SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyTaskForceonGenderDisparitiesinArchaeologicalGrantSubmissions

LynneGoldstein1,BarbaraMills2,SarahHerr3,andJoBurkholder4WithcontributionsfromLeslieAiello5andChristopherThornton6

1MichiganStateUniversity,2UniversityofArizona,3DesertArchaeology,Inc.,4UniversityofWisconsin-

Whitewater,5Wenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch,6NationalGeographicSociety

Revised:17April2017

Introduction:TaskForceChargeandBackground

WereportonthefindingsoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology(SAA)TaskForceonGenderandRatesofResearchGrantSubmissions.Thetaskforcewascreatedtoinvestigatethedisparityintheratesofsenior(post-Ph.D.)proposalsubmissionsbymaleandfemalePIstoarchaeologyprogramsatbothNSFandtheWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch(Wenner-Gren).Sincethetaskforcewascreated,women’ssubmissionstoWenner-Grenhavesomewhatrebounded,butoverthepastseveralyearsNSFrateshaveremainedlow.ForNSF,althoughthesuccessratesofmenandwomenovertheperiodof2009-2011wereroughlyequal(35%ofapplicationssubmittedbywomenweresuccessful,comparedto33%frommen),thenumberofsubmissionsfromwomenwashalfthatofmen:270womensubmittedapplicationsoverthisthree-yearperiodcomparedto542men.Yet,submissionsfordoctoraldissertationimprovementgrantsatNSF—asignificantpipelinetofutureseniorgrantsubmissions—weremoreevenlydividedbetweenmenandwomen.StatisticsforNSFshowednodifferenceinratesofsubmissionbymenandwomeninotheranthropologicalsubdisciplines.Yet,thosefromWenner-Grendidshowthatpostdoctoralsubmissionsbywomenarelowinbothbiologicalanthropologyandarchaeology.Giventhedocumentedincreaseintheproportionofwomeninacademicarchaeologyamongearlyandmid-careeracademics(mostrecentlybyHutson2002),this33percentrepresentationofwomenintheapplicantpoolseemedlowtoNSF’sProgramOfficerinArchaeology,JohnYellen,andmembersofanArchaeologyProgramindependentreviewteam,LeslieAiello(Wenner-Gren)andMelindaZeder(SmithsonianInstitution).Followingtheirappointmentasco-ChairsoftheSAATaskForce,LynneGoldsteinandBarbaraMillswereawardedaNSFEAGERgranttoconductresearchonwhysubmissionstoNSFbyseniorwomenwereconsistentlylow.TwootherSAAmembers,JoBurkholderandSarahHerr,joinedthetaskforceandassistedintheresearch.Theprimaryquestionweaskediswhypost-Ph.D.womenarchaeologistsdonotapplyforextramuralresearchfundinginproportiontotheirpresenceinthefield?Thisprojectusesmultiplesourcesofinformation,includingdemographicdatafromtheAAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropologyandmembersurveysconductedbySAA;detaileddatafrompubliclyavailablerecordsoffundedproposalsfromNSFandNEH;dataonfundedandunfundedproposalscollectedforusbyWenner-GrenandtheNationalGeographicSociety,aswellasseveralyears’dataonsubmissionsfromNSF;andinterviewswithpost-Ph.D.womeninacademicarchaeologytodeterminetheirstrategiesforfundingarchaeologicalresearch,aswellasthekindsofresearchtheyundertake.Ourresearchextendstheresultsofpastresearchinvestigatinggenderdisparitiesinarchaeology

2

includinginhiring(Beaudry1994;Hutson1998;Starketal.1997;Zeder1997),publishing(Bardolph2014;BardolphandVanDerwerker2016;BeaudryandWhite1994;Hutson2002;Rautman2012;Starketal.1997;VictorandBeaudry1992),researchgrantsubmissionsandsuccessrates(Yellen1983,1991),representationatprofessionalmeetings(Burkholder2006;Claasenetal.1999;BardolphandVanDerwerker2013),andotherimportantissues(seeNelsonetal.1994,editors).Althoughthefocushereisonatrendapparentlyuniquetoarchaeology(atleastwithinanthropology),thetrendmayreflectwiderresearchconcernsongenderdisparitiesinscience(e.g.,CeciandWilliams2011;Clausetetal.2014;FinkelandOlswang1996;FoxandColatrella2006;Larivièreetal.2013;Westetal.2013;Wolvertonetal.2014).HypothesesOurtaskforceinvestigatedseveraldifferenthypothesesforwhywomen’sratesofproposalsubmissionslaggedbehindthoseofmen.DiscussionattwoSAAForums,in2014and2015,helpedtoilluminatetheexperiencesofmenandwomeninapplyingforgrants,andtoidentifymultiplefactorsforinclusioninourstudy.Manyofthehypothesesarenotmutuallyexclusiveandwerecognizethattheproblemislikelymultivariate.Wealsoemphasizethatthereisconsiderablevariabilityinthosewhoareatthepost-Ph.D.stageandthatasingleexplanationwouldbeunlikelytoapplytooneindividualthroughouthercareer.Thecompletesetofhypothesesandtheirbasesareprovidedatthetaskforce’swebsite.Possibleandproposedexplanationsfortheobservedtrendthatwereidentifiedcanbesummarizedasfollows:1. Thedisparitiesinresearchgrantsubmissionsareproportionaltothenumberofmalevs.female

archaeologistsintheprofession,andespeciallytothenumberofmalevs.femalearchaeologistsinjobsettingswheregrantwritingandgrantrelatedresearchisencouraged(i.e.,academicsettingswithgraduateprogramsandresearchmuseums).

2.Womeninarchaeologyhaveheavierserviceburdens.Forexample,morewomenmaybein

administrativepositionsthatconstraintheamountoftimespentonresearchandgrantsubmissions.Theymayalsohaveheavieradvisingburdens,particularlytofemaleandunderrepresentedminoritystudents.

3.Becausearchaeologyis(orperceivedas)morefield-basedthanothersubfieldsofanthropology,and

familyresponsibilitieskeepwomenfromdoingextensivefieldwork(particularlyoverseas),womentendtoapplyforNSFgrantsonlywhentheirprojecthasasignificantfieldworkcomponent.

4. WomentendtoconductsmallerprojectsandthereforegotoWenner-Gren,NationalGeographic,

andotherfundingsourcesforsmalleramountsofmoney.5.WomenaregoingtootherfundingsourceswithinNSFtoobtainfunding,manyofwhicharelarger

thanArchaeologyProgramgrants,thereforeloweringthenumbersforArchaeologyProgramitself.6.WomenmaynotperceivetheirresearchassuitableforNSFandmorewomenareapplyingfor,and

beingfundedthrough,otheragenciessuchasNEH.7.Women’sreactionstonegativereviewsaredifferentfrommen’sandhaveresultedintheirfeeling

discouragedfromresubmission.Iftrue,thistrendmaybecompoundedbythecurrenttrendfor

3

proposalstonotbefundedduringthefirstroundwithinNSFArchaeology.8.Womenworkmoreontheirownthanmeninarchaeologyandthismayhaveaneffectonthe

frequencyofgrantsubmissions.9.Thenatureofarchaeologicalfieldresearchincludesanumberofstresses,suchaslongfieldseasons,

difficultlivingconditions,longdistancetravel,coordinationoflargecrews,andcloselivingquarterswithcolleagues.Suchconditionslimitwomen’sabilitytofindappropriatechildcare.

DataCollectionTheissuesaddressedbythistaskforcerequireavariedsetofdata,includingapplicationandfundingpatternsforNSFandotheragenciesandfoundations.However,duetoprivacylaws,itwasnotpossibleforthetaskforcetogaindirectaccesstoallsubmittedproposals—agenciesandfoundationscanonlypubliclysharedetaileddataonsuccessfulproposals.Therefore,thetaskforcefocusedononlineavailabledataforsuccessfulproposalstounderstanddifferencesintheprojectsofmenandwomenfundedthroughNSFandNEH.However,inthecaseofNSF,Wenner-Gren,andNGS,programofficersgatheredstatisticsonallproposalssubmitted,andhavesharedsummaryinformation.Thisinformationhasbeenincorporatedintothisreport.Inaddition,becausedifferencesindisparitiesareobviouslyrelativetothepotentialpoolofapplicants,wecollectedandanalyzeddemographicdataforthediscipline.TheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation’sGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropologydoesnotincludeeverytypeofarchaeologicalprofessionalposition,andcertainemploymentsectorsinparticulararenotwellrepresented.AlthoughthemajorityofcollegesanduniversitiesareincludedintheGuide,thosewithoutseparateAnthropologydepartmentsarevariablyrepresented.Further,althoughmanymuseumsarelisted,notallsmallmuseumschoosetobeincluded,especiallyifthesemuseumsarenotspecificallyanthropological.Finally,CRMjobsarenotablyunderrepresentedintheGuide.Nonetheless,theAAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropologyisthemostcompletedetailedsourceofinformationforemploymentofarchaeologistsandanthropologistsgenerally,andtheAAAmadeseveralyearsofGuidedataavailabletothetaskforce.GiventhatmostNSF,NGS,NEH,andothergrantingagenciesawardgrantsprimarilytouniversityfacultyandstaff,thisdatabaseshouldprovidethemostrelevantgroupforthequestionsthetaskforcewasaskedtoaddress.TheAAAGuideisalsotheonlysourceofdataonrankswithinacademicsettings;membersurveysfororganizationshavenotgenerallyaskedwhethertheindividualisanassistant,associateorfullprofessor,forexample.Oneofthetaskforce’sfirststepswasanexaminationoftheSAA’smembershipsurveysfrom2003and2010andtheAAA’sGuidetoDepartmentsdatatodeterminethecurrentemploymentsituationforarchaeologyPh.D.sintheU.S.(andcomparisontoearlierSAAdatapublishedbyZeder,1997).TheAAAprovidedalldatafor2008,2009,2010,and2011,andSAAhasprovidedtheir2003and2010datasummaries.FortheSAAdata,informationisfurtherbrokendownbyagerangesandemploymentsetting.ThedemographicdatabasedontheAAAGuidethatisincludedinthisreportcomesfromthe2011data.TheAAAallowsalotofindividualflexibilityinresponses,creatinginconsistenciesthatmakesummaryandcomparisondifficult.Alotofdatacleaningandverificationwasrequired,soitmademostsensetofocusononeyear,particularlysinceitwasnotsignificantlydifferentthanthepreviousyears.AshleyKendell(MichiganStateUniversity)conductedthiswork.

4

Collectionofpubliclyavailabledatawasaccomplishedby:(1)downloadingavailabledataonallarchaeology-relatedNSFgrants;(2)downloadingavailablegrantdatafromtheNEHwebsite;and(3)cleaningandcodingtheNSFandNEHdataforavarietyofattributes.Kendellalsoconductedthiswork.In2014,thetaskforcepresentedtheplansforthisstudyinaForumattheSAAannualmeeting.Taskforcememberspresentedsomepreliminaryhypothesesandaskedforumparticipantstocommentandaddtothese.Thisrequestresultedinadditionalqualitativedatathatweincorporatedintoouranalysis,aswellassuggestedrefinementsofandchangestoouroriginalhypotheses.Inordertoinformandinterestabroadaudienceintheproject,GoldsteinpostedinformationonthetaskforceonbothTwitterandFacebook,andthisinformationwaswidelyshared.Theresponsesandcommentsonsocialmediawereusedtobetterframesomeoftheinterviewquestions,andrepresentaportionofthedatausedintheanalysis.DougRocks-Macqueen,anarchaeologistwhomaintainsablogabouttheprofessionofarchaeology(https://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com),hascollecteddataongrantsandonarchaeologicalemployment,andgenerouslysharedhisdatawiththetaskforce.Hisdatacomefromseveralsources.Hefirstlookedatgovernmentstatisticstoseewhichuniversitiesawardedanthropologydegrees.Hethenhand-checkeduniversityandcollegewebsitestolookatstaffprofiles,andhewasliberalinincludinganyonewhomentionsaresearchinterestinArchaeology.Thisapproachincludedindividualssuchasbiologicalanthropologistswhoworkinbioarchaeology.Rocks-MacqueenthenconfirmedthesenumberswiththeAAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropology.TherewereafewindividualsandprogramsintheGuidethatwerenotonthewebsites,butforthemostparttheymatched.Mostofhisnumberscomefromdepartmentwebsites.InRocks-Macqueen’sdata,hepickedupsomesmalldepartmentsnotlistedintheAAAGuide,aswellasarchaeologyprogramsinnon-anthropologydepartments.Rocks-Macqueen’sworkwasdoneinearly2012.

Basedontheresultsofthebeginningphasesofdatacollection,theTaskForcedevelopedasetofquestionstobeposedinintensiveindividualinterviewswithasampleof36womeninarchaeology.ThenatureofthesampleinterviewedandourapproachtotheinterviewsareoutlinedbelowinthesectiononInterviewData.AgencyandFoundationDataThissectionfocusesondatacollectedandanalyzedfortheNationalScienceFoundation(providedanonymously),theWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch(providedbyDr.LeslieAiello,Wenner-GrenFoundationPresident),andtheNationalGeographicSociety(providedbyDr.ChristopherThornton,LeadProgramOfficerofResearch,Conservation,andExploration).Ineachcase,collectedinternaldataallowaconsiderationoftrendsinallsubmittedapplications.Non-successfulapplicationsarenotavailableforpublicreview.NSFApplicantsandTrendsThreeyearsofproposaldatawereprovidedbyNSF:FY2004,FY2008,andFY2013.Foranygivenyear,theofficialNSFnumbermayvaryduetothedateofficiallyrecordedforthatproposalandotherfactors.Table1showsthedivisionbygenderacrossdifferentgrantcompetitioncategories.

