Abstract
This chapter begins the second half of the book, which examines various case studies. The chapter is devoted to the descriptions and histories of four organizations that have worked to support increased numbers and better experiences for women in science and engineering careers. The chapter considers these organizations in the chronological order of their origins: the Society of Women Engineers (SWE 1950), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS 1971), the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN 1990), and MentorNet (1997).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an interesting example of women replacing male engineers during World War 2, see the story of the Curtiss-Wright Engineering Cadets as told by Meiksins et al. (2011).
- 2.
For a more general discussion of women in engineering and science in the United States, see for example Bix (2004), Hacker (1981), Oldenziel (1999), Rossiter (1982), and Zuckerman et al. (1991). On the history of women in computing, see for example Abbate (2012), Edwards (1990), Ensmenger (2010), Fritz (1996), Grier (2005), Light (1999), and Misa (2011).
- 3.
- 4.
For more on SWE’s political activism, see Kata (2011).
- 5.
- 6.
Bix (2004).
- 7.
On membership and the influences that have shaped it, see the SWE web pages and also Daniels et al. (2011).
- 8.
- 9.
See Daniels et al. (2011).
- 10.
- 11.
See Bird and Didion (1992), Didion (1995), and Fort (1995). For a more recent version of AWIS mentoring, see Fridkis-Hareli (2011), which describes the mentoring activities in AWIS’s Massachusetts chapter. The AWIS process involves building mentoring circles of three to five peers and one to two mentors, all with similar interests and career goals, who meet in person monthly during the academic year.
- 12.
On the chilly academic climate study, see Didion et al. (1998). For a recent snapshot of AWIS’s full range of activities, see its 2014 strategic plan at http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/awis.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Files/Strategic_Plan_FINAL_NOV1720.pdf. The plan includes 40 action areas organized under the headings: advocate for positive system transformation, help all women in STEM achieve success, and maximizing our impact by optimizing organizational capacity.
- 13.
For more information on the history of AWIS, see “History of AWIS”, https://awis.site-ym.com/?page=history, accessed 16 May 2015.
- 14.
The information in this paragraph comes from the AWIS fact sheet (http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/awis.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Fact_Sheets/AWIS_General_Fact_Sheet.pdf).
- 15.
In addition to the sources cited in the body of this section, this account relied heavily on the WEPAN website (wepan.org), in particular the pages entitled “The First Ten Years: 1990–2000” and an article reprinted their entitled “Yes, WEPAN ” (Home Douglas 2009). It also relied on oral history interviews with co-founders Suzanne Brainard (2015), Jane Daniels (2015), and Susan Metz (2015).
- 16.
Daniels (2015) indicates it was the interest in diversity of Arthur Hansen, who was the president of Purdue University from 1971 to 1982, that enabled Purdue to be a pioneer in broadening engineering to include more women and more African Americans. In this interview Daniels gives a significant amount of detail about the women in engineering program at Purdue that goes beyond the scope of this study.
The program, she reports, “wasn’t all altruistic.” A downturn in student interest in majoring in engineering in the late 1960s was intentionally offset by drawing students from a wider pool that included women and African Americans. Funds associated with the federal Women’s Education Equity Act of 1974 helped to strengthen Purdue’s program for women in engineering, which provided funding for career outreach activities to high school girls and a course in the School of Technology, entitled Tools and Engines, in which female students could get hands-on experience with power tools and wiring circuits. However, most of the early funding of the program came from industry, especially from General Motors and IBM.
Daniels remembers that in the late 1970s the attitude was to “go find the women, bring them to Purdue, and fix them. Fix them so that they would do engineering just like our men always have, because, after all, Purdue has a wonderful reputation in engineering, so we don’t want to change anything, we want to keep doing things the way we’ve always done it.” Over time, effort was redirected to changing the system in various minor ways to make it a more inclusive community.
- 17.
Daniels (2015) sees lots of similarities between engineering and computer science: the similar, persistently low numbers of women in the two fields; “the environment is not, I don’t see, as welcoming to women if they have more international students and faculty from countries that do not value women’s educational rights and abilities”; and engineering and computer science are among the few STEM disciplines in which there is “meaningful employment and [the ability] to make important contributions to society” with only a bachelor’s degree. (Daniels 2015)
- 18.
