A full understanding of the factors constraining women’s career paths in STEM has often been
hampered by the persistence of several myths and clichés. Table 1 presents some of these
commonly held beliefs and contrasts them with existing evidence. The various factors that have
been identified in the economic literature at different stages of the career pipeline are then
presented (Figure 1). These include: (i) higher education; (ii) stage of career development; and (iii) scientific productivity. Although some factors specifically affect a particular career stage,
several of them are present throughout the career path.
Although the first interaction with
science and mathematics occurs in
elementary education and
secondary education,
tertiary education is the critical step in which students decide their future careers. The
transition from high school to higher education has been identified as the point at which both the
largest proportion of students leave the science and technology trajectory and the exit rates of
women exceed those of men by the largest margin. At the same time,
women seem less inclined than men to choose a STEM discipline when completing a nonscientific or technological track in high school. While women’s participation overall in higher
education has been growing around the world in the past decades, tertiary enrollment rate
increases have been concentrated in fields where women’s participation was already high. But female representation in STEM disciplines remains low, due to several
factors which have a negative effect on information access, study field selection, retention, and
graduation. The literature indicates that preferences, motives, values, stereotypes, and cultural
norms can explain this situation.
Ceci and Williams affirm that in the United States, “the primary factors in
women’s underrepresentation [in science] are preferences and choices—both freely made and
constrained. Females make this choice despite earning higher math and science grades than
males throughout schooling.”. Students’ plans for their future education and careers are
influenced by their expectations about their social roles. Anticipated family roles and
responsibilities play a central part in future planning and influence individuals’ expectations.
Based on a survey of 600 Swiss university students who were asked about their reasons for
selecting a field of study, Suter points out that women prefer careers that do not conflict
with family responsibilities and are useful in childrearing, such as education, psychology, or
medicine. Therefore, it seems that women do not consider STEM fields to be family-friendly. In addition, Xie finds that it may be harder to combine family and work in
some fields (e.g., those that demand many lab hours) than in other fields (e.g., social sciences).
Other authors note that women are drawn to fields that are more related to people than to
numbers. In a similar vein,
Gilbert, Crettaz Roten and Alvarez highlight that in Switzerland “empirical evidence
suggests that young men make their choice mostly based on career prospects, whereas women
are also motivated by social and/or political commitments.” OECD states that “students
who evaluate social skills and key competences as important for working in a modern economy
may be discouraged from pursuing engineering studies, especially women.”
Stereotypes, social norms, and cultural practices also lead to the segregation of women
into certain fields of study. Zubieta (2006) indicates that, in Latin America, stereotypes have
worked as ideological and social barriers preventing females from significantly impacting these
professions. In addition, Suter (2006) argues that stereotypes deter women from careers in STEM
fields because many believe these fields to be more related to male than female characteristics. Family background and the absence of female role models can also influence women’s
participation in STEM careers. Xie argues that young people make career choices on the basis of adult workers’ experiences. When women
become successful in a field, the next generation is more likely to emulate their success. In
addition, a woman’s family could influence her selection of a field of study. Suter states
that female students in engineering and other branches of science often have at least one parent
with a profession in one of these disciplines. This clearly points to the importance of having a
female role model working in a male-dominated profession or field of study.
In male-dominated fields - such as STEM ones - cultural norms are a key factor in
explaining the low participation of women. NAS highlights that STEM department
culture in the United States influences female recruitment because male professors may feel
more comfortable working with male students and women may feel marginalized or unwelcome
(unintentionally). This report also notes that in graduate school women may find a chilly climate,
face harassment, and not be engaged by faculty in professional socialization. If women are
having more negative experiences in graduate school than men, they may be more inclined to
leave.
Cultural norms and stereotypes can also affect women’s access to accurate information,
as well as their perceptions regarding STEM careers. UNESCO states that qualified girls
may not receive appropriate information on Science and Technology courses and careers and
may be steered into other fields. Many girls and their advisors are influenced by stereotypes that
tell them that certain jobs are for men only. Grubb argues that popular knowledge of the
costs and benefits of higher education are drastically out of kilter with reality and may constitute
a barrier to education. In addition, BiTC points out that despite high aspirations among
ethnic minorities and women, these groups have downward misperceptions of future rewards in
many of the key professions, effectively inhibiting them from choosing these careers. Women
are less informed about wages for less popular disciplines. Unfortunately, they seem to be
uninformed with a downward bias.
