What's new

Science still seen as male profession, according to international study of gender bias

Dubious

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
37,717
Reaction score
80
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
sn-genderbias.jpg


By
Rachel Bernstein
22 May 2015 5:00 pm

Close your eyes and imagine a scientist: peering into a telescope, flicking a glass vial in a lab, or sitting at a computer typing out a grant proposal. Did you picture a man or a woman? The answer depends on where you live, according to a new study. Researchers have found that people in some countries are much more likely to view science as a male profession, with the Netherlands coming in at the top of the list. Regardless of location, though, the stereotype persists that science is for men.

“Stereotypes associating science with men are found across the world, even in supposedly gender-equal nations,” says the study’s lead author, David Miller, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

Although all countries exhibited these stereotypes, those with fewer women in science held stronger beliefs that science is for men, the authors found. This trend holds true for both explicit beliefs, as measured by responses to a statement about associating science with men or women, and implicit associations, determined by a computerized test that probes subconscious associations between science and gender. The study, now available online, will be published this fall in the Journal of Educational Psychology. If you want to look at the data more closely yourself, you can check out this interactive table on Miller’s website.

The researchers collected data from about 350,000 self-selecting participants from 66 countries who chose to complete an online, publicly available association test. Volunteers did not need to meet specific criteria, but they provided some demographic information as part of the task. About 60% were women, the average age was 27 years old, and 79% had at least some college experience.

The test measured explicit bias by asking participants to answer “how much you associate science with males or females,” with responses ranging from “strongly male” through “neither male nor female” to “strongly female.” Overall, the responses reflected relatively strong associations of science with men rather than women. Countries where this association was strongest included South Africa and Japan. The United States ranked in the middle, with a score similar to Austria, Mexico, and Brazil. Portugal, Spain, and Canada were among the countries where the explicit bias was weakest.

To measure implicit bias, respondents completed a computerized task called the implicit association test. Here, they were asked to categorize 30 words, such as “mother,” “uncle,” “philosophy,” and “biology” as “male,” “female,” “science,” or “liberal arts” as quickly as they could. In some cases, participants were told to push the same keyboard key for “male” and “science” words, and a second key for “female” and “liberal arts.” In other cases, the pairs were reversed so that one key signified “male” and “liberal arts” and the other “female” and “science.” The relative response times are believed to reflect implicit bias: Participants will complete the task more quickly if the paired items “match” according to stereotypes. Some critique this method as flawed, but it has been widely used, and many scientists say it provides useful insight into implicit biases that are difficult to measure.

In this study, participants on average completed the task more quickly when “science” was paired with “male” rather than “female,” reflecting the implicit bias that science is for men. Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, and Sweden were among the countries with the highest implicit bias scores. The United States again came in at the middle of the pack, scoring similarly to Singapore. Portugal, Spain, and Mexico had among the lowest implicit bias scores, though the respondents still associated science more with men than with women.

Both the explicit and implicit biases correlated with the percentage of female undergraduates majoring in science in that person’s country. In the Netherlands, for example, where both bias measures were quite high, only 20.2% of science majors are women, the lowest percentage of all the nations in the study. (Denmark and Switzerland also showed fairly strong implicit and explicit biases against women, and relatively low percentages of female undergraduates majoring in science.) Argentina, where 48% of science majors are women, had among the lowest explicit and implicit bias against women in science—although the bias was still present. In the United States, 43% of science majors are women.

The authors were able to rule out 25 other factors they thought might contribute to differences in the strength of the biases in different countries, including a country’s overall gender equity, the prevalence of science in that country, and the region of the world where it resides. “It is especially useful to see that these relationships are not merely attributable to national variation in gender equality more generally,” writes psychologist Toni Schmader of University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in an e-mail to Science.

The huge unanswered question is why? It could be that beliefs about the role of women in science change as more women enter science, that more women enter science when these beliefs change, or a combination. Miller thinks it’s more likely that increased female representation in science influences beliefs rather than the other way around. Schmader, though, thinks the effect likely goes in both directions.

Miller says his results offer a reason for optimism about the possibility of changing stereotypes about women in science around the world. However, the persistence of the stereotype that science is for men, even in countries like Argentina that have achieved a relatively high representation of women in science, shows that more work needs to be done to change that belief, he says. Apparently, observing female scientists isn’t enough to change these persistent stereotypes. To further push against them, Miller proposes integrating discussion of diverse female scientists into science curriculums “so it’s not seen as atypical to discuss a woman scientist.”

