, invisibility and sexist jokes, as well as denialof the reality of sexism [25, 26]. It is argued that microag-gressions “act upon women in several ways, by reiteratingthe social view that men are more valued than women,by reinforcing traditional stereotypes about proper gen-der roles, and by contributing to violence toward womenby objectifying and sexualizing them” [25]. Therefore,the consequences of microaggressions may be as severeas those of overt sexism.Research has found that female physicists, includinggraduate students and faculty, frequently encounter mi-croaggressions. Interviews with physicists (44 female and22 male) from twelve research institutions in eight Eu-ropean countries, indicate that women in physics facevarious forms of microaggressions, including assumptionof inferiority, restrictive gender roles, sexist jokes, invis-ibility and sexual objectification. Furthermore, femalephysicists more often declare being unequally treated intheir workplace than their male counterparts do. Thesignificance of microaggressions is that it signals depre-cation of professional position of female physicists, evokenegative emotions in women and their accumulation maycontribute to women leaving science [11].
E. Sexual harassment in physics
Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination.Broadly defined, sexual harassment is unwelcome or in-appropriate behavior of a sexual nature that creates anuncomfortable or hostile environment. It comes in vari-ous forms, both subtle and overt. In the study on sexualharassment in physics, Ref. [27] considers three specifictypes. First, “sexist gender harassment” describes hostileor insulting remarks and actions based on one’s gender,such as saying that women cannot do physics. Second,“sexual gender harassment” refers to sexual remarks orconduct, like commenting on the shape of a woman’sbody. Third, “unwanted sexual attention”, such as re-quests for sexual favors or unwanted touching.The data regarding the extent of sexual harassment inwomen vary. Some studies indicate that sexual harass-ment affects the majority of women in science, technol-ogy, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM)[28].Research has shown that women in male dominated oc-cupations are at greater risk of being sexually harassed,and that these experiences increase job turnover inten-tions and withdrawal from work. There are few indica-tions for sexual harassment in physics specifically. A sur-vey of undergraduate women physics students has shownthat approximately three quarters (74%) of survey re-spondents experienced at least one type of sexual harass-ment [27]. It was also found that certain types of sexualharassment in physics predict a negative sense of belong-ing and exacerbate the imposter phenomenon [27].These finding are not surprising, given previous stud-ies showing that experiencing sexual harassment (in gen-eral) increases a woman’s likelihood of leaving a STEMcareer [29]. For those women who do stick with theirfield, harassment hurts their career, economic standing,and well-being [30]. In short, unchecked harassment cre-ates a drain on talent through lost work, lost ideas, andlost people [31].
III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The research is based on mixed research methods, com-bining a nationwide survey of physics Ph.D. students andinterviews. The research methods are embedded withinfeminist research approaches and theories that provideframework and tools for looking into women’s lives [32–34].Research tools: The research team has compiled anonline self-administrated questionnaire that was sent di-rectly via e-mail to university physics Ph.D. students.The questionnaire included 107 questions, of which 6were open ended questions. The questionnaire containsquestions regarding the following topics: students’ socio-demographic background, academic study track, atti-tudes regarding the academic environment, success indi-cators, combining family and studies, future employmentexpectations and intentions, desire to have an academiccareer, considerations in favor of and against postdoc-toral studies, and aspects of discrimination and sexualharassment during academic studies.Sample and Sampling: The deans of physics at thesix research universities [35] contacted all students ( N =404) at the institution to answer the questionnaire. Theresearch team made a special effort to encourage all stu-dents to respond, and a few reminders were sent. Respon-dents ( n = 267) accounted for 66% of the population, ofwhich 60 were women and 207 men. The research teammade a special effort to raise women’s response rates be-cause of the small number of the population and the re-searchers’ interest in this group. These efforts reached94% ( N = 64, n = 60).Maximum margin of errors: the maximum margin oferror for the entire population is 3.6%, for women 3.2%,and for men 4.3%. Due to the over-representation ofwomen in the sample, the total number of students wasweighted by gender, the data for the entire sample in-cluded in the paper are weighted.The survey findings and its interpretation are sup-ported by findings from a qualitative research that weconducted concurrently among physics students in Israel.The research team conducted 25 in-depth, face-to-faceinterviews with young women, all doctoral students inphysics studying in Israeli universities. The interviewswere conducted during 2017-2018. Most of the inter-viewees were in their late twenties or early thirties (agerange was 26-36). The interviews were recorded and tran-scribed. Data analysis was done using the conventionalmethods of discourse analysis [36] using the ATLAS.tisoftware. The main findings of the interviews concernthe considerations taken by female Ph.D. students whendeciding whether or not to continue for a post-doctoralpositions, and are beyond the scope of this paper [37]. IV. FINDINGS