5

Table1.GenderDivisionofNSFArchaeologyApplicants

Doctoraldissertationproposals #/(%)

male#/(%)female

TotalN

FY2004 37(62%) 23(38%) 60FY2008 35(48%) 38(52%) 73FY2013 51(46%) 59(54%) 110

Archaeometryproposals FY2004 11(85%) 2(15%) 13FY2008 12(80%) 3(20%) 15FY2013 12(60%) 8(40%) 20

“Senior”archaeologyproposals FY2004 78(70%) 33(30%) 111FY2008 63(63%) 37(37%) 100FY2013 64(65%) 34(35%) 98

Thesedatarepresentthepatternthatpromptedtheformationofthistaskforce.Althoughdissertationproposalsaremoreevenlysplitbetweenmalesandfemales,withslightlymorefemaleproposalsubmissions,thepost-doctoralproposalshavearelativelyconsistentpatternoftwiceasmanyproposalssubmittedbymalesasbyfemales.Archaeometryproposalsareespeciallyoutofbalancebygender,butthenumberoftheseproposalsissosmallthatalthoughtheimbalancefollowsthetrendseenelsewhere,thepercentagesthemselvesarelikelynotmeaningful.Table2showswhetherornotthesuccessratedifferedbygenderforthevarioustypesofproposals.Asshowninthefollowingtable,thesuccessrateisnotsignificantlydifferentbetweengenders.Noneofthechi-squarecomparisonsweresignificant.

Table2.SuccessRatebyGender–NSFArchaeology

Doctoraldissertationproposals Success%male

Success%female

FY2004 52% 41%FY2008 48% 34%FY2013 43% 31%

Archaeometryproposals FY2004 27% 50%FY2008 25% 67%FY2013 17% 13%

“Senior”archaeologyproposals FY2004 29% 21%FY2008 24% 24%FY2013 22% 26%

Lookingintothedataingreaterdetail,therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthedollaramountsrequestedbetweenmaleandfemalegraduatestudentsorbetweenmaleandfemaleseniorresearchers,andthatinbothmaleandfemaleproposals,about74percentoftheproposalswereforfieldworkas

6

opposedtolaboratorywork.Inanattempttoteaseoutpossiblereasonsforthelackofseniorwomenproposals,the2013datawerelookedattoseewhethergenderplaysaroleinadvisor/studentpairing(Table3).

Table3.Advisor/StudentPairingson2013NSFArchaeologyDoctoralDissertationProposals

AdvisorMale Female

Expected Actual Expected ActualStudent Male 38 44 12 7

Female 44 38 14 21Chi-square:p=0.0087–significant[Note:24%ofadvisorsarefemale,76%male]

Atotalof76percentoftheadvisorsondoctoraldissertationproposalapplicationsaremale,andalthoughmostwomenhavemaleadvisors,amuchhigherproportionthanexpectedhavefemaleadvisors.Thistablerepresentsoneofthefewcomparisonsthatyieldedasignificantchi-square.Anothercomparisonthatyieldedasignificantchi-squareisonethatcompareswhetherthereisagenderdistinctioninsolitaryresearch(i.e.,noco-PI).Atotalof50percentofmaleshaveaco-PIofeithergender,whileonly16percentoffemaleshaveaco-PIofeithergender.Thep-valueforthischi-squareis=0.0499.Examiningco-PIsmorecloselyinthe2013NSFdata,thegenderofthePIdoesnotsignificantlypredictthegenderoftheco-PI,althoughmoremaleshavemaleco-PI’sandmorefemaleshavefemaleco-PI’s.Similarly,forthoseproposalswithonemaleandonefemalePIandco-PI,thereisnotasignificantdifferenceinwhichgenderislistedfirst.Thenumbersherearerelativelysmall,however,andalargersamplecouldyieldadifferentresult.Finally,the“post-Ph.D.age”ofallseniorapplicantsandofsuccessfulseniorapplicantswascalculated.Foreachapplicant,thisfigureisthenumberofyearspostcompletionofthePh.D.Forallapplicants,theaverageageformalesis15.5years,andforfemales,itis12.7years.Forsuccessfulseniorapplicants,theaveragepost-Ph.D.ageformalesis15.7years,andforfemalesitis12.8years.Inneithercaseisthereasignificantchi-square;forneithermalesnorfemalesissuccessrelatedtoage.MorefemalesthanmalesareearningPh.D.degreesinarchaeologyinthelast10years,andtheNSFdoctoraldissertationproposaldatareflectsthisshift.However,attheseniorlevel,thetrendoftwiceasmanymalessubmittingproposalsasfemalesremainsconsistentandthecausesforthisdifferencearenotclearfromtheNSFproposaldata.Wenner-GrenApplicantsandTrendsTheWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearchprovidesresearchfundsforbothdoctoralstudents(DissertationFieldworkGrant)andsenioranthropologists(Post-Ph.D.ResearchGrant).Bothprogramshaveagrantmaximumof$20,000.Themostrecentavailableapplicationstatisticsarefrom2015.Wenner-Grenreceived971applicationsfromdoctoralstudentsand281applicationsfromsenioranthropologists(total=1252)andfunded146doctoralapplications(successrate=15.0%,amountexpended=$2,357,729)and49seniorapplications(successrate=17.5%,amountexpended=$835,922).

7

ApplicationnumbersfortheanthropologicalsubdisciplinesaregiveninTable4alongwithpercentagesandsuccessratesfor2015andsummedacrossthe15yearperiod,2001-2015.Thepercentagesofapplicationsreceivedacrossthesubdisciplinesin2015areconsistentwiththesummed15-yearpercentages.Thesuccessratesarealsoconsistent.IncomparisontothesubdisciplinarypercentagesfortheDissertationFieldworkGrant,proportionatelymoreseniorapplicationsarereceivedfromarchaeologistsandbiologicalanthropologiststhanfromsocialanthropologists.Howeverinpurenumbers,socialanthropologydominatesinbothdoctoralandseniorsubmissions.Table4.NumberandPercentageofWenner-GrenApplicationsandSuccessRatesbySubdisciplinefor

2015and2001-2015Combined

2015 2001-2015

Number Percent SuccessRate Number Percent SuccessRate

DissertationFieldworkGrant

Archaeology 146 15.0% 15.8% 1656 14.1% 14.4%

Linguistics 25 2.6% 8.0% 394 3.4% 19.8%

Physical-Biological 131 13.5% 13.7% 1487 12.7% 16.7%

Social-Cultural 669 68.9% 15.4% 8190 69.8% 14.5%

Total 971 100.0% 15.0% 11727 100.0% 14.9%

Post-Ph.D.ResearchGrant

Archaeology 63 22.4% 22.2% 1011 27.5% 19.4%

Linguistics 4 1.4% 25.0% 109 3.0% 16.5%

Physical-Biological 67 23.8% 20.9% 730 19.9% 19.6%

Social-Cultural 147 52.3% 13.6% 1825 49.7% 12.1%

Total 281 100.0% 17.4% 3675 100.0% 15.7%GrandTotal 1252 15.6% 15402 15.1%Withoneexception,moreapplicationsarereceivedfromwomenthanfrommenacrossthesubdisciplinesandthetwofundingprogramsandapplicationsfromwomenshowasteadyincreaseinnumbers.(Table5,Fig.1).TheexceptionisthearchaeologyPost-Ph.D.ResearchGrantwhereonly36.5percentofthesubmissionswerereceivedfromwomenin2015(39.8%overthe15years2001-2015)andthereisnoincreaseinapplicationsoverthepast15years(Fig.1b).Intheothersubdisciplines(forbothdoctoralandseniorfunding)upto72.3percentoftheapplicationshavebeenfromwomenoverthe15-yearperiod(Table5).Theratioofseniortodoctoralsubmissionsprovidesaroughindicationofinvolvementofwomenandmeninresearchoncethedoctorateisreceived(atleastintermsofapplicationstoWenner-Gren).Thesedatashowaninterestingpattern(Table6).Inbotharchaeologyandbiologicalanthropology,thenumberofapplicationsfromseniormenin2015(andoverthe15yearperiod)isapproximately71-82percentofthenumberreceivedfrommaledoctoralstudents.Forwomen,theproportionismuchlower(~26%-44%).Insocialanthropologytheproportionforbothmenandwomenisevenlower,butisroughlyequal(men=~22%-26%,women=~20%-22%).ThissuggeststhatwhateverisinfluencingthedecisionofseniorsocialanthropologiststoapplyforWenner-Grenfundingisaffectingmenandwomeninasimilarfashion.However,inbotharchaeologyandbiologicalanthropologyseniorwomenareapplyingatamuchlowerratethatthemen(inrelationtothenumberofsubmissionsreceivedfromdoctoralstudents).

8

Figure1.NumberofWenner-Grensubmissionsbygender,subdiscipline,andgrantprogram.

Archaeologyistheonlysubdisciplinewherethereareconsistentlymoreapplicationsfromseniormenthanwomen(Fig.1b).Althoughthereisasimilarlyhighproportionofmenthatapplyforseniorgrantsinarchaeologyandbiologicalanthropology,archeologydiffersfrombiologicalanthropologyinhavingahigherproportionofsubmissionsfromstudentmen(Fig.1a).Thistogetherwiththefactthatamuchlowerproportionofseniorwomenthanmenareapplyingforseniorgrantsreducestheabsolutenumberofseniorsubmissionsfromwomenarchaeologistsbelowthenumberreceivedfromthemen.Thesedatahighlighttwotrends:

1. ProportionatelymanyfewerwomenarchaeologistsandbiologicalanthropologiststhanmenareapplyingforseniorWenner-Grengrants,and

2. Proportionatelymanyfewerwomensocialanthropologistsareapplyingforseniorgrantsthanwomenarchaeologistsandbiologicalanthropologists,buttheproportionofmenandwomensocialanthropologistsareroughlyequal.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 48 39 39 48 53 43 51 71 60 66 68 71 77 88 90

Men 51 44 50 45 58 55 40 39 53 38 57 61 55 42 56

0102030405060708090100

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- Archaeology-- DissFieldwork

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 22 27 22 35 18 30 24 44 32 19 19 15 32 40 23

Men 40 41 43 35 34 43 36 45 43 37 43 54 33 42 40

0102030405060708090100

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- Archaeology-- Post-Ph.D.Research

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 266 216 242 228 293 306 373 402 382 392 414 441 468 424 420

Men 136 120 165 154 152 155 183 225 239 217 244 218 232 233 250

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- SocAnth-- DissFieldwork

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 74 67 76 55 65 56 65 65 54 70 85 67 83 84 91

Men 50 56 54 55 52 36 54 47 52 55 41 58 50 51 56

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- SocAnth-- PostPh.D.Research

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 32 38 48 53 58 71 82 95 90 86 76 71 85 88 102

Men 15 18 15 23 31 40 23 32 25 27 34 31 32 37 29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- BioAnth-- DissFieldwork

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Women 19 16 24 14 18 25 34 29 31 33 29 28 40 29 45

Men 23 12 20 17 23 27 25 25 25 20 19 16 19 23 22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

bero

fApp

lications

NumberofApplicationsbyGender-- BioAnth-- Post.Ph.D.Researchc.

a. b.

d.

e. f.

