ENGINEERING
THEIR FUTURES:
THE
EDUCATIONAL AND WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE ENGINEERS
Prepared for
Council on
Gender Parity in Labor and Education
Written by
Dr. Mary
Gatta, Research Director*
Center for
Women and Work
and
in collaboration with
Dianne Mills
McKay, Chair
May 2003
*
Please direct all correspondence to Mary Gatta, Center for Women and Work,
BRIEF
ABSTRACT FOR:
ENGINEERING
THEIR FUTURES:
THE EDUCATIONAL AND WORKPLACE
EXPERIENCES
OF FEMALE ENGINEERS
Mary Gatta
Over the past decades while
women have made inroads into many nontraditional occupations, they still
represent a small portion of the engineering and science workforce. In addition, research demonstrates that women
tend to leave engineering occupations at faster rates than do men. Yet, occupations in engineering and
engineering related fields have grown throughout the recent decades and are
expected to continue to grow throughout the upcoming decade, creating millions
of new jobs to fill by 2008. Indeed the
jobs that are growing the fastest are precisely the jobs in which women are not
represented. The question researchers
and policy makers must grapple with is how do we recruit and retain women in
engineering in order to not only address equity issues, but meet labor force
demands.
This paper presents qualitative data from an ongoing study of female engineers. In this paper we draw on original survey data to explore the reasons women choose to enter (and stay in) engineering occupations, and more specifically, what factors serve to encourage (and conversely, discourage) women from entering this nontraditional field. In doing so, we undertake a comprehensive investigation of women in engineering in which we focus on both their educational and workplace experiences. We provide the stories of women who have chosen engineering careers, and we provide them in their own voices. After first presenting our findings, we demonstrate how they are useful in creating strategies to address barriers at both the educational and workplace levels that prevent women from entering and staying in engineering occupations.
Sex segregation- the unequal distribution of men
and women into different industries, occupations, and jobs- has been a feature
of the
An
examination of women in engineering is able to highlight many significant
economic and parity issues. Over the
past years the disproportionate representation of women in science, engineering
and technology has received much public attention. While women make up approximately 46 percent
of the total American workforce, they fill only 19 percent of the science,
engineering, and technology jobs (CAWSMET, 2000), and women hold only 10
percent of the highest level information technology jobs (Sandy and Burger,
1999). However attracting women to jobs
in science and technology is only part of the problem. Studies find that women leave science, math,
and technology careers twice as frequently as men (AWSEM, 1997). Therefore not only do we need to know what
factors encourage women to enter the nontraditional field of engineering, we
need to know what factors will keep them in this occupation. In fact, the need for this information does
not just represent the need for equity in the workforce, but has become a
business issue, as we are facing significant labor shortages in science,
engineering and technology fields. Peter
Freeman and William Aspray (1999) suggest that if the number of women in the
information technology workforce increased to equal the number of men, the huge
demand for labor in these jobs could be met.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand the experiences of women in
science, engineering and technology occupations, along with the reasons they
enter and leave these occupations, in order to address both the pressing
economic and equity issues facing the
Much
research has demonstrated that it makes good business sense on the parts of
workers and companies for women and minorities to enter into science,
engineering, and technology jobs. Women
who choose non-traditional careers can expect lifetime earnings of 150 percent
more than women who choose traditional careers (Gatta, 2001). Corporations also realize that attracting
women (along with members of diverse racial and ethnic groups) to careers in
engineering and technology fields helps to create a competitive market
advantage. A survey of Fortune 100 human
resource executives found that diversity in the workplace brings about better
utilization of talents, creativity, team problem solving, and increased
marketplace and leadership understanding (CAWSMET, 2000). This sentiment was echoed by William Wulf,
president of the National Academy of Engineering, during a talk in which he
clearly referenced the positive role women and diverse employees play in
engineering jobs. As he states, “every
time we approach an engineering problem with a pale, male design team, we may
not find the best solution. We may not
understand the design options or know how to evaluate the constraints…there is
a real economic cost to that. It is
measured in design options not considered, in needs unsatisfied…It is that a
product that serves a broad…customer base may not be found.” (Wulf, 1998).