One of the main goals of the research was to find outwhat are the main difficulties with which the studentsare struggling during their studies. To achieve this goal,we asked an open broad question: “
If a close friend wereto consult with you about Ph.D. studies in physics, whichdifficulties would you present to them? ” The indirect for-mulation of this question was aimed to examine what, inthe students’ view, are the main difficulties, independentof whether they experienced them in person. Based onqualitative analysis, we find three main areas of difficul-ties: • Professional: Physics studies are difficult, intensiveand frustrating. They involve a competitive envi-ronment. Success strongly depends on the Ph.D.advisor. • Economic: Salary (in fact, fellowship, which doesnot include social benefits) is low and unsatisfac- tory. Consequently it is difficult to provide for afamily. Furthermore, there is a significant job inse-curity. • Personal: The years of studies are often charac-terized by loneliness, uncertainties, and emotionaldifficulties.We further asked about the personal experiences. Infact, the difficulties described above were personally ex-perienced by many of the respondents, women and menalike. Yet, on some issues, we found significant differ-ences between women and men. We now focus on thesegender-related differences.We asked: “
During your Ph.D. studies, did you experi-ence a period when it was difficult for you to provide whatwas professionally expected of you? ” Of the women, 71%answered positively, compared to 63% of men. Whenasked a closed question about the reasons for this diffi-culty (see Fig. 1 for details), a much larger percentage ofwomen (39%) compared to men (23%) mentioned health-related problems, both physiological and psychological.
FIG. 1. What were the main reasons that prevented you fromproviding what was expected from you during your Ph.D.studies? Data are presented by percentage, with patterned-green-left (solid-blue-right) column corresponding to female(male) Ph.D. students.
In order to understand the significance of these data,we would like to refer to the uniqueness of the Israeli con-text, which has certain special characteristics. The Israelisociety is very familial. Israelis marry on average at a rel-atively young age, and have more children than in otherWestern societies. Furthermore, because of the compul-sory military service (2-3 years), Israeli students are olderon average than their peers. Thus, in Israel, most of thePh.D. students have already a spouse. Among the sur-vey respondents, 70% are married or in relationship, and40% are already parents. 95% of mothers and 86% offathers stated that becoming parents affected their wayof studying. A large majority of them (73%) reduced thetime spent on studies and research, and for a large frac-tion (34%) this led to a reduced rate of progress in theirresearch. Women mentioned more frequently than menthat they learned to make their schedule more flexible(60% vs. vs.
FIG. 2. Who is responsible for doing most childcare work?Data are presented by percentage, with left (right) pie corre-sponding to female (male) Ph.D. students.
Because women are the ones to give birth, to breast-feed and to take care of the newborn during parentalleave (the Hebrew term translates, somewhat ironically,to “birth vacation”), we assumed that combining preg-nancy and parenthood with studies should be much morechallenging to them. Indeed, when we asked about theparental leave, 69% of the mother-students took a four-month leave (which is the standard by law). In contrast,58% of father-students took no leave, and only 16% ofmen took a leave longer than a month. We concludethat giving birth translates into a substantial delay inthe Ph.D. progress for mothers, creating a significant gapcompared to their male colleagues.Another aspect of significant gender difference, famil-iar from studies around the world, arises from lookinginto the private sphere of the families of the Ph.D. stu-dents. We asked: “
Who is responsible for most childcarework? ” Of the male students, 67% responded that theyand their spouses carry the load equally, and only 5% re-sponded that the responsibility lies mainly on themselves.In contrast, of the female students, 43% responded thatthey and their spouses carry the load equally, and theother 57% responded that the responsibility lies mainlyon themselves.
Not even one of the female students saidthat her spouse is the main caregiver for the children.
SeeFig. 2 for details.A complimentary aspect is that of household chores.Again, we asked: “
Who is responsible for doing mosthousehold chores? ” The emerging picture is quite similarto that of childcare. We observe again an ideology (andprobably practice) of equality between the couple, with67% of female students and 64% of male students statingan equal sharing of the household responsibilities. Yet,again, not even one of the female students said that herspouse is responsible for doing most chores.