Science still seen as male profession, according to international study of gender bias | Science/AAAS | News
 
.
One thing promising this study shows is that we aren't the only narrow-minded nation but a labeled narrow-minded one. So many unlabeled go unnoticed
 
.
One thing promising this study shows is that we aren't the only narrow-minded nation but a labeled narrow-minded one. So many unlabeled go unnoticed
Yea...power of media! :agree:
 
. .
This is plainly because men dominate the fields of science, maths and engineering.
On the other hand, degrees such as gender studies, sociology, psychology, media studies are usually dominated by females.

This is also part of the reason why even in the west where the law protects all employees and equality, some people here perceive a pay gap, and are foolish enough to chalk that up to discrimination alone.
 
.
This is plainly because men dominate the fields of science, maths and engineering.
On the other hands, degrees such as gender studies, sociology, psychology, media studies are usually dominated by females.

This is also part of the reason why even in the west where the law protects all employees and equality, some people here perceive a pay gap, and are foolish enough to chalk that up to discrimination alone.
Well if you read the post...it says that it had little to do with how many dominate which field....
Denmark and Switzerland also showed fairly strong implicit and explicit biases against women, and relatively low percentages of female undergraduates majoring in science.
It is especially useful to see that these relationships are not merely attributable to national variation in gender equality
 
Last edited:
.
Well if you read the post...it says that it had little to do with how many dominate which field....

I must have missed any mention of this, but I've read it twice now and still don't see where it contradicts why I'm saying that this is the case. And of course it's implicit bias. The reason it exists is very easily explained.

Your own article proving what I'm getting at:
Argentina, where 48% of science majors are women, had among the lowest explicit and implicit bias against women in science—although the bias was still present.
 
.
I must have missed any mention of this, but I've read it twice now and still don't see where it contradicts why I'm saying that this is the case. And of course it's implicit bias. The reason it exists is very easily explained.

Your own article proving what I'm getting at:
Yes but their conclusion:
“It is especially useful to see that these relationships are not merely attributable to national variation in gender equality more generally,”
The huge unanswered question is why? It could be that beliefs about the role of women in science change as more women enter science, that more women enter science when these beliefs change, or a combination. Miller thinks it’s more likely that increased female representation in science influences beliefs rather than the other way around. Schmader, though, thinks the effect likely goes in both directions.


Apparently, observing female scientists isn’t enough to change these persistent stereotypes.
 
.
Its because, Edison, Newton, Einstein, Watt, Volta, Joule were males and females are mostly used in advertisements.
 
.
Because it's true. I find it difficult to take female scientists seriously. The best scientists have always been and always will be men.

And the term scientists is an all encompassing word for anybody who works in the sciences. Not all scientists are born equal, I know many 'scientists' who's idea of science is spending months in a laboratory running experiments with slight variations in the variables.
 
.
Its because, Edison, Newton, Einstein, Watt, Volta, Joule were males and females are mostly used in advertisements.
Maybe because it was harder to publish if you are a woman and hence men are more known

1- MARIE CURIE
marie-curie.jpg


Polish-born French physicist and chemist best known for her contributions to radioactivity.

2- JANE GOODALL
jane-goodall.jpg


British primatologist and ethologist, widely considered to be the world’s foremost expert on chimpanzees.

3- MARIA MAYER
maria-goeppert-mayer.gif


German-born American physicist who received Nobel Prize for suggesting the nuclear shell model of the atomic nucleus.

4- RACHEL CARSON
rachel-carson.jpg


American marine biologist and conservationist whose work revolutionzied the global environmental movement.

5- ROSALIND FRANKLIN
rosalind-franklin.jpg


British biophysicist best known for her work on the molecular structures of coal and graphite, and X-ray diffraction.

6- BARBARA MCCLINTOCK
barbara-mcclintock.jpg


American scientist and cytogeneticist who received Nobel Prize in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition.

7- RITA LEVI-MONTALCINI
rita-levi-montalcini.jpg


Italian neurologist who received Nobel Prize in 1986 for the discovery of Nerve growth factor (NGF).

8- GERTRUDE ELION
gertrude-b-elion.jpg


American biochemist and pharmacologist who received the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
 
. .
Yes but their conclusion:

You're not interpreting this properly.
I am in agreement with the study and the article, but your interpretation I don't agree with. Here:

Apparently, observing female scientists isn’t enough to change these persistent stereotypes.

