MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING


October 16-17, 2001

National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

Members Present:

Dr. Suzanne G. Brainard, Chair, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Vice-Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Kenneth E. Barner, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
Dr. Bruce A. Jackson, Boston University School of Medicine, Wellesley Hills, MA
Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, RTP, NC
Dr. Indira Nair, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Gustavo Roig, Florida International University, Miami, FL
Dr. Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Gary Toranzos, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
Dr. Thomas Windham, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO

Members Absent:

None

Executive Liaison and Acting Executive Secretary:

Mr. John F. Wilkinson, Staff Associate for Workforce Development, NSF


The fall meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) was held October 16-17, 2001 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.


Tuesday, October 16, 2001

Welcome and Introductions

Dr. Suzanne Brainard, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. and welcomed the Committee members. Introductions were made.

Report of Executive Council Liaison

Mr. Wilkinson provided an update on NSF issues. There is a small increase proposed for the FY 2002 budget. The FY2003 budget is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. NSF themes include integration of research and education, integration of K-12 to graduate school/workforce and an increase in stipend support.

Discussion of CEOSE Cross-Cutting Issues and Committee Agenda

CEOSE members were asked to share issues for discussion:

NSF Management Thoughts

International Students

Potential Career Barriers

Increasing Participation

CEOSE discussed ideas for increasing the number of students from underrepresented groups in science and engineering fields:

Partnerships / Collaborations

The CEOSE members discussed strategies for setting goals. One idea is to set goals for the number of underrepresented persons they want to see and in what subgroups and then project a time frame for getting to those goals. There are reports that give projections of scientists and engineers but do you encourage people to go into a career if there are not jobs to match? Does the Committee feel it is worthwhile to encourage people to go into these areas? Where can they make a difference in the next two years as a Committee? How can jobs at historically Black Colleges and Universities, Community Colleges, and less high-profile institutions be more attractive? The lack of participation with Tribal Colleges seems to remain a cultural problem that has to be addressed separately from other underrepresented groups. NSF intends to increase Native American representation on CEOSE.

The group was encouraged to try to identify ideas and select a few issues that they can address in a reasonable time frame, not focus on a systemic problem that will take years to bring about change.

Update on ADVANCE

Ms. Alice Hogan, Program Director, NSF, summarized the new ADVANCE program which is completing its first competition. The goal of ADVANCE is to increase participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers. The program is concerned with the failure of women faculty in academic careers to advance and is looking at the institutional context to identify factors that are working for or against these groups. Eligibility is not restricted as issues that are hindering advancement are not just women issues. The program was designed to influence institutional issues. They hope to learn things that can be applied to other underrepresented groups from this pilot program.

The initial solicitation had several categories for awards. For Institutional Transformation, which required at least 20% cost sharing, 76 proposals were received. There were multidisciplinary panels that reviewed the proposals and Dr. Hogan was impressed with the thoughtfulness of the panels. The Leadership category was intended to be an intermediate step to provide funds to support expansion of activities and pay for time in supporting societies that are making efforts in advancements for women. This category will be revisited with the next solicitation. 49 proposals were received and 12 awards were made in the amount of $200K for three years. NIH contributed $.5M. A third category was a Fellows Program, which was competed at the end of the summer. This program was aimed at insuring that people who were at risk for leaving the profession could obtain funds to stay in the program.

There is funding in the FY2002 and FY2003 budget for continuation of the ADVANCE program. One concern was that the initial solicitation did not pay enough attention to diversity among women. Ideas from CEOSE for the next solicitation would be appreciated. One of the predicted “lessons learned” is that leadership support is essential for increased participation of women and people need time to do this kind of work. It is a challenge to get groups of cohorts together. NSF will be interested in seeing the different approaches the institutions take to distribute the funds. A program-level evaluation will be conducted at the end of the first year.

Programs to Promote Diversity at Lucent Technologies

Dr. James West, emeritus scientist at Lucent Technologies, presented an overview of several programs in place at Lucent Technologies to promote diversity. The Lucent Foundation Supports:

Graduates from the programs are now in academic positions throughout the country. Of the 200+ students in the program, 62 now have faculty positions. Periodically these students are brought back to Bell Labs for a reunion and work with other students to help them plan their careers. Several Alumni are technology leaders and pioneers.

