Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    A review of these issues yields intriguing information about American
    education and attitudes. It also reveals some startling developments in
    the practice of science. Women scientists are challenging male
    colleagues to reconsider customary ways of doing science. They are even
    questioning bedrock principles of modern science, including the
    scientific method itself. The nation's first response to the news of
    shortages in the sciences was to draw on its post-Sputnik experience.
    When the United States determined in the late 1950s that it needed more
    and better scientists and engineers, it fired up educational engines,
    offered new career incentives, and allocated federal funds to underwrite
    these initiatives. 


The Solution Is Child's Play

    The formula behind John Opel's secret weapon looked easy: to double the
    number of scientists and engineers, double the number of sexes entering
    those professions. But the reasons why women have not entered science in
    proportion to their numbers are complex. Addressing them requires new
    thinking about old attitudes and behaviors. 

    Most social scientists believe the problem has stemmed from what girls
    are taught, directly and indirectly, from infancy onward. Sociologist
    Nancy Chodorow observes that in order to develop an autonomous sense of
    self, the infant boy must deny the maternal relationship, whereas
    self-determination of the female infant does not require gender
    separation. Male self-definition produces personalities emphasizing
    autonomy, independence, solitary endeavor, and competition; in the
    female, the process engenders intimacy, nurturing, and communal
    behavior. 

    These early traits have traditionally been reenforced and extended,
    first by parents, then by teachers. The toys offered to boys, for
    example, have emphasized competition, achievement, and problem-solving,
    while those for girls have encouraged care-taking skills, community
    consciousness, and supportive behavior. Male toddlers have played with
    blocks and mechanical toys, girls with dolls. When parents help with
    homework, they have tended to take the mathematics needs of boys more
    seriously than those of girls. While this stereotyping has been given
    much attention in the popular press, and many parents make a conscious
    effort to avoid it, the practice is still common. 

    Schoolteachers, too, have treated boys and girls differently. Even very
    recent studies of classrooms show teachers encouraging and rewarding
    mathematics and science endeavor in males more than in females, even
    when they are of equal ability. Girls who excel in mathematics and
    science in the teen years may suffer socially. Teenage culture demands
    conformity, and the girl scientist is still seen as a maverick. 

    Against this background, the findings of educational researcher
    Jacquelynne Eccles come as no surprise: beginning in the ninth grade,
    and increasing thereafter, girls develop lower expectations of
    themselves in science and mathematics than do boys, even when their
    abilities and talents are comparable. Low self-expectations diminish
    performance as well as motiviation, and before long, needlessly low
    expectations are fulfilled. In September 1988, a "Science Report Card"
    issued by the Educational Testing Service confirmed this diagnosis: boys
    outperform girls by increasing margins as they progress through high
    school. 


Educators Seek to Unleash the Power of High Expectations

    Educators inaugurated reforms beginning in the 1970s to combat these
    forces. Special training programs were designed to foster sex-neutral
    science teaching. 

    But much more must be done if girls and boys are to achieve equally in
    science. Hood professor Dean Wood believes that a hands-on approach in
    the early grades is one key. He has developed a particularly effective
    program to teach elementary school teachers how to bring science allive
    for _all_ children. Along with biology professor Paul Hummer, he is
    disseminating this approach nationwide. Featuring concrete laboratory
    experiences that require active teacher and pupil participation, the
    curriculum promotes male-female equality in opportunities and rewares.
    Professor Wood says: "The teachers -- most of whom are women -- teach
    science by doing science. And the role model lesson is not lost on the
    children, boys and girls alike." 

    Reforms like this have recieved major government grant support, and
    there is reason to believe they are making a difference. More girls are
    entering college with scientific interests. From 1970 to the mid-1980s,
    the percentage of women receiving baccalaureate degrees in the sciences
    increased by half, doubled in computer science, and tripled in
    engineering. Noting the erosion of the belief that girls are ill-suited
    to science and dislike it, a leading mathematician recently declared,
    "We have ample evidence that a significant number of women are not only
    capable of doing mathematics and science, they also _enjoy_ it." 

    Hood professor Elizabeth Chang agrees that women undergraduates are
    doing better in math, and liking it. Even those who have trouble with
    math have brighter outlooks today than they did just a few years ago,
    she says. Instead of giving up math, they work their way through it. "My
    students," says Professor Chang, "increasingly approach the subject as a
    challenge, not as a painful and mysterious enigma." 

    Hood biologist John Commito observes the same attitudinal change. He
    says he sees more and more freshmen who _expect_ to be good scientists.
    "They don't think of it as extraordinary or different any more." And
    Allen Flora, who teaches physics at Hood, says the majority of his
    freshmen already have studied the subject in high school. Hood women
    arrive at college expecting to succeed. 

