Analytical Paper: The Gender Gap in Science
On November 1, 2005 Sapphire Dennis said that she did not feel comfortable in Ms. McBride’s chemistry class at Trenton Central High School. As a result of her discomfort, Sapphire claimed that she would not answer questions during class discussions nor would she ask questions when unsure of a concept. Such sentiments were revealed shortly after Sapphire completed a laboratory exercise alongside three male peers. During the activity, Sapphire was observed to be seated during the duration of the lab, as well as quietly recording the information dictated by her male partners, who were handling the equipment and chemicals and standing during the lab.
However, Sapphire was confined to data recording not because she was incapable of correctly using the laboratory tools. In fact, several weeks prior to the lab, on October 6, 2005, Sapphire proved that she could do more than record data as she set up equipment and carried out procedures during another lab exercise. The difference on October 6th, though, was that Sapphire was in a group which was void of male peers. When paired with female students, Sapphire, as well as the other girls, quietly worked to complete the activity. The all female group did not ask a single question during the lab, while the two groups of all male students, on the other hand, continuously voiced their problems and concerns.
At the conclusion of the lab on October 6th, the grades for each group was calculated based upon a grading rubric. Not only had the female group earned an ‘A’ for the lab, but they had earned much higher grades than both of the male groups. Such results, in addition to the comments made by Sapphie, raised numerous questions regarding the performance of males and females in the class. Why were the males the students who frequently asked questions and actively participated in the labs? Why did the level of female participation drastically differ when they were grouped with females versus males? Finally, why did the females allow their male partners to conduct the lab when they have proven to have success in conducting labs themselves?
Such questions can be answered by expoloring the belief that “science is based on cultural norms” (Ferriera 970) has caused what has become known as the gender gap. Within gender, the number of males interested and involved in scientific pursuits greatly outshines their female counterparts. For example, in 2000, the National Science Foundation determined that slightly less than one million women were employed in scientific careers compared to the employment of over three million men (Arnst). The findings imply, as well as confirm, the lack of female involvement in science throughout their education. With such a large gap in the numbers of females and males engaged in scientific occupations, it becomes important to understand how the gender gap was created and by what factors.
Such an inquiry was made by Peggy Orenstein, the author of Schoolgirls, when she wrote “what forces, in particular, inhibit girls’ achievement in science, where the gender gap looms the widest” (Orenstein xxvii). In order to understand the gender gap, then, an understanding of why women become disinterested and unsuccessful, while men become successful, in science is required. Therefore, to determine why women have become the minority in the scientific field, it is essential to first analyze what males possess that cause their gender to prevail in science classrooms and careers. It is not, however, material possessions, but rather societal privileges and notions that favor males over females when it comes to science. In other words, the social constructions of masculinity and femininity have played a significant role in the formation of the gender gap in science (Hamil). As a result, masculinity has produced detrimental consequences for women in science education.
Masculinity has been constructed and defined by the American culture, and it contains various components within its construction. The most primitive assumption is that masculinity refers exclusively to men. From this notion, the remaining aspects of masculinity have been defined as male, or as anything that is not female. As a result of defining masculinity as a collection of unfeminine traits, the components of femininity have thus been determined by masculinity, or males. Therefore, since masculinity encompasses aggression, risk-taking, independence, power and success, femininity must represent the opposites, or passivity, dependence, weakness, and display of emotion (Kimmel).
However, the connection between men and masculinity does not directly define the connection between masculinity and science. There is one major similarity between both connections, though; just as society is responsible for the construction of masculinity itself, society also constructs the meaning of science. The most vital aspect of these social constructions is that “the development of both masculinity and scientific knowledge requires the rejection and repression of everything female” (Gilbert 294). In order to obtain masculinity, therefore, men must avoid acting, both in physical and emotional endeavors, in ways society has constructed women to behave. If men fail to fully suppress femininity, they cannot achieve their masculinity. Furthermore, if science is to be based on masculinity, science would have to obtain masculinity in the same way men become masculine. Since men gain masculinity through the rejection of femininity, science would also have to reject femininity in order to become masculine. Thus, it is through the rejection of femininity that masculinity is achieved and science is founded. In other words, the scientific spectrum comprises those who have successful achieved masculinity, and in turn science itself becomes masculine.
