Women in mathematics,Science,and Engineering - Essay Example

? The role of women in careers which revolve around math, science and engineering has been a central concern of democratic societies around the worldas those societies have attempted to extend social and economic equality. Because math, science, and engineering careers are among the most powerful and lucrative professions in the information age, most advanced governments and societies have believed it important to ensure that women are encouraged to enter those fields and that they have access to the careers in them through proper education and certification. In this paper, the status and role of women in math, science, and engineering in Canada will be reviewed in order to determine how successful one of the most developed of such societies has been in its efforts. Canada was chosen as a focus for study because there is sufficient evidence in that nation’s research literature to make good comparisons between women’s standing and men’s standing in the relevant career fields. The paper will review the professional opportunities and challenges that women face in math, science, and engineering, as well as the political, economic, and social issues that impact on the role women play. The resource that will be used to review the relevant data will be a comprehensive report titled Women in Science and Engineering in Canada, produced by the Corporate Planning and Policy Directorate (CPPC) of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Following the review of the information, a conclusion and recommendations will be offered regarding how successful Canada has been in promoting participation among women and what the nation can do to improve in its efforts. The CPPC indicates that only 3% of women in Canada have careers in the technological fields including sciences and engineering, while 10.5% of men have such careers (p. 29). Further, the workforce in those fields was made up, in 2004, of only 22% women, despite the fact that women hold approximately 40% of the Bachelor’s degrees given in appropriate fields of study (p. 30-31). Women have equal to higher unemployment rates than men, despite the fact that their overall numbers are less than a third of men’s within the relevant fields (p. 31). They are less likely to hold management positions, even among groups with similar levels of degree attainment (p. 32). In private and corporate enterprise research and development careers, their numbers of participation range from lows of less than 20% to highs of 25% regardless of degree levels achieved (p. 41). In the government research and development sector, where great efforts have been made to increase participation in the last three decades, women’s overall rates of participation have increased from 3% of the workforce in 1980, but they still stand at just 20% by 2009 (p. 42). Even in the public world of the higher academies, where the CPPC notes that “employment equity programs” have resulted in women’s participation rates growing at levels up to five times higher than that of men in recent decades, the highest level of women making up any particular discipline’s overall numbers of full professorships or associate professorships is less than one third. Most fields show that women hold less than 20% of such positions (p. 37). These figures hold across all age groups and degree groups, indicating that lower participation rates among women are a system-wide problem (p. 39). The CPPC summarizes that for the academies particularly “the hiring statistics present a rather slow and steady improvement for women. There has been progress over the last decade according to the data… but gender equality remains a distant possibility” (p. 39). Overall rates, including both public and private career groups, support these conclusions. The employment facts for women in math, science and engineering in both the public and private sectors, as shown in these and other figures, indicates that women are underrepresented. The CPPC considered a number of possible reasons why this occurs. One of the most significant factors lies in considering the levels of educational degrees achieved by both men and women that are necessary to enter the relevant fields. Because most advanced math, science, and engineering careers require completion of a PhD degree, one way to compare the successful encouragement of women in math, science, and engineering fields is to consider the “pipeline” of children of both genders, in order to determine the highest level of education completed. The CPPC shows that, while the number of girls and boys who enter the Canadian education system at the first grade level is roughly equal, by the time that supply of students reaches a point in which they become candidates for PhDs, men are much more likely to have continued their education than women are. They write the following: The odds of a female child enrolled in 1st grade going on to receive a Ph.D. in the sciences or engineering are approximately 1 in 286 (the odds for a boy are 1 in 167). Today, in an average-sized Canadian elementary school, only 1 child will go on to receive that Ph.D., and it is likely to be a boy. (p.3) This is despite the fact that in international standardized testing of boys and girls in math and sciences at all levels of education, Canadian boy and girls perform at roughly the same levels of mastery (p. 4). Where differences were found, girls seemed more inclined to identify scientific issues in the bigger picture properly while boys were more inclined to explain issues in detail properly (p. 6). It seems, therefore, that the problem of retaining women in the Canadian educational system long enough to obtain the PhD and enter the technological fields is not one of educational capacity or mastery. In fact, by losing more women the longer the system requires to get appropriate degrees, the system may be ignoring important integrative perspectives that women alone can bring. In asking why women drop out of the technological fields earlier than men do, the CPPC suggests that part of the problem is the way self-perceptions