    At Hood, as at many other colleges, attracting and supporting female
    science students is a priority. Professors and deans begin recruiting
    students for science before they even get to campus. "Science days" for
    high school students and "science camps" for younger children are
    becoming a regular feature at colleges committed to science education. 

    Hood faculty members see their educational responsibilites extending
    well beyond classroom instruction. Professor Hummer, for example, says
    he is "as concerned about students' confidence as about their
    competence." A positive attitude and good self-image are as important to
    success in science as good grades on examinations -- perhaps moreso. "We
    must do more than train students," Hummer says. "Young women who are
    truly engaged in science are empowered for life." 


Mentors and Models

    Most college science teachers agree that one-on-one mentoring is central
    to the "empowering" process. Hood chemist Sharron Smith says she knows
    the reason for the high success rate of Hood students who apply for
    admission to medical, dental, and graduate chemistry programs, and of
    those who enter science careers directly from college. "It's the
    hands-on experience with equipment and instrumentation, the regular
    access to real-world internships, and most of all the mentoring -- the
    close student-faculty learning experiences in the laboratory and in the
    field," she says. "These give the Hood science education its integrity
    and authenticity." 

    Provisions made for mentoring at colleges have been documented by
    Elizabeth Tidball, who is a member of Hood's board of trustees and a
    professor of physiology at the George Washington University Medical
    Center. Small colleges usually sponsor more one-on-one laboratory and
    fieldwork in science than do larger institutions, and this is the
    generally accepted explanation of the data Tidball reports. For both men
    and women, liberal arts colleges produce more students who subsequently
    achieve the Ph.D. degree in science than do universities. And women's
    colleges are the most productive sources of women who go on to earn
    Ph.D. degrees in the sciences. 

    The proportion of women science faculty in women's colleges is
    significantly higher than in other institutional types (45.5 percent at
    women's colleges, 4.6 percent at technical institutes, 11.4 percent at
    coeducational institutions), according to a 1986 article. This makes a
    big difference, according to Elizabeth Tidball. She offers her data as
    "another statistical confirmation of the role model theory: the more
    adult women of accomplishment present in the environment, the more
    likely are women students to proceed to their own post-college
    accomplishments." 

    Biologist Ann Boyd recalls that her own scientific education was devoid
    of women role models until a very late stage. She speaks glowingly of
    her first female mentor, encountered during a postdoctoral fellowship,
    who taught her valuable lessons about competing in the world of male
    science ("If you want to succeed, make sure your work is excellent
    beyond questions") and about combining an active research career with
    quality family life ("You'll have to give up something, so make it
    administrative and committee work"). 

    Professor Boyd's only regret is that her female mentor appeared so late.
    Her determination to act as a mentor for Hood students is widely shared
    by others at the College. Both women and men professors regularly bring
    undergraduates into working research partnerships with them. 

    When faculty members engage students directly in science, and when the
    role models are appropriate, students respond positively. Hood's
    unusually strong student-retention record in the sciences seems a
    natural outcome. Over the most recent five-year period, about 20 percent
    of entering freshmen have expressed preferences for majors in the
    sciences and mathematics; by graduation, the number majoring in the
    sciences has ranged as high as 24 percent. 

    With all these signs of success, educators should be pleased. But many
    believe the glass is still half-empty. Though the percentage of women
    training for scientific careers is increasing, the actual _numbers_
    remain low, especially in comparison with the numbers of men. In the ten
    years from 1977 to 1986, doctorates in the life sciences, physical
    sciences (including mathematics and computer science), and engineering
    awarded annually to women in the U.S. increased from 1,532 to 2,943 (up
    52 percent), while the numbers awarded to men increased only marginally
    from 10,410 to 10,961 (up only 5 percent). In 1971, one woman for every
    12 men earned a science Ph.D.; by 1986, the ratio had improved to 1:4,
    but parity is still a distant goal In a 1988 article in _Science_, MIT
    professor Sheila E. Widnall observes that the number of women earning
    Ph.D.s in the sciences has reached a plateau in many fields, a situation
    she suggests may reflect a graduate school environment that is
    considerably less hospitable to women than to men. Educators are
    therefore redoubling efforts to defeat sex-based stereotypes and to make
    science more appealing to female students, as well as to sensitize
    college and university faculty to the effect of the classroom status quo
    on would-be women scientists. 

    Even as access to science improves, another issue demands attention.
    Women scientists are not satisfied with simply being brought to the
    threshold of scientific careers. They expect a fair chance to succeed in
    those careers and to lead satisfying professional lives. 

