The Vanishing Gender: Institutional, Cultural, and Workplace Barriers to Women Scientists and Engineers - Term Paper Example

3 August The Vanishing Gender: al, Cultural, and Workplace Barriers to Women Scientists and Engineers Anincreasing number of women are completing science and engineering degrees, and yet they continue to form the minority of actual employment and management positions (Prokos and Padavic 523). As some researchers already asked: Where are society’s women scientists and engineers? The mismatch between the supply of female sciences and engineering graduates and job positions can be partially explained through complex social and political dynamics. The last few decades of the twentieth century gave a solid confirmation to gender equality, through the provision of civil rights and liberties to all genders, and people should expect more women in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). On the contrary, there are still more male scientists and engineers than their female counterparts. This paper explores the causes of gender inequity in science and engineering fields. It argues that institutional, workplace, and cultural barriers contribute to the gender wage and employment gap in STEM jobs, and that introducing changes in legislation and social norms and practices can reduce these barriers. Institutional Impediments: Law and Schools Women are still the minority in several engineering and sciences fields, because of poor employment opportunities. Ceci, Williams, and Barnett explain that schools tend to provide certain conditions that make it harder to choose and to continuously pursue engineering and science courses. Becker, in “Why Dont Young People Want to become Engineers? Rational Reasons for Disappointing Decisions,” describes some of the reasons that boys and girls decline degrees that will put them in science and engineering fields. He notes that some girls find these fields unattractive, in terms of career development and opportunities for personal growth. Because of these perceptions, women, who majored in technology and engineering degrees, surged since the 1960s and reached 49 percent in 1998, but the proportion of women in computing, the physical sciences, and engineering stayed small (Rosser 53). According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), in 1998, women completed “52.5 percent in the social sciences, 52.7 percent in the biological and agricultural sciences, 39 percent in the physical sciences, 37 percent in the geosciences, and 18.6 percent of the degrees in engineering” (NSF in press qtd. in Rosser 53). Graduate degrees for women also remained low. While women finished 55.5 percent of the Master of Science degrees in all fields, they took 39.3 percent of the degrees in science and engineering professions (Rosser 53). Longo reports that in 2006, out of almost 3 million science and engineering jobs, women, who actually possessed more bachelor’s degrees than men, composed only 23.7% of the workforce (6). Women had higher employment in educational settings, but fewer women are employed in 4-year colleges (Longo 6). Apparently, in college, it is possible that schools are not encouraging women to pursue science and engineering classes. Furthermore, once they have completed their courses, women, who want to enter these fields, lack institutional support and mentors. Legislation aims to provide equal work and educational opportunities for men and women, yet in reality, women still handle the bulk of child-rearing and household chores, thereby decreasing their time and resources for completing graduate degrees and other tasks needed to be promoted in highly-competitive science and engineering fields. In the article, “Woman Scientists in Japan: Their Situation and Goals,” Osumi highlights the role of childcare for women scientists and engineers (273). Their professions demand grueling hours of research, and sometimes, multiple-site field work, which necessitates the demand for inexpensive quality childcare facilities near their homes or workplaces. Daycare centers and laws that provide financial and social resources to parents, especially of young children, when missing, hinder women from continuing their engineering or science careers. These gendered social pressures are related to the cultural norms and gender expectations, which will be discussed in this paper too. Workplace Hostility: A Man’s World The masculine codes of behavior that are deeply embedded in science and engineering workplaces make it uniquely difficult for women to succeed and to stay in these careers. Servon and Visser, in “Progress Hindered: The Retention and Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology Careers,” argue that the science and engineering fields are “largely socially constructed as a male oriented” careers (273). In terms of organizational behavior theories, these workplaces encourage values that are essentially “macho,” which some women do not approve of. McIlwee and Robinson talk about aggressive communication and interpersonal styles in science and engineering workplaces, which lead to a masculine