Although society has seemingly made leaps and bounds over the past century in terms of overall gender equality, the scientific field is still far from balanced. Yes, the early 1900s began with a minuscule number of recognized women in any field of science, but even now, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) finds that less than 30 percent of the world’s researchers are women. So how can we level the playing field once and for all?
First, observing statistics can provide a surface view of the current situation and its development over the past years. A survey conducted by the National Science Foundation shows an interesting trend as an individual climbs up the professional ladder. Following the path from bachelor’s degree to dean or university president, the percentage of women falls from almost 60 percent to about 25 percent, while the percentage of men rises. Statistics, surveys, and hard numbers like these tell us the reality of the situation — the what. However, the reason for the disparity — the why — must be uncovered from a complicated web of every factor in an individual’s life.
Following the path from bachelor’s degree to dean or university president, the percentage of women falls from almost 60 percent to about 25 percent, while the percentage of men rises.
An intensive and extensive study published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest delves into the entire life stories of female and male scientists to identify key differentiating factors that affect career trajectory. An individual’s life is not just their profession, and obviously it takes time to achieve each step on the metaphorical ladder, and over this time, their personal life does not take a pause. Getting married, raising a family, and taking care of aging parents are all concurrent situations in which a scientist may find themself. Do these factors affect men and women differently? Society, history, and gender norms say yes. When a traditional couple decides to start a family, it is far more often that the woman decides to stay home and raise the children. According to Psychology Today, this instinct is just that: an internal, scientific inclination to motherhood. Over the past decade or so, stay-at-home dads seem to have made a relevant rise according to media, but research conducted for Time magazine shows that, while the number of stay-at-home moms has remained around five million women over the past two decades, the number of stay-at-home dads has stayed well below 250,000. Time magazine goes on to explain that once a woman decides to step out and raise a child, that is normally the end of her professional career. The technological advances and younger competitors often render anyone returning from years of child-raising obsolete in comparison. Therefore, a large reason for the difference between men and women in fields of hard science is the decision-making required to raise a family.
Getting married, raising a family, and taking care of aging parents are all concurrent situations in which a scientist may find themself. Do these factors affect men and women differently? Society, history, and gender norms say yes.
The same study from Psychological Science in the Public Interest, andconducted by researchers at Cornell University, the University of Kansas, and Boston University, refocuses many of the assumptions made about prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination in the workplace, pointing instead toward those same things in elementary and middle schools. Blind studies and close examination of grants, journal-accepted papers, and job offers prove that women are treated fairly equally in today’s professional world when it comes to career success. An article from the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology outlines how this separation begins much, much earlier, when children are first dreaming of what they will be when they grow up. As soon as a child is able to make observations of the world around them, they start categorizing things by their associated gender. These differentiations between things like girly colors or boy’s games develop into implicit perceptions of female versus male intelligence, strength, and propensity to succeed in STEM fields. Examples of these gendered objects include DIY volcano kits versus a Barbie dreamhouse, or children’s books about a group of boys exploring in the woods versus a group of girls playing dress-up. This directly leads to relationships and interactions between men and women as adults in the field. The Atlantic magazine and National Geographic both explain how this lack of confidence in STEM careers presents a challenge to women as they enter an already male-dominated field. Society blames many of the inequities on discrimination from males when the reality is far more ingrained in both women’s self-perception and the world’s perception of them. A lack of confidence discourages many women from pushing their self-imposed limits and reaching for more, instead leaving them in lower-level positions of education or employment. This leads to a general discrepancy of gender in top-tier jobs, feeding the discrimination that already exists.
So how do we fix this grand imbalance in a modern world where equality is supposedly highly valued? A two-pronged approach is the solution: a double-sided movement of early childhood education and employer decisions changing workplace norms to make science-related careers more feasible for parents. Women in Science initiatives do much to introduce young girls to role models and examples of what they could be, but what if society went further to encourage gender-neutral childhoods? Less of an emphasis toward gender-specific toys, colors or clothes, and more of an emphasis on what naturally interests the child. No more blue for boys and pink for girls, but just colors for kids. Hopefully one day, children will grow up truly believing that they can be whatever they would like to be.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest (2014). DOI: 10.1177/1529100614541236
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101109