With
such benefits to both women and companies why do women continue to be
underrepresented in these careers?
Research finds that an individual’s occupational choice is a function of
many factors, including social influences that provide incentives and/or
disincentives for individuals to pursue certain occupations and eschew
others. We see two main categories[2]
of factors that may serve as barriers to women entering engineering and
technology occupations, and may also cause them to leave these occupations:
-gender
socialization throughout an individual’s lifetime;
-gender attitudes and workplace climate;
-work and
home integration.
In the next sections we briefly
review some of the main research in these areas.
Much of the literature on gender socialization and occupational choice has emerged from the psychological and sociological disciplines over the past thirty years, with a focus on the formation of occupational gender roles in children. Helwig (1998) provides a succinct summary of three of the main explanations of gender role stereotyping and the development of occupational choice in children. One of the earliest theories, cognitive development theory (Kohlberg, 1966), asserts that children go through stages of awareness and understanding of gender before social experiences influences them. Children first identify their gender as distinctive from the identity of members of the other sex. Once they “know” their gender, they then experience gender stability. In this stage they gain awareness that they will eventually become a man or women. Finally, by age seven, children develop gender consistency. In this stage children learn that their gender will not change even though they may engage in cross-sex behaviors (Helwig, p. 404).
Cognitive
development theory has received mixed support in the literature. While researchers have found that younger
children are more likely than older children to gender stereotype occupations,
older children continue to report personal occupational aspirations along
stereotypical gender lines. In contrast
to the predictions of cognitive development theory research demonstrates that
gender role occupational stereotyping does not decrease as children age. As a result of such inconsistencies,
psychologists have searched for other developmental patterns of occupational
choice.
O’Keefe
and Hyde (1983), among others, proposed social learning theory in order to
address the criticisms of cognitive development theory. They find that through differential
reinforcement by parents, teachers, and other adults; imitations; and role
modeling, young children are taught to engage in gender appropriate behaviors
and pursue gender appropriate academic subjects and occupations. Gottfredson (1981) furthers this idea with
his theory of circumscription and compromise.
Gottfredson argues that career development occurs through different
stages. At a young age children become
aware of gender type, prestige level and skill sets required for
occupations. As children age they
undergo a “compromise” stage of development in which they adjust their
occupational choices based on perceptions of gender, social value,
intelligence, and their own unique traits.
While
the theories may disagree on the variations in the process of gender
socialization, most theorists argue on the importance of gender socialization
in future occupational choices of women and men. Children tend to sex type occupations at a
very young age, pointing to the importance of the role of parents in
individuals’ future occupational choices.
However, this relationship is quite complicated. Numerous studies have found levels of support
for the role of parents, especially the same sex parent, in occupational
choices. Since there are many
complicating factors such as, race, class, work status of mothers, and whether
effects of parents can be generalized throughout one’s career, future research
is needed to explicate this relationship (Miller and Garrison, 1982). What is perhaps more widely supported is the
role of both parents’ and teachers’ expectations of their children, especially
in regards to nontraditional fields of science, technology and mathematics
(Gutbezanl, 2001). As a result of
differential treatment based on gender in these fields, girls may be
discouraged from nontraditional fields later in life.
Much
research has also found that beliefs about gender appropriateness of careers
are funneled in other societal venues.
The media, for example, has been targeted in helping to form and reflect
societal beliefs about men and women.
Barbercheck (2001, p. 118) finds that male characters tend to be
portrayed as independent, assertive, technical, and responsible in mass media. Alternatively women are more likely to be emotional,
warm, domestic, weak, and helpless.
Barbercheck finds that these advertisements then act as “achievement
scripts” for women, providing them with gender appropriate behavior. For example, she finds that advertisements in
Science, an academic journal, portray science as a masculine field and
occupations; and when they do appear they often are conceptualized as objects
to be studied or in stereotypical female roles.