organizational culture that systematically disenfranchises women (qtd. in Servon and Visser 273). Servon and Visser studied the experiences of women in science and engineering private workplaces and discovered three factors that deter women from staying in these fields. Corporate culture is a strong antecedent to women disempowerment in the workplace. Participants in their survey complained that the macho culture makes them vulnerable to sexual harassment and demeaning treatment from their peers and the management (Servon and Visser 276). They believe that because of their gender, they receive poorer performance appraisals and less respect for their work output and efforts (Servon and Visser 276). Moreover, due to these masculine and discriminatory practices and behaviors, few women scientists get tenure and advance to senior management positions. Hostile workplaces also promote gender isolation. Ahuja stresses that the isolation of women in engineering and science fields is both a cause and an effect of the paucity of female role models and mentors (Servon and Visser 278). Since there are few women in executive positions, women, who want to climb the corporate ladder, cannot find role models and sponsors for their career development aspirations. In the study of Servon and Visser, they learned that women, who feel isolated at work, are less satisfied with their jobs than those who do not feel the same sense of isolation (278). Job dissatisfaction, in turn, affects job retention rates among women scientists and engineers. Extreme pressure in science and engineering organizations also hinder women’s advancement in these fields. In science and engineering jobs, many managers significantly travel, work extremely long hours, and deal with demanding clients round the clock (Servon and Visser 278). Servon and Visser’s survey illustrated that women in science, engineering, and technology jobs put in 100 hours of work per week compared to customary 40-hour workweek in the United States (278). Furthermore, women in their survey were more expected to deal with continuous customer demands (36 per cent vs. 26 per cent), and to work in different time zones (54 per cent versus 14 per cent) (Servon and Visser 278). Servon and Visser’s survey illustrated that women in these fields are expected to serve customer calls and needs round the clock, often exceeding their 5-day workweek (278). These work responsibilities and pressures cannot be adequately handled by women with children, especially when they have more than one child. People can only imagine the sacrifices of women scientists, who delay professional interests for three or so years, in order to wait for the firstborn to grow up, and then suddenly become pregnant again. With this repetitive childbearing and child caring cycle, by the time that a woman scientist is 40 years old, she might have lost her passion for her work, because it does not give her enough leeway to be a fulfilled mother. And if other girls hear about such atrocious work demands, they are less likely to be interested in science and engineering fields too. Culture: Gender Norms and Discrimination Gender norms and expectations further affect women scientists and engineers, which lead to prevailing gender discrimination. Many cultures continue to see women as the primary caregivers and household managers. Hence, science and engineering fields compete with life roles and responsibilities of women. Probably due to these gender norms, women scientists commonly experience gender pay gaps. Longo repowers that: “The median salary for men in science and engineering (S&E) totals $70,000, while women are at a mere $41,000,” and “men make more than $8,000 in every S&E field across business, education and government—women don’t hold an edge in a single subdivision” (7). Prokos and Padavic seek to determine the reasons for pay gap in “An Examination of Competing Explanations for the Pay Gap among Scientists and Engineers.” They learned that being an older woman is not enough explanation for wage gap. They concluded that potential systemic beliefs and practices about gender may affect gender pay differences. Some organizations think that women cannot be relied on, because of their conflicting family and work roles, so the latter often get nonstandard work arrangements and less career development and promotion opportunities. Prokos, Padavic, and Schmidt learn that women tend to form the majority of those receiving nonstandard work arrangements in their article, “Nonstandard Work Arrangements among Women and Men Scientists and Engineers.” They realized that these work arrangements have numerous negative features, such as low wages, no benefits, and temporary work. It is disconcerting, however, to learn that even at the worst work arrangements; men still earn 5 to 26% more than women (Prokos, Padavic, and Schmidt 664). In “Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time,” Sonnert, Fox, Frank, and Adkins revealed that many women advance better in institutions where they have mentors. Departmental faculty composition, in particular, affected enrolment in these engineering