What is to blame for the persistent lack of women in the hard sciences and in technology? The New York Times explores what the writer Katrin Bennhold describes as "Risk and opportunity for women in the 21st century". The article explains that the number of women in the sciences has steadily declined, despite record levels of need in areas such as computer engineering and chemical science.
This gender-based career stagnation flies in the face of workforce trends that are placing women in increasing roles of prominence and power across all sectors. With the promise of higher income and innovative work, women are certainly wooed by the idea of scientific and technological careers, yet women lag far behind men in the pursuit of science and tech studies.
Research has shown that a variety of factors leads to the under-representation of women in the sciences. In addition to the steep learning curve and unforgiving schedules (which makes it difficult for women with families to rise to the higher ranks of their profession), stereotyping also plays a role, as historical constructions about the aptitude and intelligence of women continue to surface. Bennhold refers to one outdated mode of thinking that is still popular in scientific circles – the idea that the brains of women just aren't wired for hard technology or hard sciences. While this is a myth, it was most recently invoked in 2005 by the former president of Harvard University.
The answer to ending the disparities may lie in an unlikely source: the games industry. Gender and game researchers – most notably in the academic collection Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat – point out that women face discouragement at just about every exposure point to video games. This type of "casual discouragement" means that women are not told outright not to play games or participate, but instead receive those messages through socialisation.
Girls are encouraged to spend more time on their social skills and gender appropriate activities, while things such as coding and playing with computers work against these norms, placing young women who do enjoy these activities in a bind. Combined with harsh treatment by instructors and peers, fewer role models, and fewer mentors, these factors quietly inform women that the science and tech sector is not a place for them.
Many of these problems feed on each other: if women are not acknowledged for the work they accomplish, there are less female role models to show to girls interested in science; if women cannot receive recognition for their accomplishments in the sciences, they may end up changing careers; if instructors and classmates believe the stereotypes about women and the sciences, women will be judged more harshly for mistakes and receive less support, increasing drop-out rates; if less women graduate with degrees in science and technology, less women are available to compete for positions.
So what can be done about this? Back in 2007, the website LiveScience created a piece specifically to debunk myths about girls and technology, and focused on changing the curriculum to be more female-friendly. They note:
"The mentality of needing to 'weed out' weaker students in college majors – especially in the more quantitative disciplines – disproportionately weeds out women. This is not necessarily because women are failing. Rather, women often perceive Bs as inadequate grades and drop out, while men with Cs will persist with the class. Effective mentoring and 'bridge programmes' that prepare students for challenging coursework can counteract this."
Outside of reviewing how we grade and evaluate skills, tech-based summer camps, school-based instruction and community outreach from science and technology professionals really goes a long way in ensuring girls will have the opportunity to explore and develop their talents before being discouraged from the field. Parents and educators should vigilantly watch the messages that girls are receiving about their role in the world – after all, the future of science is at stake.