differenceblog, posts by tag: science - LiveJournal

Claire Cain Miller (2007), in Forbes, reports that gender diversity in R&D may not just be good for people, but good for companies and science in general. "Who Invents IT?", a report released this week by the National Center for Women & Information Technology, examines the relationship between IT patent-holder gender and the number of times that patent is cited in subsequent patents. NCWIT found that mixed-gender patents received up to 42% more citations than single-gender patents. Women were named on only 6.1% of U.S. IT patents in 2005.

The underrepresentation of women in patenting is not unique to the IT field. Ding et al (2006) found that academic women in the life sciences applied for patents only 40% as much as their male peers. Robert Fisher (2005) suggests that women may choose less risky research subjects, leading to fewer patentable breakthroughs. However, Ding's study, which also used "number of citations" as a measure for the influence of research, found that women's papers were cited slightly more often than men's (there is no detail as to mixed-gender groups provided). Ding suggests that concern about maintaining their academic careers is a higher priority for women scientists, which they choose not to jeopardize by pursuing commercial ventures.

---

How do you measure the scientific impact of an idea? The number of citations seems like as good a place as any to start, but I wonder how much the politics of citing comes into play. Most of the scientists I know are fairly cynical about the business of publication in general, and about citations in particular. Still, I find it extremely promising to see results-based arguments about women's inclusion in science, rather than morally based ones. If mixed-gender teams are coming up with more influential work, that seems like the best reason to keep both men and women involved in science (and everything else, for that matter). Even after more than a year of researching for Difference Blog, I'm hesitant to say I could quantify the differences in the way men and women think -- but I do believe that there is one, and that it has an effect on the way they solve problems.

Morgan et al (2001) found both men and women ranked "interesting work" as a high priority when determining their career choices, as determined by college major. However, the two groups seemed to find different things interesting: men were more likely to be enrolled in math or physical science programs, whereas women were more likely to choose education or arts/humanities. No difference was found in the fields of health care, social sciences, or business. Morgan et al also found that women listed interpersonal goals as more important, and status goals as less important, than their male counterparts.

Fernandez et al (2006) suggest that sexism is related to college program choice. They found in undergraduates at the University of Vigo (Spain) that both men and women in technical programs expressed more sexist attitudes than those in other programs. Nadya Fouad's 2006 review on vocational psychology calls gender and sexual orientation "contextual influences" on career choice, but notes that little research has been done on sexual orientation. More discussion of sexual orientation's influence on career development will follow tomorrow.

---

My college career was just as mixed up as the rest of my life has been. When the application asked for my "first choice" major, I answered "mathematics." My second-choice major was listed as "theatre." Unsurprisingly, I got my first choice, although I ended up changing majors from math to theatre a mere three months into my college career. Two years into that program, I switched my concentration from "performance" to "technical" (although my course load was so mixed up by this point that I ended up graduating with a "generalist" degree -- a "Bachelor of Science in Theatre Generalism", actually). A decade later, I find myself two years into a psychology program, but increasingly drawn to (and intimidated by) biology.

Hyde and Linn (1988) suggest in their meta-analysis of 165 studies that gender differences in verbal ability may "no longer exist." In their paper on math and science differences in the following year, Linn and Hyde (1989) do find substantial differences, which they attribute to differences in access and encouragement. Herbert Marsh (1990) agrees that gender differences in performance were diminishing as of the 1990's.

Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2004) point out that performance and self-concept do not exactly correlate for girls and boys in the same way; in their Norwegian sample, girls got better grades at all levels, but boys reported better confidence in math and science, whereas girls reported more interest in language-related courses. Difference in confidence on a particular type of task could well promote differences in adult career choices.

---

You may remember that Janet Hyde is the author of the "gender similarities hypothesis." While I think that Hyde and Linn's attempts to demonstrate that gender differences are negligible is misguided, I do agree with one point made in their 1989 paper: "gender differences in height, physical strength, career access, and earning power are much larger and more stable than gender differences on cognitive and psychosocial tasks." Yes, period, the end. The difference in confidence (in all areas of life) seems to me to be the most stable psychological gender difference, and the most deserving of attention and repair. Talent is great, but has nothing on effort in terms of results.

While women are enrolling in traditionally male majors in increasing numbers, this doesn't address whether they persist in these fields. Beyer et al (2005) found that attitudes towards gender differences in Computer Science changed over time in CS majors and non-majors of bothe sexes. On the other hand, Huang et al (2000) found that women, once enrolled, were more likely to complete a science/engineering degree than their male counterparts, and that the factors that influence a student's entry into science/engineering did not differ between the sexes. Nauta et al (1999) concluded that, after controlling for ability, attributional style was the major predictor of women's persistence in engineering. Linn and Hyde (1989) found that differences in career access in mathematics were more robust and stable than differences in ability.