Similarly, Knupfer (1998) found that in advertisements on the Internet
women serve a decorative role, such as background decorations on
computers. Women tend to be portrayed as
subservient, nurturing, or not using technology in a productive way. These media portrayals help to foster
stereotypical beliefs about women, which then impacts women’s occupational
knowledge and role identification.
However, while gender socialization is a significant factor contributing
to an individual’s occupational choice, it is only part of the puzzle. Not only do women not enter science,
engineering and technology occupations in great numbers, they tend to leave
these occupations at a faster rate than do men.
In the following sections we review some of the literature focusing on
workplace factors that may affect women’s choices to leave engineering occupations.
Often women assert that many science and technology organizations operate under the “old boys network.” Many women report that they are left out of the important decision making meetings and opportunities. They felt that these decisions occurred in very informal and exclusionary settings, such as in hallway conversations, on the golf course and tennis courts, and in “invitation-only” meetings (WITI, 1997). Women felt they were not part of the organization and that their input was unimportant. This mentality of the “old boys club” is a long-standing tradition in science and technology jobs that has served to minimize women’s roles in these organizations and justify their exclusion and marginalization. Clearly related to the undervaluing of women is that they do not fit into the image of the technical expert. Often, for example, female computer scientists are mistaken for secretaries or marketing personnel (Kalson, 2000).
Despite the
fact that there is a large labor shortage in science and technology jobs, women
continue to experience less labor market rewards than do men in this
field. A recent 2001 Techies.com survey
of 106,133 men and women in technology jobs from entry-level to executive
positions across 39 major
The pay gap also differs across job category in science and technology. The Techies.com study found that professionals in software development and engineering were found to experience the smallest wage gap, while women in data management fields earned only 84 percent of men’s salaries (approximately $12,500 a year less). Women also experienced an earnings gap in recruiting/HR positions in science and technology firms. In these areas women earn $11,300 per year less than their male counterparts.
Work and Family Life: Reaching a Balance. For decades much research has demonstrated that many women are concerned with ways to integrate work and family. Women work a “second shift” each day (Hochschild, 1989). That is, women work full-time in the paid labor force, and they continue to bear primary responsibility for the family and home. This double burden of home and work puts women at a disadvantage in all forms of paid labor. However, this second shift can be highly detrimental to success in science, engineering, and technology jobs.
The work climate in science and technology
workplaces is based on the idea of heroic leadership: “the longer I can work,
the better” (Thom, 2001). As such, many
women perceive that the greatest barriers to their success in information
technology (IT) careers are long work weeks (50-60 hours per week), expectations
to work late hours, and a high stress job environment (Sandy, and Burger,
1999). As a result of these factors,
women report that they often leave IT careers because the long hours that they
are expected to work are detrimental to their family lives. In addition, women find that if they stay
home for one to two years to take care of family responsibilities, they cannot
easily return to their jobs because of changes in the technology used. Finally, women feel that managers are
reluctant to allow part-time work.
Often, women may reduce their work hours to try to integrate family and
work responsibilities. As a result of
their new part-time status, women find that they are assigned to less desirable
projects, causing their careers to stall or prematurely end.
In May,
2002, we were asked by the Society for Women Engineers, in
To
study women in SWE-NJ we distributed our survey in the SWE-NJ newsletter, which
is mailed to all members, and posted the survey on the SWE-NJ website. Our response rate to the survey was
approximately 5 percent. (See Appendix
for sample description.) While our
response rate is low, we are currently in the process of resampling our
population to increase this rate. As
such, this paper is a preliminary examination of the experiences of women in
engineering based on the initial surveys.
Building on
the research in this area, we constructed our survey to include questions that
would allow us to ascertain both issues of gender socialization over each
woman’s lifetime that may have encouraged/discouraged her future occupational
choices in engineering, and issues of parity and workplace climate during her
career that may affect her decisions to remain in engineering occupations. While these areas are highly interrelated in
understanding women’s occupational choices, we will treat each separately here
for ease of discussion.
I thought about engineering as a career for
myself as I started to choose a college major.
