In recent decades, there have been increasing national, state, local and institutional efforts to increase the representation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines and careers. For example, many Colleges and Universities have established programs to recruit female students, and increase female students’ persistence in STEM majors. While some of these programs have been successful in their efforts, a major limitation is that most of the programs do not address the underlying socio-psychological factors that may inhibit the representation of women in STEM disciplines. This presentation provides a discussion of three socio-psychological theoretical perspectives of gender and how these theories highlight some misleading societal explanations for the gender disparity in STEM majors and careers. Specifically, this presentation will discuss the essentialist approach, socialization approach and social constructionist approach, and their implications for creating effective programs to increase the participation of women in the STEM pipeline. Essentialist perspective holds that behavioral differences between men and women result from innate biological differences that are culturally stable, and not susceptible to the influences of socio-cultural factors. Sex and gender are thought to be “isomorphic” and “conceptualized as stable, innate, bipolar property of individuals” (Howard and Hollander, p. 27). Although the essentialist perspective is no longer considered valid in recent social psychological research, this presentation will highlight some of its underlying assumptions that still prevail in the explanation of gender disparities in STEM. For example, the gender gap in STEM is often explained as a result of the biological and psychological differences between men and women. Men are thought of as “wired” for STEM disciplines while women are viewed as lacking the “intelligent capacity” needed to be successful scientists and engineers. Socialization perspective holds that gendered behaviors are not biologically determined, but, are learned through a myriad of social learning processes. That is, children learn to be ‘male’ or ‘female’ by observing and imitating their parents and other members of the society, and by internalizing the gender norms of the society. This approach argues that children, through the process of socialization, learn and fulfill the gender stereotypes and role expectations (e.g., career choices) embedded in the norms of their societies. For example, parents are likely to encourage and stir their sons to engineering careers and girls to education and liberal arts. Similarly, boys are viewed as capable of succeeding in STEM careers because the requirements and qualities associated with these professions (e.g., strength and confidence) are consistent with societal views of male roles. This presentation will discuss how gender focused STEM programs can effectively address the effects of the socialization process on the participation of women in STEM careers. Social constructionist perspective views gendered behaviors as the result of complex and dynamic processes, external to the individual. The basic argument of the social constructionist approach is that gendered behaviors are created by the daily lived experiences of people, the complex interactions between people and by the discourse of a culture. Social constructionists opine that men and women often act in gender-defined ways because they face different societal constraints and expectations. For example, women may not choose full time research careers in STEM disciplines because of other time demanding roles (e.g., parenting and other family responsibilities.) This presentation will provide some insights to how effective programs can address the societal constraints that hinder women’s participation in STEM careers. In summary, this presentation will examine the impact of each of these

1. Three theoretical approaches to gender: Implications for creating effective programs to increase the participation of women in STEM disciplines Omolola Adedokun & Wilella Burgess Discovery Learning Research Center Purdue University

3. The problem

4. Discuss 3 theoretical approaches to gender

5. Socialization perspective (P-12)

6. Social constructionist perspective (Career stage)

7. Essentialist perspective (misleading explanations)

9. Fail to complete PhD

10. Change career focus

11. Work-family challengesAcademe/industry Leaders & policy makers

13. Poor attitudes towards science

14. Negative experiences with science

15. Absence of female role models

16. Male oriented curricula & pedagogy & “chilly” climate

17. Socialization: Pressure to conform to gender roles

18. Biological gender differences (Source: Blickenstaff, 2005)

19. Focus of G-STEM programs (examples)

20. Half-full versus half-empty glass (NSF, 2004; 2010)

21. Is the glass half full or half empty? (Marasco, 2006 ; NSF, 2010)

23. Little attention to sociological & psychological factors

24. 6 of 78 current NSF–GSE programs address family or societal factors

25. Poor coordination (De Welde &Laursen, 2009)

26. “….not broadly coordinated leading to limited impact”

27. “Barriers from 30 years ago still remain.”(Rosser & Taylor, 2009)

28. P-12 stage

30. To stimulate discussions about diversity of initiatives

31. Importance of sociological & psychological influences

32. Expose some “misleading” explanations we confront in our work

33. Socialization perspective ( P-12 programs)

34. Social constructionist perspective (Professional career)

36. Children “learn” to be “male” or “female” by:

37. observing & imitating parents & other adults

38. internalizing societal gender norms

39. Conformity to gender stereotypes & role expectations

40. Gender based assignment of chores in families

41. Childhood gendered behaviors follow through life course

42. Result of relatively stable social & cultural forces (Hollander & Hollander, 1997; Molyneux, 2002; McHale et al., 1999)

44. Stir boys to STEM careers and girls to non-STEM

45. Tolerate math failure in girls than boys

46. Boys possess the requirements & qualities associated with STEM disciplines & male roles

47. Strength

49. “alter” the socialization process?

50. “change” parents’ attitudes?

51. “adjust” female students/girls?

53. Involve parents in formal &informal program activities

54. Hands-on activities/projects that involve parents

55. Include parents’ day in summer camps

56. Lessons from research & theories of educational aspirations, achievement and attainment:

57. Social capital theory (Coleman, 1988)

59. human actions & interpretations of those actions

60. Sources of gendered behaviors:

61. Complex and dynamic PROCESSES external to the person

62. Daily lived experiences of people

63. Complex interactions among people

64. Societal constraints and expectations

65. Choice: people choose to act in gender-defined ways. (Hollander &Hollander, 1997;DeLamater and Hyde, 1998)

67. Family responsibilities

68. Structural, political & cultural obstacles within the social system of STEM

69. Limited opportunities & inequity in pay

70. Isolating & exclusive work environment

71. Competitive versus collaborative work environment (Xu, 2008)

73. What types of programs are needed?

74. “change” the system?

75. “adjust” women?

76. “enjoy” the status quo?

78. Programs leading to policy changes

79. Female & family friendly programs

80. Tenure versus non-tenure positions

81. Grants for childcare?

82. Extend NSF-ADVANCE idea to NIH, NASA (De Welde &Laursen, 2009)

83. Leadership development

84. More research on women in academia

86. Based on Plato’s philosophy

87. Women are inferior to men (in all ways)

88. Aptitudinal /cognitive disadvantages

90. Women lack “intelligent capacity” or “STEM genes”

91. Lessons from research:

93. Should this theory be completely disregarded?

94. Dangers of essentialism:

95. Causes of gender disparity are unalterable and “lie within women themselves”, hence no interventions needed

97. Diversity of initiatives

98. Programs for women in STEM leadership

99. Broad coordination of efforts