Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape

How to Break the Cycle of Low Workforce Diversity: A Model for Change

Social justice concerns but also perceived business advantage are behind a widespread drive to increase workplace diversity. However, dominance in terms of ethnicity, gender or other aspects of diversity has been resistant to change in many sectors. The different factors which contribute to low diversity are often hotly contested and difficult to untangle. We propose that many of the barriers to change arise from self-reinforcing feedbacks between low group diversity and inclusivity. Using a dynamic model, we demonstrate how bias in employee appointment and departure can trap organizations in a state with much lower diversity than the applicant pool: a workforce diversity “poverty trap”. Our results also illustrate that if turnover rate is low, employee diversity takes a very long time to change, even in the absence of any bias. The predicted rate of change in workforce composition depends on the rate at which employees enter and leave the organization, and on three measures of inclusion: applicant diversity, appointment bias and departure bias. Quantifying these three inclusion measures is the basis of a new, practical framework to identify barriers and opportunities to increasing workforce diversity. Because we used a systems approach to investigate underlying feedback mechanisms rather than context-specific causes of low workforce diversity, our results are applicable across a wide range of settings.

Gender Bias in STEM Fields

The current study focuses on girls’ and women’s reported experiences with gender bias in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In the first set of analyses, I examined whether the prevalence of self-reported gender bias varied depending on the educational context. I then examined whether experiencing gender bias was associated with lower STEM self-concept and, if so, whether having a supportive network of STEM peers would buffer this effect. Data were collected through a self-report survey that was administered to high school girls who aspired to have STEM careers, women in STEM undergraduate majors, and women in STEM doctoral programs. Overall, 61% of participants reported experiencing gender bias in the past year, but the prevalence rate varied according to their phase of education and field of study. In particular, women in math-intensive undergraduate majors were especially likely to encounter gender bias, which predominately originated from male peers in their major. As expected, participants who encountered gender bias had lower STEM self-concept than participants who did not. However, this effect was attenuated for participants who also had a supportive network of STEM peers. These findings suggest that positive peer connections may be a valuable resource for girls and women in the STEM pipeline.

WOMEN IN SCIENCE. Comment on "Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines"

Leslie et al. (Reports, 16 January 2015, p. 262) concluded that "expectations of brilliance" explained the gender makeup of academic disciplines. We reestimated their models after adding measures of disaggregated Graduate Record Examination scores by field. Our results indicated that female representation among Ph.D. recipients is associated with the field's mathematical content and that faculty beliefs about innate ability were irrelevant.

Breadth-Based Models of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM Fields: An Integrative Commentary on Schmidt (2011) and Nye et al. (2012)

Relative strength of math and verbal abilities and interests drive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career choices more than absolute math ability alone. Having one dominant aptitude (e.g., for mathematics) increases the likelihood of a strong self-concept in that domain and decreases the likelihood of equivocation about career choices in comparison with individuals with equivalent mathematical aptitude who have comparable strength in non-math areas. Males are more likely than females to have an asymmetrical cognitive profile of higher aptitude in math relative to verbal domains. Together, these two points suggest that the academic and career pursuits of high math ability males may be attributable to their narrower options among STEM fields, whereas females' more symmetrical cognitive profile means their math and verbal interests compete in the formation of their ability self-concept and, hence, in their broader career choices. Such equivocation about STEM careers is in fact already evident in girls with high math aptitude as early as junior high school. Thus, we argue that asymmetry in interests and aptitudes is an underappreciated factor in sex differences in career choice. To the extent this is true, focusing on strengthening young women's STEM-related abilities and ability self-concepts to increase female STEM representation may be an unproductive approach; to increase representation, it may be more effective to focus on harvesting the potential of those girls and women whose breadth of interest and high ability spans social/verbal and spatial/numerical domains. The use of interventions that play to this greater breadth by socially contextualizing STEM is one potential solution.