9

Table5.NumberandPercentageofWenner-GrenApplicationsandSuccessSatesbyGenderandSubdisciplinefor2015and2001-2015Combined

2015 2001-2015 Number Percent SuccessRate Number Percent SuccessRateDissertationFieldworkGrant

Archaeology

Men 56 38.4% 10.7% 744 44.9% 12.4%

Women 90 61.6% 18.9% 912 55.1% 16.1%

BiologicalAnthropology

Men 29 22.1% 13.8% 412 27.7% 18.0%

Women 102 77.9% 13.7% 1075 72.3% 16.3%

Social/CulturalAnthropology

Men 250 37.3% 17.6% 2923 35.7% 15.8% Women 420 62.7% 14.3% 5267 64.3% 13.8%Post-Ph.D.ResearchGrant

Archaeology

Men 40 63.5% 15.0% 609 60.2% 20.0%

Women 23 36.5% 34.8% 402 39.8% 18.4%

BiologicalAnthropology

Men 22 32.8% 22.7% 316 43.3% 21.2%

Women 45 67.2% 20.0% 414 56.7% 18.4%

Social/CulturalAnthropology

Men 56 38.1% 8.9% 767 42.1% 10.7% Women 91 61.9% 16.5% 1057 57.9% 13.1%

Table6.RatioofPost-Ph.D.(PPhD)toDissertationFieldwork(DF)Wenner-GrenApplications

RatioPPhD/DF 2015 2001-2015Archaeology

Men 71.4% 81.9%

Women 25.6% 44.1%

BiologicalAnthropology

Men 75.9% 76.7%

Women 44.1% 38.5%

Social/CulturalAnthropology

Men 22.4% 26.2% Women 21.7% 20.1%

10

Thereareundoubtedlyanumberofinterconnectedreasonsbehindthispatternthatmightincludesizeofthefieldandemploymentopportunities/biases,work-lifebalance,therelativelylowgrantmaximumofWenner-Grenseniorawards,andperceptionofdiscriminationinthereviewprocess.Inrelationtodiscriminationinthereviewprocess,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthereisasystemicbiasagainstwomenateitherthestudentorseniorlevelsinanyoftheWenner-Grenprograms.Ifperceptionofbiasexists,itmaybebecauseoftherelativelylowoverallsuccessratesforbothmenandwomen,averagingabout15percent(Table4).However,onamicrolevelitispossiblethatthestochasticvariationinthesuccessratemayhaveaninfluenceonsubsequentsubmissionrate,particularlyinasmallapplicantpool.Forexample,duringtheyears2010,2011,and2012,Wenner-Grenreceivedroughlyhalftheexpectednumberofapplicationsfromseniorwomenarchaeologiststhanwouldhavebeenexpected(Fig.1b).Thiscoincidedwithadropinthesuccessrateforseniorwomenthatbeganayearearlierin2009(Fig.2).Recoveryinthesubmissionrateoccurredin2013followingareboundofthesuccessratein2012.Otherfluctuationsinthesubmissionrateforseniorwomenarchaeologists(andmenorwomenintheotherapplicantgroups)donotcorrelatewithsuccessrateinthesubsequentyear/s.Itshouldbenotedthatthethree-yeardropinapplicationnumbersfromseniorwomenarchaeologistsalsocorrelateswiththe“GreatRecession”whichmayhavehadadisproportionateeffectonseniorwomenarchaeologiststhanmen.

Figure2.SuccessratesforarchaeologyPost-Ph.D.Wenner-GrenResearchGrantsbygender.

Insummary,theWenner-Grendatadonotindicatethattherearespecificgrantissuesthataffectonlyseniorwomeninarchaeology.Thereisaconsiderablereductioninsubmissionsreceivedfromseniorwomeninrelationtothenumberexpectedonthebasisoftheapplicationsfromdoctoralstudentsacrossthesubdisciplines,andthisdropisgreaterinsocialanthropologythantheotherdisciplines.Archaeologyandbiologicalanthropologyaresimilarinthatproportionatelyfewerwomenthanmenapplyforseniorgrants.Thismaybeafunctionoftherelativelysmallsizesofthesesub-disciplinesinrelationtosocialanthropologycombinedwithinherentwork-lifeandcareerissuesthatmayhaveamorenoticeableeffectbecauseofcohortsize.

11

TheNationalGeographicSocietyApplicantsandTrendsTheNationalGeographicSociety(NGS)providessmall(<$25,000)single-yeargrantsforfield-basedresearchinmultipledisciplines(“astronomytozoology”),eligibletoanyoneintheworldworkinganywhereintheworld.Thus,archaeologyapplicationsarejudgedbycomparingagainstsimilarsizedrequestsforfundinginotherfieldsciences(e.g.,botanyorpaleontology),ratherthanbeingcomparedsolelyagainstotheranthropologyorarchaeologyproposals.FromJanuary2005toDecember2014,NGSreceived1611applicationsforarchaeology;58percentofthesewerefromUSresidents(Figs.3and4).ChristopherThornton,LeadProgramOfficerofResearch,Conservation,andExplorationforNGS,collectedthedataforthissummary.AlthoughNGShasmultipleprogramsthatprovidearchaeologygrants,thisstudyfocusedonlyonCommitteeforResearchandExploration(CRE)andGlobalExplorationFund(GEF)applications,asthesearetheonlytwoprogramsthatrequireaPh.D.toapply.Ofthe1611archaeologyapplicantsfrom2005-2014,495(31%)werefemale,withwomencomprising31percentofUS-basedapplicantsand30percentofnon-USbasedapplicants.AlthoughthenumberofapplicationstoNGSdroppedconsiderablyinthe2009-2010period(post-economiccrisis),thenumberofUS-basedfemaleapplicantsreboundedquicklyin2011,whilethenumberofinternationalapplicants(bothmaleandfemale)begantosteadilyincreaseafterthecrisisduetoactiverecruitmentactivitiesbyNGS(includingthecreationoftheGEFprogramin2011).Interestingly,thenumberofUS-basedmaleapplicationshasneverreturnedtothelevelsseenbeforeandduringtheeconomiccrisisof2008-09.TheoverallsuccessrateforarchaeologyapplicantstoNGSwas25percent(1in4),andslightlyhigher(29%)forUS-basedapplicants(Fig.4).ThesuccessrateforUS-basedwomenhasseentwoperiodsofgrowth—apositivetrendbetween2005and2008(from15to35%)andthenanotherfrom2009to2014(from10to40%).TheearlierpositivetrendisatleastpartiallyduetothedeclineofapplicationsfromUS-basedwomenbetween2006and2009,buttherecentpositivetrendmaybetheresultofactiverecruitmentoffemaleapplicantsbyNGSand/orpositivebiasbythegrantcommittees.Incontrast,thesuccessrateforUS-basedmenhasremainedrelativelyconstant,hoveringbetween25-35percentovertheentire10-yearperiod.Non-US-basedmenandwomenhadthesameaveragesuccessrateofabout20percent,despiteincreasingthenumberofapplicationsfromnon-USresidents(atrendoffsetbyincreasingtheamountoffundingrestrictedtointernationalapplicantsthroughtheGEFprogram).

Figure3.NumberofgrantapplicantstoNGSfrom2005-2014.US-M=US-basedmen,INT-M=non-US-basedmen,US-F=US-basedwomen,INT-F=non-US-basedwomen

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

NumberofNGSGrantApplicants- Archaeology

US-M

INT-M

US-F

INT-F

12

Figure4.SuccessratesofNGSArchaeologyapplicants,from2005-2014.US-M=US-basedmen,INT-M=non-US-basedmen,US-F=US-basedwomen.

OfUS-basedapplicantsinArchaeology,80percentapplytoworkabroad(compareto90%ofAnthropologyvs.65%ofGeology/Paleontology),and84percentofUS-basedfemaleapplicantsinArchaeologyapplytoworkabroad(range:71-96%offemaleapplicantsperyear).BasedontheNGSdatabetween2005and2014,itisclearthatthenumberofwomeninarchaeologyapplyingforgrantsstilllagsbehindthenumberofmen,butwomenwerelessaffectedbythe2008-2009economiccrisisthanmen.Indeed,US-basedfemaleapplicantscurrentlyenjoyahighersuccessratethantheirmalepeers,whileinternationalfemaleapplicantsareonparwiththeirmalecolleagues(suggestingthatlanguageandculture,ratherthangender,playsignificantrolesintheabilitytogetgrantsfromNGS).NationalEndowmentoftheHumanities(NEH)TrendsAlthoughwedonothavedetaileddataontheapplicantstoNEH,wedownloadedNEHdataongrantsawarded.ThesedatarepresentallNEHPrograms,whichincludesfacultyfellowships,conferences,andresearchgrants.Figure5representsthesedata.Basedonallgrantcategories,womenhaveachievedparityinNEHgrantsoverthelastdecade.

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SuccessRatesofNGSArchaeologyApplicants

US-M

INT-M

US-F

13

Figure5.NEHGrantsofalltypesawardedtoarchaeologistsbydecadeandgender.DemographyoftheDisciplineAsnotedearlier,therearelimitationsandbiasesinthedatausedtoexaminetheoveralldemographyofthearchaeologicaldiscipline.UsingtheAAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropologyrepresentsthemostlikelypopulationtoapplyforgrants,butitignoresallthosewomenwithPh.D.swhoarenotinacademicjobsorwhoseinstitutionschosenottolistthemselvesintheAAAGuide,aswellasmanytrailingspousesinwhichthehusbandgotatenurestreamjobandthewifesecuredanadjunctorlesssecurejob.Inaddition,anumberofnonprofitandCRMfirmsarenotintheGuide,andmuseumsarenotconsistentlylisted.OverthefouryearsoftheAAAGuidetowhichwehaveaccess,theproportionofmalestofemalesinAnthropologyremainsremarkablysimilarasseeninTable7:

Table7.ProportionofMalesvs.FemalesinAAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropologybetween2008and2011

2008 2009

F=4679(44%) F=4737(44.5%)M=5870(55.2%) M=5825(54.7%)?=82(0.8%) ?=90(0.8%)TOTAL=10,361 TOTAL=10,652

2010 2011F=4754(44.7%) F=4833(45%)M=5793(54.5%) M=5787(54%)?=80(0.8%) ?=90(1%)TOTAL=10,627 TOTAL=10,710

Becauseofthissimilarityandthetimeittooktocleanthedata,wefocusedonlyonthe2011AAAdata.Inthe2011AAAGuide,thereare2,447individualsidentifiedasarchaeology.Ofthese,men=1566(64%)andwomen=868(36%);13individualsunknown.

0 20 40 60 80

1976-19801981-19851986-19901991-19951996-20002001-20052006-20102011-2014

NEHGrants- 1976-2014PercentageofGranteesbyGender

men

women

14

Archaeologistsarerepresentedinseveraldifferentkindsofprofessionalpositions.Table8summarizesthenumbersandpercentagesofwomenandmenineachofthebroadarchaeologicalpositioncategories.

Table8.TheDistributionofMenandWomeninArchaeologybyTypeofProfessionalPosition(basedon2011AAAGuidetoDepartmentsofAnthropology)

Academia(n=1920) # %Women 669 35%Men 1242 65%Museums(n=291) Women 104 36%Men 187 64%Government(n=45) Women 20 44%Men 25 56%Other(n=183) Women 74 40%Men 109 60%Unknown(n=9(0.4%))

The60/40splitof60percentofpositionsoccupiedbymenand40percentbywomenisfairlyconsistentacrossdifferentprofessionaljobtypes.Womeningovernmentpositionsappeartobeclosertoparity,butthesearegeneralcategoriesandwedonotknowtherangeofprofessionalpositionsineachcategory.Further,thevastmajorityofpositionsintheAAAGuideareinacademia,andthoseproportionsmaybethemostaccurate.AgainusingtheAAA2011data,Fig.6showsonewayinwhicharchaeologyasaprofessionhasdramaticallychangedovertime,basedonthenumberofPh.D.’sawardedbyyearandgender.Fig.7,usingtheSAA2003and2010datatocomparetypeofemployment,showsthatthesedemographicproportionshavenotnecessarilytranslatedintojobproportions.EventhoughmorewomenthanmenhavereceivedPh.D.’sinthelastdecade,thepercentageofwomenwhoexceedthepercentageofmenhappensonlyinthecommunitycollegecategory;thereareanequalpercentageofmenandwomenin4-yearacademicinstitutionswithnograduateprograms.Menarestilloccupyingmorepositionsin4-yearinstitutionswithgraduateprograms,museums,CRMfirms,andgovernmentpositions.

15

Figure6.Percentagesoffemaleandmalearchaeologistswhoreceivedtheirdegreesineachdecade(basedon2011AAAdata).

Figure7.Percentagesofjobpositionsbygender(basedon2003and2010SAAmembersurveys.

0 20 40 60 80

<19801981-851986-901991-951996-002001-052006-102011-14

DistributionofFemaleandMaleArchaeologistsbyDecadeofWhenPhDReceived

male%

female%

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Government

CRM

Academic:CommunityCollege

Academic- 4yearsnograd

Academic- 4yearwithgrad

Museum

JobPositionsbyGender:SAA2003and2010Surveys

F2010

F2003

M2010

M2003

16

In2014,theSocietyforHistoricalArchaeology(SHA)conductedamembershipsurvey.Althoughdetailedresultswerenotavailableatthiswriting,participantsinaforumatthe2015SHAannualmeetingsummarizedsomeofthesurveyfindings1.TheSHAmembershipsurveyyieldeda50percentresponserate.MembershipintheSHAisabout2200,witharoughlyequalnumberofmalesandfemales,althoughtheproportionoffemalesisincreasingwhenoneexaminesthedatabyage.Two-thirdsoftherespondentsworkedfull-timeatcollegesanduniversities,and94percentoftherespondentswerewhite.Thesecharacteristicsareslightlydifferentinthe2010SAAMembershipSurvey;atotalof1707oftherespondentsweremale(57%),andatotalof1305(43%)oftherespondentswerefemale.Ifdividedbyagecategoriesandgender,therawnumbersindicatethatthenumberofwomenisincreasingratherdramatically,asthenumberofmendecrease(atleastasmeasuredbyage)(Fig.8):

Figure8.Thedistributionbyageandgenderofrespondentstothe2010SAAMemberSurvey.

Ifoneassumesthat,generallyspeaking,olderindividualswerehiredbeforeyoungerones,thetrendismovingtowardparity,andrepresentativeofthecurrenttrendofthemajorityofPh.D.sinarchaeologybeingawardedtowomen.Figure9showsthesedatamorebroadly;thepercentageofU.S.Ph.D.sawardedtowomeninsocialsciencesin2011(Leslieetal.2015).Inthecaseofbothanthropologyandarchaeology,womenreceivedmorethan50percentofthetotalPh.D.sawardedin2011.