One COESE member asked what the “graduated” students that are not in academia are doing. Dr. West responded that all of the students graduate with degrees and are in working positions, many at Lucent which has hired about 40. Dr. West was not aware of any students that have had difficulty in finding a job. Students get a stipend and Bell Labs pay their tuition. They attend one meeting a year and can visit their mentor whenever they feel it is necessary. Another question was if there was a formal program for training the mentors. Dr. West noted they have a program, but training is usually through discussions with experienced mentors and new mentors.

CEOSE commended Dr. West for the success the program seems to demonstrate. The group was interested in aspects of evaluation, e.g., what changes have been made in the program, and with what effect. It was noted that NSF is working on best practices in its programs and the Lucent efforts, if able to be shared, may assist in this review .

Introduction of Dr. Judith Ramaley, AD/EHR

Dr. Brainard introduced Dr. Judith Ramaley, newly appointed Assistant Director, Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR), NSF. Dr. Ramaley noted the connection between the CEOSE agenda and the EHR Committee of the Board. The EHR Directorate is concluding discussions of K-16 education and issues of diversity. She laid out the earliest framing of what the discussions of diversity will be about:

At the November NSB committee meeting, EHR will provide a review of the data they have available and the current NSF condition. The next Science and Engineering Indicators report will also be helpful in updating the data. EHR is pursuing this agenda and it is a high priority. Input and thought about where the most important questions are and interaction between EHR and CEOSE is important.

Dr. Brainard thanked Dr. Ramaley for sharing EHR's plans with CEOSE and noted they look forward to working with her and the EHR staff.

DOE/NSF Partnership to Promote S&E; Diversity

Dr. Peter Faletra, Assistant Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy (DOE), introduced himself and Dr. Wanda Ward. The DOE and NSF have established a memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies.

The purpose of the DOE/NSF Partnership to Promote S&E; Diversity is to:

Focusing on discovery-based learning opportunities, objectives include:

NSF Programs under this partnership include Advanced Technological Education (ATE); Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP); Computer Science, Engineering and Math Scholarships (CSEMS); Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP); Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Mentoring (PAESMEM) and Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)/Teachers (RET).

DOE Programs include the Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship (ERULF), Community College Institute (CCI), Faculty/Student Teams (FAST) and Pre-Service Teachers (PST).

The challenge was to find students to bring to the laboratories and find ways to keep them in the national laboratories/pipeline. DOE saw this as a huge opportunity. In the summer of 2001, 54 students participated in DOE Lab Programs from the LSAMP, CETP, ATE and CSEMS programs. The two agencies collaborated on four DOE Internships/Fellowship Programs. There were about 20 students in the Pre-Service Teachers Program with 31 in ERULF. About two-thirds of the students were from Community Colleges. There were three students and one faculty member team that participated. Seven NSF students were funded by DOE.

The program was implemented in a very short time frame and they have learned what to polish up in the next few years. In future years, the goals are to increase strategic intent and to add additional programs and representative activities. The key is to look for win-win, mutually beneficial programs to both agencies and recognize the strengths that each agency brings to the table. The focus is on education and training, though the initial programs tend to be more educational. This year, there is more time to recruit students to participate in this joint effort. DOE can take some of the world’s greatest scientists and set up a one-to-one mentorship with these students. Again, the importance of a “good fit” between the mentor and student was stressed as important to the success of the program.

In the discussion that followed, the group asked how Community Colleges would get in touch with NSF or DOE to participate. Both NSF and DOE are developing joint advertisements for their web sites. NSF hopes to help disseminate the information. The program has found that Community College students have higher receptivity and tend to be more “hungry” for the opportunity. The point was raised that DOE does not require grantees to have diversity in the research teams. Dr. Faletra noted he can raise this as an issue with DOE.