    Many women scientists say tehy feel frustrated and undervalued, that
    their careers are stunted and unfulfilled. Hood biologist Hummer
    suggests why: "Anyone who has worked in an active research lab will tell
    you that women are nearly always among the best scientists, but not
    enough of them hold leadership positions in the big labs." Participants
    in a recent Stanford University symposium, noting that women's careers
    in science are generally less successful than men's in terms of
    professional advancement and research productivity, observed that "the
    apparent discrepancy between the success rates of women and men in
    science is a tragedy for women and a loss of intellectual power for the
    nation." 


Caution: Men at Work

    Marion Namenwirth, a geneticist, claims sex discrimination in the
    sciences, motivated by male competitiveness, slows women's career
    progress. "Maintaining an army of productive women scientists at the
    lowest echelons of the profession has been fundamental to the
    advancement of men sciencests," she says. The infamous treatment of
    Rosalind Franklin is a case often cited. Her measurements and
    interpretations of X-ray diffractions patterns in the DNA B-chain were
    critical to solving the DNA molecule puzzle in the 1950s. But James
    Watson and Francis Crick, who shared a Nobel prize for discovering the
    DNA double helix, failed to acknowledge their scientific debt to her. 

    Women scientists also worry about unintentional sexism arising from
    unconscious, traditional behavior among men scientists, who expect
    research and inquiry to follow established patterns and customs --
    established, as it happens, by men. Two patterns often cited are men's
    preference for a hierarchical organization of research and men's
    tendency to work competititively. Women scientists often prefer to
    structure work collectively, rather than  hierarchically, and to relate
    to colleagues cooperatively, not competitively. 

    But the male prefernces govern science. Career "success" is understood
    and rewarded within the context of male values. According to Namenwirth,
    men express a "drive toward personal power, prestigue, authority, and
    dominion over property and personnel" in the research laboratory
    setting, and these considerations determine tenure, promotion, salary,
    research grants, invitations to join prestigious faculties, prize
    nominations, and other career rewards. 

    Hood trustee Elizabeth Tidball points out that women scienctists are
    caught in a double bind. If they succeed by adopting the male career
    model, they may be criticized for behavior unbecomin women, yet if they
    are supportive and self-sacrificing, as expected, they may appear to
    lack the aggressive qualities associated with success. Namenwirth
    illustrates the dilemma by describing differences in the way men and
    women scientists present the outcomes of their research. Men speak and
    write authoritatively. They communicate confidence in the accuracy,
    objectivity, and importance of their work. Women often speak of the
    limitations of their data, potential flaws in experimental design, the
    need for further research. The women's approach may be intellectually
    honest and scientifically sound, but it lacks the traditional
    ingredients of "success". 

    Some scientists question the predominance of research achievement as the
    mesaure of success as a science professional. The successful researcher
    must be single-minded and tireless in pursuit of scientific reputation,
    Hood biologist John Commito points out. "But an academic envronment like
    Hood's permits the scientist to balance research, teaching, and a
    fulfilling personal life," he says. "Some women -- and men -- who have
    superb scientific minds find collegiate life more rewarding and useful
    than pure research." 


Questioning Science as We Know It

    Women who do choose careers in research science increasingly call for
    greater variety in accepted intellectual styles and interests of
    science. If that goal could be achieved, some believe fundamental change
    might occur in the very nature of scientific inquiry. Their speculation
    is built in part on the notion that science inevitably reflects values. 

    Thomas Kuhn's famous book _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_
    (1970) demonstrated that science is never value-free. He showed that
    even the most sacred scientific "truths," like Newton's laws, are rooted
    in cultural and historical paradigns -- large complexes of ideas and
    assumptions that determine the structure of scientific knowledge and
    inquiry. Ruth Bleier, a geneticist, agrees with Kuhn's analysis and
    applies it to contemporary science. "While the structure of science has
    its edges pure and probing into the knowable and the unknown," she
    writes, "its massive core, like all institutions, embodies, protects,
    and perpetuates the thoughts and ideas of those who are dominant in the
    society that produces it." _The_scientific_method_itself_ is part of a
    contemporary paradigm, she claims. It protects and projects the
    intellectual, professional, and personal interests of scientific
    investigators, most of whom are men. 

    Some scientists question the predominance of research achievement as the
    mesaure of success as a science professional. The successful researcher
    must be single-minded and tireless in pursuit of scientific reputation,
    Hood biologist John Commito points out. "But an academic envronment like
    Hood's permits the scientist to balance research, teaching, and a
    fulfilling personal life," he says. "Some women -- and men -- who have
    superb scientific minds find collegiate life more rewarding and useful
    than pure research." 


