Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences

Abstract

Gender disparities in participation in many STEM fields, particularly computer science, engineering, and physics, remain prevalent in Western societies. Stewart-Williams and Halsey contend that an important contributor to these disparities is gender differences in career-related preferences that are driven partly by biology. We argue that Stewart-Williams and Halsey understate the influence of cultural factors in shaping these preferences. We provide evidence for an important and overlooked cultural factor that contributes to gender disparities in computer science, engineering, and physics: masculine defaults. Masculine defaults exist when cultures value and reward traits and characteristics associated with the male gender role and see them as standard ( Cheryan & Markus, 2020 ). We provide examples of how changing computer science, engineering, and physics cultures can decrease gender disparities in participation. Finally, we discuss policy implications, specifically the importance of (1) recognizing that preferences for STEM are malleable and (2) addressing exclusionary cultures of STEM fields. Recognizing and changing exclusionary STEM cultures are important for creating a society that is more just and equitable.

The Relationships between Gender, Social Expectation, and Decision-Making Processes of Engineering Students

“…Besides the personal interests with positive childhood experiences, many believed that their previous experiences, suggestions from peers and family members, and interests of long-term career development also strongly influenced the motivations, career decisions, and sense-making processes. According to some recent studies (Botella et al, 2019;Dicke et al, 2019;El-Hout et al, 2021), gender roles and social expectations of occupation will impact the decision-making processes, the determination(s) of the participants in this study was strong enough to overcome the challenges. In summary, the participants' personal voices followed and echoed the finding from the finding of a project (Falco & Summers, 2019), advocating that the significant childhood experiences and having the self-efficacy in individuals interests and academic courses can significantly influence and increase the likelihood of enrolling an academic programme and career pathway after their academic voyage (Setyaningsih & Sunaryo, 2021).…”

“…Although some participants argued that their gender roles might not influence their personal achievements, the psychological and social expectations may impact some of their career achievements. Another recent study (El-Hout et al, 2021) also argued that social and cultural expectations, particularly cultural values and characteristics, played an important role in women's preferences and expectations in STEM fields and areas. As a result, it is important to understand the relationship between gender, social expectation, and the decision-making process of female STEM students at the university level, particularly female engineering undergraduate students (Nosek et al, 2009).…”

Not biology or culture alone: Response to El-Hout et al. (2021)

“…The first we might call the insufficiency argument : Biological explanations are insufficient to explain STEM gender gaps. Many researchers, note El-Hout et al. (2021), argue that there is no definitive evidence for biological sex differences that would explain male–female asymmetries in STEM (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2007).…”

“…In their thoughtful commentary on our paper, El-Hout et al. (2021) took issue with various aspects of our analysis.…”

If you can dream it, you can do it!—The role of sexual orientation in preferences toward boys' and girls' career orientation and gendered behaviour

“…Stereotypes implying that women have communal traits (e.g., kind, compassionate) while lacking agentic traits (e.g., competitive, ambitious) lead to the assumption that women are not fit to do male gender‐typed jobs that require agentic traits—or at least that they are not as competent in performing them as their male colleagues (e.g., Carli et al., 2016; Diekman et al., 2017 ; Koening & Eagly, 2014; Starr, 2018; van Veelen & Derks, 2020). For example, as a result of these stereotypes, and despite an increasing number of entrants, there are still only a small number of women pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), due in part to the discouraging discourse according to which men are better able to meet expectations in these domains (Carli et al., 2016; Diekman et al., 2017; El‐Hout et al., 2021; Master & Meltzoff, 2020). This type of discouraging communication begins as early as childhood: While young girls are often dissuaded from taking an interest in careers in science and technology by the suggestion that they do not have the innate talent, young boys are typically taught that they are well suited to jobs in STEM areas due to their natural analytical skills (Eccles, 2014; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004).…”