Women In Science - Essay Example

Bias and Barriers – Obstacles to Women who Pursue Sciences Introduction When Marie Curie, the first woman Nobel Prize winner came to Paris, she recorded her feelings thus "It was like a new world opened to me, the world of science, which I was at last permitted to know in all liberty" (Curie cited by Froman 1). Subtly, her words have brought out the amount of discouragement and stigma that society has attached to women who pursued science. Indeed, even after a century, the situation has not changed, with few finding their names in list of awardees in the fields of science or mathematics. The reasons are complex and debatable. This essay explores the reasons underlying the trend of fewer women taking to advanced studies in mathematics, science and technology, and argue many barriers still exist in the society that make it hardly conducive for women to study afore said subjects. A strong but invisible bias prevents many women, entry into what is considered predominantly male domain. Women of Science in the Last Two Centuries Traditionally, the domain of woman has been confined to domestic work, whether it is within one’s house or others. Therefore women have not been encouraged to study in first place, and developing a scientific temper has been for most part, considered beyond women’s capabilities. The concept that women’s work has to restricted to domestic arena reigned strong throughout the nineteenth and to some extent the twentieth centuries too, partially drawing credibility from religious texts, and partially from physical differences between the two genders. For example, when the Blackwell sisters - Emily and Elizabeth wanted to study medicine in the latter half of the nineteenth century, they were rejected initially by a number of universities in America. Finally, however, Elizabeth gained admission in to Geneva Medical College, and Emily in Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. However, they were ostracized and harassed by the male body of students, which they bore and persevered until they graduated in medicine (Britannica Biographies). This plight of women has continued through the twentieth century too, though with lesser tenacity. Consequently it is not surprising that, hardly about twelve Nobel Prizes were given in science, between the years 1901 and 2004, to women in physics, chemistry, or physiology out of the total 503 prizes (Clair 2). Gertrude Belle Elion was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1988, which she shared with two other fellow scientists. Despite her graduation from Hunter College in 1937, she was denied the position of a graduate researcher because of her gendered status and she had to work as a lab assistant, chemistry teacher and other such positions to sustain her-self (Encyclopedia Britannica). She persevered through all her difficulties, and was one of the few women who were recognized for her priceless contribution to science. However, she could never gain a Ph.D. since she could never devote her entire time for research, having to work for her living. Elion is just one example to illustrate the continued bias women face in the field of science, mathematics and technology. Societal Stereotypes The summary report of the National Academy of Sciences book Beyond Bias and Barriers has observed that there was low representation of women in academic institutions, scientific and professional societies, and honorary organizations considering the numbers qualified for these positions. Thereby it can be deduced that “it is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women” (NAS, 1). If one delves deeper, it can be understood that the reasons for the poor representation lies within the societal structures itself, rather than on women per se. Socially defined roles for men and women start early and from childhood gender stereotypes are projected as models to be followed. For example, little boys are encouraged to play with cars and toy vehicles, soldiers, engineers, bankers and so on; however, if they show interest in playing with Barbie dolls or kitchen toys, they are strongly discouraged. This is common occurrence and is observed in all cultures and countries. Similarly gender stereotypes discourage girls who appear bossy, or display a capacity to command others, as that it was unbecoming for a girl to behave thus. Furthermore, most gender stereotypes exhibit typically what is expected of them and excel in those qualities, molding young minds into their fold, thus perpetuating the stereotypes. Any anomaly to this, they are considered nerds, or mavericks – and are either forced to conform or ostracized from the society. Impact on Education in Science, Math and Technology This is especially true in the field of education, at school level, college and higher academic levels. For example, consider what Jan Cuny, a program officer with the National Science Foundation's Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) program has remarked regarding the less than 20 per cent women computer science degree holders. Cuny has said that while research showed many young girls were interested in computer science, as they reached middle school years, the interest weans away quite dramatically. The reasons range from “dull middle school and high school classes that portray computer science as more of a non-challenging vocational field” to “the perception that field itself just isn't very