Questioning Science as We Know It

    Women who do choose careers in research science increasingly call for
    greater variety in accepted intellectual styles and interests of
    science. If that goal could be achieved, some believe fundamental change
    might occur in the very nature of scientific inquiry. Their speculation
    is built in part on the notion that science inevitably reflects values. 

    Thomas Kuhn's famous book _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_
    (1970) demonstrated that science is never value-free. He showed that
    even the most sacred scientific "truths," like Newton's laws, are rooted
    in cultural and historical paradigns -- large complexes of ideas and
    assumptions that determine the structure of scientific knowledge and
    inquiry. Ruth Bleier, a geneticist, agrees with Kuhn's analysis and
    applies it to contemporary science. "While the structure of science has
    its edges pure and probing into the knowable and the unknown," she
    writes, "its massive core, like all institutions, embodies, protects,
    and perpetuates the thoughts and ideas of those who are dominant in the
    society that produces it." _The_scientific_method_itself_ is part of a
    contemporary paradigm, she claims. It protects and projects the
    intellectual, professional, and personal interests of scientific
    investigators, most of whom are men. 



    The scientific method conducts inquiry by establishing hypotheses,
    testing them empirically by controlling variables and measuring as
    exactly as possible, and then drawing conclusions about cause and
    effect. The method is not value-free. Human judgment enters into
    selecting hypotheses, controlling variables, observing reactions and
    changes, inferring from data, and reaching conclusions. Some women
    scientists believe male values have occasionally led scientific inquiry
    in wrong directions. 

    They cite the case of primate biology. In 1984, _The_New_York_Times_
    reported, "We have learned more about primate behavior in the last 10
    years than in the previous 10 centuries.... An explosion of knowledge
    about monkeys and apes is overturning long-held stereotypes about sex
    roles and social patterns among the closest kin to humans in the animal
    world." The "explosion of knowledge" was detonated by women asking new
    questions; the "long-held stereotypes" were long-held by men. 

    One stereotype was the notion that female primates were sexually "coy,"
    discriminating, monogamous, and submissive. Sarah Hrdy has shown that
    females actively manage sexual consortships. They solicit male partners,
    often promiscuously, and pursue sexual encounters beyond apparent
    reproductive requirements. This observation of female multiple mating
    behavior permits several new genetic and physiological hypotheses and
    could modify Darwinian natural selection theories that assume male
    competitiveness as a motive force of evolution. 

    Earlier theories of evolution assumed that males controlled genetic
    selection -- strong males competed more effectively than weak in sexual
    pairing -- and females controlled nurturing. Revisionist primatologists
    show that behaviors of both sexes interactively affect genetic
    selection. Sarah Hrdy says women primatologists prompted the revision by
    bringing "a whole new set of assumptions and ressearch questions" to the
    discipline. 



****    Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock is a casebook example of a departure
    from scientific orthodoxy. Her great contributions to molecular biology
    resulted from McClintock's capacity to get beyond the predominant
    hierarchical thoery that assumed a "master molecule" to be the central
    factor behind genetic DNA. She turned away from the established
    investigative habits of narrowing the focus to a single factor and
    excluding all variables. Instead, she thought contextually. By
    "listening to the material," she was able to understand complex
    interacting systems, including cell-to-organism and organism-to-
    environment relationships, and to reach radically new and important
    conclusions about genetic function. 

    The common theme in the work of Hrdy, McClintock, and other women
    scientists is a sensitivity to the full complexity of interactive forces
    in nature. The new approach is not itself a revolutionary scientific
    paradigm, but it diverges from the standard scientific approach. Its
    advocates envision a pluralistic science conduced by men and women in
    more or less equal numbers, a science that values women's interests and
    intellectual styles as much as it does men's, and that includes new
    interactive and contextual perspectives along with traditional concepts. 

    Will this vision ever be realized? Given that cultural diversity is one
    of the sources of our nation's vitality, scientific pluralism would
    appear to be suited to American soil. 

    Scientists at Hood are optimistic. They are encouraged by the growing
    numbers of young women preparing for science careers, and they believe
    the careers awaiting women scientists are increasingly inviting. Ann
    Boyd adds: "We know science itself is changing, though women's
    contributions to change are hard to assess. Are new approaches gender-
    related, or are they simply the achievements of exceptionally creative
    scientists who just happen to be women?" That's a question no one can
    answer definitively yet -- but it will continue to be asked. 


