A plethora of “women in STEM” programmes has failed to overcome men’s domination of science and technology fields, as booming female enrolments at school and undergraduate level dwindle to a trickle at postgraduate and career entry stage.
A University of South Australia (UniSA) study has found that entrenched attitudes in workplaces including universities are driving many women out of STEM careers while discouraging others from getting started in the first place.
Unsupportive and even hostile work environments were identified as the main factor pushing women out of STEM jobs, with issues in the workplace often echoing those at home. Lead researcher Deborah Devis said she had experienced this first-hand working as a science communicator at another university.
“I kept getting all sorts of extra work that led to a massive cognitive load, and that bled over into my personal life,” she said. “I felt like I wouldn’t be able to survive in the industry unless I had a ‘wife’ to organise my life. That seemed to be a major reason why my male peers were coping.”
UniSA’s Education Futures unit explored such issues through a series of round-table discussions with professionals in engineering, mining, information technology, research and education, and students in related courses.
A report capturing the observations of 75 participants outlines how assumptions that women have distinct “skill sets” – particularly mothers – tend to mould people’s roles along gender lines, “regardless of the support structures” to prevent this from happening. Unconscious biases are reinforced by stereotypic language that frames technical skills as “masculine” and soft skills as “feminine”.
Dr Devis, who trained as a geneticist, said the study had helped her to come to terms with her decision to abandon her own STEM career. “Hearing all of these experiences from women and thinking ‘that’s what I went through, too’ solidified that leaving wasn’t a personal failure. It was just a tough place to be, and I made a choice to look after myself.
“I don’t want other women to have to choose between their mental health or family and their job. That’s ultimately why I wanted to be a part of this project.”
She said she had been surprised at some participants’ failure to recognise imbalances in their work environments, instead accepting inequity as a “norm”. But one woman related how she had decided to “do something about it” and had run for a position on council.
Another positive was a widely expressed view that equitable practices benefited men through less “toxic” workplaces and opportunities to spend more time with family.
Dr Devis said she had been heartened that many participants regarded hiring quotas as “tokenistic” and ineffective. “These ‘brute force’ methods have served their purpose,” she said. “We are moving on to new initiatives that can address the more complex cultural issues.”
Measures advocated by the report include mentoring, network-building, inclusive leadership training, “fertility policies” and evaluations of internal workplace culture.
Report co-author Florence Gabriel said a global study of companies had linked gender diversity with profitability. Yet women constituted barely one-sixth of Australia’s STEM professionals, and nine in 10 women with STEM credentials were working in other fields, according to the Australian Academy of Science.
Dr Gabriel said diversity was “essential” for business success in the modern world. “[It] is not just an ethical concern or a box to tick.”