My father was a big influence. He
pushed strongly for technical/computers…thought I’d like engineering, maybe
chemical.
Other women also reported that
their father was a big influence on their choice to enter the nontraditional
field of engineering. A 50 year old
civil engineer reported that:
Several of my father’s friends were
engineers. I liked to hear them talk
about their work.
This sentiment was echoed by other
women, who saw their fathers as role models in choosing engineering. Fifty-five percent of our sample reported
that their fathers were engineers, and encouraged them to enter to
professions.
In
addition to the role of parents, teachers also play a significant role in
encouraging women to consider entering engineering occupations. One respondent told us about the encouragement
she received from her television class teacher, and that teacher served as a
mentor throughout her career.
My high school had a TV station and my mom
encouraged me to join. The teacher (of
the TV class) became my mentor and told me that if I wanted a technical career
in television I should be an engineer.
To this day that teacher is still my mentor.
However in addition to positive encouragement from parents and teachers, the women in our study also reported receiving negative reactions, especially from high school guidance counselors. Many women reported that their counselors discouraged them from entering engineering college majors and careers. Many times this behavior was based on cultural stereotypes about appropriate gender behaviors. For example, a female civil engineer reported that:
A high school guidance counselor once told me engineering was not a good career for a girl!
This sexist behavior was experienced by many of the other women in our survey. A 35 year old electrical engineer relayed the following encounter she had with a high school counselor:
[A high school counselor told me that] I am a good
Southern girl, why on earth would I
want to become an engineer and go into the Air Force. My guidance
counselor in high school thought/thinks I was/am nuts!
Such
beliefs about gender appropriateness of careers that are transmitted in
elementary and high school interactions continue to funnel women out of
engineering occupations. While the women
in our study attended elementary and secondary schools anywhere from 15 to 40
years ago, research continues to show that girls continue to receive
discouragement from teachers and guidance counselors when they show interest in
nontraditional fields. The AAUW (2000)
found that 71 percent of male teachers believe that their male students are
more interested in the mechanics of computer technology, while only one percent
of male teachers feel their female students are more interested. Over one-third of male teachers further
believed that their male students enjoyed applied uses and experiences with
computers more than their female students would enjoy such pursuits. Female teachers were more likely to
consciously state that sex did not influence students’ interests in science,
math, and technology. Sixty-six percent
of female teachers find boys and girls about equal in their uses of
technology. However, even such conscious
statements about non-gendered thinking do not always translate into
non-gendered behavior in the classroom.
For instance, the Scholarly
Communication Project (1998)
found growing evidence of sexism in the classroom. In this study researchers observed classroom
interactions and then interviewed teachers and students on their
interpretations of the events.
Researchers found that “on two occasions during classroom observations,
the boys monopolized the computer tools.
In focus groups [conducted after the class], girls complained that boys
often rushed to get supplies and made fun of girls trying to use the
equipment. Further, the teachers allowed
the boys to get away with it.” Such
discriminatory behaviors, whether conscious or unconscious, create an
environment in which girls feel unwelcome.
In
addition to discouragement from school personnel, women also reported that they
also experienced negative reactions from parents. Similarly this behavior was based on gender
biases regarding occupational choice and women’s abilities. For example, a 27 year old mechanical
engineer told us that:
During my freshman year of
college I was really struggling with my coursework,
and my mom said that I should try nursing instead
because it was more at my level. When I
was struggling with the male dominated work environment, my dad suggested I
should take up teaching.
In addition to receiving negative feedback in regard to their nontraditional choices, the women in our study also reported that some teachers and school officials also tried to funnel them out of math and science classes in other ways. For example, a 38 year old electrical engineer told us of how she had to fight to enter higher level math and science classes in high school and college.
I switched from Catholic grammar school to the
local public system after eighth grade.
The [new] school district only tested my English (I placed into honors
class) but shunted me to remedial math.
