Why Aren’t There More Women in STEM Careers?
As we progress through the early 21st century, women have continually increased their representation in pharmacy, marketing, law, academia, and a plenitude of other disciplines since the 90s. More women than ever before are graduating from universities, and their representation only continues to grow as we approach 2020. Despite their rise in numbers, STEM fields continue to be dominated by men at disproportionate rates, in careers and universities alike.
In 2015, 47% of the workforce was occupied by women, while women only accounted for 24% of all STEM careers, with a percent of increase of hardly 2% since 2009 (Noonan 3). Given that more women are showing higher rates of academic achievement, why do women remain underrepresented in these traditionally male-dominated STEM careers? Several socioeconomic, cultural, and biological factors can help explain why the gender gap in STEM seems more stagnant than most other disciplines.
Though much of the raw abilities of students are a product of environmental and social factors through one’s development, it is of substantial significance to note the biological predispositions to particular interests. For example, several large-scale studies have definitively proven some gender-unique skills to be relevant when studying verbal, quantitative, and visuospatial skills in the sexes. In relation to average writing scores, a study from the U.S. Department of Education found: “Females have consistently outperformed males in writing achievement at the 4th, 8th, and 11th grade levels between 1988 and 1996. Differences in male and female writing achievement were relatively large. The writing scores of female 8th graders were comparable with those of 11th grade males.” (Halpern). These studies regarding writing scores were referenced to show the unique advantage women display in verbal abilities. These results are internationally definitive, meaning that the superiority of the average woman’s score is statistically significant in more than 30 countries (Halpern).
In contrast, our library of research regarding visuospatial information processing has shown different results, but they seem to be definitive in their conclusions once again. Examinations such as the Mazes subtest of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, as well as mental rotation tests produced results which showed that boys had significantly better results as early as age 4½ (Halpern). This shows that women and men are, by a significant margin, initially dominant in language-oriented and visuospatial skills respectively, but another data point tells us even more. Negligible sex differences in mathematical abilities are shown through most primary school years, but an unambiguous advantage in men is shown post-primary school, when concepts such as geometry, calculus, and linear algebra are usually taught (Halpern).
This is crucial to our understanding of the role of biological predisposition to STEM fields, namely in our review of how men and women respectively benefit from their strengths and pursue corresponding fields throughout college. As men are proven to display substantially higher degrees of competence in spatial reasoning and higher-level math, it is understandable that a higher number of them are drawn to STEM majors and careers out of playing to their strengths. In a similar manner, many women are drawn to careers that demand excellence in verbal and writing abilities, such as health, education, social work, language and communications, which would decrease from the percentage of women in STEM in and of itself. This does NOT definitively spell out why the gender gap exists due to the presence of numerous environmental factors, but it does provide some invaluable insights on why the gender gap in STEM may appear more fixed relative to other fields from a biological perspective.
Now that we’ve looked at biological influences at work, let’s explore the environmental factors that influence women in STEM. Many competitive pressures that permeate workplaces in these fields arise from a male attitude of superiority in which women are seen as questionable or even outright incompetent, and are constantly scrutinized for proof of their capabilities. These biases have been shown to be present in the employer’s mind during hiring. They also tend to linger in the minds of colleagues during everyday work. This is especially harmful for women of color in STEM fields, as they rarely have any role models of color, let alone women who function as mentors. A study from the PNAS(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA) showed how stereotypes can harm women’s chances of being hired in math and science-based careers. Their study methods discovered the presence of biases within hiring parameters by using the Implicit Association Test, or IAT (Rueben).
The AIT is composed of tasks that require subjects to categorize images and text, which acted as a means to preclude influences of social desirability bias that the subject may have i.e. pairing majors or career with the categories of male and female. 4 initial tests in this study combined with the AIT showed innate bias to hire men over women. This bias was prominent within the 4 tests, in which men tended to overshoot with their future performance(a factor often overlooked by the employers, as women tend to be more honest with their future capabilities), as well as the AIT. In addition, this bias was prevalent in men as well as women, meaning both genders see men as more competent in a hypothetical arithmetic-based career (Rueben).
Now that we’ve looked at biases within the hiring processes, let’s navigate through the actual daily workplace experiences of women in STEM. The following study provides sufficient data to suggest that the above biases against women are further exacerbated when a STEM employee is a women of color. A study from the Harvard Business Review conducted a survey of 557 women scientists with comprehensive interviews questioning 60 women scientists regarding their experiences in the STEM workforce.