This is of course true. Two reasons, for this I can state outright without any research. One being that gender stereotypes die hard deaths and are still around, the gender roles often enforced covertly or overtly are prevalent in even the most liberal and progressive of societies and families. Two, the media links in with the previous point, most forms of media comply with stereotypes all the time, watch a hollywood film, brown guy is either a nerd, terrorist, or unimportant character. Similarly, if you measure the implicit bias in country x while ignoring the fact that country y dominates global media and is rife with implicit bias, naturally that will have an effect on country x's implicit bias. Here I'm saying, today even the most well balanced scientific communities in some countries won't have much of an effect on implicit bias as say... the effect of Hollywood films, British and US media, and the historical pool of media that was even more skewed in favour of men in the previous decades.

So... Just to clarify, I am certain that male domination of the fields in real life is a factor, but nor a lone factor, there are hunderds of other factors involved, including the ones being mentioned in the article.

You seem to be claiming that the overrepresented of males in these fields does not have anything to do with it. That is entirely false.

Argentina, where 48% of science majors are women, had among the lowest explicit and implicit bias against women in science—although the bias was still present.

Certainly, any country out there if it had a 70% representation of women in these fields, it would show on the readings of implicit bias.

The huge unanswered question is why? It could be that beliefs about the role of women in science change as more women enter science, that more women enter science when these beliefs change, or a combination. Miller thinks it’s more likely that increased female representation in science influences beliefs rather than the other way around. Schmader, though, thinks the effect likely goes in both directions.

Here, Miller's conclusion advocates my point on it's own, and Schmader I agree with, it's a logical conclusion. I am not saying that it's solely the case that women are under-represent and thence the implicit bias shapes itself accordingly, that is only one large factor, there are many more, a few of which I mentioned above.

A last factor to consider, and one that can not be got rid of.

Men have always dominated these fields. When even at a young age, free of any bias, you're taught about the great names and their discoveries now common to man.

Your scientists: Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Faraday and Darwin. Your philosophers and mathematicians: Gauss, Plato, Newton etc. Your role models of the 21st century, scientists, businessmen, big names in the industry: Oppenheimer, Bell, Turing, Bill Gates, Bill Nye, Stephen hawking, Richard Dawkins.

All men.

For every one of those, I can think of maybe a few females enough to count on one hand, some big names such as Marie Curie.

This issue will not fade quickly, once the female representations kicks off and time passes on, perhaps more female names will populate such lists.
 
.
When elementary school children were asked to draw a picture of a scientist in a recent study, 820 girls and 699 boys drew male scientists. Only 129 girls and just 6 boys drew female scientists (Fort & Varney, 1989).
It is not just children who think of science as a male endeavor. In my 1972 edition of Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, I found listings for five women out of 1195 biographies. (I had to go through the entire book page by page to count the women because there are no index entries for female, woman, or any other synonym.) Checking the 1982 edition at the library, I found 308 more men and 7 more women compared to the edition published a decade earlier.
 
.
Maybe because it was harder to publish if you are a woman and hence men are more known

1- MARIE CURIE
marie-curie.jpg


Polish-born French physicist and chemist best known for her contributions to radioactivity.

2- JANE GOODALL
jane-goodall.jpg


British primatologist and ethologist, widely considered to be the world’s foremost expert on chimpanzees.

3- MARIA MAYER
maria-goeppert-mayer.gif


German-born American physicist who received Nobel Prize for suggesting the nuclear shell model of the atomic nucleus.

4- RACHEL CARSON
rachel-carson.jpg


American marine biologist and conservationist whose work revolutionzied the global environmental movement.

5- ROSALIND FRANKLIN
rosalind-franklin.jpg


British biophysicist best known for her work on the molecular structures of coal and graphite, and X-ray diffraction.

6- BARBARA MCCLINTOCK
barbara-mcclintock.jpg


American scientist and cytogeneticist who received Nobel Prize in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition.

7- RITA LEVI-MONTALCINI
rita-levi-montalcini.jpg


Italian neurologist who received Nobel Prize in 1986 for the discovery of Nerve growth factor (NGF).

8- GERTRUDE ELION
gertrude-b-elion.jpg


American biochemist and pharmacologist who received the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.


It would be a crime to belittle these people and their work.

But the women in this field are a clear minority, and if a top hundred list were made for both, well into the lower numbers, the list of men would be very famous and easily recognizable, either by name or achievement even to common folk. For the female list, very soon you'd be running into obscure names and people.

Point being, there is no hope in arguing that women have played an equal role historically, even if that's no fault of their own, and backwards societal practices that made it so. There's no basis to defend this point.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom