What’s the first image that comes to mind when you hear the word engineer? Is it a man with a wrench? What about the phrase computer scientist? A man in front of a computer? How about a nurse? Is it a woman in scrubs? This instinctive thought process shows the common misconceptions of occupational stereotypes likely due to past inequity of both genders in certain fields. However, in today’s changing society, these stereotypes are slowly being forgotten thanks to the more gender-neutral shifts occurring within them. The issue of underrepresentation of women in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) field has been a growing concern for many years. There are many different theories and explanations as to why women stay in such a low percentile of STEM field areas. Many theories use sexist ideology to try and prove that men are more inclined, physically and mentally, to pursue these jobs. Others argue women are less adept to work hard, with distractions like being a mother and prioritizing the needs of children over career. Although these arguments may sound credible, they are completely ridiculous and lack evidence of any kind. The truth lies in the cold, hard facts of the research behind this trend. The reason for lack of females in the STEM field has nothing to do with physical or emotional setbacks, the disparity originates from, years ago, women not being encouraged in or taught STEM subjects in school and, later, the emergence of barriers that restrict women from giving their best effort.

To understand and mend this gender gap and encourage more women to pursue these academic fields of study, the research must focus on the root of the problem: the teachers introducing young girls to these subjects. Jessi Smith, Ian Handley, Alexander Zale, Sara Rushing, and Martha Potvin are five psychology professors who noticed the pattern of so few women in science and engineering professions. They decided to collaborate ideas and information to pinpoint the most prominent cause of female indifference in STEM. Together they conducted multiple trials of it focusing on one main goal: faculty hiring intervention. They sought to take control of the interviewing and hiring process at different schools to attract diverse candidates and change the impact of the students being taught.

Their plan to improve the teaching staff consisted of a three-step plan by creating a committee to find the right faculty. First, they taught the search committees about how to ‘overcome the influence of unintentional bias during the review process.’ Next, they provided the committees with guidebooks with how to find the most diverse candidates. Lastly, they provided a ‘faculty family advocate’ who was unaffiliated with the search to discuss any personal issues deemed appropriate by the candidates. In the article published “Now Hiring! Empirically Testing a Three-Step Intervention to Increase Faculty Gender Diversity in STEM,” the authors describe the results they found. The trial did indeed increase the diversity of faculty and although there are no long-term results of more girls becoming successful, they recorded that 40% more of graduated girls showed desires towards STEM. Although this experiment improved the diversity in faculty, some of the present male faculty members argued by focusing on being so diverse, they are performing a form of ‘reverse discrimination.’ They can call it what they want, because at the end of the day, it did increase female desire in STEM fields by providing new perspectives and thought processes to young girls.

Another figure just as important as intelligent teachers are supportive role models, especially males. If more men were willing to support and encourage young girls to pursue their interests just as females do, girls would feel more confident in their own skills. Michele Weldon, a distinguished author and journalist, has always had a love for the STEM field and she believes that without the support of her father, she would not be as successful as she is. When she was six, he gave her a microscope as a gift for Christmas. He realized that Michele did not want a Barbie or dollhouse, like most of her friends, but instead wanted to examine science. By accepting her difference and unique desire, he showed her support from the beginning of her life and the reinforcement to help her achieve her goals. In her article, “Women Leaders In Science Under Microscope: Funding Needed For STEM Careers,” Weldon uses this personal story to persuade readers to increase the funding for materials needed for women to be successful in STEM.

       Another personal account more directly affected by this minority is an 18-year-old girl struggling in the STEM department in her current education. Discussed in her TedX Talk, Caroline Cline uses the ideology of nature versus nurture to describe how many women can be influenced early on by their environment to pursue, or not pursue, a STEM field. She uses research that reflects a teacher's bias towards grading girl's math and how it later affected her negatively in life. Although Caroline is under the age of 18 and may not be the most credible source, it’s interesting to hear from a perspective of someone facing this social issue presently. She disagrees with stereotypes of girls and wants to spread knowledge to get rid of them, present when she says, “the idea that a girl is not good at math and science has become as much a part of the female psyche that a girl should like pink and wear dresses.” Her theories and ideas are unlike any the other authors can contribute because she is experiencing it first-hand. She argues “we must begin to dismantle the gender stereotypes that impact girls and convince them they are incapable of keeping pace with boys in math and science.” Hearing from such a young and progressive voice like her is a good harbinger for the future of women in STEM.

       Since these factors occur so early in life, they have a major impact on the future of these girls’ lives. However, other major setbacks occur later in life that also result in the lack of female minds in the STEM field. There are many other reasons as to why women feel unwelcome in STEM fields, published as both opinions and proven research. Joan Williams is a distinguished law professor at the University of California at Hastings who specializes her focus on women in the workplace. She decided to conduct research on women in science fields alone and wrote an article describing her experiment; published in the Harvard Business Review, “The 5 Biases Pushing Women Out of STEM,” discusses her motives and results. She interviewed over 100 female scientists of all races to research the subject of women being the minority in their workplace of STEM fields. Through research, she found that the challenges a majority of these scientists face daily is not the actual workload or tasks, but the barriers that keep them from giving their best effort. Many women are pressured to work harder than men to stand out and prove they are able to compete in their difficult occupation. The questions she researched show that many women feel the need to compete like a man, while still acting like a woman, overcoming stereotypes and questions of determination and commitment. As Williams describes, “women find themselves walking a tightrope between being seen as too feminine to be competent, and too masculine to be likable.” This constant gender competition described is exhausting and inevitably leads to distractions in the workplace. The majority of her article addresses social issues and their emotional effects within the offices of female scientists. These personal facts about the work environment create empathy in women and make them more willing to listen and make a difference for other struggling women.

       Other women, like Mary Armstrong, hear these stories of inferiority, and want to know more. Where is this discrimination coming from- the people treating women like this or the places that taught them it was okay? Armstrong is a Women’s and Gender Studies at Lafayette College, famous for her studies of links between Women and STEM. With this focus, she has observed the prejudice of women in these fields and wanted to investigate the cause. Hearing the arguments against teachers and schools, she was interested to see if they truly are to blame. She conducted studies at 18 different Information Technology (IT) universities that received scholarships for grants to view the effects of women pursuing higher degrees in the STEM field. The article she published about it, “Starting at the Crossroads: The intersectional matrix: Rethinking institutional change for URM women in STEM,” describes the surprising results she discovered. The evidence she found proves that women are not being shamed away from these jobs, quite the opposite in fact: the IT institutions are actually trying to help them. This source offers insight to specific institutes who recognize the issue of the gender gap, and make actions to end this social issue.

       While these sources offer direct statistics and information on this subject, neither authors are women who have experienced this inequity first-hand. In their book published in 2014, “Girls and Women in Stem: A Never-Ending Story,” Janice Koch and Irby Polnick seek to educate the current generations to help overcome this gender gap in the future. Written from many different perspectives of women, along with evidence from case studies, it truly depicts what it’s like to be a female in STEM. With such knowledge for women’s studies, these women know about the unfairness and inequality within these professions and want to educate the future. Along with the direct stories in the first half of the book, there are many astounding statistics the authors use to grab attention and show the major issues at hand. The second half refers to many different research studies and projects that focus on trying to close the gender gap in these professions. This source is much slower paced, but offers much more information, especially direct insight on the minority these women face and how they work together to overcome it.

       Although statistics prove evidence of the female minority, there are still advocates for the (less dramatic) existence of the gender gap, like Denise Cummings. In her article, “Why the STEM Gender Gap is Overblown,” she never argues her support for the gender gap, but tries to uncover the bias behind females bringing attention to the issue. She writes, “The only STEM fields in which men genuinely outnumber women are computer science and engineering,” revealing the statistics other authors use are strategically chosen for dramatic effects. She also believes the small number of women compared to men is based strictly off of interests. Cummings argues that “These sex-linked preferences emerge in human development long before any significant socialization can have taken place,” simply blaming genetics for different interest traits.

       Biased sources or not, there is no denying this social issue. This underrepresentation of women in STEM fields affects much more than their salary, it impacts their confidence, success rate, and reputation of a gender as a whole. Causes are clear, whether stemming from early childhood figures such as teachers or father figures, to later in life, being compared to men at unequal standards and now solutions are needed to help close this gender gap and get the statistics of women equal to men.