See Fig. 3for details.Two final issues where we identify gender-related dif-ferences are those of discrimination and of sexual harass-ment. We aimed to examine the issue of discriminationon a broad variety of possible backgrounds. We asked:“
Have you ever felt discriminated against during yourstudies? ” The gender difference here is very significant,
FIG. 3. Who is responsible for doing most household chores?Data are presented by percentage, with left (right) pie corre-sponding to female (male) Ph.D. students.FIG. 4. During your academic career, have you felt discrimi-nated and, if so, on which background? Data are presented bypercentage, with patterned-green-left (solid-blue-right) col-umn corresponding to female (male) Ph.D. students. as 67% of women vs. only 19% of men have experienceddiscrimination. When asked on the grounds for the dis-crimination, 50% of women reported “gender” and 19%reported “pregnancy” or “parenthood”, while for menthese issues were rarely mentioned. Another aspect ofdiscrimination that was reported is age (17% of women,5% of men). Other aspects - ethnic origin, religion andsocial status - were mentioned by only very few respon-dents. See Fig. 4 for details.On the issue of sexual harassment, we asked: “
Did youexperience sexual harassment during your academic stud-ies? ” To avoid any ambiguity, we provided the Israeli le-gal definition of sexual harassment[38]. One of every fivewomen (21%), but only 2% of men, reported that theyexperienced sexual harassment during their studies. (SeeFig. 5 for details.) Among these, half of the women wereharassed twice or more. Only a minority of the womenanswered a question: “
By whom were you harassed? ” Theanswers included student-colleagues, technicians and lec-turers, but none pointed out the Ph.D. advisor.
FIG. 5. During your academic career, did you experiencesexual harassment? Data are presented by percentage, withpatterned-green-left (solid-blue-right) column correspondingto female (male) Ph.D. students.
V. DISCUSSION
This research provides a broad, quantitative and rep-resentative examination of the challenges facing physicsPh.D. students. Our findings confirm in part the find-ings of previous studies. Its uniqueness is in referring toa large variety of difficulties, starting with academic re-quirements, via difficulties related to family and parent-hood, and up to discrimination and harassment. Further-more, in all of these issues we examine gender-related dif-ferences, and thus we learn about the unique experienceof women physicists as a minority in a male-dominatedfield.The Ph.D. students view the physics study courseas one that is demanding, intensive and difficult, andwhich requires overcoming professional, economic andemotional hurdles. In the academic aspect, there aremany challenges that all students face, including the needto invest a great deal of time in their research, workload,frustration and competitiveness. Because the curriculumdemands do not allow for paid work, the students dependon a modest scholarship, which is significantly lower thantheir earning capacity in the labor market. The economicdifficulty is exacerbated and stands out as a significanthurdle for married students. Moreover, coping with allof these also produces mental difficulties that manifestthemselves in stress, anxiety, a continuing sense of un-certainty and mental distress.In addition to difficulties experienced by all students,women have to face additional hurdles, that we call “glasshurdles”, of several types. First, women suffer more fromproblems in psychological and physiological health. Sec-ond, women face challenges related to pregnancy, giv-ing birth and motherhood. Although the transition toparenting poses a significant challenge for both womenand men, pregnancy and childbirth halt women course ofstudy much more. In addition, after giving birth, theycarry a heavier burden of childcare and the householdchores compared to their spouses. Third, the findingsshow that while most women experienced discriminationduring their studies, mainly on the grounds of gender, parenting and family, most men did not experience dis-crimination at all. Furthermore, the findings indicatean alarming picture that one in five women experiencedsexual harassment during their studies (compared to amarginal rate among men). In this context, it is im-portant to note that the literature points to serious andlong-term effects of sexual harassment on female studentsand staff, as well as high attrition rates.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Our study shines a spotlight on the difficulties womenexperience during their doctoral studies, and the addi-tional hurdles they have to overcome in order to suc-ceed in their academic careers. The additional difficultieswomen experience during their doctoral studies provide,however, only a partial explanation to the low proportionof women in physics graduate studies and academic staff.As we learned from previous research [39–41], a numberof cultural, social, environmental, and biological factorsplay a role in women’s relatively lower representation inphysics and other science, technology, engineering, andmath (STEM) fields. Given its persistence, the causes ofgender disparity are likely to be complex and multiplydetermined.The gender-specific hurdles that we identified are hid-den to the academic system, which is the reason thatwe call them glass hurdles . The academic institutes be-lieve, almost religiously, in the ideology of meritocracy,together with a liberal concept of equality in their de-mands from the individual. Our research implies that,at the same time, these institutes are not taking care ofleveling the playing ground, are not aware of the orga-nizational climate in which women experience discrim-ination and sexual harassment, and do not deal withthe gaps that are generated between female students andtheir male colleagues, when the former become mothers.It is in the interest of the academic institutes and of thediscipline of physics to increase the percentage of womenalong all the stages of an academic career in physics.Based on our findings, we suggest the following steps tobe taken by academic institutes to remove the presently-transparent glass hurdles to women: • Addressing the problem of sexual harassment andpromoting prevention programs. • Promoting inclusive teaching and discrimination-free environment for women. • Adapting the institutional policy to the specialchallenges that arise when combining Ph.D. studieswith family demands. • Raising the fellowship for students that are parents. • Expanding the availability of psychological care forstudents in general, and female students in partic-ular.
