Great strides, as well as advancements, have been made with regards to gender equality over the past two decades. Today, Prpi?, Oliveira, & Hemlin (2009) assert that, women have access to the similar learning facilities and opportunities just as men do. In fact, Conley & Stadmark (2012) report that, in most countries, the proportion of men to women earning undergraduate degrees in science are almost equal. This, Brink (2010) attributes to programs that have been adopted by various institutions and countries to address gender disparity in the ration of women in science with the aim of ensuring that there is equality at all levels. However, until today, despite the credit and merit, which usually are attributed to the use of easily justifiable and strict criteria in hiring applicants into scientific course and positions, as well as in ranking and awarding scientists, leadership positions in science and Nobel prizes in science are overwhelming favouring male candidates.
The proportion of women, however, drastically reduce as women pursue their PhDs and as the professor levels; which many scholars such as Ceci, Williams, & Barnet (2009) Demers (2013) refer to as a leaky pipeline, that is attributed to the low numbers of women in leadership positions, in scientific institutions and review/advisory boards. They argue, however, that this this problem that results in gender inequality, in science, can, with time, solve itself, especially, as the ratio of women in lower levels, such as in undergraduate science courses increase. Current statistics and studies on gender bias in science does not support this assertion; most women in science still earn less than men do, publish in scientific journals less frequently compared to their male counterparts, and get promoted less frequently to higher academic and professional ranks. In fact, the inclusion of women in higher scientific levels such as journal publishers, members of scientific advisory/review boards, leadership roles in large scientific institutions, as well as merited for Nobel Prize, is still too low. This apparently, can be partly explained by the fact that women are considered less visible compared to men, as such, they are not offered equal opportunities for career development (Conley & Stadmark, 2012; Donald, 2013; Williams, 2012). Ceci et al. (2009), however, argue that the lower ratio of women in higher level scientific roles are as a result of other deep rooted causes such as abilities, resources, and choices in life, apart from sex or gender discrimination. The inclusion of women in higher level scientific positions is hindered by prejudices and culture-based norms with regards to the responsibilities of women in society. Lack of role models and mentors; and lack of leadership training can also be attributed to this bias.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Dr. Curie Or Madam Curie- Woman’s Merit And Attribution In Science".
This bias can be remedied so that the world can once again witness women winning the scientific model prize such as Dr. Madame Curie, the first European woman to receive a Ph.D., a pioneering physicist and chemist did (Cooper-White, 2013). An article by Donald (2013) suggest that there is need for institution, both professional and learning institutions; whether public or private, to improve the culture of their workplaces so that the pipeline does not continue spewing women out of the scientific, academic ladder. The success rate of women across all domains in science and stages of awards in science is alarmingly low. One approach of resolving this challenge is to introduce bias training for members of scientific award and merit panels, review boards, and faculty leaders in universities. As Brink (2010); Straumsheim (2013) assert; it is important to remind players in the science field that both women and men still underrate women. Reminding people of this fact will make them aware of what is happening with regards to discrimination and bias against women in sciences; although, people may fail to change their behaviour. Most importantly, it is crucial for referees in science to give women or use more positive statements and standout adjectives. This is according to the study by Conley & Stadmark (2012) that gender discrimination and bias in sciences are perpetrated by both female and male scientist, who apparently, do not use sexist reasoning and anti-women language, but rather use sound reasons. Additionally, those reading women’s application should avoid considering them less worthy or their track records less attractive and less brilliant than that of men.
Given the nature of this problem, which is deeply rooted in social prejudices and culture-based norms in the role of women in society, there are three fixes that can help remedy this gender bias problem in science. The first is ensuring that the number of women pursuing science courses increase and remain constant and consistent through undergraduate levels to higher professor levels. Secondly, institution should be fixed; this is to imply that, institution should consider and put in place measure that ensure that application by women are reviewed without bias and that women are given equal opportunity and chance to professionally advance. Finally, women themselves must endeavour to change their mind-set and stop considering themselves disadvantaged and faced by hurdles and biases; they must play down this misconception (Demers, 2013). Apart from getting more women in science professions and academic jobs, there is imperative need to do more, especially with regards to changing women’s impression as being less-qualified simply because they are women.
- Brink, M. van den. (2010). Behind the Scenes of Science: Gender Practices in the Recruitment and Selection of Professors in the Netherlands. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
- Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnet, S. M. (2009). Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218 -261.
- Conley, D. J., & Stadmark, J. (2012). The underrepresentation of women in leading science journals. Nature, 488(2), 590.
- Cooper-White, M. (2013, November 7). Marie Curie Mixed Science and Sex, And 9 Other Surprising Facts About Famous Chemist. The Huffington Post. Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
- Demers, S. M. (2013). Op-Ed: The still-tolerated gender bias in science. TED. Retrieved February 15, 2014, from http://blog.ted.com
- Donald, A. (2013). Women in Science: Why Can’t this Problem be Fixed? Occam’s Typewriter. Retrieved February 01, 2014, from http://occamstypewriter.org
- Prpi?, K., Oliveira, L., & Hemlin, S. (2009). Women in science and technology. Zagreb: Katarina Prpic.
- Straumsheim, C. (2013). Corporate Men. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved February 15, 2014, from http://www.insidehighered.com
- Williams, F. M. (2012). Access And Merit: A Debate On Encouraging Women In Science & Engineering. St. John’s, NF, Canada.
