Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Abstract

Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.women in science | gender bias | child penalty | peer review S ince 1970, women have made dramatic gains in science. Today, half of all MD degrees and 52% of PhDs in life sciences are awarded to women, as are 57% of PhDs in social sciences, 71% of PhDs to psychologists, and 77% of DVMs to veterinarians.* Forty years ago, women's presence in most of these fields was several orders of magnitude less; e.g., in 1970 only 13% of PhDs in life sciences went to women (1). In the most mathintensive fields, however, women's growth has been less pronounced (2-4). Among the top 100 US universities, only 8.8-15.8% of tenure-track positions in many math-intensive fields (combined across ranks) are held by women, and female full professors number ≤10%. (SI Text, S1)These figures reveal a problem, but what is its cause? Here, we consider one of the most common alleged causes-discrimination against women in the domains of: (i) manuscript reviewing, (ii) grant funding, and (iii) interviewing/hiring. We reprise the evidence for each and describe counterevidence. We conclude that past initiatives to combat discrimination against women in science appear to have been highly successful. Women's current underrepresentation in math-intensive fields is not caused by discrimin...

Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM

“…The segregation of STEM fields might, for example, be attributed to women's stronger orientation toward interpersonal relations and care, or to men's greater investment in the requisite human capital or greater capacity for analytical thinking. Biologically-based supply-side accounts emphasize sex hormones and brain structures as drivers of gendered behaviors and divisions of labor (Baron-Cohen 2003;Ceci and Williams 2011). Socialization accounts emphasize the sorting of people into binary sex categories at birth and the rewards (sanctions) that accrue for gender-conforming (-nonconforming) behaviors.…”

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

“…Some research suggests that these lifestyle choices (whether free or constrained) likely contribute to the gender imbalance (9)(10)(11), but because the majority of these studies are correlational, whether lifestyle factors are solely or primarily responsible remains unclear. Still, some researchers have argued that women's preference for nonscience disciplines and their tendency to take on a disproportionate amount of child-and family-care are the primary causes of the gender disparity in science (9)(10)(11), and that it "is not caused by discrimination in these domains" (10). This assertion has received substantial attention and generated significant debate among the scientific community, leading some to conclude that gender discrimination indeed does not exist nor contribute to the gender disparity within academic science (e.g., refs.…”

“…Although acknowledging that various lifestyle choices likely contribute to the gender imbalance in science (9)(10)(11), the present research is unique in investigating whether faculty gender bias exists within academic biological and physical sciences, and whether it might exert an independent effect on the gender disparity as students progress through the pipeline to careers in science. Specifically, the present experiment examined whether, given an equally qualified male and female student, science faculty members would show preferential evaluation and treatment of the male student to work in their laboratory.…”

Do Gender Quotas Pass the Test? Evidence from Academic Evaluations in Italy

“…The lack of female evaluators might also be detrimental for female candidates if men and 1 Gender discrimination in academia remains a controversial issue. According to a meta-analysis by Ceci and Williams (2011), the more recent empirical evidence fails to support assertions of discrimination in manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. However, other studies show that female researchers might still receive lower evaluations than male researchers with identical characteristics (e.g.…”