fun” (National Science Foundation 1). The perception of mathematics, science and technology being difficult and requires higher intellectual capacities that are beyond an average girl or woman, strongly impacts the decision of girls or women to study those subjects as a career option. Many researchers (Wotherspoon, 2004, p. 206; Young, 1990, p. 168; Gaskell, 1993, p.148) have remarked on existence of a significant disparity in the kind of education that women receive, and “despite women’s increased educational participation and attainment, however, the data indicate the continuing existence of considerable gender segmentation” (Wotherspoon, 2004, p. 206); this is evident in the various programs or areas of study that women have not been qualified, for example the comparatively low figures for women in the field of engineering and applied sciences in Canada, in Table 1. Farkhonda Hassan, professor of Geology at the American University in Cairo astutely sums up the barriers erected by societal structures that inhibit girls from taking to science. Her observations were made with to the Islamic regions and countries; however, the observations not only hold true in those countries, but also in the developing nations and for most parts even in the so-called developed nations. Hassan has assessed that fewer girls than boys were enrolled in high school science curricula, which was due to the bias in the existing form of educational structure which encouraged girls to study the arts and humanities, more than science and mathematics. The reasons were closely associated to gender stereotyping, misconceptions that science and technology were better suited for boys, and the inherent failure of science, math and technical curricula to incorporate or relate to the practical dimensions of women. Therefore, observes Hassan, “there is self-inhibition among school girls that affects not only the number of young women entering university to study science and technology subjects, but also results in the reluctance of talented women to introduce their own values and visions into a working world dominated by men” (pp. 55 – 56). The situation is in particular, more pathetic Islamic nations because, even though women in many Islamic countries do hold the right and access to university education, many - especially the rural areas dominated by tradition, hardly utilize the right for reasons such as social, economic, or family. Citing statistics, Hassan has referred to the preferences exhibited by women within the fields of science and technology. While in the United Arab Emirates women accounted for 70% of the students enrolled in science and technology in the university, it drops to 8% in Djibouti; while in Egypt, it is 35%. The trend of women preferring life sciences more than physics and mathematics may be due to the result of conforming to societal norms than as the result of active discrimination within the educational system itself, according to Hassan. Furthermore, she has observed the trend synchronized with the pattern found elsewhere, for example, in the EU “women constitute 40% of natural science undergraduates, 28% mathematics and computer undergraduates, and 20% of engineering undergraduates (pp. 55 – 56). Renee Clair, the appointee of UNESCO for overseeing the special project on women in Science and Technology (1997), has pointed to a study done in 2004 at the world level that “women represent more than 55 per cent of undergraduate students in more than half the countries; Whereas in 60 per cent of the countries women represent less than 45 per cent of graduate students in the scientific disciplines” (p. 2). This correlates well with what was said earlier in this essay regarding the social structures playing an important role in the choice of young girls’ educational options. Bias and Barriers in Career Options – A Strong Determinant In the highly competitive work environment of current globalized economy, with outsourcing and economic recession taking their toll, working women have been among the first to be hit with reduced job opportunities. Therefore, the subjects of curricula preferred by women are bound to be influenced by future job opportunities and possible career options. Those fields wherein job opportunities are more, and the precedence of success stories are more, those are the most likely ones to be preferred by any individual, in choosing a career. This may tend to be more so with the gendered sex, due to already existent societal bias. In the fields of science, technology and mathematics, the precedence of women rising to high positions are few, if any. The two World Wars opened opportunities for women to break the barrier of women being bound to domestic arena and take up jobs in the industrial sector; but with the return of peace women were turn back to their earlier domains. The regimented work schedule, shift work hours, and the mechanical precision required for industrial work were also thought to be unsuitable for women contributing to women preferring other more suitable jobs. The book Women Scientists and Engineers Employed in Industry: Why So Few? published by the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering, National Research Council (1994), has listed the precise barriers that women have to confront at very stage of their scientific and engineering careers: Barriers that inhibit progress for women scientists and engineers in industry were found at