The gender gap in STEM labor force participation is in most cases wider than the gender gap in
educational trajectory. This evidence suggests that U.S. women face more significant barriers to
becoming scientists or engineers than do men with comparable educational credentials. Indeed, Xie shows that eliminating gender differences in the attainment
of educational credentials would only slightly narrow the gender gap in participation in STEM
occupations. Hence, most of the gender gap comes from the utilization of the education among
those who have attained it.
Female career development in these fields is characterized by vertical segregation,
meaning that women are concentrated at the bottom of the hierarchy but not present in decisionmaking or leadership positions. In this sense, two different effects associated with the
development of women’s professional life have been identified: revolving doors and the glass
ceiling. The former is related to the high exit rates of women who enter male-dominated fields
and the latter refers to the difficulties that women face in rising to the top because of slow or
blocked career progress.
After graduation, women have to overcome several barriers in order to enter and progress
in their professional careers. These include biased recruitment and hiring procedures, restrictive
regulations, biased promotion practices, lack of access to networks, stereotypes, work-life
balance issues, and evaluation practices. All of these barriers affect women’s access to STEM
fields, hiring and promotion opportunities, retention, and career success.
Junior Positions
In the competition to obtain entry-level positions, women can be penalized by gender-biased
recruitment and hiring procedures, as well as by restrictive regulations and norms. The ways that
professionals are attracted to certain positions, how the interviews take place, and even how the
evaluation results and the job offer are communicated influence women’s participation. Bowles, Babcock, and Lai used experimental economics to show that gender
differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of
men and women when they attempt to negotiate. For example, male evaluators penalized female
candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations. Petersen, Saporta and Seidel analyzed the hiring process of a mid-sized U.S. high-technology organization, finding
that gender could have a negative impact on the initial salary offered.
Evaluation of scores and recommendation letters also shows that male candidates are
preferred over females. Numerous experiments have clearly evidenced this result. Steinpreis,
Anders and Ritzke (1999), in a study involving 238 American psychologists, argues that both
men and women faculty members have a significant preference for hiring a male, rating
systematically male research, teaching, and service above identical record of female candidates.
Trix and Pzenka analyze over 300 letters of recommendation for medical faculty at a
large American medical school, finding that gender stereotyping systematically resulted in
female candidates receiving less favorable recommendations than men. Schmader, Whitehead,
and Wysocki perform a linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and
female applicants for either a chemistry or biochemistry faculty position at a large U.S. research
university and find that recommenders used significantly more stand-out adjectives to describe
male compared to female candidates. Letters containing more standout words also included more
ability words and fewer grindstone words.
Moreover, women can be affected by restrictive regulations and norms, which can
influence their access to STEM careers, by setting inappropriate physical requirements for jobs
such as heavy lifting or restrictions such as working at night. EC points
out that in Europe there are structural barriers, embedded in regulations, which have been created
by still predominantly male hierarchies, and there are social assumptions concerning the role of
men and women that hinder the utilization of potential.
Career Progression
Along with career progression, women, face still more obstacles—some new and others already
described. These barriers are related mainly to networking access, male-dominated culture,
stereotypes, and personal and professional life conflicts.
Networking plays an important role in career advancement in academic or scientific
careers, as new job or grant opportunities are usually disseminated through networks. However,
the literature indicates that women are often excluded from social networks. A
report prepared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology points out that women
systematically report being excluded from informal social gatherings and more formal events, as
well as from collaborating on research or teaching. Therefore, women’s lack of involvement
could lead to important information loss in terms of grant opportunities and available position. UNESCO reinforces this idea, pointing out that women could be excluded
from networks due to cultural norms, leaving them in a disadvantaged position with respect to
men in relation to information on funding opportunities. In addition, OECD finds that
women who care for small children are especially excluded from networks, as distinct from men.
An overall male-dominated culture can also have an impact. It can generate an unpleasant
environment for women, discouraging their participation or even supporting their exit. Fox states that women’s participation, performance, and advancement are not a simple
function of their individual characteristics, such as prestige of doctoral origin, training, or skills.
But their participation and achievements could also reflect the features of the organizational
contexts in which they work, including organizational climate and culture, work structures,
evaluative practices, and reward patterns. For instance, in a survey of over 3,700 U.S. female
engineers, Fouad and Singh confirm that the workplace climate and culture are one of the
factors that encourage women to leave engineering. McIlwee and Robinson argue “there
is a distinct, male-centered ‘culture of engineering’ that generates an unfavorable climate for
women and thus makes their access to this profession more difficult, particularly to the most
prestigious positions in research and development”. A report by UNESCO states that sexual harassment or discriminatory practices that take place in this environment
affect women in the workplace and discourage them.
