Title IX & why women prefer non-science careers
Heather Buschman
Tuesday, 22 July 2008 03:05 UTC
An interesting article titled A New Frontier for Title IX: Science caught my eye in the New York Times last week. It describes an initiative by the U.S.’s National Science Foundation, Dept. of Energy, and NASA to conduct reviews of lab space and research funding going to men vs. women at several top institutions, including Columbia University and M.I.T.
Title IX is better known in the U.S for preventing discrimination in education, particularly when it comes to mandating equal funding for men’s and women’s school sports teams. If federal funding for research depended on a similar assessment, wouldn’t it do more harm than good to punish departments or universities if they don’t recruit enough women to science?
The NYT article also delves into some interesting studies of why women tend to prefer non-science careers in the first place. Many things have been written about the need for more childcare support or the need to encourage more young girls to pursue scientific careers. Yet as this article points out, there are still significantly fewer women in science in parts of Europe where healthcare, daycare, and maternity leave for women are quite generous (certainly far better than in the U.S.). The article also brings up the point that, rather than being discouraged from pursuing science careers, many successful female scientists have switched careers partway up the ladder after realizing that they were pushed into science without actually enjoying it. Perhaps, like sports, there are simply fewer women interested in science.
I was left pondering a couple of questions that I’d like to put out there…
1) Is the tendency for women to prefer people-oriented careers over science inherent or shaped by society? (Of course most things are a bit of both, but it’s my opinion that there must be a good deal of biology making social work or teaching more attractive to women. After all, isn’t it generally accepted that we are naturally better communicators and nurturers? Why wouldn’t women be more interested in careers that celebrate their innate abilities?)
2) Does anyone think “Title Nining” science is a good idea? Is it fair to punish research institutions if women just aren’t as interested in science as men are? Are there better ways of discouraging sexual discrimination, without discriminating against other successful scientists, both male and female?
Updated 22 July 2008 03:13 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
This is a very interesting post. In my opinion:
(1) No.
(2) No.Much has been written on these topics, and various academic studies and surveys reported (there have been quite a few recently in EMBO Reports).
In my view, the reason women can “fade out” as they become more senior in a profession is true to all professions, the challenge of coping with a family, the usual cut and thrust of the workplace, constant travelling and evening meetings, etc, can lose its attraction. Although many men are aware that the duties of a parent are equally those of both parents, many (more, probably) don’t, and couples often decide that one member will take more of a back-seat career-wise. This is often the woman for one reason because women tend not to be as well paid as men, even for the equivalent job in many professions.On (2) a better approach in my opinion is for employers to have family-friendly policies and encourage flexible working practices. It is not just tough for women, it is tough for lots of people, including ethnic minorities, people who have very long commutes to work, people who have to look after a dependant relative (a parent, for example). I think it is a mistake to see all of this simply as a one-dimensional gender issue.
-
What Maxine wrote so well. I particularly think there is no innate tendency that is determined by gender, but if the end result is the same, then society has to work with it – in this case, fewer female researchers. But indeed, fewer of many subpopulations relative to their representation in general society. The corrections, in my opinion, need to come earlier and the outcome of such measures will be that much more difficult to measure.
However, “Title Nining” is not about punishing research institutions for not hiring more women – at least as described. It’s about making sure that the women who are there work on an even playing field with their colleagues – who also happen to be their competitors for lab space and research funding. So to some extent, I think an outside perspective on whether certain institutions are equally fair to all their employees could be welcome. I wouldn’t want a witch (or warlock) hunt – on the contrary, it could be an opportunity to praise certain policies and highlight them as examples beyond the U.S. But I don’t think all research institutions are necessarily exemplary.
-
On this topic (or part of anyway) we’re about to release a podcast on – Career breaks for Women in science. It covers some of the points raised about discrimination and factors affecting careers both for women and men.
It’s a talk recorded at last years Source Event career fair Naturejobs organises) by Jan Bogg who is the Project Director, breaking barriers project at Liverpool University. A lot of the information she provides is based on research they have carried out there and there’s a very interesting Q&A session.
It should go live on Monday (web team dependent!) and will appear here if you want notified when it goes live you can pick up the rss feed, details on the same page.
-
Thank you very much for bringing this discussion to Nature Network, Heather. The NYT piece is a very interesting, if not one-sided article.
As is frequently the case with these sorts of articles, I found myself irked after reading it. I don’t think that Title IX for science is the solution. I don’t think forcing any such conditions upon Universities is a good idea. It would only serve to fuel the belief that the quality of science will be threatened by the forced introduction of too many women who are just not as good as the men, thereby reinforce prejudices. I think it is these attitudes and prejudices that tend to repel women from the sciences. I think until the attitude and environment of academia changes, the low number of female academics will remain the same. As Maxine stated above, if the environment is made more conducive for women (or any family-minded individual) the decisions made by women over whether to stay in or leave academia can be more balanced and unencumbered by practical concerns.
I have been bashed for making this wholly unscientific and non-statistical observation in the past, but I am going to give it another shot. I don’t think women are any less interested in science (I am speaking of biology, mostly) than men are. My science classes throughout undergrad and grad school have been heavily female. The profs on the other hand, were mostly male. There are many many reasons for why at this time, this discrepancy exists, but I think it can, it its unscientific form, argue against the belief that women just don’t like science.