Update on Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST)

Dr. Wanda Ward, Chief Advisor to BEST, Council on Competitiveness, noted that BEST is the implementation phase of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, spearheaded by Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson and Connie Morella. The BEST program has a funding strategy of $10M for three years. Government would seed $3M with the rest to come from private industry. Each agency contributed $367,000. The Council of Competitiveness was awarded the project BEST to act as a catalyst and fiscal agent in launching the new collaborative body. Dr. Ward identified the key individuals on the Board of BEST, funding agencies, and the leadership structure.

In year one, BEST is envisioned to identify best practices across the entire continuum; extensive networking and outreach is underway. The niche is a comprehensive review across all levels from K-12, higher education and the workforce. In years two and three, regional and community-based efforts will be implemented.

There are three areas that are being looked at:

  1. What has been effective in promoting diversity

  2. Promising practices – have not have enough time to prove themselves yet

  3. Future practices – what is learning and work going to be like in the next decade?

BEST is assembling expert advisory groups/group leaders and national chairs in each area. Each group will generate information, and then it will be integrated across sectors. The product will be one set of recommendations. There is also a National Research Board that will review the report before it goes to the National Leadership Council. The National Research Board will meet on November 8, 2001. By September 2002, they are expecting the broad dissemination of these programs to the communities. A community is defined as the constellation of all critical sectors.

In the discussion that followed, one concern was that there are not enough resources to maintain these best practices programs. People are happy to fund seed programs, but no one is funding the “plants or the trees”. Dr. Ward responded that from the standpoint of an agency with a small budget, the agency recognizes that it is a stimulator/catalyst to bring about change. Part of the efforts is the responsibility of the institutions themselves.

Committee Discussion: Items for the Director, NSF

Dr. Brainard reminded the CEOSE that Dr. Colwell and Dr. Bordogna had emphasized the importance of helping to find outcomes, not just reporting numbers. The NSF goal is not just raising the numbers of underrepresented persons in science and engineering, but also having workforce impact. Information on what happens to people when they get out in key to this, and there is not adequate data regarding outcomes and career progressions.

It was suggested that one point to make with Dr. Colwell is to stress the importance of feedback/updates on action items and recommendations from CEOSE and follow-up. The group reviewed the issues discussed for the day:

Discussion with Director, NSF

Dr. Brainard introduced Dr. Rita Colwell, Director NSF, to the CEOSE members. Dr. Colwell noted she was pleased to discuss NSF and CEOSE’s mutual goals of broadening participation in Science and Engineering. Recent tragedies have shown that the Nation stands together and diversity is one of its strengths. Dr. Colwell reiterated the message that NSF would like to see action-oriented recommendations from CEOSE.

An update on CEOSE recommendations to the Director from the previous meeting was provided:

Dr. Colwell added that NSF is taking the issue of diversity very seriously – there is a crisis in our nation right now with realities that the U.S. has filled in the gaps with international students. We need to focus on increasing participation within the U.S. system. The best part of our country is its diversity and that we don’t have a class system.

The CEOSE members then raised issues they wanted to discuss with Dr. Colwell:

The CEOSE members support seeing action items, not just a report from the meeting. The CEOSE shared with Dr. Colwell that at the conclusion of their meeting they would like to present NSF with three narrow items with suggested timelines for implementation. They thanked Dr. Colwell for taking time to meet with them.

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.


Wednesday, October 17, 2001

The CEOSE meeting reconvened at 8:40 a.m.

Discussion with the Directorate for Social, Behavior and Economic Sciences (SBE)

Joan Burrelli and John Tsapogas were present from the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS), to address questions from CEOSE concerning SBE data collection activities related to women, minorities and persons with disabilities. A table was distributed showing the types of data and sources that SBE relies on for statistical information. It is not possible to present disaggregated data for the surveys related to degrees. Not all academic institutions collect this data from the students. But, they can report data on minority women and gender. SRS does not collect data on Asian or Hispanic subgroups. Citizenship data is US Citizen vs. Temporary/Permanent visas. Data is in the aggregate when NSF gets it. Related to Education data, there is only so much disaggregation possible. The doctoral information is from individuals and more information there can be disaggregated. This survey has a very high response rate (> 90%). Some individual questions have a slightly lower response rate (i.e., citizenship, parent’s demographic variables) while demographic data has a higher response rate.