It is those “people who find science’s apparent masculinity attractive, that they tend to be people who are engaged by the sense of power and control that science appears to offer” (Calvert 865). Thus, as a result of science being run by men reared masculinities, science must then contain the characteristics that reside in the boundaries of masculinity. The characteristics of masculinity, as previously noted, including independence and power, can therefore be found in the scientific discipline. For example, research and laboratory work are typically done on an individual basis, which possibly satisfies the desire for autonomy that men seek from their initial detachment from their mothers in childhood. This independence can further serve as a means to achieve power, as autonomy grants personal control, or power, over one’s work.
Characteristics such as power and independence, therefore, serve in multiple ways in social constructions. First, the achievement and retention of such traits is an essential component of masculinity. It is when a man can prove his conquests of autonomy and authority that he is truly considered a man. In addition, because these identical traits are necessary in the scientific field, men become involved in science in order to further prove the extent of their masculinity. Not only can men prove themselves through science, but science can also provide the needed outlets for obtaining some of the aspects of masculinity. In short, the social construction of masculinity and science go hand in hand.
While science may benefit men by reaffirming their masculinity, the way in which science has been constructed and the resulting “culture outside the classroom, discourages scientific competence in girls” (Orenstein 23). The social construction of femininity being the “perfect girl who has no bad thoughts or feelings, the kind of person everyone wants to be with…the girl who speaks quietly, calmly, who is always nice and kind, never mean and bossy” (Orenstein 37) does not fit into the social meaning of science. As society, and thus females, view science as a masculine subject, femininity becomes oppressed by science and masculinity. Moreover, the construction of science as masculine contributes to the initial deterrence women have from the scientific field (Hughes).
The construction “of science as being ‘for’ men, as something unfeminine, and, therefore, not ‘for’ women” (Calvert 864) causes women to experience an internal conflict as a result of society. Society wants women to abide by the perfect girl code and maintain their femininity. However, since science is constructed with respect to masculinity, science “actively excludes any overt expression of femininity – in terms of behavior and appearance – as ‘threatening’” (Calvert 871). Consequently, if a woman were to be interested in pursuing an education or career related to science, she would risk the essence of her womanhood. Women, therefore, are faced with the conflict of succumbing to the rules of society, in which she maintains her femininity and forgoes her scientific interests, or opposing social norms by sacrificing femininity for science. The latter option in this conflict, though, is looked down upon by society as “women in masculine occupations are perceived as less feminine, less attractive, and less likeable than women in feminine occupations” (Hughes 54). In other words, since science is considered a masculine field, and thus rejects femininity, women who enter scientific careers, or even classrooms, must suppress their femininity to be accepted.
For example, since femininity is linked to being quiet and dependent, the suppression of femininity causes the opposing, or more masculine, traits, like outgoingness and independence. While gaining more masculine traits may make it easier for women to enter the scientific field, the suppression of their femininity also opposes the “perfect girl” role that Orenstein defined as society’s construction of femininity. Within the perfect girl construction was that femininity encompasses beauty, and so to reduce femininity would imply a reduction of beauty as well. In addition, since beauty is often connected to desire, women who lack beauty are thought to be less desirable. Thus, there is a chain reaction produced when women enter the field of science, where in their femininity is diminished, thereby decreasing their beauty, which then causes them to be less appealing. In order to prevent becoming viewed by others in this light and to maintain their femininity, women may avoid science education and careers in science.
Within the classroom females are also steered toward the decision to maintain femininity by sacrificing scientific interests by their male peers. With the connection of science being a masculine subject, boys then want to protect the masculinity of science by continuing to reject females from becoming interested in, or taking part in, the field. In order to keep femininity far from science, boys use their own masculine traits to maintain a safe distance between females and scientific endeavors. One of the most significant uses of masculinity boys utilize is their aggression and power within the classroom. “In science, where discussion, problem-solving, and laboratory exercises are essential learning tools, these learned behaviors later result in science classrooms characterized by male-dominated discussions and laboratory exercises” (Hamil). Therefore, as a result of society constructing masculinity to incorporate the desire for power, boys attempt to achieve this power by taking control in the science laboratory. At the same time, the construction of femininity to include passivity and compliance causes female students to be reluctant to become involved during laboratory exercises, as well as fearful of the consequences that could result if they challenged the power of the male peers. Therefore, social constructions are preserved in scientific experiments by making the females “confined to setting up the equipment and passively recording data the boys had actively generated by conducting the experiment” (Guzzetti 5).