Two of us transfers tried to get placed out of the remedial math class
with no success. When I got into tenth
grade, I was tracked into honors geometry, but was really a year behind where I
should be. The honors geometry teacher
asked me how I could be a year behind…I told her the story. She worked with the administration and got me
into the next level math during what was a free period. So for the second half of the year, I was
taking two math classes. This got me
back on track so that I was able to take calculus and calculus based physics my
senior year.
Going off to college, I’d aced the calculus AP test,
but the University scheduled me for calculus anyway. But I’d learned my lesson about sitting still
for that back in high school. I was able
to get the university to allow me to skip Calculus I and II.
Harassment
and Marginalization. As evident
from our respondents, often the experiences women have in science and
technology classrooms are riddled with many forms gender discrimination. In addition to battling gendered beliefs in
the classroom, the women in our study also report both sexual and gender
harassment in elementary, secondary and college classes. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and/or physical conduct
of a sexual nature. Many educational
equity experts recognize sexual harassment as a gender barrier in education. In the report, Balancing the Equation: A Report on Gender Equity in Education (1997), researchers found that sexual harassment significantly affects
girls’ experiences in all educational programs, but is particularly destructive
in the nontraditional programs, such as science, math, and technology. Sexual harassment contributes to an
environment of intimidation in these classrooms. After incidences of sexual harassment, girls
often report that they will choose not to participate in science, math, and
technology classes, clubs, after school activities, and eventually
careers. Further gender harassment,
although less recognized, is increasingly becoming a problem in many
classrooms. Gender harassment refers to
acts of verbal or physical aggression, intimations, and hostility, based on
sex, but not involving sexual activity or language. The most prevalent forms of gender harassment
include teasing and bullying. For
instance, boys may make fun of girls or put down girls’ abilities in science
and technology classrooms often referring to girls’ femininity and appearance
in technology and science classrooms (Stein, 1999).
The women in our study reported instances of harassment throughout their educational careers. For example, a 27 year old project manager told us that:
In college there were occasionally off handed
comments by older professors, but nothing that set me back. I did have a professor call me the dutiful
secretary of my project team.
Older women in our survey also
experienced this type of behavior in classrooms. For example, a 51 year old executive manager
reported that:
In college many guys made it clear they resented
my being there. They would say ‘you’re
taking space some qualified man could have, and everyone knows you’re only here
to find a husband.’ My answer to them
‘of all the colossal conceit, what makes you think I’d go through four years of
engineering school just to get one of you.’
In
addition to harassment from teachers and peers, women also report other forms
of biased behaviors during their education.
Interestingly, the older women in our survey reported more
marginalization and isolation in science and technology than did younger
women. For example, a 51 year old
engineer told us that:
I was the only female in mechanical engineering
program during my entire four year college program. It made it very difficult, no one wanted to
study with me or help me with problems.
Similarly a 50 year old engineer
also stated that in college she was:
One of very few women, less than ten percent and
often I was the only one. I [needed to
be] bull headed enough to want to prove that I could do better than the
men.
In contrast, while younger women in
our survey still reported some sex compositional imbalance in college classes,
their experiences seemed not be as dramatically affected by their low
numbers. A 38 year old electrical
engineer told us that although:
There were just two women in my year in the
engineering program, we certainly had visibility…we were friends and studied
together.
A 35 year old engineer reiterated
the importance of the networks women can form in nontraditional classes.
I do remember engineering in college being
mostly male, especially my electrical engineering classes. I do not remember ever feeling weird as one
of a few girls---I had great girlfriends to study with.
Work
Experiences
If I compare my salary with a [comparable] 50
year old male who has worked continuously, mine will be less, as I took a
twelve year hiatus to raise three children.
In addition
to pay inequity, the women in our survey also reported that they experienced
other forms of discrimination in engineering firms. Most commonly women reported that they were
not taken seriously by male colleagues.
A 50 year old civil engineer reported that:
Occasionally I have had a project manager who
would not take me seriously or try to assign work to me that was not part of my
department’s function…I also had one experience where the client’s resident
engineer did not want to talk to me when I was the lead engineer on the
project, but would try to circumvent me by dealing with my subordinates.