Acknowledgements
We thank Sharon Diamant-Pick for her help in con-ducting the survey and in analyzing the interviews. YN isthe Amos de-Shalit chair of theoretical physics. This re- search is supported by grants from the Israeli Ministry ofScience and Technology, from the Estate of Rene Lustigand from the Estate of Jacquelin Eckhous. [1] A.M. Porter and R. Ivie,
Women in Physics and Astron-omy, 2019 , Technical Report, AIP Statistical ResearchCenter (2019).[2] C. Singh, G. Cochran and N. Wilkin (Eds.),
Womenin Physics: 6th IUPAP International Conference onWomen in Physics , AIP Conference Proceddings, Vol.2019.[3] J. Blue, A.L. Traxler and X. Cid,
Gender Matters ,Physics Today 71(3), 40 (2018).[4] M. Eran-Jona and Y. Nir,
Women in physics in Israel:An overview , in
Women in Physics , 6th IUPAP Interna-tional Conference on Women in Physics (AIP Publishing,New York, 2019).[5] V.K. Bostwick and B.A. Weinberg,
Nevertheless she per-sisted? Gender peer effects in doctoral STEM programs ,NBER working paper No. 25028 (2018).[6] M. Goulden, K. Frasch and M.A. Mason,
Staying com-petitive: patching America’s leaky pipeline in the sci-ences , Berkeley Center on Health, Economy & Fam-ily Security and the Center for Americam Progress re-port (2009);
Kepping women in the science pipeline , AN-NALS, AAPSS 638 (2011).[7] A. Gofen,
Academic career of graduates with excellentgrades in SET fields 1995-2005 , research report of the Fe-derman School of Public Policy and Government (2011)(in Hebrew).[8] R. Carmi et al. , The team for examining the situation ofwomen in the academic staff of high education institutes- report and recommendations , The Israeli Council forHigher Education (2011) (in Hebrew).[9] S. Traweek,
Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of highenergy physicists (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA, 1988).[10] S.G. Harding,
Whose science? Whose knowledge?:Thinking from womens lives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-versity Press 1991).[11] P. Seku(cid:32)la, J. Struzik, E. Krzaklewska and E. Ciaputa,
Gender Dimensions of Physics. A Qualitative Study fromthe European Research Area , Genera research report(2018).[12] A.J. Gonsalves, A. Danielsson and H. Pettersson,
Mas-culinities and experimental practices in physics: The viewfrom three case studies , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12,020120 (2016).[13] B. Bagilhole and J. Goode,
The contradiction of the mythof individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal sup-port system in academic careers: A feminist investiga-tion , European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(2), 161(2001).[14] L. Bailyn,
Academic careers and gender equity: lessonslearned from MIT , Gender, Work and Organization 10,137 (2003).[15] M. Lamont and V. Molnar,
The study of boundaries inthe social sciences , Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28, 167 (2002). [16] J.M. Gerson and K. Peiss,
Boundaries, negotiation, con-sciousness: Reconceptualizing gender relations , SocialProblems 32(4), 317 (1985).[17] C.F. Epstein,
Border crossings: The constraints of timenorms in transgressions of gender and professional roles ,In: C.F. Epstein. and A.L. Kalleberg (Eds.),
Fighting fortime: shifting boundaries of work and social life (NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004).[18] S. Guthrie, C.A. Lichten, J. van Belle, S. Ball, A. Knack,and J. Hofman,
Understanding mental health in the re-search environment: A rapid evidence assessment , RandHealth Q. 7(3), 2 (2018).[19] University and College Union (UCU) is a trade union andprofessional association for academics, lecturers, trainers,researchers and academic-related staff working in furtherand higher education throughout the UK.[20] G. Kinman and S. Wray,