In addition to domination during experiments, boys also shun their female counterparts from science during class discussions. Discussions in science classrooms serve as one of the most effective ways of learning, and it involves the interaction and domination of student voices. Another important aspect of discussions is the dynamic of power relations present in the class. Power relationships are evident in the classroom as a result of the social constructions of masculinity and femininity. As previously mentioned, the desire for power is strongly attributed to masculinity. Since masculinity is defined by the rejection of femininity, then the amount of power attributed to femininity must be the polar opposite of masculine power. In other words, if the construction of masculinity encompasses the desire for power, then the construction of femininity must not include the desire for power. With no desire for power, femininity is constructed through masculinity as a passive entity.
The distribution of power created then plays out during discussions through the use of language, which is also constructed by society similarly to how power is distributed between masculinity and femininity. The social construction of “gender-appropriate language” (Guzzetti 5) is based upon the amount of power one has and determines how language is to be used. However, since the distribution of power has been constructed based upon masculinity, the types of language practices have consequently been determined by masculinity as well. Since masculinity has resulted in femininity taking a passive role, the socially constructed language of women includes silencing their voices in order to abide by the masculine definitions of power. In a study found within “Changing the Pattern of Gendered Discussion: Lessons from Science Classrooms” (Guzzetti), seventy-eight percent of girls in a science classroom reported that they did not want to participate, listing the main reason as being afraid of violating social conventions. On the other hand, sixty percent of the males in the same science class said they were active during discussions. The involvement of males in science discussions is attributed to the belief that masculinity craves power, and so the construction of male languages includes techniques to capture attention and, in turn, power, through becoming participants in discussions. Consequently, “males are enabled by females to dominate instructional talk because females respond to social pressures that women be good listeners who are valued for their ability to be attentive to others” (Guzzetti 2). Thus, the performance of social codes, especially in terms of power and language, from both males and females within science classrooms favors the domination of masculinity. As the power and language of masculinity overpower those of femininity, males are able to participate more, secure their personal masculinity, and maintain the masculine nature of science.
By calling out, volunteering, and actively participating in class, boys are able to overshadow the girls, and as a result silence female voices. Consequently, male aggression conveys a message that males desire the attention of their teacher more than their passive female peers. For teachers this message translates into acknowledging that boys want to be called on, and so teachers direct questions toward the male students. In addition, teachers also are affected by social constructions, specifically that science is a masculine subject. The teachers, therefore, fall victim to believing that since science is masculine than only those who express and own masculinity can excel in the subject. The social belief that only males are masculine then causes the teacher to make the connection that only the males in the class can excel because they are the only ones capable of owning masculinity. In adhering to societal norms, teachers allow male students, rather than female students, to participate more in science classrooms.
The combination of the domination of males within the classroom, and the reinforcement of male involvement by the teacher has a detrimental affect on girls in science classrooms. “Ignored by their teachers and belittled by their male peers, girls lose heart: they may become reluctant to participate at all in class, unable to withstand the small failures necessary for long-term academic success” (Orenstein 14). Yet, the reason behind why girls lose heart in science is rooted deeper than simply being ignored and belittled. In fact, girls lose heart because of the reason that causes science teachers to focus their attention on the domineering males. It has been seen that science has been constructed in terms of masculinity, and it is further dominated by those owning masculinity as well. In addition, owners of masculinity are socially defined as males, which, therefore, mean that males are the only ones capable of entering and excelling in scientific endeavors. These notions play out in the classroom as teachers allow male students to dominate discussions, while simultaneously ignoring the female students. Therefore, it is masculinity which causes girls to go unnoticed and belittled in science classrooms. As such consequences of masculinity ensue, girls lose confidence in their abilities in science. For instance, the lack of attention from their teachers does not provide girls with positive feedback that they have the capability to succeed in science. Thus, it is the masculinity implicit in the construction of science which causes girls to lose confidence in science classrooms.
A lose of confidence in science classes can then be related to female affection towards science. Previously, it was seen that the sole notion of science being a masculine discipline was detrimental in terms of recruiting women into the field because women who then entered the field were socially labeled as less feminine, and thus less attractive. Masculinity causing girls to lose confidence in science, therefore, does not aid in causing females to become involved in the sciences. As girls lose confidence they withdrawal from scientific subjects because they feel as though they are not able to succeed. The thought of not being able to succeed, however, can turn into reality if girls allow their decreased confidence to cause them to put little effort into learning and applying scientific knowledge. It is the social construction of masculinity which places such negative thoughts of achievement into the minds of girls. In actuality, females have the same abilities as males in the sciences, yet because masculinity taints female perceptions of science and causes unequal attention within the classroom, females may lose confidence and not achieve success in science (Hamil). As females lose confidence and let their levels of achievement in science decrease, females are likely to chose against seeking a career in science. Hence, “there is a circular relationship among girl’s affection for science, their self-esteem, and their career plans” (Orenstein 22). The complete relationship has been seen as an unfavorable outcome of masculinity in regards to females and their involvement in science education.