1Goldsteinattendedtheforumandthenumberspresentedherearebasedonhernotes.

17

Figure9.PercentageofUSPh.D.sawardedtowomenin2011(NSFSurveyofEarnedDoctorates)

inSocialScienceandHumanities(B)disciplines.AdaptedfromLeslieetal.2015.Inanattempttobetterexaminethedetailsofpositionsinacademia,weusedthe2011AAAdatatofocusonacademicpositionsforarchaeologists.Figure10representsthedistribution,bygender,ofthekindsofacademicinstitutionsinwhichpeoplework.BachelorsmeansthattheinstitutiongrantsonlyBachelordegreesinAnthropology.MastersmeansthattheinstitutiongrantsbothBachelorandMasterdegreesinAnthropology.Ph.D.referstothoseinstitutionsthatgrantPh.D.’sinAnthropology.Wedidnotincludecommunitycollegeshere.

Figure10.Percentageofarchaeologistsfacultyintypesofdegree-grantinginstitutions2011(AAAdata).

Thetrendwenotedaboveisrepresentedhereinaslightlydifferentway:femalesareunder-representedinacademia,andtherearefewerwomeninpositionsatinstitutionswhosefocusisprimarilyresearch.Ifexaminedonlybywhethertheinstitutionispublicorprivate,womenconstitute35percentofallacademicpositionsineach,menrepresent65percentineach.

0 20 40 60 80

Bachelors

Masters

PhD

male%female%

18

ItislikelythatthedemographicdatasummarizedabovereflectasignificantreasonthatfewerseniorwomenapplyforNFgrants—ourHypothesis1—therearetwiceasmanymeninPh.D.-grantingresearchinstitutions.FacultymembersinPh.D.-grantinginstitutionsteachfewercoursesandhavegraduatestudentstoassistinresearch.However,whencombinedwiththefactthatmorewomenarereceivingPh.D.’stodaythanmen,thequestionbecomeswhether:1)womenarenotsuccessfulatgettingjobsinmajorresearchinstitutions;2)menarenotretiringasquicklyasonemightexpect;3)researchuniversitiesarenotreplacingfacultylinesinarchaeologyatthesamerateasinthepast;4)theavailabilityofpositionslagsbehindtheavailabilityofPh.D.women;and/or5)somecombinationofallofthesereasons.Finally,inourinterviewsample,78percentofthe36womeninterviewedhadappliedforseniorNSFgrants;70percentwereeventuallysuccessfulatgettingthesegrants.Asubsetof13percenthadreceivedNSFdissertationgrantsbutdidnotapplyforseniorgrants.ReasonsthattheydidnotapplyincludedlivinginCanada(andnoteligible),beinginnon-tenuretrackpositions,andworkinginCRM.Intermsoftheirprofessionalpositions,sixofthewomeninterviewedwereAssistantProfessors,10wereAssociateProfessors,10wereFullProfessors,and2wereEmeritaProfessors.Threewereinnon-tenureduniversitypositions,twoworkedforgovernment,oneforaCRMfirm,andtwootherswereindependentresearchersworkingonsoftmoney,butnotNSFfunds.Notethattheinterviewsamplefocusedonwomenwhohadreceiveddissertationgrantssincetheseshouldbetheindividualsmostlikelytoapplyforseniorgrants.

ProjectWebsiteInordertomakethedatacollectedandtheresultsofthisstudyasavailableaspossible,wecreatedawebsitethatwillbemaintainedfortheforeseeablefuture.Thatwebsiteislocatedat:http://saa-gender.anthropology.msu.eduandwasdevelopedbyMatrix(MSUCenterforDigitalHumanitiesandSocialSciences).Acompletecopyofthisreportisavailablefromthesite,aswellasdetailsontheformsweused,eachofthehypotheses,aswellasouranalyses.Datasummariesareincludedonthesite.Wehavealsomadeavailableavarietyofpublishedpapersandreportsthatthetaskforceusedorreferencedinwritingthisreport.Thiswebsitewillbemaintainedforfuturereferenceanduse.

InterviewDataIntroductionTaskforcemembers(Goldstein,Mills,Herr,andBurkholder)conductedallinterviewsusinganagreed-uponsetofquestionsasabeginning;interviewsaveraged40-60minutes,andwereprimarilyconductedbyphone(afewwereconductedinpersonatconferencesattheinterviewee’srequest).Thesamplewasbalancedbygeographicregionandacademicrankanddrawnfromalargerlistcomposedof:(1)thosewhoemailedthetaskforceco-Chairsbeforethe2015SAAmeetingsindicatingtheirwillingnesstoassist;(2)thosewhoattendedtheSAA2014forumandindicatedonthesign-insheetthattheywerewillingtobeinterviewed(approximately100individualsattendedtheforum);and(3)womenwhosuccessfullywonDoctoralDissertationImprovementGrants(DDIGs)between1990and2009.ThelogicoffocusingonthislastgroupwasthatsincetheyhadalreadybeensuccessfulinreceivinganNSFgrantasagraduatestudent,theywouldbemorelikelytoapplyforasubsequentgrant.Westoppedat2009since

19

thatseemedtobetheminimumamountoftimeforpeopletocompletetheirdegrees,getaposition,andapplyfornewgrants.GoldsteinobtainedIRBapproval(#x14-682e)throughMichiganStateUniversitybeforeanyinterviewstookplace.Intotal,thefourtaskforcemembersinterviewed36women.Ofthese,25hadappliedtoNSFArchaeologyinthepast10yearsand11hadnot.Sixofthosewhoapplieddidnotreceiveagrantontheirfirstproposalsubmission,butweresuccessfulwiththeirsecondproposal.Allinformationsharedduringtheseinterviewsistreatedasconfidentialandnameswereremovedfromthedatabeforetheinterviewwasintegratedintothelargerdatabase.

Theinterviewsincludedasetofstandardquestions(seehttp://saa-gender.anthropology.msu.edu),thenrespondentswereencouragedtoprovidemoredetailedandextensiveinformationinexplainingtheirownsituations.Theinterviewermaintaineddetailednotesoneachinterview,butnointerviewwasrecorded,andallidentifierswereremovedfromthenotes.Foreachinterviewee,werequestedacopyoftheircurriculumvitaandusedthesetotabulatethefundingsourcesthattheylistbyagency/sourceandamount(ifavailable).Ifthosedatawerenotpresent,weaskedtheindividualtoestimatealternativesources.Wealsotabulatedthenumberofyearstheintervieweehasbeeninadministrativepositionsatthelevelofdepartmentheadorabove.Inthefollowingsectionswesummarizesomeoftheresponsesthataregermanetoouroriginalhypothesesbutalsoprovidenewinsightsthatweobtainedthroughthesemi-structuredinterviewsespeciallywithrespecttowhatwecallstrategicplanningandscaffolding.OfthewomenweinterviewedwhohadnotappliedtoNSFduringthelastfiveyears,thespecificreasonstheystatedwere:(1)workingnowinCanadaandineligible;(2)didnothaveatenure-trackpositionintheiruniversityorwereworkinginCRM;(3)didnotfeelthatherworkwasscientificenough;(4)notconductingexcavations,whichatleastonewomanfeltwasapriorityforNSFfunding;(5)spendingdownherstartupfundsbeforeapplying;(6)receivedalternativefundingfromwithintheiruniversity;(7)receivedalternativefundingforalarge-scaleinternationalprojectfromNEH;(8)receivedalternativefundingfromNGSorWenner-GrenbutwasplanningonapplyingtoNSFlateron;(9)receivedalternativefundingfromanotherareaofNSF,especiallycross-directorateprograms;(10)workingonarticlesinsteadofagrantproposalbecauseofthetimeinvestmentneededtoproduceacredibleproposal;and(11)appliedinthepastbutdidnotreceivepositivereviewsanddidnotresubmit.Withrespecttoourfirsthypothesis,thatwomenwerenotapplyingtoNSFbecausetheywerenotinacademicpositionswithgraduateprogramsthatvaluedthesegrants,wefoundthatwithinoursample,mostwomeninterviewedhadatonetimeappliedorwerecurrentlyholdingaseniorNSFgrant.ExceptionsincludethoseinCRMandthosewhodidnotthinkthattheycouldsuccessfullyapplyorcarryoutaprojectbecausetheydidnothaveapoolofgraduatestudentstoworkwiththeminthefield.However,itwasclearfromtheinterviewsthateveninsmallcollegeswithoutgraduateprogramsand/orMaster’sonlyprograms,expectationsmightbechanging.Institutionalpressurestogainexternalfundingwerementionedbyseveralwomen,andoneintervieweepointedoutthatinstitutionswantoverhead,regardlessofwhethertheyhadgraduateprograms.Althoughanumberofthewomeninterviewedcommentedondifferentialtreatmentanddifficultiesintheirtrainingandcurrentprofessionalpositions,noonedirectlycommentedonsexualharassmentinthefieldorworkplace.Giventheattentiontheseissuesareappropriatelyreceivingtoday,thisabsence

20

appearssurprising.However,wefocusedourquestionsanddiscussionsverycarefullyongrants.Severalpeoplehadsuggestedthatthetaskforcealsoincludequestionsconcerningpublications,harassment,andothertopics,butwewereconcernedabouthavingadequatetimetocovereverything,andwewerealsoconcernedaboutdiminishingtheprojectbyraisingtoomanyissues.Thebasedatacollectedisavailableandcanbeusedbyothersforsubsequentprojects.TheImpactofHiddenWork

Ourdatapointtoseveraldifferentaspectsofhiddenlaborforwomenthatimpactboththeirabilityanddesiretoseekmajorgrants.Here“hiddenlabor”referstotheideaofadditionalsocialandemotionalcostsincurredineffectivelypursuingacareer,butwhichgounnoticedoruncompensated.Acrosstheboard,whetherornotsubjectshadappliedformajorgrantssincetheirdissertation,womenmentionedthreemajorobstaclestotheirpursuitofresearchandresearchgrants.Theseincludedinequalitiesintheworkplace,maintainingnetworksofmentorshipandcollaboration,andissuesofwork/lifebalance,particularlywherespousesandchildrenwereconcerned.Workplaceinequalitiesarelargelycontingentonthesettinginwhichwomenworked.Womenwhohadnotappliedformajorgrants,manyofwhomwereat“teachinginstitutions,”reportedhighlevelsofteachingandserviceasacontributingfactorshapingtheircareer.Ofthewomeninterviewedonlytwoofthosewhohadappliedforamajorgrantcamefromaninstitutionwithateachingloadof3/3,onereportedateachingloadof4/4.Thoseatnon-researchinstitutionsmorefrequentlyreportedbeinginsmalldepartments,combineddepartments(e.g.Anthropology/Sociology),orininterdisciplinaryprogramswherefacultytaughtawidervarietyofcoursesfurtherfromtheirareasofexpertise.Thisconstitutesakindofhiddenworkinthatthedifferencesinteachingobligationsbetweenthe2/2loadofa“research”institutionandthe3/3or4/4loadofa“teaching”institutionisnotmerelyinthenumberofcontacthoursornumberofstudentsinasemester,butthatthebreadthofcoursesandthefrequentrotationofcoursesforwomenatsuch“teaching”institutionsdistractsfromaresearchfocus.Similarly,anumberofwomenwhohadtaughtfieldschoolsreportedthatwhileitwasviewedasawaytosupporttheirresearch(andfuturegrantproposals),therigorsofmanagingtheprogramandtheobligationsitincurredforartifactprocessing,analysis,curation,etc.,couldfeelmorelikeadistractionfromtheirownresearchgoals.Serviceishardertoquantifythanteachingloadsandnumbersofpreparations,butbothapplicantsandnon-applicantscitedhighserviceloadsasafactorshapingtheircareer.Non-applicantwomen,however,citedservicetwiceasfrequentlyasthosewhohadmadegrantapplications.Thisisconsistentwithexternaldatashowingthatacademicwomeningeneraltakeonlargerormoredemandingservicerolesearlierintheircareersincludingdirectingundergraduateprogramsandchairingdepartmentsoftenatthecostofdelayingorstagnatingpursuitofthingslikeresearchthatleadtopromotiontofullprofessor(Olsenetal.1995;Park1996).Onlyoneinformantreportedchairingaprogramasanassettoherresearch;shedivertedextra,administrativecompensationtosupportingherresearch,whichwaslab-based.Shesaidthiswaspossibleonlybecauseshedidnothaveotherfamilyneeds–children’ssportsoreducation,elderlyparents–towhichtheadditionalincomemightotherwisehavebeendevoted.Asanadditionalcomponenttoservice,womenwhohadappliedformajorgrantsfrequentlymentionedahighdemandtoserveonMAanddoctoralthesiscommittees.Inbothcases—generalserviceandgraduatecommitteeservice—thedemandforsuchworkstemmedfromdiversityandidentityconcerns.Growingnumbersofwomengraduatestudentssoughtoutwomenfacultytoserve/chairtheircommitteeswhiledepartmentswereencouragedtoelectwomenaschairs/directorsintheinterestof