are taught to students who study in the fields. For example, when looking at representation in full-time collegiate degree programs, the CPPC discovered that the number of women enrolled in Canadian colleges is approximately 40% higher than the number of men, thereby indicating that there is no problem with women being underrepresented in higher education generally. Rather, there is something in the way women are being channeled into certain fields of study and career choices. The CPPC claims a “gender gap” exists in the way young girls are encouraged to participate, so that they see math and science as being less relevant to their future career development than do boys, thereby feeling less confident in their abilities to perform in those fields. This is true even when they achieve similar levels of mastery. The CPPC concludes: In the last year of high school, a greater proportion of boys consistently report that they perceive themselves as doing well in mathematics and science, and that skills can be acquired through work. In comparison, the majority of girls tend to believe that success in math and science is a question of natural abilities. Furthermore, girls consistently dislike math, physics and chemistry more than boys, and have a greater affinity to life and earth sciences. A lack of female role models in science and engineering is commonly cited as a major reason contributing to attitudes and performance of high school girls in math and science. (p.7) The last year of high school is a critical time for students to decide what career paths they will follow. Because the CPPC indicates that the single most important thing Canadian society can do to increase the numbers of women entering technological career fields is to increase the numbers of women who study math, science, and engineering and continue in those fields until they achieve degrees such as the PhD, the political and social forces which hinder this are important to understand. Only when the reasons that contribute to the legitimation of the “gender gap” are understood can they be overcome. The CPPC reviewed a number of political, social, and economic factors which have been involved in the creation of the “gender gap” regarding women’s participation in math, science, and engineering careers. They indicated that policy programs which have been put into place to provide women with grants to study the relevant fields have shown recent successes, particularly by improving retention of women until they reach the PhD. However, the number of women who achieve the Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees has continued to fall off. The CPPC concludes that this is at least in part due to the fact that women who enter the academies do not find enough role models in their fields to help them maintain their levels of interest in study (p. 19). Because they found that women complete their terminal degrees in about the same time that it takes men to do so, the explanations for dropping out must include notions of economics and socialization, rather than ability. The CPPC also suggests that the problems of Canadian student retention are not entirely limited to women, as Canadian men also achieve lower levels of degree attainment than their international counterparts. Therefore, they argue that the value of an education in math, science, and engineering must be stressed overall for Canadian students, and that this emphasis should be particularly stressed for female students. If such emphases are not made, they claim, the nation will become dependent on immigration to meet its overall needs in careers revolving around technological capacities. The Canadian has sponsored programs which encourage underrepresented groups such as women to pursue careers in the technological fields through PromoScience grants that highlight the work of people in those groups. They have also attempted to advance social concerns of study in the fields by promoting such programs as paid parental leave (pp. 51-52). The CPPC argues that such programs speak to the motivation of students and professionals in the relevant fields and make it easier for them to focus on their work and professional obligations. Additionally, the highlighting of female role models through such programs is important because it gives female students someone to look to for mentoring and inspiration. Programs designed to retain students who enter relevant fields in college are also critical and have been put in place through Discovery grants designed to ease economic burdens of female students. Finally, the level of upward mobility of both professionals and students has been addressed through employment equity programs designed to make sure that women in both public and private careers are rewarded economically for their achievements and management positions are filled with deserving candidates. Despite all of these efforts, the “gender gap” remains. It is the conclusion here that socialization efforts in Canada continue to lag behind policy and economic programs. The CPPC argues that such factors as the inclusion of positive role modeling for women in textbooks contributes to the notions that young female students develop regarding future participation in math, science, and engineering (p. 66). Such stereotyping does not only exist among youth, as some professional women are not promoted due to expectations that they will take time off for child-bearing (p. 68). Further, and finally, the ideas that Canadian society promotes regarding what it means to be a scientist continue to revolve around male standards, so that women’s perspectives are marginalized. If women are to be truly equal in the field of math, science, and engineering, these issues will have to be addressed in the attitudes and opinions that the society takes toward young girls and women as a societal whole as well as a professional endeavor. Reference Corporate Planning and Policy Directorate. (2010). Women in Science and Engineering in Canada. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. 5 May 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf. Read More