Why so few women in science?
We need to support girls and women to pursue science, technology, engineering and maths
WHY ARE girls and women not encouraged to enter and stay in fields based on science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem), when clearly they have the ability and the interest?
Although this question is relevant to many countries around the world, it is particularly pertinent to South Africa. As a developing country, we could do with more girls and women gaining full access to and participation in science as it will help create gender parity and boost our socio-economic development.
Given the small number of girls and women in Stem fields around the world, the UN marked February 11 as the International Day of Women and Girls in Science to draw attention to what we still have to do to encourage and support girls and women to enter science and reach their full potential.
While there could be many factors preventing girls and women from entering Stem fields, my theory is that the focus at schools and even at undergraduate level at universities is not helping women to discover their true passion. Girls are told that they are not good at science and maths.
I remember at school being told that “right-brained” people are more creative, while “left-brained” people are more logical, so they prefer maths and science. So since I liked maths and science and am not artistic or musical in any way, I simply assumed that I was a left-brained person and therefore not creative.
How wrong I was! It took me many years to realise that I am extremely creative; one can’t be a good scientist without being a problem-solver, and to do that requires a huge amount of creativity.
Conversely, people who are musical or artistic may identify themselves as creative and therefore not logical, and hence no good at maths and science. This, of course, is equally untrue. As a PhD student, I was privileged to go to an international conference that was also attended by eight Nobel Prize winners.
One afternoon there was a panel discussion where students could ask the laureates questions. I think it is very revealing that upon being asked what career they would have taken up had they not become scientists, three indicated that they had wanted to become concert musicians, while another was labelled as the black sheep of his family when he got his PhD in physics as he was the only one who was not an artist.
So creativity is a very important part of a scientist’s make up, but this connection is never made clear until about PhD level, particularly with the way maths and science are taught at school and undergraduate level.
I suspect that many women identify themselves as creative, which combined with the idea that they are not as good at maths and science as their male counterparts (despite evidence to the contrary), may push them away from considering science as a career.
This is a great pity, because men and women are creative in different ways, which is the reason that both genders should be represented in science: we need the different perspectives to truly move science forward.
But then, if women are equally good at maths and science as men and they do end up studying in a Stem field why do they leave?
Again, I think this may be related to the creative process. Speaking from experience, when my children were born the lack of sleep and stress from looking after small children and trying to juggle home life and work meant that I found it very difficult to be creative.
I could still be logical, so I was able to solve problems that I know how to deal with, which meant that I could still do research as part of collaborations, but I found it very difficult to drive my own research agenda. It took about four years from the birth of my second child before I was back at a point where I could be creative again.
So what can be done to bring more girls and women into Stem fields and to retain them? I think schools and universities should allow girls and women to create their own environments to improve their creativity. From a young age, girls should be taught that creativity isn’t the antithesis of science.
The message should be that their creativity can help them successfully pursue a career in the Stem field of their choice.
Here, targeted educational campaigns could be key. Regarding the retention of women scientists in Stem fields, a supportive environment adapted to the needs of each person is crucial. University management, faculties and departments all have a role to play in this regard.