On women in engineering programs at colleges and universities, see Knight and Cunningham (2004).
- 19.
Stevens Institute of Technology, founded in 1870, was an all-male institution for 101 years. When the trustees voted to admit women in 1971, only a small number applied. Motivated by a concern about adequate enrollment and an optimism that women could be good engineers, Dr. Edward Friedman , Dean of the College at Stevens, suggested exploring external funding to develop pre-college programs to introduce women and their parents to engineering. Why would women consider going into a male-dominated field and why would their parents, teachers and guidance counselors endorse the idea of majoring in engineering if no one knew what engineers do all day? Metz was drawn into this initiative, received a grant from Exxon Company and subsequently, Stevens established the Office of Women’s Programs, directed by Metz in 1980. National Science Foundation funding expanded the pre-college programming to include a series of four-week summer programs that attracted hundreds of high school women throughout the country to learn about careers in engineering and science. During that time, Metz began to do research on underrepresentation in STEM and the impact of pre-college programs. The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference typically offered a panel session on women in engineering, and it was at this event where she met Daniels, year after year, until they teamed up with Brainard and founded WEPAN . More recently, Metz has served as Executive Director for Diversity and Inclusion and Senior Research Associate, reporting to the president of Stevens. (Private communication from Susan Metz, March 19, 2016)
- 20.
Brainard served as the executive director of the Center for Workforce Development at the University of Washington until her retirement and held affiliate faculty positions in both women’s studies and human-centered design and engineering. She has served as chair of the NSF Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering and served on several National Academy studies on diversity in engineering.
- 21.
For details about the running of the organization, see Brainard (2015), Daniels (2015), and Metz (2015). Metz notes that it was difficult identifying someone who would run for President of WEPAN who was not one of the founders because there was no staff to support any officer position.: “The very first President after the Founders all rotated through that position – and I held it for 5 years – was Jan Rinehart who was at Texas A&M at that time. Transitioning from a Founder-run organization to other elected officers is no easy task, especially for that first person. Although Jan was reluctant, Dr. Karan Watson , Jan’s supervisor at Texas A&M was very supportive and provided some release time. Jan was an outstanding leader, paving the way for other non-Founders to run for office. Eventually, WEPAN hired a full-time executive director and CEO, Diane Matt, who is still in that position today. (Private communication from Susan Metz, March 19, 2016)
- 22.
Brainard singled out the strong relationship that WEPAN had with the National Academy of Engineering during the years in which Bill Wulf was NAE president. She also pointed to close ties with Shirley Malcom and Yolanda George at AAAS. WEPAN had strong relations with the National Association of Multicultural Engineering Program Advocates (NAMEPA), an organization of educators and representatives from the public and private sectors to enhance recruitment and retention on underrepresented minorities in engineering careers. (See http://www.namepa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19%3Adefault&id=62%3Ahistory&Itemid=76 for NAMEPA’s history.) WEPAN had good, if not extensive working relations with AWIS from the beginning. However, there were some rough patches in WEPAN ’s early relations with SWE. When the two organizations eventually came to an understanding and agreement that SWE was primarily about professional development for women engineers and students and WEPAN was primarily about working with faculty and administrators to develop programs and initiatives to increase awareness about engineering, retain engineering students and understand and impact the culture of engineering, they became more collaborative and effective working together. (Brainard 2015; Daniels 2015; private communication from Susan Metz, March 19, 2016)
- 23.
These training sessions appear to have ended formally in 2001. The three founders extended this kind of work by entertaining a series of visitors at each of the home institutions and by making site visits to other college women in engineering programs.
- 24.
An effort was taken to move these materials online eventually because the Ford Motor Company was interested in having them available to its engineering staff members who were serving as mentors to college engineering students. Ford paid the full cost of this transfer of materials online.
- 25.
The Sloan Foundation funded a multi-institutional study of the impact of women’s programs in the late 1990s, entitled Women’s Experiences in College Engineering, which was not able to demonstrate benefit of such programs on recruitment and retention of women in engineering. (Private communication from Carol Muller, 24 February 2016)
Brainard (2015) tells the story of the evisceration of the center at the University of Washington in 2004, while Denice Denton was the dean of engineering. Denton was the first female dean of an engineering school at a major research university. On women’s engineering centers generally, Brainard indicated it was much more difficult to convince university administrators to continue operation of a women in engineering center than a minorities in engineering center. One reason was that the women “typically had higher grades than the guys did; and they did very well or they dropped out because they didn’t like the climate they were in,” so there was not a large group of women engineers who were performing poorly academically to target as the need for the center. Another reason was that industry was generally more interested in increasing minority numbers than numbers of women in its engineering ranks. (Brainard 2015)
- 26.
