Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM

Abstract

Scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations are strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. While many Americans regard this segregation as natural and inevitable, closer examination reveals a great deal of variability in the gendering of STEM fields across time, space, and demographic groups. This article assesses how different theoretical accounts accord with the available evidence on the gender composition of scientific and technical fields. We find most support for accounts that allow for a dynamic interplay between individual-level traits and the broader sociocultural environments in which they develop. The existing evidence suggests, in particular, that Western cultural stereotypes about the nature of STEM work and STEM workers and about the intrinsic qualities of men and women can be powerful drivers of individual aptitudes, aspirations, and affinities. We offer an illustrative catalog of stereotypes that support women's STEM-avoidance and men's STEM-affinity, and we conclude with some thoughts on policy implications.Keywords: gender; STEM; segregation; stereotypes; culture; work; occupations; science; inequality For more than three decades, American educators, policy makers, activists, and business leaders have engaged in research and policy initiatives to increase the presence of women and other underrepresented groups in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations and fields of study. These efforts have been motivated by interests in broadening opportunities in lucrative, high-status occupations and in ameliorating acute STEM labor shortages that are believed to threaten national prosperity, private profits and the public welfare.Despite wide-ranging research and policy efforts, STEM occupations remain strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. Women made up nearly half of the US labor market in 2015, but only 28% of all scientific and technical workers. Within STEM, gender segregation is also very strong, with women comprising 48% of life scientists and 60% of social scientists, but only 28% of physical scientists and 15% of engineers (NSF 2018, Appendices 3-12). 1 While some fields have integrated over time, others have become more segregated. Women's share of US bachelor's degrees in computer science, for instance, declined from 28% to 18% between (NSF 2018.While many Americans understand men's dominance of scientific and technical work as natural and universal, the gender typing of STEM fields varies a great deal across space, time, and socio-demographic groups. Recent comparative studies have shown that scientific degree recipients are disproportionately female in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Romania, and Georgia, for example, and that the gender gap in children's STEM aspirations is larger in more affluent societies (Charles 2011a(Charles , 2017 1 Even within engineering women and men tend to do different work: about 10% of mechanical and electrical engineers are women, compared to 20...

‘Gender shouldn’t matter because we are all scientists here’: A narration of the panel discussion at the 2nd International Women in Science Without Borders conference

“…Statistical discrimination theory was mentioned and translates to the interplay between cultural stereotypes and gendered preferences or outcomes such as the willingness of employers, especially in STEMMI occupations, to pay a premium for men who are viewed favourably in terms of agency, intelligence and analytical competence compared to women. 6 Economists confirm that the gender wage gap is a universal problem that still exists in both the developing and developed world. In mainstream economics, the International Monetary Fund studies, conducted in the labour market, have shown that there is no difference in the productivity between male and female workers.…”

“…Often, the twin subtle biases of race and gender are not openly discussed. However, it is a professional experience of African women that anything less than excellence is not enough to be placed on a par with one's peers as 'you are assumed to be incompetent until you can prove otherwise' 6,10 .…”

Choosing Computing: How and Why Women Enter Computing Through Coding Bootcamps

“…There are a variety of reasons given for why women do not pursue S/E. Drawing from economic theory, scholars often organize these reasons into two general camps: "supply" and "demand" (Ecklund, Lincoln, and Tansey 2012;Thébaud and Charles 2018). The supply-side refers to those who invest in the appropriate computing education to be prepared for work in S/E (Becker 1985;Mincer and Polachek 1974).…”

“…Arguments have been made that workforce patterns are rooted in biological gender differences (Ceci and Williams 2011;Ceci, Williams, and Barnett 2009), but social scientists reject these explanations. Instead, gender-role socialization and early educational experiences are often used to explain why girls are less likely to show an interest in S/E subjects (Ecklund et al 2012;Farmer, Wardrop, and Rotella 1999;Margolis and Fisher 2003;Sonnert and Holton 1995;Thébaud and Charles 2018). Due to powerful gender norms starting in early childhood (and lasting throughout one's life), boys and girls are socialized to conform to their respective gender roles and pursue gender-typical careers (Eccles 1987;Jacobs 1989;Marini and Brinton 1984;Parsons and Bales 1955).…”

“…On the other hand, demand-side explanations come from companies and employers in the S/E labor market (Becker 1985;Ecklund et al 2012;Thébaud and Charles 2018). Studies show that women leave S/E occupations at a higher rate than men, often to go to another field (not to leave the labor force) (Frehill 2012;Glass et al 2013;Preston 1994Preston , 2004, and that that high exit rate is driven by engineering, including computing, specifically (Hunt 2016).…”