Research methodologies in science education: Gender and the geosciences

Journal of Geoscience Education, Sep 2003 by Libarkin, Julie C, Kurdziel, Josepha P

Allison, a postdoc in structural geology, is in the process of applying and interviewing for jobs. She and a number of her graduate school friends, both men and women, are also applying for jobs, and meet up at the Geological Society of America annual meeting to discuss their experiences. Much to her surprise, Allison finds out that her friends have had similar experiences, learning that most geology departments have few or no female faculty. Allison suddenly finds herself reflecting on herself as a woman in science, something that never seemed particularly important before. She realizes that although she went to a small liberal arts college, she only had one female instructor as an undergraduate (and not in science), and actually never had a female instructor in graduate school. Looking back, Allison realizes that only 10% of the geology faculty in graduate school were women, although it seemed like half of her fellow graduate students were women. Suddenly, Allison begins to wonder why so few women are geoscience faculty, and if her gender will affect her chances of landing a faculty position.

MYTHS OR REALITY IN GENDER DISCUSSIONS

What are the realities of being a woman in science in the 21st century? What are the common beliefs held by the community at large, and how do these beliefs about gender reflect reality? During a recent symposium on women in science convened by Radcliffe (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~wishr/), a number of stereotypes about gender peppered the conversation, often with an assumption of the truthfulness of these statements. Four ideas dominated the discussion, primarily that:

1. Women have low confidence: One speaker stated, "Women aren't as confident as men".

2. Women are more modest than men: The comment, "Women don't like to talk about their accomplishments", cropped up again and again.

3. Women are less productive than men because women are perfectionists: One speaker stated, "Men are eager to publish results; women take too long trying to make a study perfect".

4. Women prefer to cooperate rather than compete: One speaker stated, "Women prefer to cooperate, while men are more amenable to science's competitive environment".

Interestingly, the female speakers making these statements attributed them to other women, not themselves, and saw themselves as "outside the norm". This column will assess the literature on gender, gender differences, and science to 1) address the veracity of these ideas and 2) look at the issues that may be influencing the gender inequity that still exists in many science and engineering fields.

IS THIS A PROBLEM? DO WE NEED A SOLUTION?

Why has so much time and energy been spent on issues related to diversity? The recent Supreme Court decision related to affirmative action at the University of Michigan suggests that diversity is a priori a desired state, and that diversity itself enriches the learning process. Although there are diverse views about the inherent value of diversity, some have suggested that an inclusive attitude broadens perspective, allowing new ideas to evolve, and strengthens and invigorates the overall productivity of a discipline. In simpler terms, a lack of diversity suggests that an environment may be hostile to some groups, prohibiting perhaps the most talented members of society, regardless of demographic factors, from intellectually enriching that environment. With respect to gender, any field that is unwelcoming to either men or women is limiting fully half of the workforce from participating, creating a situation that is wasteful of potential.

In the sciences, attention to demographic changes over time and research studies have shown that the gender gap increases at higher education levels. Discussed in more detail below, it is clear that in the physical sciences, including Earth, Atmospheric, and Ocean Sciences, women are less likely to complete graduate degrees than men, and even less likely to continue in certain careers, particularly in academia. The immense costs associated with training a highly specialized (Ph.D.) scientist, as well as the large amount of time spent pursuing this training, on the part of the student, faculty, and institutions, alone suggests that this is an untenable situation. Certainly, the monetary and time costs of educating scientists creates a desire that no individuals leave the field, and if one group appears to be leaving at higher rates than others (e.g. women) then it is worthwhile to explore whether or not this trend indeed exists and which factors may be related to attrition.

CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF SCIENCE

Before the 20th century, women rarely were able to work towards degrees in science and engineering, nor even work in these fields as non-degree personnel (Holloway 1993, Li 2002). Notable exceptions exist, particularly in the late 1900s, such as Marie Curie, a nuclear physicist, and Annie Jump Cannon, a pioneering astronomer at the Harvard Observatory, among others. Beginning in the 1960s, however, women began to major in non-traditional fields, with a steady increase in the number of women receiving B.S. degrees in science and engineering; today half of all such degrees go to women (NSF, 2000). Of interest to gender researchers is a phenomenon known as the "leaky pipeline" - while undergraduate women are majoring in science and engineering in equal numbers to men, their graduate school counterparts are not. Indeed, although half of all science and engineering B.S. degrees go to women, only 34% of Ph.D.s in science and engineering are awarded to women. Where have all the women gone, and why?