“Not all see this as a good thing – however. These folks have less training in the social sciences and education to help them understand how to address institutional issues, and to appreciate the underlying causes and potential remedies for women’s historical exclusion from engineering studies and professions. They are often not well-placed in terms of influence and status in university hierarchies.” (Private communication from Carol Muller, 24 February 2016)
- 27.
Cultural change in an organization is notoriously slow and difficult to achieve. It may be too early to see many results of these cultural change programs.
- 28.
When discussing the NSF ADVANCE program, Metz (2015) observed how difficult it is to build a program, say, for the advancement of women faculty in engineering – although she could have been speaking of broadening participation programs more generally: “My women faculty don’t want to hear that in front of their male colleagues. So you still tread a very thin line of supporting women in a way that they don’t feel needy, that their male colleagues don’t point fingers and say why aren’t we getting these and we could use these too, or, yes, women are needy and they need the ADVANCE initiatives so that’s good that you’re doing that. Communicating what we’re doing, how we’re doing, being inclusive is really, really challenging without disenfranchising the women, making some women say ‘I don’t want any part of ADVANCE’, like they did for women in engineering programs. Other students don’t want to be part of anything that’s just for women; so it’s tricky.”
- 29.
Metz (2015) explains that although the trainers were uncomfortable communicating research results that they were not entirely familiar with to their faculty colleagues, that none of the faculty were particularly concerned with the research basis behind these practices: “We really thought that faculty were interested in the research behind these strategies, that we had to convince them that these were evidence-based strategies, there’s reason to use them; but faculty didn’t want to know the details. What they said was, “if you’re telling me this is research-based and these are all the references – I believe you! Just explain what I should do. Again, we shifted our emphasis in faculty’s professional development to the implementation of these strategies.”
- 30.
It might seem that it would be easier to disseminate these research-based practices more widely through the train-the-trainer program, but in fact ENGAGE was able to disseminate these practices more widely after they adopted the strategy of involving individual faculty members. The original promise in the grant proposal was to reach 33 educational institutions. After the change in strategy, the project “started involving many more schools in the process. … [W]e started doing a lot of virtual events, webinars, discussions at ASEE Conferences, which was a terrific opportunity to share the research, share the experiences of schools who were doing it.” (Metz 2015)
- 31.
Metz (2015) made an interesting comparison between progress at broadening participation in the academic and industry sectors: “I think we’re all heading in the right direction. But it’s a slog; academia is much slower than industry in embracing change, particularly in terms of the culture and climate in engineering. They don’t have the profit incentives that industry has. McKinsey and Company (Women Matter) and many others have researched and documented the real value of diversity including impacting the bottom line. Women have so many career choices and culture matters. Why should they go into a culture where they have to struggle and continually prove themselves.”
- 32.
This issue of expectations by NSF of short-term windows for progress and of operations becoming self-sustaining after one or two rounds of NSF funding is discussed at several places in Aspray (2016).
- 33.
The Sloan Foundation funding, awarded in 1992, was used in part to fund faculty development retreats to engage faculty in learning about improved and exemplary teaching and mentoring processes in the STEM fields. (Muller 2014)
- 34.
The Women in Science Project was initiated by both Muller and a new Associate Dean responsible for the sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences, the chemist Karen Wetterhahn . The Dartmouth president was receptive to the idea because he was looking for ways to recruit more women to Dartmouth after a journalistic article about the fraternity system had made it sound as though Dartmouth was a bad place for women to attend college. The faculty was receptive because a group of psychologists at Yale, Brown, and Harvard had recently prepared a study that reported, after taking into consideration every factor they could think of such as courses taken in high school, there was still a large unexplained gap in this rigorous, data-driven scientific study concerning women’s low enrollment in science, mathematics, and engineering at these schools (Muller 2014).
- 35.
