GLOBALIZATION TECHNOLOGY & SOCIAL CHANGE
WOMEN
IN
TECHNOLOGY
IN
TECHNOLOGY
Why is there such a discrepancy?
Dardan
Monday 4 December 2017
Dardan
Monday 4 December 2017
There is a clear difference between the amount of women and men that are in the tech industry and this article tries to look at the data and interpret what it all seems to say. What useful data do we already have? What does it mean? How can we improve these numbers? Analyzing it all, most of it seems to point to the fact that there is a lack of women in the tech industry because of stereotypical gender roles women face even from a very young age, not enough advancement opportunities for women, and women not feeling like they fit in these male-dominated STEM fields.
What the data says
The National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) is a non-profit - the only of its kind - that focuses on getting more females getting into tech by "helping more than 1,100 organizations recruit, retain, and advance women from K-12 and higher education through industry and entrepreneurial careers by providing support, evidence, and action." And they have a report called "Women in Tech: The Facts - 2016 Update" (1) where they look at data they have compiled concerning women's involvement in tech.
From that report we see an infographic (Fig 1.1) that shows the percentage of computing occupations held by women in 2015 - and for all women that percentage is at 25% - with 16% of that being white women, % Asian, 3% Black/African American, and 1% Latina/Hispanic. So even though there is a huge difference between women and men in tech, there's an even bigger gap between white women and minority women.
From that report we see an infographic (Fig 1.1) that shows the percentage of computing occupations held by women in 2015 - and for all women that percentage is at 25% - with 16% of that being white women, % Asian, 3% Black/African American, and 1% Latina/Hispanic. So even though there is a huge difference between women and men in tech, there's an even bigger gap between white women and minority women.
"From the National Science Foundation we have some data (2) that shows where Bachelor's degrees in science and engineering (in percentage) are going when comparing females. While white females are at 57.5% for 2012, as we can see from the chart minority women are just hitting 11%. Black or African American women stayed on a relatively steady path and Asian women slowly starting to decline at the start of 2010. On the other hand Hispanic or Latino women are seen showing a steady increase and seem to look the best in terms of earning bachelor's degrees in science and engineering.
According to the US census (3), as of 2016, what they label "Black or African American alone" (which they define as not being mixed), they make up 13.3% of the US population. "Asian alone" make up 5.7% and "Hispanic or Latino" make up 17.8%. And in the US the female vs male ratio is pretty much 50:50 so that puts Black or African American women at roughly 7% of the US population, Asian women at 3%, and Hispanic or Latino women at 9%. So when we take into account the population difference, do the numbers make sense?
This demonstrates a pretty big problem - that not enough minority women are going after bachelor's degrees in the science and engineering fields.
So why is that? Nilanjana Dasgupta and Jane G. Stout have a interesting research article titled Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers (4) where they analyze previous research and discuss some of the obstacles and potential solutions of girls and women getting more involved in STEM fields. They list some key points:
According to the US census (3), as of 2016, what they label "Black or African American alone" (which they define as not being mixed), they make up 13.3% of the US population. "Asian alone" make up 5.7% and "Hispanic or Latino" make up 17.8%. And in the US the female vs male ratio is pretty much 50:50 so that puts Black or African American women at roughly 7% of the US population, Asian women at 3%, and Hispanic or Latino women at 9%. So when we take into account the population difference, do the numbers make sense?
This demonstrates a pretty big problem - that not enough minority women are going after bachelor's degrees in the science and engineering fields.
So why is that? Nilanjana Dasgupta and Jane G. Stout have a interesting research article titled Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers (4) where they analyze previous research and discuss some of the obstacles and potential solutions of girls and women getting more involved in STEM fields. They list some key points:
|
|
"Childhood and Adolescence: Barriers to STEM Engagement"
Dasgupta and Stout (4) looked at gender roles conflicting with stem stereotypes at a very young age. They examined research that said girls experienced feminine gender roles and went after being "socially skilled and helpful" while boys experienced masculine gender roles that pushed them to "acquire mastery, skills, competence." They also talk about a research article from National Science Foundation in 2003 that found American cultural messages associated math more with girls. Which shows us what kind of impact things like media in general and social media specifically can have on children.