While the complete deconstructed of previously formed social norms may not be possible, society, especially educational institutions, can start to recognize how social constructions can be detrimental in terms of female education in science. Educators, in particular, need to look for ways in which the construction of masculinity produces an unequal balance of science educations between the female and male students in the classroom. For example, the aggressiveness associated with masculinity has been seen to cause male students to be given more attention during class, whereby excluding females from participating in science discussions and activities. Since discussion is one of the most effective ways in learning science, teachers should consciously try to involve female and male students equally during a discussion. In order to encourage girls to participate, as well reduce the aggressiveness of the boys so that the girls are given a chance to speak, teachers can alternate calling on boys and girls when questions are asked. It has been seen that “waiting a moment rather than recognizing the first child who raises his hand, encourages girls to participate more readily in class” (Orenstein, 245). In science classrooms, where male students dominate discussions, and are the ones most likely to raise their hands to participate, teachers are able to show girls that they are allowed to participate as well by not calling on the male students automatically.
By showing the girls that their participation is acceptable in science, teachers provide girls with a positive environment that aids in fostering their science education. In relation to increased participation, girls begin to view science in a more positive attitude (Orenstein). Therefore, by including girls in class more often, teachers enable girls to begin to perceive science as a subject they have the ability to become involved in, instead of as just a masculine field. Furthermore, by altering girls’ attitudes towards science, their confidence in science can be increased. When a positive attitude is held, girls are more likely to feel as though they are competent to achieve. In turn, their increased confidence in science can cause girls to achieve at higher levels (Nelson). Thus, through the process of including girls equally in science classes, teachers are able to dramatically impact the way in which girls view science. As a result, girls gain confidence in science, which in turn causes them to become engaged in learning science. By enhancing their learning through increased confidence, girls are able to succeed in science classes. When girls are able to feel confidence and successful in their scientific endeavors the probability that they will continue taking science courses, and possibly even seek a scientific career, is more likely to increase as well.
While the role of teacher-student interaction during class discussions is only one change that can be made by social institutions to begin to show women that they can, and should, enter the scientific field, the importance of such actions is immense. The construction of masculinity may not be able to be broken down completely, but the detrimental consequences of masculinity on femininity in science education can be alleviated by destabilizing its foundation. Even if science continues to be aligned with masculinity under certain aspects, such as their shared connection of independence, society needs to find ways to cleanse science of its feminine oppression. An example of lifting the masculine nature of science so women are able to become included would include the role of the teacher as providing a gender fair classroom. Thus, society has a choice: maintain the current construction of science as masculine and have a limited number of scientists available to further social progression, or allow women access into the field of science through science education so that society gains more successful scientists to develop and monitor increasing technologies.
Bibliography
Arnst, Catherine. “Getting Girls to the Lab Bench.” Business Week 3919 (2005): 42.
Calvert, Sarah, and Jane Gilbert. “Challenging Accepted Wisdom: Looking at the
Gender and Science Education Question through a Different Lens.” International
Journal of Science Education 25.7 (2003): 861-879.
Ferriera, Maria. “Gender Issues Related to Graduate Student Attrition in Two Science
Departments.” International Journal of Science Education 25.8 (2003): 969-990.
Gilbert, Jane. “Science and its ‘Other’: Looking Underneath ‘Women’ and ‘Science’ for
New Directions in Research on Gender and Science Education.” Gender and Education
13.3 (2001): 291-306.
Guzzetti, Barbara J., and Wayne O. Williams. “Changing the Pattern of Gendered
Discussion: Lessons from Science Classrooms.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy 40.1 (1996): 38-48.
Hamil, Burnette, and Tiffany Tindall. “Gender Disparity in Science Education: The
Causes, Consequences, and Solutions.” Education 125.2 (2004): 282-294.
Hughes, Jay W. “Gender Attributions of Science and Academic Attributes: An
Examination of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Technology Majors.”
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science Engineering 8.1 (2002): 53-66.
Nelson, Sarah Cotton, and Jo Saunders. “Closing Gender Gaps in Science.” Educational
Leadership 62.3 (2004): 74-78.
Orenstein, Peggy. Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap.
New York: Anchor Books, 1994.