Another early e-mentoring program, which Muller was aware of, was one run out of Hewlett Packard by David Niels . His program branched into mentoring in Africa. It also mentored high school students. (Muller 2014)
- 36.
The term ‘e-mentoring’ was coined, at least in this context, in 1993 by Amy Mueller (no relation), a Dartmouth graduate who worked at AT&T and served on the advisory committee for the Dartmouth Women in Science Project. (Muller 2014)
- 37.
As a later MentorNet CEO, Mary Fernandez, explained the MentorNet process: “it was a very early version of eHarmony except for [being for] women in STEM fields. So you fill out a profile, you are algorithmically matched with another person and then our program is a guided mentoring program. So we guide and mentor and the protégé with discussion topics that are relevant to the mentees, level of their education and some of their personal experiences and that has evolved considerably over time.” (Fernandez 2014)
- 38.
Mary Fernandez, a regular mentor for MentorNet and today the CEO, explained the impact that a mentoring relationship could have on the mentor: “I think what the mentor is faced with is often having to understand their own choices in their career, in their professional and personal lives, as a way of helping the mentee or the protégé understand those choices for themselves. So there is a high degree of introspection that the mentor goes through. I think successful mentors do this quite naturally. And it’s fascinating and … the upshot of this is that what we find – and this has been reported over and over and over again – the mentor feels a great sense of personal fulfillment, they feel an increased connection to their profession, their profession brings more meaning to them… It’s the way of you understanding why is it that that you are doing what you are doing, what joy does it bring you and what frustration does it bring you. So almost everyone who I have spoken to, especially what we call our master mentors, the mentors who have been with us for years and years and years, … they all report that they feel they have grown and sometimes grown more than the mentee or protégé, which is very interesting because we focus of course on the needs of the protégé.” (Fernandez 2014)
- 39.
Muller (2014) points out that, today, there are opportunities to get some of the advantages of face-to-face mentoring while interacting remotely online through the use of videoconferencing, and that some recent mentoring programs blend online and in-person contact between the mentor and the protégé. Also see Muller (2002).
- 40.
Muller (2014) points to the scholarship on mentoring and its use in workplace settings by Kathy Kram, Belle Rose Ragins, Stacy Blake-Beard, and Lois Zachary as being particularly insightful. She also praised Rhodes (2002) work in evaluating youth mentoring programs. MentorNet also benefited considerably from the active scholarship on mentoring and writing undertaken by its first program manager, Peg Boyle Single, who led authorship of a number of papers and studies based on the MentorNet work.
- 41.
- 42.
“We did apply for a patent, but the actual write-up, done on a pro bono basis by a law student, … [W]hile the patent was still pending, both Stephanie and I left MentorNet, so the follow-up was left to David Porush, and I gather he wasn’t able to follow through successfully.” (Private communication from Carol Muller, 24 February 2016)
- 43.
The original MentorNet technology had been cutting-edge when first developed by Stephanie Fox, and it was robust enough to handle the scale growth of MentorNet over its first decade; but the original technology did not reflect the rapid advances in networking technologies that occurred during MentorNet’s first decade. (private communication from Carol Muller, 24 February 2016)
- 44.
In Fernandez (2013), the new CEO of MentorNet discusses her 15 years of experience as a mentor.
- 45.
Fernandez notes that the new technology created during her tenure at MentorNet could be used for other purposes than women and minorities in science and engineering in the United States. She has been contacted both by organizations that want to broaden STEM participation in countries outside the United States and by U.S. organizations interested in unrelated issues. While she believes that the MentorNet platform could work for these organizations, Fernandez is not pursuing these opportunities at this time – for scale reasons. However, she is also cautious in her response to these other organizations, cautioning them that they will not be successful simply by applying this platform, that “the hard part is figuring out programmatically how to serve the needs of that target community and that is where subject matter expertise around the needs of your target community are absolutely critical, right. So I think it’s the case and there has been huge amount, there is huge body of research, social science research around effective mentoring.” (Fernandez 2014)
- 46.
Fernandez also says that, on the organizational level, MentorNet is following the model set out by Michael Wu in The Science of Social (Wu 2012). In particular, MentorNet is following Wu where the “question is really a matter of how, in business, you would call your ‘go to market strategy’, how are we going to establish the strategic relationship that allow our acquisition gear to be very efficient [for example, to reach a particular Hispanic population].” (Fernandez 2014)
- 47.