For surveys that capture detailed demographic data, it is not a specific question as to whether the data can be disaggregated, but rather if the survey sample will be significant enough. In 1999, OMB issued a new directive on surveys and this is to be in place by 2003. 2001 surveys will have a new race/ethnic category, to be reported in 2003. A sampling of questions from the SESTAT Survey was distributed to illustrate questions that are asked concerning race/ethnicity.

SRS staff then discussed their long term goals in terms of expanding/specializing the database. SRS is in the process of developing revised surveys. The CEOSE group tried to identify what the turnaround time would be if they wanted data to aid in their reporting process. SRS is currently developing data for 2003 with reporting for 2004 or 2005. One action item for CEOSE may be to provide their data requirements to SRS so they could put this in place to make data collection easier. The American Community Survey will be implemented by the Census Bureau and SRS hopes to use data from this survey. The survey would be conducted annually compared to the 10-year census surveys. It is unclear when the data from this survey will begin to be available.

There was a concern raised that the table indicates there is no data on disabilities being collected. Mr. Tsapogas displayed workforce data for recent graduates and the estimate for margins of error with a sampling size of 14,000. A chart was displayed of the sampling sizes for the last four SRS surveys. With a smaller sample size, the margin of error increases significantly. The CEOSE members were concerned about the large margins of error when the data was broken out into smaller sample sizes for underrepresented groups. Dr. Pearson noted that data is used for multiple purposes such as current reports as well as longitudinal studies, and that tracking careers will become increasingly important to distinguish between obtaining the degrees and having an impact on the workforce. Though other entities are collecting data on graduates, SRS is the only group that is collecting data on a national level that provides detail on education and occupation (related to science, engineering and mathematics). Dr. Pearson noted that if CEOSE is trying to set policy and make recommendations to NSF, these types of data collection will not be sufficient.

Data may be missing on two-year programs which would include Community Colleges. The SRS undergraduate enrollment breaks out by 2-year and 4-year, but it is not broken out by degree area and disabilities. SRS is doing special analysis on the Current Population Survey (CPS) data which may be helpful. Starting next October, the CPS will be modified to include specifics on the type of degree. NCES has another survey that looks at students with disabilities and what type of institutions they go to and degrees they complete. The CEOSE members suggested that if there was an argument for targeting surveys, persons with disabilities would be good group. They also noted that underrepresented groups are more likely to attend Community Colleges and data at that level would be important.

The discussion that followed focused on concern over the margin of error for underrepresented groups in the SRS data. How can CEOSE work with this data for their reporting? With these small populations, it seems like they could be targeted for surveys. What are ways to improve the sampling size? The limited data for underrepresented groups that is currently collected by SRS is an area of concern to CEOSE and the research community.

Key points discussed were:

The bottom line is that data are needed by CEOSE to inform the recommendations to the Foundation to benefit the public and science and engineering community.

Items for the Deputy Director, NSF

Dr. Brainard asked for input on issues to discuss with the NSF Deputy Director, Dr. Joseph Bordogna:

Discussion with Deputy Director, NSF

Dr. Joseph Bordogna reiterated support for CEOSE by the Director and himself. The groups raised several issues:

The CEOSE thanked Dr. Bordogna for meeting with them.

Advisory Committee Reports from CEOSE Liaisons

John Wilkinson provided an update on the SBE Advisory Committee meeting held in the spring. Several issues in general were discussed:

  1. An SBE Priority Area (Initiatives) is targeted for FY2003 with an objective to enhance the SBE base funding. The concept for what the initiative will include is the current focus. Infrastructure to allow development of databases and data libraries for the social sciences is one component.

  2. At an organizational level, SBE discussed the role of SRS and the International Division (INT) within SBE and the Foundation. Recommendations were to rename SRS as Science Resources Statistics (instead of Studies). The INT has changed to the Office of International Science and Engineering. The title of “Office” indicates it serves the overall Foundation and the INT budget will be broken out from SBE. Dr. Perolle, acting Director, is also a participant in the NSF senior management.

Discussion: Disaggregating Demographic Data

Dr. Samuel Peng, Office of the Commissioner, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education, was invited to present to CEOSE on disaggregating demographic data. One issue they face is that detailed data on subgroups for underrepresented groups is difficult to find.