---------------------------------

For further reading:

    _Feminist_Approaches_to_Science_, Ruth Bleier, editor (New York:
    Pergamon Press, 1986) 

    Sue Rosser, _A_Practical_Guide_to_Teaching_Science_and_Health_from_a_
    _Feminist_Perspective_ (New York: Pergamon Press, 1986) 

    Interesting and thought provoking reading.
    
    While I agree that the reasoning is sound, a few thoughts keep
    bubbling up with me when I read articles such as this:
    
    1.  Much is written about girls/women entering into and excelling
    	in fields traditionally dominated by boys/men.  Much is made
	of their laudable success; however, frequently the tone leaves
	me with the feeling that what is being said is, "See? Girls
    	are just as good as boys because they can do boy-type stuff
    	just as well. See?"
    
    	Is it really progress to define Good-ness only in terms of success
    	in traditionally male-dominated areas?
    
    	To me, it seems to be giving up on the quest for equality after
    	only 10% of the road has been travelled.
    
    2.  Which is illustrated by "women who are truly involved in science
    	are empowered for life." 
    
    	The statement is true as far as it goes, but then <anyone> who
    	is truly involved in <anything they love and do well> is
    	empowered for life.

    	My mother [God love her] was truly empowered by her commitment
    	to her family and to the Children's Hospital.  We are not talking
    	one-down and exploited, she was a truly power-full woman.  [Her
    	life would send me around the bend, but I'm not her]
    
   	I experience the _most_ empowerment through my endeavours in
    	the arts, although my career and my math abilities are a source
    	of satisfaction and pride.  This although I was _actively_
    	encouraged by both teachers and family to pursue
    	math/science/engineering and my interest in the arts was merely
    	tolerated.
    
    	In effect all of the stress on succeeding/excelling/winning
    	in science/engineering/investment-banking rather ignores success
	in other areas and leaves a bad taste of 'selling out' or 'not aiming
    	high enough' or 'not realising one's potential' to those who
    	choose other areas.
    
    3.	It is not surprising or remarkable that women excell in these
	fields.  And I find it more than mildly distasteful that in
    	writing about these sucesses the women are often described in
    	terms that are reminiscent of 'the precocious little girls that
    	can take on the boys at their own game and win.'
    
    	Apparently the 'game' still belongs to the boys. Well, poop.
    
    
    In reading this over, I can see a lot of the old feelings coming
    out to be re-lived, especially this last bit.
    
    I vividly remember the interviewer [a woman in her mid-twenties] who
    came to talk to me when I was awarded my scholarship in Civil
    Engineering.  Oh, I was very, very proud and thought myself pretty
    remarkable; but she came into a room containing 10 brilliant young
    people, 3 of whom were young women, who'd received presidential
    scholarships in engineering and _only_ wanted to talk to _me_. Not
    because I was the smartest, I wasn't by any quantitative measure. Not
    because I was youngest, there was someone nearly a year younger. But
    because I was the 'youngest _girl_' present!
    
    I walked into the room feeling remarkable for my intelligence and
    great potential.  I walked out feeling remarkable more in mold of
    the dog-faced boy.  Heck, _I_ knew I was female!  I'd known that
    for 16 years.  What I didn't understand, and still don't, is why
    _that_ make me remarkable, when intelligence and hard work did not.
    
      Ann
  
    
   
    

Two comments, on different parts of the series.

    I Strongly  concur  with  the statements about women neeeding more
    encouragement in math. When I was TA for a mathematically oriented
    computer  science course I got remarkably different questions from
    the  men and women in the class. The men would typically ask "What
    does  this  question  mean?",  I would paraphrase the problem, and
    they  would  go away. The women would say "I don't understand this
    section."  I  would  ask them to explain it, remind them that they
    could  do  the  work,  and eventually they would leave. I probably
    gave  about  as  much technical input to each group, but the women
    seemed  to need much more encouragement and drawing out. There was
    no significant correlation between sex and final grade.

    I object  to the last part. It gives two examples of women causing
    a "revolution" (in Kuhn's sense of the word) and says that this is
    because   women   think  differently.  Kuhn  described  scientific
    revolutions  before  either of these women were well known because
    there  had  been  previous  revolutions started by (predominantly)
    men.  Revolutions  are  the most exciting part of science. I don't
    think  it's  helpful  to  count  which revolutions were started by
    which  sex.  The  statement  that  men  held  a belief that is now
    discredited  because  of  a woman's work is simplistic. Many women
    fell  into  the  same  trap.  I  would much prefer to say that old
    beliefs die hard, and it takes an extraordinary person to create a
    scientific revolution.

--David