A 27 year old mechanical engineer
reported similar experiences in which male peers did not take her seriously.
In the plant environment many times plant
managers and floor supervisors would go to my technician to either validate
what I said or ask questions that should be directed to me.
Women also
reported being funneled into gender appropriate departments within the
engineering firm. For example, a female
engineer reported that:
I was repeatedly asked to take on assignments in
Human Resources, despite my clear indications that I was not interested. Every time I accepted these assignments (to
help the organization for the greater good), it worked to my disadvantage.
In
addition to marginalization women in engineering occupations (as with other
nontraditional occupations) must constantly battle many forms of sexual and
gender harassment in their workplaces. A
29 year old ceramic engineer told us that:
I have had many men that I have worked with ask
me out on dates, and I believe keeping your private life away from the office
is appropriate. When these men do ask me
out I almost feel it is a form of harassment because how dare they put me in a
situation that will result in me rejecting him and potentially hurting our
working relationship as a result.
Another women told us that she
experienced gender harassment in her work environment.
I have had older men tell me that for a women I
am not that bad to work with, or make comments on my husband not being
white. I had a boss for a while who
every time he would interview women for an engineering job would give me
excuses for not hiring her like ‘women don’t like it when their shoes get
ruined.’
These gender based beliefs are part
of other women’s workplaces. A 35 year
old electrical engineering manager reported that she:
was fired from a consulting job because they
could not handle me. They wanted a token
female, and were not ready to deal with an outspoken, competent engineer like
by architects and clients. The partner
for whom I worked was fired three months after I was, and they asked me to come
back [after that].
It is hard to work with men who have a wife at
home taking care of family issues. If
you need to leave work early or work from home for things that their wives do,
it has a bad perception. It is a very
rigid work environment.
This was reiterated by other women
in our survey. For example, a mechanical
engineer told us that engineering:
Does not allow enough flexibility to balance job and
career.
A 29 year old engineer further
explained that:
I am single and find that if you want to do a
good job, long hours are sometimes required, thus diminishing the amount of
time available for fun.
As evident from these women the
work demands for ‘ideal workers’ is a feature of engineering firms, making it
difficult for women (and men) to integrate work and family demands. As such women report that when they try to
integrate work and family demands, they are not met with much support. A civil engineer told us that:
I worked for one small company in which I was
the only mother employed. Both of the
principals had wives who did not work after they had children. My children, at the time, were 6, 9, and
13. I was regularly cursed if I had to
stay home with a sick child or leave work to take them to the doctor. I decided to find another job.
In addition to changing firms,
women also report that they change jobs within the field of engineering that
will better allow them to accommodate work and family. For example a mechanical engineer told us
that:
I have moved into a less technical role to
accommodate my life outside of work. In
a technical role I would be traveling every week sometimes, and have very rigid
hours (must be in by
Indeed the vast majority of the
women in our survey, married and single, reported that work and home
integration was a significant factor facing women in engineering. A 42 year old software engineer finds that:
My last job was good about allowing flex-time,
however the need for weekend work was becoming more frequent…working fifty
hours a week had become the norm for me.
The women
we surveyed have forged paths into the traditionally male occupation of
engineering. Their stories highlight how
various factors in their educational and work experiences contributed to their
eventual occupational choices in engineering.
While this sample of women are clearly aware of gender issues, and have
taken an active role in assisting women in engineering occupations through the
Society for Women Engineers, their experiences are able to shed light on
potential strategies and practices to increase the number of women in the
occupation.
Perhaps,
most significantly, an overwhelming majority of the women in our survey
reported that the problems associated with integrating home and work needed to
be addressed in order to both recruit and retain women in engineering. Women report that the need to be an “ideal
worker”---working overtime and weekends, and putting work needs above family
needs--- must be examined and changed.