Dr. Peng distributed a list of Postsecondary Education Databases available from NCES. Details on the databases and the descriptions of the data can be found on their web site at http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys. The original sample size was 24,000 in 1982, and then reduced to 17,000 as a result of being able to redesign the sample and make it more efficient. NCES does oversampling of Hispanic and Asian groups in some cases. Dr. Peng also distributed copies of a report co-funded by NSF called “Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education” and highlighted the table on page 23 of the report showing sample sizes for the subgroups. Some subgroups have enough data to look at, but others have very limited data, such as Pacific Islanders. Survey respondents indicate if they have some mild disability, but there is not validation for that information and persons with severe disabilities may have been unable to participate in taking the tests used to generate the data. The NELS 88 database does have disaggregation of race subgroups for Asian/Pacific Islanders includes Country of Origin.

NCES is preparing to release a new database that will have data for 8-10 years after graduation (based on 1992). A handout provided the proposed new reporting by race/ethnicity in the Standards for Collection and Reporting of Data on Race and Ethnicity that has been provided by OMB. This document is still in draft form, waiting for finalization from OMB. Dr. Peng illustrated the complexity in trying to identify subgroups (which can result in 64 categories). He also noted the reality that institutions are not likely to provide such detailed data. NCES collects data from a variety of sources, including student transcripts to fill in as many holes as possible in the long-term data collection and to verify the data. For the current longitudinal surveys, NCES has implemented the new categories as much as they can. There is some interesting analysis they can do for participants that completed race data originally and then with the new expanded categories. Though the response rate on the longitudinal studies is about 80%, Dr. Peng noted it is getting harder and harder to get participation and it is a real concern.

Dr. Mary Frase, Deputy Division Director, SRS/NSF, provided an update on the report “Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities” which will be released in 2002. This publication comes out every other year at the same time as Science and Engineering Indicators. The set of indicator cards with data will be out in early 2002 (drafts can be made available to CEOSE earlier). Data is final and can be shared. SRS would like to change the timing so that it is in the off year from the Indicators. This requires authorization. If the legislative language can be changed, then the next report would be 2005, then odd years after that.

The grouped thanked Dr. Peng for his presentation. Dr. Peng suggested that CEOSE members subscribe to NCES’s NewsFlash to get announcements of reports and publications from the main web site at www.nces.ed.gov.

Committee Wrap Up

The next CEOSE meetings will be held on February 7-8, 2002 and June 20-21, 2002. SRS will be invited to participate at the next meeting.

Several suggestions were made for speakers at the next meetings:

Issues for discussion:

Resumes/CVs for recommendation to NSF should be sent to Dr. Pearson who will forward them to NSF with a letter which would request follow-up to know if those persons participated in advisory groups, panels, etc.

Dr. Brainard and Dr. Pearson thanked the CEOSE members for their participation and noted that follow-up would be conducted via email. They want to put together priorities/key issues, expand ideas/add clarity and then send for review to pare down to a few issues. Several members noted that this has been one of the most productive CEOSE meetings and the co-chairs did an excellent job. New members will be joining the group at the next meeting and a brief orientation for them was suggested.

With no further discussions, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

Action Items

For the next CEOSE meeting look at 1999-2000 data – trends, etc. CEOSE to deliberate what data they need and make the request of SRS. Also have SRS provide options for designs of surveys at the next meeting.

Mr. Wilkinson distributed copies of Tom Cooley’s, the Director of NSF’s Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management, presentation to the National Science Board related to Criterion 2 in Proposal Reviews.

Several CEOSE members raised concerns about the apparent budget restrictions and impact on sampling size, as well as concern that SRS may be redesigning surveys for the next decade without the benefit of the advice of those who have been asked specifically for that advice. It seems that the affected communities have not been informed on what is going on with the design. SRS is the only place that can provide data on science and engineering career pictures. It is an important responsibility that NSF has been given. Every 10 years it gets redesigned and evaluation and broad input is essential.



 John F. Wilkinson
 Executive Secretary


[Return to top of page]

[Return to the CEOSE home page]