-
All good points. I agree with pretty much everything, especially since every case is different and multi-factorial.
Maxine – your point that it’s usually the woman’s career that takes the backseat reminds me of another NY Times article about how couples share household/childcare duties. It’s long and rambling, but one thing stuck in my mind – when couples are asked whose career was more ‘flexible’ (meaning more time for taking care of kids and the like), both usually indicate the woman’s career. No surprise there, but here’s the most interesting part: it didn’t matter what her job was. The article gives the example of two couples. In one, the wife is a college professor and the husband is a physician. In the other, she’s the physician and he’s the college professor. But when asked, in both cases the husband and wife agreed that the woman’s career was the more flexible of the two. Why is that? (Of course, these types of articles always include nice anecdotes like this one, not exactly hard evidence of any kind of trend.)
As for women’s interest in science, I think there’s definitely a difference between life sciences and the physical sciences, with women showing more equal interest in the former (as you alluded to, Anna). I went to a science and engineering school for my undergraduate education, where the overall ratio of males to females was about 4:1, but in the biology department it was 1:1.
-
There are many great points being made in this discussion.
On the question about physical vs biological sciences, the very good Female Science Professor blog (she is in the physical sciences) has featured good posts and discussions about this issue – and many other issues touched on in this present discussion. There also have been figures presented in the United States on increasing numbers of women in the physical sciences. I think in all scientific fields, the number of senior women is far fewer than senior men, however.
-
Why conclude about innate abilities of women in science, without actually trying a situation in favor of women first? Let young girls first see enough number of successful examples of women in science.
If it is due to lack of interest of women, the reson is clear that there is lack of encouragement for them in science or they are forced to shape their career according to the social views. Otherwise why should the ratio of male to female in science change with the age-group?
So, how about giving enough time to women to show up in Science after making some requried changes?
-
Posting this as a follow up to our discussion – Paul Smaglik has a piece in this week’s Nature, titled “The gender imbalance,” about a new study launched by the NIH to study the causes of gender imbalance in science. The executive director of the Association of Women in Science, Janet Koster, very closely mimics my own opinions on this initiative in saying, “It’s great that the NIH has recognized the need to do something about the number of women who are leaving science. On the other hand, you can question the need for more research.” The gender imbalance in science is well-defined. Do we need more data about the problem in order to fix it, or do we need more novel solutions?
-
Last month, the Harvard Business Review published a lengthy report on women in science titled The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology
I unfortunately haven’t been able to read the complete report (as it costs a couple hundred dollars), but there are a number of interviews with the authors about the findings presented and summaries like this one. The authors found that women tend to leave science careers between the ages of 35 and 40, but not primarily because of the “childbearing” factor.
Women in SET are marginalized by hostile macho cultures. Being the sole woman on a team or at a site can create isolation. Many women report mysterious career paths: fully 40% feel stalled. Systems of risk and reward in SET cultures can disadvantage women, who tend to be risk averse. Finally, SET jobs include extreme work pressures: they are unusually time intensive. Moreover, female attrition rates spike 10 years into a career. Women experience a perfect storm in their mid- to late thirties: They hit serious career hurdles precisely when family pressures intensify.
It seems that the HBR article focuses on the same phenomenon mentioned in the NY Times article: women leaving science careers because they realized they didn’t enjoy them. The HBR article says that women feel “overwhelmed by hostile workplace cultures and extreme work pressures”, leading more than half (52%) to drop out.
But the HBR article focuses on pro-active steps employers can take to stop this “female brain drain” without resorting to laws like Title IX. Regardless of the role that biology plays in career preferences, there are things that companies (and universities) can (and IMHO, ought) do to encourage women to continue with their careers in science. The article also argues that employers who take this approach will benefit— offering a “carrot” rather than the “stick” of punishment for not recruiting enough women to science.
-
Since many of the commenters above have mentioned the work-life balance as a factor influencing the attrition rate of women in science, here’s the author’s response regarding that question:
Interviewer: Based on the demographics, it seems likely that they leave to start families. Is that what happens?
Sylvia Ann Hewlett: No. I’m not trying to pretend that work-life balance is not important, but we found four other more important factors about the culture and the nature of the career path.
The “exodus” phenomenon is supported by your observation, Anna, that your grad/ugrad classes have been heavily female, but that most of your professors were male. It also explains, Krushna, why the ratio of male to female in science changes with the age-group.
Regarding the suggestion that systems of risk and reward disadvantage women (since it wasn’t obvious to me what was meant by that)—from the same interview:
Sylvia Ann Hewlett: The fourth thing is the risky behavior patterns that are rewarded. We found, particularly in the tech firms, that the way to get promoted is to do a diving catch: Some system is crashing in Bulgaria, so you get on the plane in the middle of the night and dash off and spend the weekend wrestling with routers and come back a hero, and there’s a ticker-tape parade, and you get two promotions — you can actually leap a whole grade if you rescue a big enough system.
Women have a hard time taking on those assignments because you can dive and fail to catch. If a man fails, his buddies dust him off and say, “It’s not your fault; try again next time.” A women fails and is never seen again. A woman cannot survive a failure. So they become risk-averse in a culture where risk is rewarded. Women would rather build a system that didn’t crash in the first place, but men enjoy that diving catch and have a system of support that allows them to go out on a limb.
And finally, an article from the New York Times has some examples from the report.
Results
-
