Barbie, STEM edition

How not to attract young women into science and technology fields

This, this right here, makes me want to rip my eyeballs out.

European Commission: Science, It’s A Girl Thing Video

Yes, it is old. Women in Research and Innovation, an initiative of the European Commission, published this paternalistic masterpiece in 2012 and, in a turn of events that surprised absolutely no one with half a brain, the internet blew up. Even though it is old news, this video is one of the best examples of how we are getting it wrong.

Do we really believe that girls are not taking up science and maths because it is not glamorous/sexy enough? Further, the implication that glamor/sexiness is tied to the presence of stilletos and lipstick is so out-dated, I can’t help but wonder if Mad Men’s fictitious ad agency is alive and well over at Tipik/Emakina. By the way, nice 500 server error on the home page Emakina. I’ll file you under ‘being a digital ad agency — like a boss’. But let’s get back to the idea that STEM needs bling and glitter in order to attract girls.

Protip: It doesn’t.

Over a quarter century of studies on how best to engage and support girls in STEM and not a single researcher has said, ‘You know what we need. We need some fashion shows up in our engineering labs’.

The National Science Foundation, The AAUW, The Institute of Educational Sciences and a countless other sources have published research that was, apparently, not consulted by the European Commission or their ad agency/consultants. Because, who needs to consult the experts when implementing major public policy initiatives?

One quote, in particular, touches on the heart of the problem.

If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution. — Albert Einstein

No one in a decision making role has ever read this quote. Or, if they did, they were all - ‘Whatever, definitions are for noobs.’ Too many people in positions of power are defining the problem wrong. It’s collective ignorance on a scale that I have never seen.

The problem is not that STEM is not ‘female’ enough. I’m about to throw down some deep wisdom here:

STEM has no gender identity.

Write that down.

Yes, there is a bias. People tend to see certain fields as ‘male’ or ‘female’; but bias does not equal identity. We can’t build successful initiatives on the false assumption that STEM is male. We must stop talking about STEM being ‘male’. Because little girls pick up on that.

‘But Catherine’, I hear you knowingly say to me, ‘research shows that boys have better spatial skills than girls.’ Technically true. But why? Interesting bit of information here. An ‘individuals’ spatial skills consistently improve dramatically in a short time with a simple training course (Sorby & Baartmans, 2000).’ If spatial skills are important for success in STEM, a big IF, then anyone — male or female — can improve these skills with a simple training course.

We frame the debate in masculine terms. We assume that boys are inherently better in these subjects and young girls pick up on that. Girls start school with the belief that boys are better at some things and they are better at others. This breeds a fatal lack of confidence in maths and sciences. Why bother to learn something, even if it interests you, if you were not designed to do that thing?

And what of adult women in university or graduates working in the field? Research does not look good. Women commonly report feelings of isolation and unsupportive environments. And whoa be it to any woman who is viewed as successful.

Doing what men do, as well as they do it, does not seem to be enough; women must additionally be able to manage the delicate balance of being both competent and communal. — Heilman and Okimoto

Heilman and her colleagues reported that when individuals working in jobs traditionally viewed as ‘male’ were clearly successful, the men and women were seen as equally competent but the women were rated as less likable and more hostile (cold, pushy, manipulative).

Workplace issues hit close to home for me. The level of arrogance and idiocy I have had to deal with in this industry defies belief. Don’t get me wrong, the industry has been good to me and I love my work. But it has been good to me in spite of the frat-boy, narcissistic culture. How much better would it be if I did not have to deal with the crap?

I don’t hold out hope that my life will be free from the bigotry so rampant in our field. I do believe, I dream of the day, when our daughters and grand daughters look back and shake their heads at the battles women in tech must fight every single day. Luckily, the prolific research indicates some pretty clear paths forward:

• Stop talking about maths and sciences as a ‘male’ field around kids.
• Explain that spatial skills are learned, not innate.
• Encourage all children to play with toys that develop spatial skills.
• Recruit more female professors in STEM subjects.
• Raise awareness about bias against women in STEM.
• Encourage senior level women to mentor other women.

There are more things we should be doing, but let’s start small. Start at home with your daughters, sisters, nieces or friend’s kids. Think about the language you use.

Start at work with your female colleagues. Be aware that evidence suggests that you, no matter how gender-neutral you think you are, have an implicit bias against women in STEM. Battle that bias.

Business owners should encourage women in senior positions to mentor others. This will mean giving them time off to work with school age children or university students. Or starting mentoring programs for your employees. Your business relies on female talent, invest in that talent early and we will all be better off.

Finally, but most importantly to me, Boards should put more energy into recruiting female trustees. I sit on the Board of two companies and can tell you that whilst recruiting female board members is not easy — it is worth it.

There are small things we all can do. Baby steps.