NIHGMS (NIH General Medical Sciences) is MentonNet’s largest overall sponsor.
- 48.
Fernandez has observed that in a previous generation, people were generally homophilic: mentors wanted to mentor protégés like themselves – women mentoring women, Hispanics mentoring Hispanics, computer scientists mentoring computer scientists. “The younger generations are not self identifying as strongly with respect to their ethnic or cultural heritage. They are more fluid in their own identity which is fascinating. And I saw this at AT&T before I left in fact. Specifically, in our employee resource groups. Employee resource groups traditionally have been founded around racial identify, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, South Asian, Pacific Islander et cetera. And what a lot of corporations are finding is that their younger employees don’t self identify in that way such that it’s important with respect to their professional development. So that actually kind of changes the way that people cluster. And so it’s interesting for us because our mentors are of one generation and our protégés are of a different one. So I think that will be a ongoing, definitely an ongoing exploration.” (Fernandez 2014)
References
Abbate, Janet. 2012. Recoding gender: Women’s changing participation in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aspray, William. 2016. Participation in computing: The National Science Foundation’s expansionary programs. London: Springer.
Bird, S.J., and C.J. Didion. 1992. Retaining women science students: A mentoring project of the association for women in science. Initiatives 55(3): 3–12.
Bix, Amy. 2004. From ‘Engineeresses’ to ‘good engineers’: A history of women’s U.S. engineering education. NWSA Journal 16(1): 27–49.
Bix, Amy Sue. 2013. Girls coming to tech! A history of American engineering education for women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blake-Beard, S., M.L. Bayne, F.J. Crosby, and C.B. Muller. 2011. Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues 67: 622–643.
Brainard, Suzanne. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray. Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, June 1.
Cunningham, Christine M., Mary L. Pavone, and Carol B. Muller. 1996. Factors influencing women’s pursuit of a college science major or science career: An evaluation of the Women in Science Project (WISP). In Proceedings of the women in engineering conference: Capitalizing on today’s challenges, ed. S.S. Metz, 289–294. Hoboken: Stevens Institute of Technology.
Daniels, Jane. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray. Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, June 11.
Daniels, Jane, Sabina Bajrovic, and Nicole M. DiFabio. 2011. Why women and men joined SWE over the last 60 years. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 50–59.
Didion, Catherine Jay. 1995. Mentoring women in science. Educational Horizons 73(3): 141–144.
Didion, C.J., M.A. Fox, and M.E. Jones. 1998. Cultivating academic careers: AWIS project on academic climate. Washington, DC: Association for Women in Science.
Edwards, P.N. 1990. The army and the microworld. Computers and the politics of gender identity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16(1): 102–127.
Ensmenger, N. 2010. The computer boys take over: Computers, programmers, and the politics of technical expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Estrin, Thelma. 1992. Oral history interview by Frederik Nebeker. IEEE History Center, August 24–25.
Estrin, Thelma. 2002. Oral history interview by Janet Abbate. IEEE History Center, July 19.
Estrin, Thelma. 2006. Oral history interview by Deborah Rice. Society of Women Engineers, March 16.
Fernandez, Mary. 2013. A path between: Mentoring the next generation of computing professionals. Computing Research News 25(9). http://cra.org/crn/2013/10/a_path_between_mentoring_the_next_generation_of_computing_professional/. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.
Fernandez, Mary. 2014. Oral history interview by William Aspray. Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, September 24.
Fort, D.C. 1995. A hand Up: Women mentoring women in science, 2nd ed. Washington: Association for Women in Science.
Fridkis-Hareli, Masha. 2011. A mentoring program for women scientists meets a pressing need. Nature Biotechnology 29: 287–288.
Fritz, W.B. 1996. The women of ENIAC. Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE 18(3): 13–28.
Grier, David Alan. 2005. When computers were human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hacker, Sally. 1981. The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace, and machine. Women Studies Quarterly 4: 341–353.
Hawthorn, Paula. 2002. Oral history interview by Janet Abbate. IEEE History Center, July 5. http://ethw.org/Oral-History:Paula_Hawthorn. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.
Hays, Gwen. 2010. Oral history interview by Sheldon Hochheiser. IEEE History Center, February 17.