---

My initial major in college was mathematics. In six months, I changed to theatre. I don't think this had anything to do with negative attitudes towards women in mathematics. If anything, I was rebelling by dropping out of math. I'm trying to remember who in my social circle changed majors; but I'm not thinking of anyone else offhand. However, everyone I knew who dropped out of college was male.

Annalee Newitz, co-editor of the book and blog She's Such a Geek!, declared 2007 the "Year of Women in Science." Newitz attributes recent focus on women in the sciences to backlash against Larry Summers' "ass-minded comments." Her post (12/19/06) highlights some 2006 studies investigating the role of women in the sciences. This week, the "Conference of Women Leaders in Science, Technology and Engineering" in Kuwait examined increasing opportunies for women scientists in Muslim-majority countries.

Web content for and about girl geeks doesn't seem to be in short supply, but often seem to focus more on the girl than the geek. CNET published a list of the Top Ten Girl Geeks in November that sparked quite a buzz, by completely missing the point*. GeekZine's GeekGirl of the Month and Geek Girls Rule! (both possibly NSFW) appear to be equally clue-free.

---

Newitz, and co-editor Charlie Anders, will be reading from She's Such a Geek at The Center for New Words in Cambridge, MA tonight. The anthology of essays discusses "the growing role of women in the sciences, fandom, gaming and other areas." While I constantly trip over girlgeek content in my personal browsing, searching for it this morning to provide links was more frustrating than I expected. While I'm all for the sexualization of... well, just about everything ... the very few sites that actually focus on these women's "geek cred" is annoying. She's Such a Geek is a good one, as is GirlGeeks.org.

Having completely failed to tie this into gender differences, I suppose I'll have to write about male nurses tomorrow, or something.

*bloggers were annoyed that Darryl Hannah and Paris Hilton made the cut. I didn't think the list was that bad, honestly.

The discussion of gender differences often boils down to a question of nature vs. nurture, although the assertion that we cannot (or should not?) change "nature" is in itself under debate. Jake Young writes a decent lay-person friendly review of some of the basic theories of the neurological differences between men and women. Specifically, he reviews Simon Baron-Cohen's systematizing vs. empathizing theory in contrast with Janet Hyde's "similarities hypothesis," which is basically the theory that the physical differences between men's and women's abilities are non-existent or small.

My own understanding of the distribution of ability is largely informed by a theory I first saw quoted (from Steven Pinker) on Patri Friedman's blog in May of 2005, namely that there is greater variation in males than in females, leading to greater differences at the extremes.

If Baron-Cohen's systemizating vs. empathizing model is correct, perhaps some of the differences are based in the metric used to measure intelligence. If intelligence is defined strictly as being tied to pattern recognition, then a systemizing brain will tend to test higher than an empathizing one. However, using Robert Sternberg's model of "analytical or crystallized, practical and creative" intelligences seems to weigh non-analytical intelligence too heavily on education. It seems clear that a person can be intelligent without being educated, but only pattern-recognition test seem capable of measuring this ability.

Tel Aviv University's Hagit Messer-Yaron, a professor of electrical engineering and anti-sexism activist, says "Men tend to look at technology. Women's perspective tends to be wider, more multidisciplinary." This, of course, is the argument used for all types of diversity, not only in the sciences, but in all fields. People of different backgrounds will necessarily approach problems from different perspectives.

The danger of these arguments is in the seductive nature of statistics. It is always tempting to apply the aggregate to the individual. This is the cruel science of the insurance company, the odds-maker, and one-size-fits-most. The predictions are a precise fit for no one and laughably or tragically wrong for some. The moral issue becomes this: should society discard the models (and what utility they offer) entirely or should those who exceed the models be responsible for finding their own fit?

---

My personal experience with sexism can be defined as "oblivious." I've never actually noticed sexism applied to me in the moment. I've certainly noticed differences in the ways I am treated when people respond to me as a man compared to when they responded to me as a woman, but the differences never seem to correspond to a lack of respect of regard. My time in the sciences as a woman was very brief and superficial. I spent three months as a math major in college, and changed majors because it failed to hold my interest. I never felt any pressure to leave the Math Department; in fact, my decision to leave was met with resistance at home, at school, and in my social circle.

In all of the -isms that I could easily apply to myself, I generally find it is my own reaction that is the problem, and not the attitudes of those around me. I can certainly find discrimination if I look for it, but I don't see how looking for it is useful. Generally someone insulting me on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or even something as superficial as height (I'm pretty short) isn't really concerned with those factors at all. They're looking for a way to get under my skin. Applying their insults to the entire class of men, bisexuals, or short people isn't a useful way to figure out what they mean.

I'm not arguing that sexism doesn't exist. I'm just arguing that looking for it is equivalent to chasing your tail. It doesn't do anything but tire you out.