21

promotingdiversityofleadership.Althoughthetotalnumberofwomenindepartmentshaslagged,womenareoftencomparativelyingreaterdemandfortheserolesandwhileitdoesnotprecludethemfromapplyingformajorgrants,itmayslowresearchprogressandthefrequencywithwhichwomenapply.StrategicPlanningandScaffoldingIntermsoftenureandpromotion,severalwomennotedthattheiruniversitiesexplicitlytreatedgrantslikepublicationsandinothercasesgrantswereexpectedaspartoftheoverallresearchwithintheresearch/teaching/servicetriadbythetimeonecameupforreview.Mostwomenweinterviewedsaidthatgrantswereveryimportant—theywerewhatyouweresupposedtodoandthatthiswassomethingthattheylearnedasgraduatestudentsfromtheirmentors.Severaloftheseresponsesilluminatehowwomenfundtheirworkthroughstrategicplanningandwhatwerefertoasscaffolding.Itisclearthatif,when,andhowoftenwomenappliedtoNSFspecifically,theywereachievingremarkablesuccessoverallinfindingdifferentsourcesoffundingfortheirresearch.Bybuildinguponpastprojectsandprojectsegmentsthroughscaffolding,womeninarchaeologyhavefoundwaystofundtheirresearch,bothdomesticallyandinternationally.ItwasalsoclearfromourinterviewsthatwomenwerestrategicallythinkingaboutwhentoapplytoNSFwithintheirowncareerandprojecttrajectories.SeveralwomensaidthattheyhadstretchedouttheirstartupfundsandsodidnotapplyforfundingfromNSF.Inonecase,itwasbecauseshewasaskedtodo“aboveandbeyond”service,delayingthesetupofherlab,andthusreceivedpermissiontoextendthetimelimitforspendingstartupfunds.Inthefuture,sheexpectedtoapplyforsmallergrantsandtousecontractfunds.Therealsoseemstobeageneralincreaseorrecognitionthatstartupfundsare“beefier”—universitiesareputtingupmoneyaspartoftheirrecruitmentpackages.OnewomanstatedthatatherPh.D.grantingpublicuniversity,youwereexpectedtobringingrantsequivalenttoyourstartuppackageeventhoughherAnthropologyprogramwasM.A.grantingonly.Besidesstartupfunds,manywomentalkedabouthowtheyhaveaccesstoavarietyofinternalandexternalsourcesthatallowedthemtoconductpilotprojects.Onewomanspokeabouthowasanadministratorshedidnottaketheextrastipendthatcamewiththeposition,butputitintoaresearchaccount.Othersmentionedseveralcampus-widegrantopportunitiesforjuniorfacultythatallowedthemtoconductfieldwork.OthersexplicitlymentionedhowtheyfirstappliedorplanonapplyingtoWennerR-GrenandNGSasawayofgettingintothefield.ForthosewhoworkintheU.S.,severalalsomentionedgovernmentsponsoredresearchsupportsuchastheNPS,BLM,andstateorganizations.Again,wedonotknowwhetherwomenarerelyingonthesesourcesmorethanmenbecauseoursamplewasfocusedonlyonwomen.Nonetheless,weseethesealternativestoNSFaswaysthatwomenconductscaffoldingandbuildtheir“grantsmanship,”atthesametimethattheymaydelayapplicationstoNSF.AnotheroneofourfindingsisthatwomenmaynotapplytoNSFArchaeology,buttheyareapplyingtootherprogramsinNSF.Manyoftheseotherprogramsprovidemorefundingbutatdifferentsuccessrates.Forexample,NSFPolarProgramswasmentionedbyafewwomenworkinginapplicableareasbecauseithashighersuccessratesandmorefundingthanNSFArchaeology.Similarly,duringtheperiodthatshowsthedeclineinwomen’ssubmissionstoNSFArchaeology,severalseniorarchaeologywomenheldresearchgrantsinNSFcross-directorateprogramswithlowerfundingratesbutwithhigheraveragefundinglevels.OnewomanalsomentionedthatshehadsuccessfullyappliedtoNEHratherthanNSF

22

becauseofthenatureofthequestionsthatshewasasking.Asourdatashow,womenhavebeenincreasinglysuccessfulatobtainingNEHgrantsthatfundtheirfieldandlaboratorywork.

Womenarealsostrategicastheyevaluatewhethertopersistwithanunsuccessfulapplication.Severalwomenmentionedthattheyhadorhadnotresubmittedafterreceivinganegativereview.Ontheonehand,resubmissionwasconsideredsomethingthatonealwaysdoesbecause“youalwaysneedthemoney.”Ontheotherhand,somewomenwerediscouragedaftertheirinitialsubmissionsanddidnotreapply.Thereasonsfornotresubmittingwerevaried,butonewomanmentionedthatalthoughshereceivedoneverypositivereview,itseemedaslow,uphillbattletorefinetheproposalwithouthelpanditwouldtakeawayfromherteaching.Anotherintervieweementionedthelackofsupportforgrantpreparationandtheamountoftimeandeffortitrequiredjusttogetitthroughheruniversitysystem.Fourwomenmentionedhowthereseemedtobeonepanelistwhokeptherproposalfrombeingfundedandthatitjustwasn’tworthituntilthatpersonrotatedoffthepanel.Severalwomenalsomentionedexternalreviewers’commentsthatkeptherfromresubmitting:“Hardestwereonesthatdidnotseemtoseetheprojectintherightlight—‘It’srisky,soletthemdoafewseasonsofunfundedworkandseewhattheyfindbeforetheycomeback’.”Anotherwomanmentionedreceivingadvicefromreviewersonthesameproposalthatwerediametricallyopposedandsofeltconfusedaboutwhattotaketoheartandwhattoletgo.Andfinally,onewomanmentionedthattherewasaclearconflictofinterestwithonerevieweroverperspectiveandmethodsthatsheknewshecouldnotovercomeandsheinsteadusedfieldschoolfundingforherprojectratherreapply.ThesedataaresummarizedinTable9.WhenaskedwhethertheindividualhadappliedtoNSFArchaeologyinthelast10years,36percent(13)saidno.Atotalof17percent(6)interviewedhadappliedforagrant,didnotgetit,reapplied,andeventuallywasawardedfunding.Mostintervieweesindicatedthatiftheywerenotawardedagrantafterthreetries,itwastimeto“moveon.”Onewomanhasalwaysappliedasaco-PIbecauseherworkisprimarilylab-based,andanothertendstoapplyasacollaboratorsinceshedoesnotholdanacademicposition.IntermsoftheirperspectivesonNSFgrants,onewoman(#39)stated:“EventhoughIapplied,IdidavoidapplyingtoNSFaslongasIcoulduntilIfeltthatIwasready.IthoughtthatNSFhadtobethemostperfectbecauseofthepeer-reviewprocess.ButIknewIhadtosubmititeventhoughIdidn’twantto.”ThiswomansubmittedtwicetoNEHunsuccessfully,butherNSFproposalwassuccessful.Shehasalsohasreceivedfundingfromseveralotherprivateandpublicsources.Anotherintervieweecommentedonthenatureofthegrantarena:“ThereareonlysomanysourcesforfundingthesedaysintheUS.NSF,Wenner-Gren,orLeakeymakesense.Sincemydissertationmyworkhasbeenrelativelylabbasedandcheap,I’vetargetedLeakey,Wenner-Gren.NotyetNSF.”

23

Table9.InterviewData:ReasonsWomenProvidedforNotApplyingtoNSFatAnyPost-Ph.D.Stage

ReasonsWomenProvidedforNotApplyingtoNSFPost-Ph.D. IDNumbers[bolded=hadnotappliedtoNSFinlast10years]

Didnothaveatenure-trackpositionintheiruniversityorwereworkinginCRM

3,17,32,51,56

Receivedalternativefundingfromwithintheiruniversity,includingstartupfunds

4,15,26,30,31,36,43,46,48,53

Receivedalternativefundingfromstateorfederalagencies,e.g.,NPS

31,35,38,48,51

ReceivedalternativefundingfromNGSand/orWenner-Gren 4,15,30,34,36,43,59,61Appliedfor(whethersuccessfulornot)alternativefundingfromanotherareaofNSF,includingcross-directorateprograms(e.g.,Polar,HSD,CHNS,REU,MajorInstrumentation)

21,31,36,40,46,50,55

AppliedatleastonetimetoNSFbutdidnotreceivepositivereviewsanddidnotresubmitbecauseofnatureofreviews

55,59

AppliedforalternativefundingfromNEH,butnotfunded 48WorkinginCanadaandineligible 9Receivedalternativefundingforalarge-scaleinternationalprojectfromNEH

34,53

AppliedatleastonetimetoNSFbutdidnotreceivepositivereviewsanddidnotresubmitduetolackoftime

11,27,33,36,53,62

Currentlydoinglaboratoryworkratherthanfieldwork 31,43Currentlywithoutgraduatestudents,especiallyPh.D.students 31Note:Thesereasonsarenotmutuallyexclusive.SomewomenreportedmultiplereasonsfornotapplyingtoNSF.Inaddition,somewomenwhodidapplytoNSFhadreasonsfordelayingornotapplyingatotherpointsintheircareers,allofwhicharetabulatedhere.PerceptionsWomen’sperceptionsaboutgrantingagencyprogramsandprocessesandtheirownworkandreadinessaffecttheirgrantsubmissionbehaviors.Clearly,therearemanywomenwhoarecompetitiveandsuccessfulingrantwriting.Inthissection,werecountperceptionsthatmaybebarrierstothesubmissionsofgrantstomajorfunders,particularlytheNSF.Informationcomesfromtheinterviews.Thesituationsandreactionsexpressedmaynotbeuniquetowomen.

Becauseofthetimeinvolvedinpreparingagrantapplication,perceptionsabouttheauthor’s“fit”(#252)withtheprogramaffectwhetherornottheywillmaketheefforttoapply,when,andhowtheyrespondtothereviewprocess.Forsome,gettinggrantsissimply“partofthejob”(#15)butforothersitisameasureoftheimportanceofresearch(#31)andNSFisseenas“thebest,”the“mostcompetitive,”andthe“majorfunder.”Theamountofgrantmoneypotentiallyavailablemakesputtingtogetherthegrantapplicationworththeeffort,asitcanfundlongfieldseasonsininternationalsettings(#30).

Women’sperceptionsaboutNSFArchaeologyProgramgrantscanbebrokendownintofourgeneralcategories:subjectmatter,methodology,lineitems,andaffiliationoftheprincipalinvestigator.Subject

2#xxreferstothespecificinterview.

24

matterquestionsincludewhetherworkinhistoricalarchaeology(#7,#48),biologicalarchaeology,orfeministarchaeologywill(#34)befunded.OtherwomenthinkthatNSFpreferentiallyfavorsinternationalworkoverdomesticprojects(#31).SomewomensaythatNSFgrantssupportexcavation—“diggingholes”(#61)—butnotsurvey(#48).TheyalsoaskwhetherNSFwillfundtheirworkwithcollections(#27,#31),doinglaboratory-basedresearch(#34),creatingdatabasesorotherdigitalwork,orwriting.Theyconsidertheneedsoftheirprojectversuswhattheyexpectthatthegrantingagencieswillfund.Theyask,forexample,whethergrantsfundsummersalary(#51)orchildcare(#26)?Finally,womenworkingoutsideacademiaask“willNSFfundme?”Doestheiraffiliationmatter?Canwomenwhoworkinnon-tenuretrackoradjunctfacultypositions,orinculturalresourcemanagementapply(#3,#51)? PerceptionsaboutthefinancialhealthofNSFaffectapplicationinyearsinwhichrecessionandfederalsequesterssuggestthatlimitedresourceswillmakesuccesslesslikely;womenmaydelayapplicationsorseekless-competitiveopportunities(#25,#52).

Grantingfeedsbackintowomen’sperceptionsaboutthevalueoftheirworkasascholar.Theycommentontheirreadiness,theimportanceoftheirwork,anditspace.Severalrecentarticleshavecommentedongenderandpublishingonarchaeologicalsubjects(Bardolph2014;Hutson2002).Althoughthatisatopicrequiringseparateinquiry,itisrelevantinthatwhereandhowmuchwomenpublishisonemeasure—tothewomenandthepeerreviewersofthegrant—oftheirresearchabilities(#9).

“ItwasmyworstfearwasthatIwasn’treadyfortheresearchorthattheywouldthinkthatIcouldn’tdoit.ButinmyfirstNSFreviewprocess–thereviewsaidthatIhadn’tpublishedinenoughhighprofileplacesandmaybeIwasarisk.Thiswasrepeatedinthepanelreview.IwasdevastatedbecauseIthoughtthatthiswasaninherentflawandnotsomethingthatIcouldfiximmediately.Iwonderediftheywouldsaythisofamalecolleagueatthesamestage,someonewhoneededthegranttodotheresearchandpublish.IthoughtaboutwritingtotheProgramOfficertopointoutthatIwasprolificinpublishingevenifitwasn’tinhighprofileplaces.Ididn’tdothatbutresubmittedandgotmygumptionuptodoitandthankgodIgotit!Itdidn’tcomeupagain,andthiswasn’tmentioned.Alltheotherreviewswerepositiveandstrong(#39).BeforetheytoapplytoNSF,womenneedtofeelthattheyaredoingimportantresearch(#31),sexyprojects(#18),andarecapableofconvincingpeerreviewersthattheirgrantrequestis“themostperfect”(#39).Somecommentedthattheydonotapplybecausetheirworkis“notbigpictureenoughorlongtermenough(#43,also#33);othersareconcernedthattheywilltakeonsomethingtoobigfortheirabilities,particularlygiventhetimetableassociatedwiththegrant(#9).