Other factors that can explain the difficulties for women to
progress in scientific andtechnological careers are related to the presence of stereotypes, which affects the possibility of
obtaining a better job or research funding, to express their own ideas, or even to
lead teams. Moreover, the lack of role models among the upper echelons may
hinder women’s career progression.
Finally, conflicts between family and work life can have a strong impact on women’s
career development. This factor is present at all stages of the career path. Bullers and Sax et al. show that female faculty
members are less satisfied than men with the interaction between their personal and professional lives. OECD points out that women—even those who graduated from the best schools—
still tend to choose professions that will allow them to control their working hours in order to be compatible with their family life. In this sense, UNESCO states that the career
development of a woman may be affected by taking time out from employment when her
children are young. It is then difficult to return to a position comparable to those held by others
who have not taken time off and have been steadily advancing in their careers. This is especially
true in the world of scientific research, where publishing is a key component of career
advancement. Moreover, household responsibilities affect not only available time for
employment, but also geographic and career mobility. And successful careers in STEM are often
associated with the gaining of varied experience, particularly experience abroad .
Leadership Positions
The absence of
women in leadership positions is a constant in STEM fields. The barriers
presented in the previous section, such as promotion practices, stereotypes, and conflicts between
private and public life, among others, also have an effect on reaching leadership positions.
However, at this stage, another key factor is related to the way that success is evaluated.
Generally, evaluation of success, required to reach leadership positions in science, is
related to productivity. Differences in productivity may partially explain the lower promotion
rates of women in some areas, such as
materials science,
biology, and
physics. Many studies have shown that women tend to publish less than men in most
STEM fields. This phenomenon, characterized as the “productivity puzzle” nearly three decades
ago by Cole and Zuckerman, remains to this day a key factor in understanding female
underrepresentation in leading positions in science. Several reasons have been identified to
explain their poorer performance: lack of access to information, funding, or institutional support;
biased research evaluation procedures; and low recognition in the field.
With regard to funding, evidence shows that women have neither the same access to
information nor receive the same support as men. For instance, according to Sedeño,
Ibero-American women are members of low-power committees, have fewer financial resources,
less support from staff or are located in offices which are further away, do not have access to “beginners’ networks” in order to obtain information, and do not have role models or mentors
whom they can ask for advice and support. Moreover, evaluation of productivity takes into
account only the number of papers published and not their impact. UNESCO states that
while straight index counts generally indicate lower production rates by women, the use of a
quality-weighted index that takes into account the number of times an article is cited
demonstrates a higher level of scholarly production by women. According to this report,
although women are as likely as men to collaborate on research projects, they tend to belong to
smaller teams that publish less, so that their rate of return on collaboration is lower than for men.
Research indicates that women also co-author less often than men, which is a disadvantage in
ranking because single and co-authored publications are weighted equally.
Finally, EC (2005) points out that the existing systems of defining and evaluating
scientific excellence are not as gender-neutral as they are claimed to be. UNESCO argues
that bias occurs in the definition of
scientific excellence and assessment criteria, the choice of
explicit and implicit indicators to measure excellence—differing application of measurement
criteria to men and women—and in the failure to integrate women into scientific networks and
assessment frameworks. And empirical evidence shows that an article receives lower reviews
when it is identified as written by a woman. Another explanation for the low presence of women is that peers are often required to
nominate a colleague to a high-level position. STEM fields are male-dominated areas, and there
is a tendency to discriminate against women when considering a promotion. Zinovyeva and Bagues support the idea, discovering that a greater participation of women
on promotion committees in Spain increases women’s probability of achieving full
professorships.
The procedures for reaching decision-making positions could also be gender-biased. In a
1997 empirical study on postdoctoral fellowships in Sweden, Wenneras and Wold found
that applications presented by men received systematically higher scores than those presented by
equally productive women. In addition, based on Handelsman et al. and Symonds et al., UNESCO points out that in order to obtain a promotion, women usually need to
achieve higher scores than men in all of the relevant criteria. Thus, there is a general tendency to see women as less competent than men and their accomplishments as less worthy and significant.
Comments
Post a Comment