The women in our survey all report that there must be a change in the
workplace culture that helps to accommodate the needs of workers. Interestingly, many of the women report that
this should not be considered a “women’s issue” or a “women’s problem”. Instead
the women see the need to alter the workplace demands for all workers. A 31 year old environmental engineer believes
that:
I don’t know that workplaces
should “accommodate women” but I think that companies do need to be flexible
with all employees to keep them happy and keep the playing field flexible.
This was reiterated by a 42 year old software engineer who stressed that all workers, regardless of sex or marital status need flexibility.
The bottom line is that we all need to work as a
team in a corporation to get the work done.
I think people tend to forget this…As a single person I got tired of ‘I
have to leave early so I can pick up my child from daycare/school.’…The
workplace needs to continue to allow flex-time for women and men so that they
can attend to family, home and car issues.
A
27 year old project manager adds:
Flex-time and telecommunicating need to be part of
the corporate culture, not just a benefit extended to some people, otherwise it
will carry a bad perception with those who are working traditional hours.
The conceptualization of work and
family integration as not solely women’s issue demonstrates some changes in how
women view work and family demands. The
women in our survey are clear that all workers (male and female) must have the
ability to integrate work and family.
Similar to Williams (2001), our respondents report that changes need to
be made that shift workplace expectations away from ‘ideal worker’ norms, and
toward a worker-friendly corporate culture that encourages flexibility for all
workers.
In
addition to work and family integration the women in our survey also strongly
suggest that more attention needs to be placed on younger women to encourage
them to enter engineering occupations.
The women expressed the importance of working to eliminate gender biases
and stereotypes through the positive portrayal of women in science and
engineering. They suggested ways to
encourage young girls in engineering.
For example, one respondent suggested that:
I would take a young girl to a Society of Women
Engineers meeting, introduce her to my friends and help her see the doors open
to her through an engineering education.
I would also take her to engineering competitions, and to a
science/engineering place, like an amusement park, and explain the impact of
engineers.
A
27 year old mechanical engineer suggests that we must:
Discuss and demonstrate some fun science projects in
engineering. We have done this with the
Girl Scouts demonstrating the fun side of engineering appears to make difference
for girls.
Additionally,
it was clear that the experiences (both positive and negative) that the women
had throughout their educational development helped shape their eventual choice
of engineering as a career. The women we
surveyed pointed to the importance of a parent or teacher would serve as a
mentor, encouraging them to pursue engineering.
These individuals would help encourage and foster a self-image in the
women at young age so that they can be legitimate members of the engineering
community. Interestingly many of the
women in our study have taken on the role of mentor for a new generation of
women. In doing so the women serve as
role models for young girls demonstrating that a successful career in
engineering is not only a possibility, but a viable option for women.
Women
are clearly underrepresented in engineering occupations. Our paper is an exploration of what factors
have encouraged and discouraged women to enter engineering careers. Indeed, it is only through the stories of
these women that we can begin to understand the full extent of the daily
struggles associated with being a woman in a nontraditional career, and begin
to formulate effective policies to address inequities.
While our research is preliminary,
we were able to highlight some strategies based on the responses of the women
that will help recruit and retain women in engineering. These include programs that encourage girls
and women to explore careers in science, mathematics and technology; that address
gender biases in classrooms at all levels; the elimination of sexual harassment
and gender harassment in all educational and work settings; and mentoring
programs that encourage girls and women to persevere in science and technology
fields. In addition, the women’s stories
point to the need to create workplaces that allow for the integration of family
and work, and we must counter cultural stereotypes that paint pictures of
women’s and men's "natural" skills according to traditional gender beliefs.
We hope this paper will be the beginning of an extensive analysis of the experiences of women in engineering and engineering related occupations. In doing so we hope to contribute to a national dialogue on gender equity in science, engineering, and technology that will lead to new public policies, research initiatives, and educational reforms. Women are expected to make up over half the workforce by 2020. If we do not address these issues now, when will we?
APPENDIX
Percent
Married 55.5
Percent
With Children 22.2
Percent
With Graduate Degrees 66.7
WORKS CITED
Advocates
for Women in Science, Engineering and Math. 1997 “Gender Equity and Mentorship
in Science, Engineering and Mathematics,” http://www.awsem.com.
