Mary K. Feeney
,
Arizona State University
All of the 2021 Nobel Prizes in science were awarded to men.
That's a return to business as usual after a couple of good years for female laureates. In 2020,
Emmanuelle Charpentier
and
Jennifer Doudna
won the chemistry prize for their work on the CRISPR gene editing system, and
Andrea Ghez
shared in the physics prize for her discovery of a supermassive black hole.
2019 was another year of all male laureates, after
biochemical engineer Frances Arnold
won in 2018 for chemistry and Donna Strickland received the
2018 Nobel Prize in physics
.
Strickland and Ghez were only the third and fourth female physicists to get a Nobel, following
Marie Curie in 1903
and
Maria Goeppert-Mayer 60 years later
. When asked how that felt, Strickland noted that at first it was surprising to realize so few women had won the award: “But, I mean, I do live in a world of mostly men, so seeing mostly men
doesn't really ever surprise me either
."
The
rarity of female Nobel laureates
raises questions about women's exclusion from education and careers in science and the
undervaluing of women's contributions on science teams
. Women researchers have come a long way over the past century, but there's overwhelming evidence that women remain underrepresented in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math.
Studies have shown that those women who persist in these careers face explicit and implicit barriers to advancement. Bias is most intense in fields that are dominated by men, where women lack a critical mass of representation and are often viewed as tokens or outsiders. This bias is even more intense for transgender women and nonbinary individuals.
As things are getting better in terms of equal representation, what still holds women back in the lab, in leadership and as award winners?
Good news at the start of the pipeline
Traditional stereotypes hold that women “don't like math" and “aren't good at science." Both
men and women report these viewpoints
, but researchers have
empirically disputed them
. Studies show that girls and women avoid STEM education not because of cognitive inability, but because of early exposure and experience with STEM, educational policy, cultural context, stereotypes and a lack of exposure to role models.
For the past several decades, efforts to improve the representation of women in STEM fields have focused on countering these stereotypes with
educational reforms
and
individual
programs
that can increase the number of girls entering and staying in what's been called the STEM pipeline – the path from K-12 to college and postgraduate training.
These approaches are working. Women are increasingly likely to
express an interest in STEM careers and pursue STEM majors
in college. Women now make up half or more of workers in psychology and social sciences and are increasingly represented in the scientific workforce, though computer and mathematical sciences are an exception.
According to the American Institute of Physics, women earn about 20% of bachelor's degrees and 18% of Ph.D.s in physics,
an increase from 1975
when women earned 10% of bachelor's degrees and 5% of Ph.D.s in physics.
More women are graduating with STEM Ph.D.s and earning faculty positions. But they encounter glass cliffs and ceilings as they advance through their academic careers.
What’s not working for women
Women face a number of
structural and institutional barriers
in academic STEM careers.
In addition to issues related to the gender pay gap, the structure of academic science often makes it difficult for women to
get ahead in the workplace
and to balance work and life commitments. Bench science can require years of dedicated time in a laboratory. The strictures of the tenure-track process can make maintaining work-life balance, responding to family obligations and
having children
or taking family leave difficult,
if not impossible
.
Additionally, working in male-dominated workplaces can
leave women feeling isolated
,
perceived as tokens
and susceptible to
harassment
.
Women often are excluded
from networking opportunities and social events, left to feel they're outside the culture of the lab, the academic department and the field.
When women lack a critical mass in a workplace – making up about 15% or more of workers – they are
less empowered to advocate for themselves
and more likely to be perceived as
a minority group and an exception
. When in this minority position, women are more likely to be pressured to
take on extra service
as tokens on committees or
mentors to female graduate students
.
With fewer female colleagues,
women are less likely
to build relationships with female collaborators and
support and advice networks
. This isolation can be exacerbated when women are unable to participate in work events or
attend conferences because of family or child care
responsibilities, and because of an inability to use research funds to reimburse child care.
Universities,
professional associations
and federal funders have
worked to address a variety
of these structural barriers. Efforts include creating family-friendly policies, increasing transparency in salary reporting, enforcing Title IX protections, providing mentoring and support programs for women scientists, protecting research time for women scientists and targeting women for hiring, research support and advancement. These programs have had mixed results.
For example, research indicates that family-friendly policies such as leave and onsite child care
can exacerbate gender inequity
, resulting in increased research productivity for men and increased teaching and service obligations for women.
Implicit biases about who does science
All of us – the general public, the media, university employees, students and professors – have
ideas of what a scientist
and a Nobel Prize winner look like.
That image
is
predominantly male, white and older
– which makes sense given 96% of the science Nobel Prize winners have been men.
This is an example of an
implicit bias
: one of the unconscious, involuntary, natural, unavoidable assumptions that all of us – men and women – form about the world. People make decisions
based on subconscious assumptions, preferences and stereotypes
– sometimes even when they are counter to their explicitly held beliefs.
Research shows that an implicit bias against women
as experts and academic scientists
is pervasive. It manifests itself by valuing, acknowledging and rewarding men's scholarship over women's scholarship.
Implicit bias can work against women's hiring, advancement and recognition of their work. For instance, women seeking academic jobs are more likely to be viewed and judged based on
personal information and physical appearance
. Letters of recommendation for women are
more likely to raise doubts
and use language that results in negative career outcomes.
Implicit bias can affect women's ability to publish research findings and gain recognition for that work.
Men cite their own papers 56% more
than women do. Known as the “
Matilda Effect
," there is a gender gap in recognition, award-winning and
citations
.
Women's research is less likely to be cited by others, and their
ideas are more likely to be attributed to men
. Women's solo-authored research takes
twice as long
to move through the review process.
Women are underrepresented
in
journal editorships
, as senior scholars and lead authors, and as peer reviewers. This marginalization in research gatekeeping positions works against the promotion of women's research.
When a woman becomes a world-class scientist, implicit bias works
against the likelihood
that she will be
invited as a keynote or guest speaker
to share her research findings, thus
lowering both her visibility in the field
and the likelihood that she will be
nominated for awards
. This gender imbalance is
notable in how infrequently
women experts
are
quoted in news stories
on most topics.
Women scientists are afforded less of the respect and recognition that should come with their accomplishments. Research shows that when people talk about male scientists and experts, they're more likely to use their surnames and more likely to
refer to women by their first names
.
Why does this matter? Because experiments show that individuals referred to by their surnames are more likely to be viewed as famous and eminent. In fact, one study found that calling scientists by their last names led people to consider them 14% more deserving of a National Science Foundation career award.
Seeing men as prize winners has been the history of science, but it's not all bad news. Recent research finds that in the biomedical sciences, women are making significant gains in winning more awards, though on average these awards are typically
less prestigious and have lower monetary value
.
Addressing structural and implicit bias in STEM will hopefully prevent another half-century wait before the next woman is acknowledged with a Nobel Prize for her contribution to physics. I look forward to the day when a woman receiving the most prestigious award in science is newsworthy only for her science and not her gender.
This is an updated version of
an article originally published
on Oct. 5, 2018.
Mary K. Feeney
, Professor and Lincoln Professor of Ethics in Public Affairs,
Arizona State University
This article is republished from
The Conversation
under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original article
.