In an assessment of gender and salaries among those in higher education, Umbach discusses the current trend that there is a gendered “pay gap between men and women that cannot be explained by differences in faculty characteristics and institutional attributes” (2) which begs the question of whether or not women are still being discriminated against based on sex, despite active long-standing legislation barring such practices (Buckley 21). While other studies revealed broader inequities in pay scales for men versus women in the academic setting, this is an important issue for women in the sciences as they already face many other forms of opposition. In terms of their ability to progress in their careers and realize the same amount of success and promotion-potential as their male counterparts, women in fields related to math and science are simply not given as much as credit and oftentimes, it is the result of decisions made by those within their own fields (Xie 107). Since the vast majority of members of scientific communities are male, this causes one to consider how male bias against women in their field might express itself in subtle ways. When the “majority rules” it is expected that the minority (in this case, women in the science field) will see some kind of loss. While this is not to suggest there is some universal conspiracy of male scientists scheming together to bring down all of the women who cross into “their” territory, this situation does imply there is some inherent institutional bias, even if it is never directly addressed.
Indirect forms of bias against women in the sciences and the result on potential female newcomer’s resistance to enter the profession extend beyond more visible structures, such as pay scales. For instance, one matter of inequity that is prohibitive to women in the sciences and the more general topic of a lack of possibility in one’s career is the lessened availability of funds for women scholars. According to a study from the National Science Foundation (NDF) that examined the distribution of grant funds, “the gender gap is still 17 percent, which means women receive only 83 percent of what men receive when it comes to grant funding” (Hosek et al. 7). What this means is that women will presumably work with less money and thus the results of their research may suffer. This in turn would allow male counterparts with more funding resources at their disposal to produce higher-quality results and thus enjoy greater opportunity for advancement, promotion, higher pay scales, and all of the other benefits associated with a successful career. In other words, it is through these subtle, often hidden elements of institutional bias that men in this field are given distinct advantages over women.

One of the underlying assumptions in our society that persists among some is that women are just not as mentally tuned into mathematics and rational thought. Unfortunately, this remnant from long-gone ages when women were not allowed to demonstrate their skills in meaningful ways still clings to life. However, one must wonder what, if any, effect a self-fulfilling prophecy of lack of ability due to mere gender has on women’s choices of careers and more interestingly, their achievement tests..In an analysis of achievement tests, Xie states that although the differences in achievement in sciences between genders has dwindled to almost nothing in recent years, there is still a disparity among some fields within science. For instance, Xie found that “achievement differences in biology and general science are significantly smaller than those in physics” (34). While the author does make some rather essentialist claims about natural ability that are obscured in thinly-veiled gender-neutral language, it is suggested that women are not always taught to explore this side of themselves as critical thinkers and more generally, academically. However, one must wonder how this can be changed if there are still far too few women in visible leadership, authority, and publicly, historically significant roles in the sciences. The chain of institutional bias begins again here as the structural inequities discussed in this exploration build up and lead to a leadership gap, which creates a crisis for women who wish to enter the sciences but who feel intimidated.
The problem being presented here is far too complex to unravel by mere collection of different points of proof of gender inequities across career, educational, funding, advancement, and opportunity lines. At the very least, by revealing such inequities as the basis of many of the shortfalls and not allowing the myth of female inability to perpetuate, a better perspective can be gained. There are few ways to offer an adequate conclusion to information of this nature as there seem to be enough recommendations for future changes to halt such discrimination as it exists in the active (salary gaps, lesser amounts of funding, etc.) and passive forms (women not entering at all due to a perceived lack of advancement). As Fox most succinctly states it, “Women’s educational attainments do not translate into scientific career attainments, especially advancement in rank, on a par with men’s” (661). While this is true and has been the case, through more careful selection of qualified women for public and touted positions of authority and leadership in the sciences in both academia and research science, the paradigm will begin to shift in favor of more balance.

Related Articles

Socialization and Women’s Political and Gender Equality

Housework and the Cult of Domesticity

A History of the Roles of Women in Newspapers : Media, Gender, and Journalism

References

Buckely, John F. Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Guide. Aspen Publishers, 2008.

Fox, Mary Frank. “Women, Science, and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers.” Gender and Society 5 (2001): 654-666.

Hosek, S.D., Cox, A.G., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Kofner, A,, Ramphal, N., Scott, J., and Berry, S.H.
Gender Differences in Major Federal External Grant Programs. Santa Monica: RAND, 2003.

Niemeier, D.A., and Gonzalez, C. “Breaking Into the Guildmasters’ Club: What We Know About Women Science and Engineering Department Chairs at AAU Universities.” NWSA Journal 16 (2004): 157-171.

Olsen, K. “Who gets promoted? Gender differences in science and engineering academia.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8.3-4, (2003): 347-362.
Sears, A. L. W. “Image problems deplete the number of women in academic applicant pools.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9, (2003): 169-181.
Smith, D.R., DiTomaso, N., Farris, G.F., and Cordero, R. “Favoritism, Bias, and Error in
Performance Ratings of Scientists and Engineers: The Effects of Power, Status, and Numbers.” Sex Roles 45, (2001): 337-358.
Stewart, A.J., LaVaque-Manty, D., & Malley, J.E. “Recruiting Female Faculty Members in
Science and Engineering: Preliminary Evaluation of One Intervention Model.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 10, (2003): 361-375.
Umbach, P. “Gender Equity in the Academic Labor Market: An Analysis of Academic
Disciplines.” Paper presented at the 2006 meeting of the American Educational Research Association..

Xie, Yu, and Kimberlee A. Shauman. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2003.