“IenvisionorbelievethatforNSF,theprojecthastobeimportantandwellthoughtout.Iamcapableof

doingthat,butIfeelthatIamnotquitetheretowritetheproposalthatNSFexpectsorIexpectofmyself.”

Thosewhohaveparticipatedinothers’grantsmayquestionwhethertheycanbecompetitiveassolePrincipalInvestigator(#11)orputtogetherteams. Asawhole,intervieweesappearpragmaticinhandlingnegativefeedbackfrompeerreviewersofbothgrantsandpublications(wedidnotdistinguishinourquestion).Commentsaretriagedintothreemaincategories:

25

1)constructiveandactionable,whethertoughornot; 2)irrelevant,wrong,silly,orpolitical;and, 3)negative,brutal,discouraging,anddemoralizing.Whilenegativecriticismisabarrierthatcanpreventresubmission(#32),itcanbemoderatedbythe“medium”ofwhoprovidesthecriticism.Inencouraginganddiscouragingwomen,grantofficersandeditorscarrymoreweightthanpeerreviewers(#21,36).IrememberareviewfromaDissertationImprovementGrantproposalthatwasreallymeanandhurtful–“youradvisorhasnobusinesssupportingthis,”“youshouldgivethisupnow.”Thesortofthingthatcanmakeyouwanttorunandhide…orfight.Whenwomenhavegottentothepointofsubmittingtheirgrantsandpublications,theyintendsuccess.Resubmissionisarecognizedpartoftheprocessandmostsetbacksaretemporary.Mentoring

Mentorsplayaroleinshapingandmediatingperceptionsaboutgranting.Weaskedourinterviewees,specifically,“Didyoureceivementoringfromyourinstitution,includingotherfaculty,indevelopinggrantproposalsforsubmission?”

Lackofknowledgeofagrantingagencyanditsprocessesisabarriertoapplication.IfthewomanisnotfamiliarwithNSForrelevantgrantingagency,shereliesonherinstitution,mentors,andcolleagues’experiencesforguidance.Womenvariouslyknowabout,trust,andrelyuponsupportfromtheircollegeanduniversitysponsoredprojectsoffices.Severalwomencommentedthatsuchprogramsdidnotexistwhentheywerejuniorfaculty,butsuggestthatthesituationisimproving(#15).Onewoman(#26)repliedthathergrantingofficewasn’tuseful:“Godno!SomeonewouldhavetoknowwhatIdo.”Thatuniversity-wideofficesdonotunderstandarchaeologywasechoed,lessdramatically,byothers,aswell(#38,53).Furthermore,thesetypesofofficesdonotnecessarilyprovidethetypesofadvicesought,suchasthehelpdevelopingquestionsandoperationalframeworks.Thosewhohaveworkedwiththeirinstitutionsfindthemselvesinvolvedwithacumbersomebureaucracy(#4)providingnon-substantiveencouragement“Go,go,you’redoinggreat!”(#53)ordiscussingpolicydetailssuchasbillingperdiemversusactualexpensesbecause“thecheap,all-cashtacotruckdoesn’tusuallygivereceiptsandaretoobusytosignoneforyou”(#55),and#35).Theynotethatthesituationisdifferentforcolleaguesinotherfieldsthatbringinmoremoney,notingthattheuniversityprovidesstafftohelprewritegrantproposals(#26).

Whenwomenarenotisolatedasoneoffewarchaeologistsintheirdepartment,facultycolleaguesorassignedmentorsarevaluedresources(#27).Iftheirgraduateschoolexperiencewasagoodone,womenturntopeersfromtheirstudentdays(#26),advisors,orcommitteemembersforadvicethatwillhelpthemcraftsuccessful,welltargetedproposals(#15,50).Spouses/partnerswhoworkinthefieldarealsoprofessionalhelpmates.Intervieweescommentontheneedtohavesomeonewitharealtrackrecordofgettinggrantstobeasoundingboard(#21),whilealsoacknowledgingthatsomeoftheirpeerresourcesmaynothavethatmuchmoreexperiencethantheydo(#33).However,anumberofwomenalsocommentedthattheyworkedinisolation(#53)andthattheefforttoestablishnetworkswasaburdenontimespentwiththeirstudentsandonthempersonally(#33,#53).Somewomennotedthe

26

needforfemalementors(#26),butforthosewhocommentedongender,experienceandcollegialityappearedtobeatleastasimportant.Networksofmentorshipandcollaborationareclearlyimportantfactorsinwhetherornotwomenhadpersistedintheirapplicationformajorgrants,althoughtheworktomaintainmentorshiporcollaborativerelationshipsoftenfallsoutsidetheboundsofrecognizedwork.Overall,thesubjectswhohadappliedformajorgrantsreportedagenerallystrongsenseofmentorshipandcollaborationacrosstheircareers.Thisdistinguishedthemingeneralfromthegroupthathadnotappliedforamajorgrantsincereceivingtheirdissertationwho,onthewhole,reportedrelativelynegativeexperiencesofmentorshipandcollaboration.Muchofthiswasexpressedasalackofcasualcontactswithwhomwomenfeltcomfortablegeneratingorrefiningresearchquestionsandmethodologies.Insmallorinterdisciplinarysettingsinparticulartheyfelttheylackedcolleaguesofwhomtheycould“askaquickquestion,”andinsteadhadtoseek“outside”helpthroughphoneandemailcontact.Thiswasalsotrueofnon-applicantsinlargerdepartmentswherehistoriesofhostileinteractionsorcompetition,subtleformsofdiscriminationorexclusion,challengestotenureandpromotion,etc.leftwomenfeelingthattheycouldnotturntothecolleaguesclosestathand.Collaborationmaybeparticularlysalientinthepersistenceandsuccessof“borderline”applicants—thosewithhigherteachingloadsbutwhohadexpressedinterestanddesiretocontinuetoengageinhigh-levelresearch.Threesuchsubjectsemergedinthisstudy.OneinformantfromanMA-grantingprogramreportedthatitwascollaborationwithaclosecolleagueoutsideofherdepartment—someoneshehadknownsincegraduateschool–whohadencouragedhertopersistinpursuingaparticularprojectmakingmultipleapplicationsuntiltheyweresuccessful.Twoothers(onefromanMA-grantinginstitution,theotherfromaBA-onlyprogram)hadappliedtoNSFandabandonedtheprojectbecausetheyfelttheylackedtheopenfeedback(asopposedtoanonymousreviews)theyneededtosuccessfullyrefinetheirapplications.Perhapsnotcoincidentally,thesesubjectswerealsoworkingassoloPI’s.Asecondwayinwhichtheworktomaintainmentoringandcollaborationimpactsgrantapplicationforwomenwasinthepeerreviewprocess.Thosewhohadappliedforgrantsmaintainedoverallaneutralviewofthepeerevaluationprocess;itcouldberigorousandsometimes“peoplesaystupidthings,”buttheprocessworked.Manyreporteddirectorindirectsupportofmentorsandcollaborators,peoplewhoaffirmedthevalidityofaproposalandwhothenencouraged/collaboratedonresubmission.Ontheotherhand,thosewhohadnotappliedformajorgrantsheldanoverallnegativeopinionofthepeerreviewprocessandsuggestedthatslowandsometimesdiscouragingprogressthroughthesystemforbothgrantsandpublicationslimitedtheirabilityordesiretosubmitmajorgrantapplications;discouragingreviewsslowedrevisionsandresubmissionsofpublicationsandhaving“toofew”publicationswascitedasareasonnottoapplytoahighlycompetitivegrantprocess.Acrosstheboard,informantsalsoidentifiedwork/lifebalanceissuesasamajorfactorintheirresearchcareer.Twoelementsplayedthemostcriticalrole—childcareandspouses.Firstandmostuniformly,thoseresearcherswithchildrencitedthemasahindrancetotheresearchprocessingeneral.Whereadequatearrangementscouldbemadeforchildrenwhileconductingresearch,arrangingforchildcarewasextraworkforwhichinformantsreportedtakingprimaryresponsibility.Forothers,combinationsoffinancialcosts,familyexpectations3,andsafety/healthconcernsforchildrenwerecitedascontributing

3Familyexpectationshereencompassawidevarietyofissuesincludingbutnotlimitedtohowlongfamilymembersthoughtitwasacceptableforaparenttobeawayfromachild,willingnessofaspouseorotherfamilymemberstoassistwithchildcare,anddefinitionsofwhatconstitutes“adequate”childcare.

27

factorsinpostponinggrantapplicationsevenamongstthosewhohadgoneontomakeapplications.Singlemothersinthesamplefoundthecostofchildcareaparticulardeterrenttoapplyingforthosegrantswhichdonotallowbudgetingforsuchcosts.Intermsofspouses,ourdatarevealtwopatterns.First,andperhapsnotsurprisingly,archaeologiststendtomarryotherarchaeologists.Acrosstheboard,themostcommonoccupationgivenforaspousewas“archaeologist”withrelatedfieldssuchasculturalanthropologyandhistoryadistantsecondplace.Applicantsandnon-applicantsvaried,however,inthatamongapplicants,twothirdsofthosewhoweremarriedreportedbeingmarriedtoanarchaeologistwhileonlytwofifthsofthenon-applicantsreportedhavingmarriedanarchaeologist.Similarly,amongstNSFapplicants,spousesweremuchmorelikelytoholdaPh.D.(abouttwo-thirds)thanamongstnon-applicantsforwhichonlyhalfofthespouseswerereportedholdingaPh.D.Second,abouttwothirdsofthegrantapplicantsreportedthattheirpartnerwashelpful,whileonlyathirdofnon-applicantsreportedhelpfulpartners.Twounsuccessfulapplicantsalsoreportedpartnersbeing“notparticularlyhelpful.”Whatconstituted“helpful”wasleftopen-ended.Subjectswith“helpful”partnersmostoftendescribedmutualrelationshipsinwhichsubjectandspouseactedassoundingboardsforeachother’sideas,collaboratedongrantsandprojects,helpedwithrevisionsandresubmissionsofproposalsandpublications,and/orsupportedpracticalsolutionstochildcareduringfieldresearch.Womenwithapartnernotdescribedas“helpful”sometimessawtheirpartnerasemotionallyorfinanciallysupportive,butnotofferinganydirectsupportofcareergoals.Inafewcases,however,subjectsattributedlimitsontheirresearchascompromiseswith“nothelpful”partners. Programofficers,thebestresourceforreliableinformationaboutagrantingprogram,wererarelymentionedduringconversationsaboutmentorship.Interviewee#40recalledthatheruniversitybroughtinpeoplefromfundingagenciestospeaktofaculty.Sheremarkedthat“Inonediscussionatsession,amansaidthathewouldcallXatagency,andaskwhethertheywouldfundprojecthehadinmind.WomenwereshockedandnotedthatitisdifferentwhenJohncallsFrankthanwhenawomancallsFrank.But,moreimportantly,womendon’twanttoaskforspecialattentionorfavors,andseecallingtheofficeasdoingthis.Menwereshockedatthisresponsesinceitistheprogramofficer’sjobtorespondtosuchqueries.”Interviewee#52summarizestheissuewell:Ithinkthateveryone—andespeciallywomen—needmentorsandpeoplewhocheerthemon.Sure,yourfamilycandothis,butyouneedsomeoneinthesamefieldwhocanprovideconstructivecriticismwhilemakingitclearthattheysupportyouandyourideas.Manywomenfindthemselvesinplaceswheretheydonothavethatsupportandhavenostructuretorelyupon.WhileIthinkthatmenaresometimesinthesameposition,theirresponsesmaybedifferent.SuccessStoriesOfthe36womeninterviewed,onlyonestatedthatshedidnotseeherselfassuccessfulinanyway.Thereasonsthatwomenprovidedasthebasisfortheirsuccessfellintooneormoreoffourcategories:1)personalqualities;2)trainingandeducation;3)familyqualities;and4)institutionalqualities.

28

Table11listsallofthequalitiesthatwerementionedbyintervieweesasoneormoreofthereasonsfortheirsuccess,orrelativesuccess.Thoseitemsinredandwitha*arebyfarthemostcommonlycited.Underpersonalqualities,themostcommonlystatedreasonsforsuccesswerepatienceandpersistence.Undertrainingandeducation,graduatetrainingandgoodrolemodelswereseenasmostinfluential.Familysupport,reflectedinmanyforms,wascriticaltomany,andinstitutionsweremosthelpfulwhentheyprovidedsupportivecolleagues,departments,andinstitutionalstructures,aswellashelpfulagencyprogramofficers.