every stage of career development: 1) recruitment and hiring practices that create de facto entry barriers for women, 2) aspects of a male-oriented corporate culture that are hostile to women, 3) paternalism, 4) allegations of reverse discrimination, 5) sexual harassment, 7) different standards for women and men, 8) disparities in the distribution of high-quality job assignments, 9) salary discrepancies based on one's sex, 10) failure of corporations to accommodate work-family issues, and 11) difficulty for women to advance into management” (p.17). This, more than anything else proves the barriers and bias are very much a reality even in current times and need to be addressed in order to attain gender equality. Conclusion The society has constructed a number of obstacles and restrictions on women and the domain of their work. This has proved to be a limiting factor for women to pursue education in general and scientific, mathematical, and technical studies in particular. This is because traditionally, women have been schooled to think that they are less suited for studies and work in those fields than men. Gender stereotypes have also contributed to this and have ensured that there are few women role models in those fields. This has been the trend not only in Islamic nations, but also in the developed nations like Canada, the US and the European countries. The final and most decisive barrier exists in the form of limited job opportunities for women in the fields of science and engineering, all of which undoubtedly point to the still existing biases and barriers for women in the field of science. List of works cited. Clair, Renée (2006). “Tapping at the glass ceiling Women, natural sciences and UNESCO” Contribution on the occasion of Sixty Years of Science at UNESCO 1945-2005, UNESCO, 2006. Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009, available for download at Tapping at the Glass Ceiling_Women. natural sciences and UNESCO.doc Encyclopædia Britannica. "Blackwell, Elizabeth." Britannica Biographies: Great Minds.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. CD- Rom. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Gertrude-B-Elion.” Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/184676/Gertrude-B-Elion Froman, Nanny (1996). “Marie and Pierre Curie and the Discovery of Polonium and Radium” in Nobelprize.org Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/curie/ Gaskell, Jane (1993). “Feminism and its Impact on Educational Scholarship in Canada” In Contemporary Educational Issues: The Canadian Mosaic (Eds.). L. Stewin & S. McCann. 2nd Edition. Toronto: Copp Clark. Pearson Education Canada. Pp.145-160. Hassan, Farkhonda (2000). “Islamic Women in Science in Essays on Science and Society” in Science 6 October 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5489, pp. 55 – 56. Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5489/55 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2006). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. ISBN: 978-0-309-10042-7. p.1. Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741.html National Research Council (1994). Women Scientists and Engineers Employed in Industry: Why So Few? ISBN: 978-0-309-04991-7. Online version accessed on April 24, 2009, from The National Academies Press (p.17). http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2264&page=17 National Science Foundation. “Computer Science--A Growing Field That Needs a Few (More) Good Women in Discovery. Released  March 30, 2009. Online article retrieved on April 24, 2009. http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114494&org=CNS Wotherspoon, Terry (2004). The Sociology of Education in Canada. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. Pp. 129-33; 195-241. Young, J. (1990). “Chapter 7, Equality of Opportunity: Reality or Myth?” In E. Titley (Ed.). Canadian Education: Historical themes and contemporary issues (pp. 161-171, 211- 212). Calgary: Detselig. Table 1 A Sample of the Fulltime enrolment in University Undergraduate Programs and Career Programs of Community Colleges University Undergraduate courses Field of study 1982-3 1992-3 1998-9 Male Female % of F of total Male Female % of F of total Male Female % of F of total Agriculture and biological science (total) 9,488 10,895 53.5 13,306 19,139 59 13,976 24,514 63.7 Education (total) 12,104 26,174 68.4 18,285 36,700 66.7 15,736 38,487 71 Engineering and Applied Sciences 37,285 4,686 11.2 37,003 8,397 18.5 37,745 10,720 64.7 Humanities 10,336 14,519 58.4 20,410 32,118 61.1 16,875 27,987 62.4 Social Sciences 55,917 48,289 46.3 71,767 85,807 54.5 63,167 87,598 58.1 Career Programs of Community Colleges Field of study 1982-3 1992-3 1998-9 Male Female % of F of total Male Female % of F of total Male Female % of F of total Business and Commerce (total) 21,684 37,466 63.3 27,093 41,616 60.6 32,298 49,331 60.4 Management and Administration 18,455 20,527 52.7 22,379 24,214 52 25,331 32,037 55.8 Engineering and Applied Sciences* 48,659 11,464 19.1 51,706 9,988 16.2 66,558 15,271 18.7 Humanities 700 1,936 73.4 1,072 2,281 68 1,118 2,306 67.3 Social Sciences 6,873 17,687 72 12,913 28,824 69.1 12,718 37,658 74.8 Source: Wotherspoon, Terry (2004). “Educational Opportunity and Social Reproduction” in The Sociology of Education in Canada. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. Pp. 207-8. *Low percentage of women enrolment for engineering courses. Read More