Unique experiences regarding harmful biases in the workplace were disclosed, particularly showing the impact on women of color in STEM workplaces in 5 major types of bias. One prominent pattern shown through this study is the “Prove-It-Again” behavior in which women are constantly scrutinized for legitimacy and have their expertise challenged (Williams). Black women were substantially more prone to dealing with this behavior, with nearly 75% of black women experiencing it. The stereotype of Asian-Americans as highly intelligible in STEM fields may have helped the Asian women’s chances of avoiding this behavior. Another bias includes the fallacy that maternal responsibilities severely hinder or outright diminish a woman’s competence in the STEM workforce. A black microbiologist noted that much of these belittling attitudes are rooted in the stereotype that women only work in STEM until they marry a financially competent partner and bear children (Williams).
Contrary to what may be extrapolated from the idea of women finding other female allies in the workplace, conflict arising from varying generations of women in the workplace can cause its own trouble (Williams). This is due to the pressure that women feel to fight for the “women’s spot” in a male-dominated environment, which impedes on finding common ground and support. One bias particularly relevant to black and Latinx women is the isolation issue. These intersectional women feel pressured to sheathe the details of their personal lives in order to put up a face of professionalism. They often feel excluded from everyday social interactions due to the innate fear of colleagues of “offending” them or coming across as insensitive (Williams). Exclusion may also be attributed to colleagues being afraid to confront people of color, leading them to avoid interaction with black women whenever possible (Williams). If these indirect behaviors aren’t enough to show the unequal treatment of women of color in STEM, perhaps the prevalence of stunningly juvenile racist remarks will prove sufficient.
A black biologist in the Harvard Business Review study retold an incident in which an advisor questioned, “Hey, do you have any family on drugs or in jail?” (Williams). Many Asian-American women discussed how colleagues assume they are foreign, as many colleagues ask where they are from and end up dissatisfied hearing that they are from the U.S. Nearly 50% of black women and Latinx disclosed that they were mistaken as custodial staff, which is nearly double the amount as described by white and Asian-American women scientists (Williams).
We have explored the roles of biological predisposition and environmental factors affecting women’s interest in STEM careers. In terms of seeking a STEM degree in college, many social factors influence a woman’s success rate as well. The common stereotypes may suggest that fewer women of color would pursue degrees in STEM than white women, but this has been refuted (Ong). At the same time, women of color are less likely to achieve their degrees and graduate from STEM majors due to various factors inhibiting their growth and interest in math and science (Ong). Much of these factors are rooted in attitudes of internalized segregation from peers, lack of support and encouragement from family(this is especially true for Latinx women), and loss of interest due to the aforementioned reasons. Social stratification in STEM classrooms and labs often arises due to preconceived notions about women of color, which are often constituted by low expectations, racial stereotypes, and the reluctance of women of color to participate when they are discouraged by the above factors. This hindrance to their participation only exacerbates their image in the face of other students.
In addition to the lack of identifiable peers within STEM(especially within computer science/math and engineering careers, which women constituted only 26% and 14% of, respectively), family conflicts played an immensely influential role in terms of pushing women toward or away from STEM. Although the degrees to which family guidance and community expectations differs among women of color in STEM, the absence of familial support is quite prevalent. Black and Latinx women often are questioned in terms of their long term goals and pressured into traditional norms of bearing children and entering the workforce early, whereas Asian American feel supported only in a restrictive set of career choices that are strongly pushed by parents (Ong). These negative pressures were not without their positive counterparts. For example, women of color who pursued college educations in STEM fields felt the need to place strong personal importance when it meant bringing back honor and success to their communities (Ong). These women who felt that positive pressure was a driving force were more likely to complete their college years and eventually be successful.
We have examined the numerous forces at work regarding the under-representation of women in the STEM workforce. As we move towards 2020 and beyond, we can further examine the impact of social and environmental influences on women’s representation in STEM majors and careers, as we have established the significance of biological predispositions. So, we often find ourselves asking the question, why aren’t there more women in STEM careers? While we might instead ask, should there be more women in STEM? Or even, how can we implement ways to foster more welcoming STEM environments within colleges and workplaces to encourage women to pursue STEM careers, rather than be repelled by the prospect of them? If we did, would it change their numbers by any significant margins? Only time will tell.
Halpern, Diane F., et al. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, NCBI, 1 Aug. 2007, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/#R102. Accessed 9 Sept. 2018.
Noonan, Ryan. “Women in STEM: 2017 Update.” U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration Office of the Chief Economist, ESA, 13 Nov. 2017, www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/women-in-stem-2017-update.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept. 2018.
Ong, Maria, et al. Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Undergraduate and Graduate Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 2011, pp. 180-87,otl.wayne.edu/wider/inside_the_double_bind.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept. 2018.
Reuben, Ernesto, et al. “How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, edited by Anthony G. Greenwald, PNAS, 25 Mar. 2014, www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.full. Accessed 9 Sept. 2018.
Williams, Joan C. “The 5 Biases Pushing Women Out of STEM.” Harvard Business Review, HBR, 24 Mar. 2015, hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem. Accessed 9 Sept. 2018.
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
gummygunk
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