They also bring up the idea of how much influence parents can have in directing their kids towards STEM careers - for example doing something as simple as encouraging their girl(s) to join STEM afterschool activities. What's interesting is they point out that, on average, it's usually the mother that applies more gender stereotypes when it comes to STEM than fathers. Which makes sense because the mother probably had to deal with these gender stereotypical roles growing up.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
Dasgupta and Stout (4) looked at gender roles conflicting with stem stereotypes at a very young age. They examined research that said girls experienced feminine gender roles and went after being "socially skilled and helpful" while boys experienced masculine gender roles that pushed them to "acquire mastery, skills, competence." They also talk about a research article from National Science Foundation in 2003 that found American cultural messages associated math more with girls. Which shows us what kind of impact things like media in general and social media specifically can have on children.
They also bring up the idea of how much influence parents can have in directing their kids towards STEM careers - for example doing something as simple as encouraging their girl(s) to join STEM afterschool activities. What's interesting is they point out that, on average, it's usually the mother that applies more gender stereotypes when it comes to STEM than fathers. Which makes sense because the mother probably had to deal with these gender stereotypical roles growing up.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
- K-12 schools participating with museums to showcase the benefits of STEM
- K-12 schools participating with STEM Departments in College and Universities where the students participate in workshops, STEM field trips, and have scientists and engineers visit (of which, at least 50% are female)
- Create STEM after-school activities and summer camps
"Emerging Adulthood: Barriers to STEM Engagement"
Dasgupta and Stout (4) also examined women that get into these STEM pathways and what makes them hit walls and how can these walls be broken. One big point they bring up is them not feeling like they fit when the majority of the class is guys, something I myself have noticed being a CS major. From my experience, the guys have always been nice and helpful but there's another problems in this situation. For one, if they hit a wall (which a lot of CS students do, male or female) they don't have someone to compare to that also hit a wall and allow them to share their experiences.
Another important point they bring up is women in general, in this field, don't have as many role models - whereas guys have seemingly infinite. When women in college see other women having successful tech careers it not only reinforces the idea inside them that it is possible to attain but they also have someone that they study and get an idea of how they did it. As a guy, there's a lot of times that I either talk with other CS majors or discuss their track through their career.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
Dasgupta and Stout (4) also examined women that get into these STEM pathways and what makes them hit walls and how can these walls be broken. One big point they bring up is them not feeling like they fit when the majority of the class is guys, something I myself have noticed being a CS major. From my experience, the guys have always been nice and helpful but there's another problems in this situation. For one, if they hit a wall (which a lot of CS students do, male or female) they don't have someone to compare to that also hit a wall and allow them to share their experiences.
Another important point they bring up is women in general, in this field, don't have as many role models - whereas guys have seemingly infinite. When women in college see other women having successful tech careers it not only reinforces the idea inside them that it is possible to attain but they also have someone that they study and get an idea of how they did it. As a guy, there's a lot of times that I either talk with other CS majors or discuss their track through their career.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
- Promote more peer networking opportunities so that even if they're the minority in the class room, they'll have a way to connect with other women in other classes or universities
- Provide role models and mentorships by inviting senior women in the tech fields to these universities and colleges
"Professional Life: Barriers to Advancement in STEM Careers"
Dasgupta and Stout (4) then analyzed some of the barriers of women in tech once they've graduated and are getting ready to join the work force. They point to some research from 2012 where too very similar resumes were given for consideration with the only difference being the first name - one male, the other female. And what happened was that the resume with the male name was evaluated as being "more competent and hirable, more worthy of mentoring, and deserving a higher salary than the female candidate." And this gender bias was done by both male and female faculty. Showing that even when you assume that everything else is similar, you can be chosen over just for the fact of being a female. They then talk about the promotion side where when women showcase skills of leaders, they don't get the same reaction as men showcasing those skills. So women are expected to be very warm and even more warm than men for promotions, whereas that's not the case for men.