and science degrees. However, faculty women with tenure are not as numerous as male professors. This reality stunts further promotion of these fields for young women. Social and Legislative Support Because of these interrelated social, legal, workplace, and cultural factors, social and legal changes are also needed. Laws should ensure affirmative action for women, who want to pursue science and engineering, and provide childcare and other support services for those who have children. Legislation must also force companies to create anti-sexual harassment and anti-gender discrimination policies and practices. Sexual harassment and diversity rules and procedures must also be well-defined and communicated to all, so that employees know that misogynistic attitudes and conduct are punished at work, while gender empowerment is encouraged and rewarded. Cultural attitudes and norms about gender should also be changed. Gender prejudice at the workplace can only be removed, if science and engineering organizations are not toxic, masculine-oriented places, where parents have to work too long away from their families. Science and engineering fields should promote collective practices, instead of hypercompetition, so that work pressures are decreased and work responsibilities are evenly spread across teams and departments. Paternity and maternity leaves should be lengthy enough to allow both fathers and mothers to provide equal time and attention to their families. In addition, it is critical for homes, schools, churches, and the media to change gender norms and beliefs. They should stop teaching gender roles, and instead, promote gender neutral values. They should be inculcating the following beliefs. Every kind of work can be done by girls and boys. Boys and girls can be both good in English, Science, and Mathematics. Boys and girls can be excellent engineers and scientists. Finally, when married, spouses should do their best to balance household and childcare roles and responsibilities, particularly if both are working. These are important cultural changes that will ease the burdens on women scientists and engineers and help them focus on advancing their education and career development interests. Conclusion Where are the women scientists and engineers? Some have left because of toxic organizational cultures, while others are relegated to nonstandard, low-paying work arrangements. Some change careers altogether, in order to balance work and family roles and responsibilities. These sources assert the importance of women to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In order to recruit and to retain these valuable partners, organizations should promote family-friendly rules and practices and enable women to balance family and work interests. Laws should also provide accessible childcare facilities for women. Finally, cultural norms should be whittled away through constantly teaching girls and boys in all basic institutions that women in the fields of the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are “cool” women and that they can also be happy and successful in these fields. If these changes can be attained, some day, society will no longer ask where the women scientists are. Instead, it will simply be content with its high women population in its fields. Works Cited Arnst, Catherine. “Getting Girls to the Lab Bench.” BusinessWeek 3919 (7 Feb.2005): 42. Print. Becker, Frank Stefan. “Why Dont Young People Want to become Engineers? Rational Reasons for Disappointing Decisions.” European Journal of Engineering Education 35.4 (2010): 349-366. Print. Ceci, Stephen J., Williams, Wendy M., and Susan M. Barnett. “Womens Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135.2 (2009): 218-261. Print. Longo, Michelle. “Slow and Steady Wins the Race.” Laboratory Equipment 48.7 (2011): 6-7. Print. Oh, Seong Soo, and Gregory B. Lewis. “Stemming Inequality? Employment and Pay of Female and Minority Scientists and Engineers.” Social Science Journal 48.2 (2011): 397-403. Print. Osumi, Noriko. “Woman Scientists in Japan: Their Situation and Goals.” Life 58.5/6 (2006): 273 – 278. Print. Oskin, Becky. “Where Are All The Women Scientists?” New Scientist 210.2811 (5 Aug. 2011): 50-51. Print. Prokos, Anastasia, and Irene Padavic. “An Examination of Competing Explanations for the Pay Gap among Scientists and Engineers.” Gender and Society 19.4 (2005): 523-543. Print. Prokos, Anastasia, Padavic, Irene, and S. Ashley Schmidt. “Nonstandard Work Arrangements among Women and Men Scientists and Engineers.” Sex Roles 61.9/10 (2009): 653-666. Print. Rosser, Sue V. “Using POWRE to ADVANCE: Institutional Barriers Identified by Women Scientists and Engineers.” NWSA Journal 16.1 ( 2004): 50-78. Print. Servon, Lisa J., and M. Anne Visser. “Progress Hindered: The Retention and Advancement of Women In Science, Engineering And Technology Careers.” Human Resource Management Journal 21.3 (2011): 272-284. Print. Sonnert, Gerhard, Fox, Mary Frank, and Kristen Adkins. “Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time.” Social Science Quarterly 88.5 (2007): 1333-1356. Print. Read More