Home-Douglas, Pierre. 2009. Yes, WEPAN. Prism Magazine, March: 40–43.
Homsher, Betsy. 2011. Priceless treasures: The society of women engineer’s archives as a source for American History. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 13–21.
Jenniches, Suzanne. 2003. Oral history interview by Lauren Kata. Society of Women Engineers, May 29.
Jenniches, F. Suzanne. 2010. Oral history interview by Frederik Nebeker. IEEE History Center, April 13.
Kata, Lauren. 2011. The boundaries of women’s rights: Activism and aspiration in the society of women engineers, 1946–1980. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 36–49.
Leggon, Cheryl B. 2006. Women in science: Racial and ethnic differences and the differences they make. Journal of Technology Transfer 32: 321–329.
Leggon, Cheryl B. 2010. Diversifying STEM faculties: The intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender. American Behavioral Scientist 53: 1013–1028.
Leggon, Cheryl B., and Troy Eller. 2011. Women in engineering: The illusion of inclusion. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 83–92.
Light, Jennifer. 1999. When computers were human. Technology and Culture 40(3): 455–483.
Meiksins, Peter, Anne M. Perusek, and Tanya Zanish-Belcher. 2011. Curtiss-Wright engineering cadets: 21st century questions and issues. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 22–35.
Metz, Susan. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray. Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, September 25.
Metz, Susan Staffin, Suzanne Brainard, and Gerald Gillmore. 1999. National WEPAN climate study exploring the environment for undergraduate engineering students. Proceedings 1999 international symposium of technology and society, women and technology: Historical societal, and professional perspectives, 61–72.
Misa, Thomas J. 2011. Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken: Wiley.
Muller, Carol B. 2002. MentorNet: Large scale e-mentoring for women in science, engineering, and technology (SET) fields. Proceedings of the 2002 eTEE conference, E-Technologies in engineering education. August 11–16. Davos, Switzerland.
Muller, Carol. 2014. Oral history interview by William Aspray. Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, November 17.
Muller, Carol B., Pavone, Mary L., and Wetterhahn, K. E. 1996. Toward parity: A model campus project for support and systemic change. Society of women engineers annual convention technical paper.
Muller, C.B., S. Blake-Beard, S.J. Barsion, and C.M. Wotipka. 2012. Learning from the experiences of woman of color in MentorNet’s one-on-one program. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 18(4): 317–338.
N.A. 2014. ‘MentorNet joins the great minds in STEM family’ announced at 26th annual HENAAC conference. 24–7 Press Release. http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/mentornet-joins-the-great-minds-in-stem-family-announced-at-26th-annual-henaac-conference-394465.php. Accessed 11 Dec 2014.
Oldenziel, Ruth. 1999. Making technology masculine: Men, women, and modern machines in America. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Porush, David. 2010. The e-mentoring network for diversity in science and engineering. In Cases on online tutoring, mentoring, and educational services: Practices and applications, ed. Gary A. Berg, 12–22. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Puaca, Laura Micheletti. 2008. Cold War women, professional guidance, national defense, and the society of women engineers, 1950–1960. In The educational work of women’s organizations, 1890–1960, ed. Anne Meis Knupfer and Christine Woyshner, 57–77. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Puaca, Laura Micheletti. 2014. Searching for scientific womanpower: Technocratic feminism and the politics of national security, 1940–1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rhodes, Jean. 2002. Stand by Me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rossiter, Margaret. 1982. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Rossiter, Margaret. 2012. Women scientists in America: Forging a new world since 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sandberg, Sheryl. 2013. Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Knopf.
Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler. 1991. Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watford, Bevlee. 2011. On the intersection of race and gender. Journal of the Society of Women Engineers 5: 76–82.
Wellington, Sheila. 2001. Be your own mentor: Strategies from top women on the secrets of success. New York: Random House.
Wu, Michael. 2012. The science of social: Beyond hype, likes, and followers. London: Lithium Technologies.
Zuckerman, Harriet, Jonathan R. Cole, and John T. Bruer (eds.). 1991. The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: Norton.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aspray, W. (2016). Organizations That Help Women to Build STEM Careers. In: Women and Underrepresented Minorities in Computing. History of Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24811-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24811-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24809-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24811-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)