Gertrude Belle Elion was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1988, which she shared with two other fellow scientists. Despite her graduation from Hunter College in 1937, she was denied the position of a graduate researcher because of her gendered status and she had to work as a lab assistant, chemistry teacher and other such positions to sustain her-self (Encyclopedia Britannica). She persevered through all her difficulties, and was one of the few women who were recognized for her priceless contribution to science.

However, she could never gain a Ph.D. since she could never devote her entire time for research, having to work for her living. Elion is just one example to illustrate the continued bias women face in the field of science, mathematics and technology. Societal Stereotypes The summary report of the National Academy of Sciences book Beyond Bias and Barriers has observed that there was low representation of women in academic institutions, scientific and professional societies, and honorary organizations considering the numbers qualified for these positions.

Thereby it can be deduced that “it is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women” (NAS, 1). If one delves deeper, it can be understood that the reasons for the poor representation lies within the societal structures itself, rather than on women per se. Socially defined roles for men and women start early and from childhood gender stereotypes are projected as models to be followed. For example, little boys are encouraged to play with cars and toy vehicles, soldiers, engineers, bankers and so on; however, if they show interest in playing with Barbie dolls or kitchen toys, they are strongly discouraged.

This is common occurrence and is observed in all cultures and countries. Similarly gender stereotypes discourage girls who appear bossy, or display a capacity to command others, as that it was unbecoming for a girl to behave thus. Furthermore, most gender stereotypes exhibit typically what is expected of them and excel in those qualities, molding young minds into their fold, thus perpetuating the stereotypes. Any anomaly to this, they are considered nerds, or mavericks – and are either forced to conform or ostracized from the society.

Impact on Education in Science, Math and Technology This is especially true in the field of education, at school level, college and higher academic levels. For example, consider what Jan Cuny, a program officer with the National Science Foundation's Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) program has remarked regarding the less than 20 per cent women computer science degree holders. Cuny has said that while research showed many young girls were interested in computer science, as they reached middle school years, the interest weans away quite dramatically.

The reasons range from “dull middle school and high school classes that portray computer science as more of a non-challenging vocational field” to “the perception that field itself just isn't very fun” (National Science Foundation 1). The perception of mathematics, science and technology being difficult and requires higher intellectual capacities that are beyond an average girl or woman, strongly impacts the decision of girls or women to study those subjects as a career option. Many researchers (Wotherspoon, 2004, p.

206; Young, 1990, p. 168; Gaskell, 1993, p.148) have remarked on existence of a significant disparity in the kind of education that women receive, and “despite women’s increased educational participation and attainment, however, the data indicate the continuing existence of considerable gender segmentation” (Wotherspoon, 2004, p. 206); this is evident in the various programs or areas of study that women have not been qualified, for example the comparatively low figures for women in the field of engineering and applied sciences in Canada, in Table 1.

Read More