Higher Stress: A survey of stressand well-being among staff in higher education (Univer-sity and College Union, 2013).[21] M.Y. Tytherleigh, C. Webb, C. Ricketts and C. Cooper,
Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions:A comparative study of all staff categories , Higher Edu-cation Research and Development 24(1), 41 (2005).[22] K. Levecque, F. Anseel, A. De Beuckelaer, J. Van derHeydan and L. Gisle,
Work organization and mentalhealth problems in Ph.D. students , Research Policy 46(4),868 (2017).[23] C.E. Hargreaves, J.P. De Wilde, B. Juniper and E.Walsh,
Re-evaluating doctoral researchers’ well-being:what has changed in five years? , Imperial College Lon-don report (2014).[24] R. Ivie, and C. Langer Tesfaye,
Women in physics: Atale of limits , Physics Today, 65(2), 47 (2012).[25] R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick and C. Henderson,
Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Grad-uate student experiences of sexism and gender microag-gressions , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).[26] D.W. Sue,
Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifes-tation, Dynamics, and Impact (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,Hoboken, NJ, 2010).[27] L.M. Aycock, Z. Hazari, E. Brewe, K.B.H. Clancy, T. Ho-dapp, and R.M. Goertzen,
Sexual harassment reported byundergraduate female physicists , Phys, Rev. Phys. Educ.Res. 15, 010121 (2019).[28] K. B. H. Clancy, R. G. Nelson, J. N. Rutherford and K.Hinde,
Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE):Trainees report harassment and assault , PLoS One 9,e102172 (2014).[29] P.A. Johnson, S.E. Widnall and F.F. Benya (Eds.),
Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, andconsequences in Academic sciences, engineering, andmedicine (National Academies of Sciences, Engineer-ing, and Medicine .Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress, 2018). [30] L. Howe-Walsh and S. Turnbull,
Barriers to women lead-ers in academia: tales from science and technology , Stud-ies in Higher Education 41(3), 415-428 (2016).[31] J. Libarkin,
Academic sexual misconduct database. [32] S. Reinharz and L. Davidman,
Feminist methods in socialresearch (Oxford University Press, 1992).[33] M.L. DeVault,
Feminism and Social Research: LiberatingMethod (Temple University Press, 1999).[34] M. Krumer-Nevo, M. Lavie-Ajayi and D. Hacker (Eds.),
Feminist research methodologies (Tel Aviv: HakibutzHameuchad Publications, Migdarim Series, 2014) (in He-brew).[35] Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Hebrew Uni-versity, the Technion, Tel Aviv University and WeizmannInstitute.[36] N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Collecting andinterpreting qualitative materials (Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, 1998).[37] M. Eran-Jona and Y. Nir,
Choosing an academic careerin physics for women as a “deal” and the role of excel-lence as a hidden barrier for women , work in progress. [38] (i) hostile atmosphere of sexual character in the organi-zation, (ii) humiliating reference to a person on groundsof gender or sexual orientation, (iii) repeated referencesto a person focusing on his/her sexuality, (iv) repeatedpropositions of sexual nature, (v) lewd act, (vi) black-mailing a person to perform an act of sexual nature.[39] K.L. Lewis, J.G. Stout, S.J. Pollock, N.D. Finkelstein andT.A. Iso,
Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging forwomen in physics , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 1(2016).[40] K.L. Lewis, J.G. Stout, N.D. Finkelstein, S.J. Pollock,A. Miyake, G.L. Cohen and T.A. Iso,
Fitting in to moveforward: Belonging, gender and persistence in the phys-ical sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics(pSTEM) , Psychology of Women Quarterly 41(4), 420(2017).[41] S.J. Ceci and W.M. Williams,