One other big factor they point out is that the female is usually the caregiver at home - taking care of the kids and making food. Nowadays men take some form of turns but it's still mostly women that are preparing the kids for school, making them food, and trying to make sure the house doesn't turn into a huge mess. Then there's also a research paper they discuss that's from 2003 that says women are more likely to marry a man in STEM than men, where it leads to there being a bigger priority for the man's career.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
Dasgupta and Stout (4) then analyzed some of the barriers of women in tech once they've graduated and are getting ready to join the work force. They point to some research from 2012 where too very similar resumes were given for consideration with the only difference being the first name - one male, the other female. And what happened was that the resume with the male name was evaluated as being "more competent and hirable, more worthy of mentoring, and deserving a higher salary than the female candidate." And this gender bias was done by both male and female faculty. Showing that even when you assume that everything else is similar, you can be chosen over just for the fact of being a female. They then talk about the promotion side where when women showcase skills of leaders, they don't get the same reaction as men showcasing those skills. So women are expected to be very warm and even more warm than men for promotions, whereas that's not the case for men.
One other big factor they point out is that the female is usually the caregiver at home - taking care of the kids and making food. Nowadays men take some form of turns but it's still mostly women that are preparing the kids for school, making them food, and trying to make sure the house doesn't turn into a huge mess. Then there's also a research paper they discuss that's from 2003 that says women are more likely to marry a man in STEM than men, where it leads to there being a bigger priority for the man's career.
Proposed solutions from Dasgupta and Stout (4):
- Use more blind reviews through the application process
- More family-friendly programs that allow for better life-work balance
- Provide professional development opportunities for women to break more barriers
Conclusion
Women are swayed from STEM careers through multiple road blocks that put in front of them even from a very young age. As Dasgupta and Stout (4) state, there is no "magic bullet" that will magically resolve this problem but it's the little things that do help. When the girls are young, get them more involved with STEM activities and educators should be creating STEM-related field trips; when they're in college, inviting more female role models in STEM fields and creating better networking opportunities; and lastly for adult females, more blind reviews, family-friendly programs by companies, and professional development opportunities.
Research Methods
This topic was researched by going through multiple sources that dealt with the lack of women in the tech industry. The first few sources (1-3) from the references cited section looked at statistics from highly cited articles/info-graphs. Source #4 from the references cited section is from a journal that provided a lot of research and investigations from different research articles.
References Cited
1. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/ncwit_women-in-it_2016-full-report_final-web06012016.pdf
2. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15321/pdf/nsf15321.pdf
3. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125216
4. Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21-29. doi:10.1177/2372732214549471
Women are swayed from STEM careers through multiple road blocks that put in front of them even from a very young age. As Dasgupta and Stout (4) state, there is no "magic bullet" that will magically resolve this problem but it's the little things that do help. When the girls are young, get them more involved with STEM activities and educators should be creating STEM-related field trips; when they're in college, inviting more female role models in STEM fields and creating better networking opportunities; and lastly for adult females, more blind reviews, family-friendly programs by companies, and professional development opportunities.
Research Methods
This topic was researched by going through multiple sources that dealt with the lack of women in the tech industry. The first few sources (1-3) from the references cited section looked at statistics from highly cited articles/info-graphs. Source #4 from the references cited section is from a journal that provided a lot of research and investigations from different research articles.
References Cited
1. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/ncwit_women-in-it_2016-full-report_final-web06012016.pdf
2. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15321/pdf/nsf15321.pdf
3. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125216
4. Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21-29. doi:10.1177/2372732214549471