American
Association of University Women. 2000. Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the
New Computer Age. AAUW Educational
Foundation:
Appelbaum,
Eileen (with Peter Berg, Thomas Bailey, and Arne L. Kalleberg). 2002. “Shared
Work, Valued Care,” Economic and Industrial Democracy: An International
Journal, 22(1).
Barbercheck,
Mary. 2001. “Mixed Messages: Men and Women in Advertisements in Science.” Pp.
117-131 in Women, Science and Technology Edited by Mary Wyer, Mary Barbercheck, Donna Giesman, Hatie Orun
Ozturk, and Mary Wayne, Routledge: New York.
Catalyst.
1999. Women Scientists in Industry: A Winning
Formula for Companies. Catalyst:
Commission
on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and
Technology Development. 2000.
Freeman,
P. and W. Aspray. 1993 The Supply of
Information Technology Workers in the
Gatta,
Mary. 2001. Women and Work: Prospects for Parity in New Economy. Report of New Jersey State Employment and
Training Commission’s Council on Gender Parity
In Labor and Education.
Glazer-Raymo, Judith. 1999. Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe.
Gottfresdson,
L. 1981. “Circumscription and Compromise: A Developmental Theory of
Occupational Aspirations.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 28:545-580.
Gutbezahl,
Jennifer. 2001. “How Negative Expectancies and Attitudes Undermine Females’
Math Confidence and Performance: A Review of the Literature.” Masters’ Thesis.
Helwig,
Andrew. 1998. “Gender-Role Stereotyping: Testing Theory with a Longitudinal
Sample.” Sex Roles 38:403-423.
Hochschild,
Arlie Russell. 1989. The Second Shift.
Jacobs,
Jerry. 1999. “The Sex Segregation of Occupations: Prospects for the 21st Century.” Pp. 125-145 in Handbook of
Gender and Work. Edited by Gary
Powell Sage Publications:
Kalson, A. 2000. “The Men of Silicon Valley,” http://www.siliconsalley.com.
Knupfer,
Nancy Nelson. 1998. “Gender Divisions Across Technology Advertisements And the
WWW: Implications for Educational Equity.” Theory into Practice
37:54-64.
Kohlberg,
L. 1966. “A Cognitive Developmental Analysis of Children’s Sex-Role Concepts
and Attitudes.” In The Development of Sex Differences Edited by E.
Macckby Stanford University Press:
New
Jersey State Employment and Training Commission’s Gender Equity Taskforce,
1997. Balancing the Equation: A Report on Gender Equity in Education.
NJSETC:
Okamoto,
Dina and Paula England. 1999. “Is There a Supply Side to Occupational Sex
Segregation?” Sociological Perspectives 42(4):557- 583.
O’Keefe,
E. and Hyde, J. 1983. “The Development of Occupational Sex-Role Stereotypes:
The Effects of Gender Stability and Age.” Sex Roles 9:481-492.
Phillips,
Susan and Imhoff, Anne. 1997. “Women and Career Development: A Decade Of
Research.” Annual Review of Psychology. 48:31-59.
Reskin,
Barbara and Irene Padavic. 2002. Women and Men at Work 2nd
Edition. Pine Forge Press: NY.
Stein,
Techies.Com.
2001. Salary Gap Smaller for Tech Women.
home.techies.com.
Thom,
Mary. 2001. Balancing the Equation: Where
are the Women and Girls in Science, Engineering and Technology?” NCROW
Report.
Williams,
Joan. 2000. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict
and What to Do About It.
Women
in Technology International. 1997. Business
Impact by Women in Science and Technology. WITI.
Wulf,
W. 1998. “Diversity in Engineering.” The
Bridge, 28:1-11.
[1] While our focus in this
paper is on explanations for sex segregation that center on individual factors,
we do not ignore the role of macro sociological explanations. For an extensive discussion of sex
segregation, see Jacobs, 1999.
[2] While research has
documented that these two categories are critical to occupational choice they
are by no means exhaustive.