Perceived mathematical ability under challenge: a longitudinal perspective on sex segregation among STEM degree fields

Students' perceptions of their mathematics ability vary by gender and seem to influence science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degree choice. Related, students' perceptions during academic difficulty are increasingly studied in educational psychology, suggesting a link between such perceptions and task persistence. Despite interest in examining the gender disparities in STEM, these concepts have not been considered in tandem. In this manuscript, we investigate how perceived ability under challenge—in particular in mathematics domains—influences entry into the most sex-segregated and mathematics-intensive undergraduate degrees: physics, engineering, mathematics, and computer science (PEMC). Using nationally representative Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS) data, we estimate the influence of perceived ability under challenging conditions on advanced high school science course taking, selection of an intended STEM major, and specific major type 2 years after high school. Demonstrating the importance of specificity when discussing how gender influences STEM career pathways, the intersecting effects of gender and perceived ability under mathematics challenge were distinct for each scientific major category. Perceived ability under challenge in secondary school varied by gender, and was highly predictive of selecting PEMC and health sciences majors. Notably, women's 12th grade perceptions of their ability under mathematics challenge increased their probability of selecting PEMC majors over and above biology. In addition, gender moderated the effect of growth mindset on students' selection of health science majors. Perceptions of ability under challenge in general and verbal domains also influenced retention in and declaration of certain STEM majors. The implications of these results are discussed, with particular attention to access to advanced scientific coursework in high school and interventions aimed at enhancing young women's perceptions of their ability, in particular in response to the potentially inhibiting influence of stereotype threat on their pathways to scientific degrees.

Does the sex difference in competitiveness decrease in selective sub-populations? A test with intercollegiate distance runners

Sex differences in some preferences and motivations are well established, but it is unclear whether they persist in selective sub-populations, such as expert financial decision makers, top scientists, or elite athletes. We addressed this issue by studying competitiveness in 1,147 varsity intercollegiate distance runners. As expected, across all runners, men reported greater competitiveness with two previously validated instruments, greater competitiveness on a new elite competitiveness scale, and greater training volume, a known correlate of competitiveness. Among faster runners, the sex difference decreased for one measure of competitiveness but did not decrease for the two other competitiveness measures or either measure of training volume. Across NCAA athletic divisions (DI, DII, DIII), the sex difference did not decrease for any competitiveness or training measure. Further analyses showed that these sex differences could not be attributed to women suffering more injuries or facing greater childcare responsibilities. However, women did report greater commitment than men to their academic studies, suggesting a sex difference in priorities. Therefore, policies aiming to provide men and women with equal opportunities to flourish should acknowledge that sex differences in some kinds of preferences and motivation may persist even in selective sub-populations.

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance

Women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a prominent concern in our society and many others. Closer inspection of this phenomenon reveals a more nuanced picture, however, with women achieving parity with men at the Ph.D. level in certain STEM fields, while also being underrepresented in some non-STEM fields. It is important to consider and provide an account of this field-by-field variability. The field-specific ability beliefs (FAB) hypothesis aims to provide such an account, proposing that women are likely to be underrepresented in fields thought to require raw intellectual talent—a sort of talent that women are stereotyped to possess less of than men. In two studies, we provide evidence for the FAB hypothesis, demonstrating that the academic fields believed by laypeople to require brilliance are also the fields with lower female representation. We also found that the FABs of participants with college-level exposure to a field were more predictive of its female representation than those of participants without college exposure, presumably because the former beliefs mirror more closely those of the field’s practitioners (the direct “gatekeepers”). Moreover, the FABs of participants with college exposure to a field predicted the magnitude of the field’s gender gap above and beyond their beliefs about the level of mathematical and verbal skills required. Finally, we found that beliefs about the importance of brilliance to success in a field may predict its female representation in part by fostering the impression that the field demands solitary work and competition with others. These results suggest new solutions for enhancing diversity within STEM and across the academic spectrum.

The role of school performance in narrowing gender gaps in the formation of STEM aspirations: a cross-national study

This study uses cross-national evidence to estimate the effect of school peer performance on the size of the gender gap in the formation of STEM career aspirations. We argue that STEM aspirations are influenced not only by gender stereotyping in the national culture but also by the performance of peers in the local school environment. Our analyses are based on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). They investigate whether 15-year-old students from 55 different countries expect to have STEM jobs at the age of 30. We find considerable gender differences in the plans to pursue careers in STEM occupations in all countries. Using PISA test scores in math and science aggregated at the school level as a measure of school performance, we find that stronger performance environments have a negative impact on student career aspirations in STEM. Although girls are less likely than boys to aspire to STEM occupations, even when they have comparable abilities, boys respond more than girls to competitive school performance environments. As a consequence, the aspirations gender gap narrows for high-performing students in stronger performance environments. We show that those effects are larger in countries that do not sort students into different educational tracks.