Table11.TheReasonsthatWomenProvidedastheBasisofTheirSuccess

Interviews:ReasonsWomenProvidedastheBasisofTheirSuccessPersonalqualities Patience* Persistence* Self-starter,motivation Interpersonalskills Collegiality Leadershipqualities BeingpassionateaboutwhatIdo Self-confidencewithoutarroganceTrainingandEducation Graduatetraining* Goodrolemodels* Abilitytowrite Abilitytoconductproofofconceptstudies Abilitytofigureoutpoliticsofaplace Goodsenseofmultidisciplinarityandscience CRMbackground/diversebackground Postdoc Friendsincohort Fundraisingability Processofeducatingmyuniversityaboutarchaeology Beingasqueakywheel PublishingandgettinggrantsFamilyqualities Familysupport* RaisedinacademicbackgroundInstitutionalqualities Supportivecolleagues/department/institution* Helpfulprogramofficers* Campusgrantsoffice UniversityappreciationforwhatIdo Typeofuniversity/institution

Red*indicatesmostcommonlycitedreasonsAsomewhatsurprisingfindingoftheinterviewsisthefactthatamajorityofwomenlistedtheirgraduatetrainingandgoodrolemodelsaskeystotheirsuccess,regardlessoftheageofthewomanorthelengthoftimesincetheyhadattendedgraduateschool.Thissuggeststhatafocusonstrong,

29

consistent,andsupportivegraduatetrainingindesigningprojectsandapplyingforfunding,aswellasotherprofessionalactivities,remainsacriticalkeytofuturesuccess.

ConclusionsHerearetheoriginalhypothesesandanassessmentofwhatourresearchindicatesforeach:1. Thedisparitiesinresearchgrantsubmissionsareproportionaltothenumberofmalevs.female

archaeologistsintheprofession,andespeciallytothenumberofmalevs.femalearchaeologistsinjobsettingswheregrantwritingandgrantrelatedresearchisencouraged(i.e.,academicsettingswithgraduateprogramsandresearchmuseums).

ThishypothesiswasthefirstthatwasproposedandonethatiswellsupportedbythedatawecompiledusinginformationprovidedbytheAAAandintheAAAGuide.AlthoughwomenaregrantedmorethanhalfofallPh.D.degreestoday,theyarenotsimilarlyrepresentedinprofessionalpositions.Withinacademia,womenaremorelikelytobefoundininstitutionsthatgrantonlyBachelordegrees;theyarelesslikelytobefoundinPh.D.grantinginstitutions.Wediscusspossiblereasonsforthissituationinmoredetailelsewhereinthisreportbutitisclearthatthesituationhasnotimprovedasmuchasmightbeexpectedgiventhepresenceofwomeningraduateprogramsandinearningtheirdoctorates.OurintervieweesinallacademicpositionsunderscoredthatgrantswereveryimportantforpromotionandtenuredecisionsandsoonceinthesepositionstheyshouldbeapplyingforexternalsupportbutthenumbersofwomeninacademiaarenotkeepingupwithPh.D.production.

2.Womeninarchaeologyhaveheavierserviceburdens.Forexample,morewomenmaybein

administrativepositionsthatconstraintheamountoftimespentonresearchandgrantsubmissions.Theymayalsohaveheavieradvisingburdens,particularlytofemaleandunderrepresentedminoritystudents.

Ourinterviewsindicatethatwomenhaveheavyserviceburdensandarestretchedverythin,butwe

donothavethedatatoindicatethattheirburdenisheavierthanmales,orthatfemalearchaeologistshaveheavierburdensthanresearchersinothersubdisciplines.However,thecombinationofpositionswithmoreteachingandaheavyserviceburdenwouldcertainlyaddtotheconstraintsonwomenarchaeologists.Afollowupstudythatincludesinterviewswithmenwouldbehelpfulinshowingrelativedegreesofserviceandadvisingformenandwomen.

3.Becausearchaeologyis(orperceivedas)morefield-basedthanothersubfieldsofanthropology,and

familyresponsibilitieskeepwomenfromdoingextensivefieldwork(particularlyoverseas),fewerwomenapplyforNSFgrantsunlesstheyareapplyingforafieldworkcomponent.

Thishypothesishasthreecomponents.Oneiswhetherwomendolessfieldworkthenmen,especiallyascomparedtoothersubdisciplinesinanthropology.ThedatafromNGSisespeciallyusefulhereforcomparisonsincetheyONLYfundfieldwork.Asthedatafromthisprogramshows,U.S.-basedmenareapplyingatratesalmosttwiceashighasU.S.-basedwomen,parallelingtheNSFdataandthedemographicdataforacademicemployment.However,womenweremoresuccessfulinthesegrantapplications.TheNSFdatadoesshowthatmoreapplicationsareforfieldworkthanforlaboratorywork.Intermsofthesecondpartofthishypothesis,almosteverywomanweintervieweddiscussedproblemsoffamilyresponsibilitiesandschedulingfieldwork.Ratherthankeepingthemout

30

ofthefieldaltogether,however,manydiscussedhowtheydidfieldworkthroughacombinationofsupportivepartnersandcreativechildcare.Finally,severalwomenweinterviewedindicatedthattheythoughtthatNSFwouldonlyfundfieldworkprojects(eventhoughthisisnotthecase).Itmaybethatsomewomen’sperceptionsofwhatagencieswillfundareaffectingapplicationnumbers.

4.WomentendtoconductsmallerprojectsandthereforegotoWenner-Gren,NationalGeographic,and

otherfundingsourcesforsmalleramountsofmoney.

NSFdatashowsthatthedollaramountsofsuccessfulgrantsarenotstatisticallydifferentbetweenmenandwomen.However,thedatafromWenner-GrenandNGSsuggestthatwomenareapplyingathigherratesthantoNSF.ForWenner-Gren,itappearsthatanearlierdisparitythatcorrespondedwiththe2009recessionhassomewhatresolveditself,andforNGSwomenhaverecentlyshowndramaticsuccessinfunding.BothoftheseorganizationshavecapsonfundinglevelsthataremuchlowerthanNSFaveragesandtheirapplicationsaremuchshorterinlength.However,notethattherearefewerarchaeologicalapplicantstotheseprograms.Manyofthewomenweintervieweddemonstratedapracticethatwehavetermedscaffolding—puttingtogetherapackageofsmallergrantsinordertogetintothefield.Scaffoldingmayincludestretchingoutstartuppackagesandotherinternalsourcesoffunding,obtainingfundingfromfederalandstateheritageprograms(especiallyforNorthAmericanists),andgrantsfromfoundationssuchasLeakeyandAlphawood.NEHistheonlyagencywheresomethingapproachingparityisdemonstratedandshowsasteadyincreaseinsuccessfulapplicationsbywomenoverthepasttwodecades.ThispatternforNEHmaybebecausethegrantsforthisanalysisincludedfellowships,andfellowshipsarefocusedonanindividualscholar’sproject.However,threeofourintervieweeshadappliedtoNEHforcollaborative,researchprojects,twoofwhoweresuccessfulandasaresulthadnotappliedtoNSF.InthecaseoftheseNEHcollaborativegrantstheyweren’tsmaller,butonparwithwhatNSFwouldhavefunded.Togetherthesedatasuggestthatitisn’tprojectsizethatisresponsibleforwomen’slowersubmissionrates,butotherfactorsincludingcreativescaffolding.

5.WomenaregoingtootherfundingsourceswithinNSFtoobtainfunding,manyofwhicharelarger

thanArchaeologyProgramgrants,thereforeloweringthenumbersforArchaeologyProgramitself.

AsNSFArchaeologycontinueswiththesameleveloffunding—orevenlessgiveninflation—thereisnoquestionthatbothmenandwomenarelookingtootherfundingsourceswithinNSF.WedonotknowifwomenaredoingthisatasignificantlyhigherratethanmenbutseveralwomenmentionedthattheyhadappliedtoalternativeprogramsinNSFinsteadofNSFArchaeology,includinglarge-scaleresearch,training,andlaboratoryinstrumentationgrants.However,onlyonewomanmentionedapplying(albeitunsuccessfully)toArchaeometry,whichremainsheavilydominatedbymalePIs.

6.WomenmaynotperceivetheirresearchassuitableforNSFandmorewomenareapplyingfor,and

beingfundedthrough,otheragenciessuchasNEH.

Ourinterviewdatasuggestthatthisstatementistrueforanumberofwomen.Fromstatementsmadebymany,menappearmorelikelytoapplyandseewhathappens,whilewomentellusthattheybelievethattheirproposalsmustbewell-honed(oneusedtheword“perfect”)beforeapplying.Inafewcases,women’sperceptionsofNSFmaynotmatchtherealityofwhattheagencywillconsiderandfund,whichsuggeststhatcontinuedoutreachonthepartofNSFprogramofficersis

31

important.7.Women’sreactionstonegativereviewsaredifferentfrommen’sandhaveresultedintheirfeeling

discouragedfromresubmission.Iftrue,thistrendmaybecompoundedbythecurrenttrendforproposalstonotbefundedduringthefirstroundwithinNSFArchaeology.

Wedonothavethedatatocomparethereactionsofwomenandmentonegativereviews,butourinterviewssuggestthatnegativereviewsdohavesomeeffectonreapplicationsbysomewomen.Inatleastacoupleofcases,reviewswereharshenoughtoaffectdelaysinreapplicationsandintheextreme,thedecisionnottoreapply.Sucharesultsuggeststhatwomen’sconfidencewasaffectedbynegativecritiques,butaswithsubmissionstoarchaeologyjournals(Bardolph2014:535-536),wedonothavethedatatoassessthedegreetowhichnegativereviewsaffectresubmissionsinagenderedway.Researchonwomeninscienceandotherfieldsshowsthatwomenmaybelessconfidentinwhathasbeenrecentlycalled“theconfidencegap”(KayandShipman2014).Whilesomeofthisresearchisspurious,especiallywhencitingbiologicalfactors(seeBleidornetal.2016),itisclearthatsocialfactorsaffectingwomen’sconfidencehasanimpactontheirparticipationinsciencemoregenerally.However,wealsolearnedthatwomenareoftenmakingstrategicdecisionsaboutNSF—theyhavelimitedtime,andaremorelikelytogotograntingagencieswithahigherrateofsuccessthangobacktoNSFmultipletimes.Inaddition,otherfundingorganizationshavemoreuser-friendlyapplicationformsthatrequirelesstimeinvestment.

8.Womenworkmoreontheirownthanmeninarchaeologyandthismayhaveaneffectonthe

frequencyofgrantsubmissions.

NSFdataindicatethatwomendonotcollaborateasmuchasmen:50percentofmenhaveco-PIs(ofeithergender),whileonly16percentofwomendid.Interviewsdoindicatecollaborationbymanywomen,includinginmanycaseswiththeirpartners,buttherelativelylowerrateonNSFproposalsisofconcern.Collaborationisanimportantvariableintheproductionofscienceresultingin,amongotherbenefits,highpublicationsratesinmanyfields(e.g.,LeeandBozeman2009).Ofcourse,collaborationcandetractfromresearchsuccessiftootime-consuming,ortheresearchersareincompatibleorunproductive.ButasLeeandBozemanpointout,thegrowingtrendtowardinterdisiplinaryoreventransdisciplinaryresearch(Mode2researchinGibbonsetal.1994)oftenrequiresresearchteams.Weexpectthatthiswillbemoreandmoreimportantinthefutureandthelowcollaborationratesbywomenarethereforeofconcern.Wealsothinkthatlowcollaborationrates’effectsonpublicationratesservetodelayreapplicationsofwomen,stretchingoutthenumberoftimesthattheymightapplyforNSFgrantsovertheircareer.

9.Thenatureofarchaeologicalfieldresearchincludesanumberofstresses,suchaslongfieldseasons,

difficultlivingconditions,longdistancetravel,coordinationoflargecrews,andcloselivingquarterswithcolleagues.Suchconditionslimitwomen’sabilitytofindappropriatechildcare.

Childcareandfamilyresponsibilityconcernsareofcriticalimportancetowomenastheyplantheirresearchprojects.Asnotedearlier,ittakesagreatdealofplanningandmanipulatingforawomantolineeverythingupsothatshecangointothefield.Wehavelearnedthatitisfarmorereliableforanumberofwomentoputtogethersmalleramountsofmoneytohavegreatercertaintythattheirplanswillworkwiththeirschedules.AnumberofwomennotedthatthereturnoninvestmentforNSFgrantpreparationwasnotalwaysworthwhile.

