Literature DB >> 21300892

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science.

Stephen J Ceci1, Wendy M Williams.   

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 Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21300892      PMCID: PMC3044353          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  20 in total

1.  Women in neuroscience: a numbers game.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Authors:  Amber E Budden; Tom Tregenza; Lonnie W Aarssen; Julia Koricheva; Roosa Leimu; Christopher J Lortie
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 17.712

3.  Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al.

Authors:  Robert J Whittaker
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Does double-blind review benefit female authors?

Authors:  Thomas J Webb; Bob O'Hara; Robert P Freckleton
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 17.712

5.  Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

Authors:  Herbert W Marsh; Upali W Jayasinghe; Nigel W Bond
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2008-04

6.  Equal opportunities in Canada.

Authors:  H G Friesen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-01-22       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Female scientists wanted -- apply to UK research councils.

Authors:  D Dickson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-12-04       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: similarity not dissimilarity.

Authors:  D Lubinski; C P Benbow; D L Shea; H Eftekhari-Sanjani; M B Halvorson
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-07

9.  Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood.

Authors:  Kimberley Ferriman; David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2009-09

Review 10.  Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams; Susan M Barnett
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  115 in total

1.  Can Sex Differences in Science Be Tied to the Long Reach of Prenatal Hormones? Brain Organization Theory, Digit Ratio (2D/4D), and Sex Differences in Preferences and Cognition.

Authors:  Jeffrey Valla; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-03

2.  Patenting and the gender gap: should women be encouraged to patent more?

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia.

Authors:  Allison K Shaw; Daniel E Stanton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Women's underrepresentation in science: the role of language and laws.

Authors:  Robert Drago
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Gender Diversity in a STEM Subfield - Analysis of a Large Scientific Society and Its Annual Conferences.

Authors:  Evgenia Shishkova; Nicholas W Kwiecien; Alexander S Hebert; Michael S Westphall; Jessica E Prenni; Joshua J Coon
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.109

7.  Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer; Joan C Smith
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 9.  Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions.

Authors:  Tessa E S Charlesworth; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Gender disparities among independent fellows in biomedical research.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 54.908

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.