All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields

The degree of women's underrepresentation varies by STEM fields. Women are now overrepresented in social sciences, yet only constitute a fraction of the engineering workforce. In the current study, we investigated the gender differences in interests as an explanation for the differential distribution of women across sub-disciplines of STEM as well as the overall underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. Specifically, we meta-analytically reviewed norm data on basic interests from 52 samples in 33 interest inventories published between 1964 and 2007, with a total of 209,810 male and 223,268 female respondents. We found gender differences in interests to vary largely by STEM field, with the largest gender differences in interests favoring men observed in engineering disciplines (d = 0.83–1.21), and in contrast, gender differences in interests favoring women in social sciences and medical services (d = −0.33 and −0.40, respectively). Importantly, the gender composition (percentages of women) in STEM fields reflects these gender differences in interests. The patterns of gender differences in interests and the actual gender composition in STEM fields were explained by the people-orientation and things-orientation of work environments, and were not associated with the level of quantitative ability required. These findings suggest potential interventions targeting interests in STEM education to facilitate individuals' ability and career development and strategies to reform work environments to better attract and retain women in STEM occupations.

Math achievement is important, but task values are critical, too: examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers

Although young women now obtain higher course grades in math than boys and are just as likely to be enrolled in advanced math courses in high school, females continue to be underrepresented in some Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occupations. This study drew on expectancy-value theory to assess (1) which intellectual and motivational factors in high school predict gender differences in career choices and (2) whether students’ motivational beliefs mediated the pathway of gender on STEM career via math achievement by using a national longitudinal sample in the United States. We found that math achievement in 12th grade mediated the association between gender and attainment of a STEM career by the early to mid-thirties. However, math achievement was not the only factor distinguishing gender differences in STEM occupations. Even though math achievement explained career differences between men and women, math task value partially explained the gender differences in STEM career attainment that were attributed to math achievement. The identification of potential factors of women’s underrepresentation in STEM will enhance our ability to design intervention programs that are optimally tailored to female needs to impact STEM achievement and occupational choices.

The bachelor's to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: a 30-year analysis

For decades, research and public discourse about gender and science have often assumed that women are more likely than men to “leak” from the science pipeline at multiple points after entering college. We used retrospective longitudinal methods to investigate how accurately this “leaky pipeline” metaphor has described the bachelor’s to Ph.D. transition in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the U.S. since the 1970s. Among STEM bachelor’s degree earners in the 1970s and 1980s, women were less likely than men to later earn a STEM Ph.D. However, this gender difference closed in the 1990s. Qualitatively similar trends were found across STEM disciplines. The leaky pipeline metaphor therefore partially explains historical gender differences in the U.S., but no longer describes current gender differences in the bachelor’s to Ph.D. transition in STEM. The results help constrain theories about women’s underrepresentation in STEM. Overall, these results point to the need to understand gender differences at the bachelor’s level and below to understand women’s representation in STEM at the Ph.D. level and above. Consistent with trends at the bachelor’s level, women’s representation at the Ph.D. level has been recently declining for the first time in over 40 years.

Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls' interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes

Despite having made significant inroads into many traditionally male-dominated fields (e.g., biology, chemistry), women continue to be underrepresented in computer science and engineering. We propose that students' stereotypes about the culture of these fields-including the kind of people, the work involved, and the values of the field-steer girls away from choosing to enter them. Computer science and engineering are stereotyped in modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an intense focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance. These stereotypes are compatible with qualities that are typically more valued in men than women in American culture. As a result, when computer science and engineering stereotypes are salient, girls report less interest in these fields than their male peers. However, altering these stereotypes-by broadening the representation of the people who do this work, the work itself, and the environments in which it occurs-significantly increases girls' sense of belonging and interest in the field. Academic stereotypes thus serve as gatekeepers, driving girls away from certain fields and constraining their learning opportunities and career aspirations.