32

Thewomenweinterviewedtendtobepracticalintheirgoals;theyanalyzetheirsituationsasoneofhavinglimitedtime,andneedingtousethattimewisely.Further,theynotethattheycanscaffoldfundingthatismorereadilyavailableinordertoputtogetherafieldseason.Giventhefactthatmanywomenmustcoordinatefamilyandotherresponsibilitieswellinadvance,theirdecisionisoftentotryforfundingthatismorecertain,ratherthansettingupplansthathavetoberevisedwhenfundingdoesnotcomethroughasexpected.ThosefrustratedbylackoffederalgrantsuccessmaydecidethatinvestingtimeinwritingNSFproposalsthatmayrequireseveralsubmissionsisnotthebestuseoftheirtime.Theincreasingpressurefromuniversitiesandcollegestobringinexternalgrantswithindirectcostsincreasestheirfrustrations.Whilethisisobviouslythecaseformenaswell,womentendtofocusconcernsonmanagingtheirresponsibilitiesinrelationtoschedulingfieldwork.Inarchaeologytoday,morethanhalfofallPh.D.degreesareawardedtowomen.Withinacademia,andeveninotherprofessionalarchaeologypositions,womenarenotproportionatelyplacedinjobs.Withinacademia,womentendtoappearinthosepositionswithmoreteachingandnograduatestudents.TheoverallincreaseinwomenattheentryAssistantProfessorlevelisapositivesign,butonlyiftheseindividualscanmaintainproductivityandgetpromotionsandtenure.Itisnotclearifthelowerproportionofwomeninresearch-intensiveinstitutionsisdueto:1)womennotapplyingforthesejobsbecauseofconcernforthedemandofthepositions,2)menbeinggivenpreferenceoverwomeninhiring,3)mencurrentlyinthesepositionsretiringlaterthananticipated,and/or4)fewerofthesepositionsbeingfilled.Ourresearchsuggeststhatallofthesereasonsmaybeoperational.WomenarenotapplyingforNSFandothergrantsatthesamerateasmen,andthismaybeafunctionoftheirsmallernumbersinresearchinstitutionsandgreaterpresenceinteaching-intensivecollegesanduniversities.However,successingrantsmanshipoftendependsonre-applyingforgrants,andwomendonotnecessarilyreapplyasoften.Formanywomen,thetimeinvestedinwritingandrewritinggrantproposalsmaybeseenasapoorinvestmentoftheirtimewhentheycanscaffoldsmalleramountsofgrantandfoundationfundsforfieldprojectsinordertogettheworkdoneandmaintainbetterschedulingofwork.Sincewomengenerallyjuggleotherresponsibilitiesinadditiontotheircareers,planningforadependablefieldseasonoftentakespriorityoverbeingawardedaprestigiousgrant.RecommendationsWomenweinterviewedraisedseveralimportantpointsthatshouldbeconsideredbygrantingagencies,collegesanduniversities,andprofessionalassociationssuchastheSAA.Womenmayoperateonadifferentscheduleforcareerdevelopment,theymaybemorepragmaticthanaspirationalintheirmotivations,theymayrequiredifferentkindsoffunding,andtheyneedmentoringandclearadviceonresearchdevelopmentandfunding,aswellassupportivepartnersandfamilies.Inanarticlefocusedonwomen’sunderrepresentationinsciencefields,CeciandWilliams(2011)highlightseveralissuesandrecommendationsthatwehavefoundalsoapplytoarchaeology:• Theyfoundnogenderbiasinawardinggrants;men’sandwomen’sgrantswereapprovedatthe

samerate.“(T)heweightofevidenceoverwhelminglypointstoagender-fairgrantreviewprocess”(CeciandWilliams2011:3160).

• “(T)hemostsalientreasonsforwomen’sunderrepresentationtodayarecareerpreferencesandfertility/lifestylechoices,bothfreeandconstrained”(CeciandWilliams2011:3161).Obviously,forarchaeologyandotherdisciplines,weareconcernedwiththechoicesthatareconstrained,and

33

thereissomeevidencethatthefieldworknatureofarchaeologyplacesanotherburdenondevelopingsuccessfulprojects.

• “(U)niversitiesmightexploreoptionsforofferingwomenpart-timetenure-trackjobs(withconcomitantlylongerperiodsoftimeinwhichtoamassatenureportfolio),poststhatcouldseguetofull-timeoncewomenwereready.However,implementingsuchflexibleoptionswillrequiremotivationandcommitmentofresources,andraisesimportantquestionsthatresearchwillneedtoresolve(e.g.,theimpactongraduatestudentsandpostdocsworkingwithpart-timefaculty;waysto“game”thepart-timeoptionfortenure)”(CeciandWilliams2011:3161-2).

• “Thelinearcareerpathofthemodalmalescientistofthepastmaynotbetheonlyroutetosuccess,anddepartmentsanduniversitiesshouldbeencouragedandfundedtoexperimentwithalternatelifecourseoptions.Apartnershipbetweentheacademyandfederalfundingagenciescouldbeinstrumentalinresearchingsuchalternatives”(CeciandWilliams2011:3162)

Othercreativesuggestionsprovidedbywomenweinterviewedincludednotingtheneedforchildcare—severalaskedwhygrantingagenciescouldnotapprovesuchcostsaspartofagrant.Othersnotedthatamoreextendedtimelineforawardedgrantscouldbehelpfulintheirsuccessfulcompletionofaproject.Thetopicofmentoringcameupasanimportantissueinanumberofdiscussionswithwomen.Allgraduatestudentsneedtrainingonresearchprojectdevelopment,grantwriting,grantadministration,andotherprofessionalissues,butwomenespeciallyneedthistrainingsincetheyoftendonotreceivethekindofinformaltrainingandmentoringthatmenhavetraditionallyhad.Womenwhoreceivedsuchtrainingingraduateschoolraisedtheimportanceofsuchpreparationagainandagain.Thistrainingshouldincludeattentiontofactorssuchascollaborationingrantsandpublications,andhowtomanageresearchteams;theimportanceofscaffoldingtoobtainfundingforresearch;understandingwhatdifferentagencies/programswillorwillnotfund;promotingconfidenceandhowtoaddressnegativereviews;andplanningfortheinevitabilityofresubmissions,amongothertopics.Grantingagencies,aswellaspublicationeditors,shouldremovereviewerswhoprovideadhominemattacksintheirreviews.Thesekindsofreviewsarenotproductiveforeithermenorwomen.Inaddition,itisimportantfortheseagenciesandeditorstobealerttogenderbiasesinreviews.Itwouldbeespeciallypowerfulforgrantingagencies,professionalorganizations(liketheSAA),anduniversitiestocreateapartnershiptotrainandmentorwomen,andresearchalternativecareerpaths.Thetraditionallinearpathmaynotbetheonlypossibleroutetosuccess.Womenneedtolearnpracticalknowledgeaboutdevelopingresearchprojects,aswellassimpleinformationsuchasknowingthatapproachinggrantagencyofficersisstandardpracticethatcansignificantlyandpositivelyaffecttheirgrantproposals.Recommendationsforfundingagencies:

1. Makeitclearwhattopicsorareasofstudyyoufundanddonotfund.Forexample,manypeopleintervieweddidnotthinkthatNSFfundedhistoricalarchaeology,andthatWenner-GrendoesnotfundU.S.-basedresearch.

2. Makeitclearwhocanapplyforfundingandwhocannot.3. Aretherespecifictopicsorareasofresearchthatyoudonotfund?4. Postsamplesoffullproposals(likeNEH).5. WhatotherNSFprogramsareappropriateforarchaeologicalapplications?6. Explicitlyallowapplicantstoincludefundingforchildcareinthefield.

Recommendationsforapplicants:

34

1. AlwayscontacttheProgramOfficer.2. Lookatpastsuccessfulgranttitlesandabstracts.3. Askforsampleproposalsinyourareaofinterest.4. Keeprevisingandresubmittingproposalsifyoureceivesomepositivereviews.Some

applicantssubmitproposalsthreeorfourtimesbeforereceivingawards.5. Thinkabouthowtoputtogetherresearchteams.Moreresearchisbeingfundedand

conductedwithlagerresearchgroups.Theloneresearchermodelisbecominglessviableforanumberofkindsofarchaeologicalprojects.

RecommendationsforSAA:1. Encourageprogramofficerstoconductin-personandonlinetrainingthroughtheSAA.

Sessionsshouldbetailoredforseniorproposalwriters,notjuststudentsinterestedindissertationfunding.

2. Initiatedatacollectiononadjunctandpart-timefaculty,aswellasnon-tenuretrack/limitedterm/shortcontract/nonpermanentfaculty.

3. IncorporatespecificquestionsfortheDiscoveringArchaeologistsofAmericassurvey.4. Supportandsupplymentoringonavarietyoftopicsrelatedtodevelopingprojectsand

collaborations,andapplyingforresearchgrants.ReferencesCitedBardolph,DanaN.2014 ACriticalEvaluationofRecentGenderedPublishingTrendsinAmericanArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity79:522-540Bardolph,DanaN.,andAmberM.VanDerwerker2016 SociopoliticsinSoutheasternArchaeology.SoutheasternArchaeology2016:1-19.Beaudry,MaryC.1994 WomenHistoricalArchaeologists:Who'sCounting?ArchaeologicalPapersoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation5:225–228.Beaudry,MaryC.,andJacquelynWhite1994 CowgirlswiththeBlues?AStudyofWomen’sPublicationandtheCitationofWomen’sWorkinHistoricalArchaeology.InWomeninArchaeology,editedbyCherylClaassen,pp.138–158.UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.Bleidorn,Wiebke,RubenC.Arslan,JaapJ.A.Denissen,PeterJ.Rentfrow,JochenE.Gebauer,JeffPotter,andSamuelD.Gosling2016 AgeandGenderDifferencesinSelf-Esteem—ACross-CulturalWindow.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology111(3):396-410.Burkholder,JoEllen2006 DoingItforOurselves:WomenandParticipationintheSAAAnnualMeetings.SAAArchaeologicalRecord6(2):27–31.Ceci,StephenJ.,andWendyM.Williams2011 CurrentCausesofWomen’sUnderrepresentationinScience.ProceedingsoftheNational

35

AcademyofSciences108:3157-3162.Chester,Hilary,NanA.Rothschild,andDianaWall1994 WomeninHistoricalArchaeology:TheSHASurvey(with).InEquityIssuesforWomeninArchaeology,editedbyPeggyNelson,SarahNelson,andAlisonWylie.AAA/ArcheologyDivision.Claassen,Cheryl,MichaelO’Neal,TamaraWilson,ElizabethArnold,andBrentLandsell1999 HearingandReadingSoutheasternArchaeology:AReviewoftheAnnualMeetingsofSEACfrom1983–1995andtheJournalSoutheasternArchaeology.SoutheasternArchaeology18:85–97.Clauset,Aaron,SamuelArbesman,andDanielB.Larremore2014 SystematicInequalityandHierarchyinFacultyHiringNetworks.ScienceAdvancesI:e1400005.doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400005.Finkel,SusanK.,andStevenG.Olswang1996 ChildRearingasaCareerImpedimenttoWomenAssistantProfessors.ReviewofHigherEducation19:123–139.Fox,MaryF.,andCarolColatrella2006 Participation,Performance,andAdvancementofWomeninAcademicScienceandEngineering:WhatisatIssueandWhy.TheJournalofTechnologyTransfer31(3):377-386.Gibbons,Michael,CamilleLimoges,HelgaNowotny,SimonSchwartzman,PeterScott,andMartinTrow1994 TheNewProductionofKnowledge:TheDynamicsofScienceandResearchinContemporarySocieties.SagePublications,ThousandOaks,CA.Hutson,ScottR.1998 InstitutionalandGenderEffectsonAcademicHiringPractices.SAABulletin16(4):19–21.Hutson,ScottR.2002 GenderedCitationPracticesinAmericanAntiquityandOtherArchaeologicalJournals.AmericanAntiquity67:331–342.Kay,Katty,andClaireShipman2014 TheConfidenceGap.TheAtlantic(May).Accessedonlineon10/2/16athttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-confidence-gap/359815/Larivière,Vincent,ChaoqunNi,YvesGingras,BlaiseCronin,andCassidyR.Sugimoto2013 Bibliometrics:GlobalGenderDisparitiesinScience.Nature504(7479):211-213.Lee,Sooho,andBarryBozeman2005 TheImpactofResearchCollaborationonScientificProductivity.SocialStudiesofScience35:673-702.Leslie,Sarah-Jane,AndreiCimpian,MeredithMeyer,andEdwardFreeland2015 SupplementaryMaterialsforExpectationsofBrillianceUnderlieGenderDistributionsAcrossAcademicDisciplines,Science347,262.DOI:10.1126/science.1261375

36

Nelson,MargaretC.,SarahM.Nelson,andAlisonWylie(editors)1994 EquityIssuesforWomeninArchaeology.ArcheologicalPapersoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociationNo.5.Washington,D.C.Olsen,Deborah,SueA.Maple,andFrancesK.Stage1995 WomenandMinorityFacultyJobSatisfaction:ProfessionalRoleInterests,ProfessionalSatisfactions,andInstitutionalFit.TheJournalofHigherEducation66(3):267-293.Park,ShelleyM.1996 Research,Teaching,andService:WhyShouldn’tWomen’sWorkCount?TheJournalofHigherEducation67(1):46-84.Victor,Katherine,andMaryC.Beaudry1992 Women’sParticipationinAmericanPrehistoricandHistoricArchaeology:AComparativeLookattheJournalsAmericanAntiquityandHistoricalArchaeology.InExploringGenderthroughArchaeology,editedbyCherylClaassen,pp.11–22.PrehistoryPress,Madison.West,JevinD.,JenniferJacquet,MollyM.King,ShelleyJ.Correll,andCarlT.Bergstrom2013 TheRoleofGenderinScholarlyAuthorship.PLoSONE8(7):e66212.Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.Wolverton,Ann,LisaNagaoka,andMimiWolverton2014 BreakingIn:Women’sAccountsofHowChoicesShapeSTEMCareers.Stylus,Sterling,VI.