Taking Stock: Where We've Been, Where We Are, Where We're Going

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 255–284, 2002ISSN 1072-8325/02$3.00 Copyright © 2002 by Begell House, Inc.255Document #JWM0803-04/255–284/164TAKING STOCK: WHERE WE’VE BEEN, WHERE WE ARE,WHERE WE’RE GOINGBeatriz Chu Clewell1 and Patricia B. Campbell2,*1Education Policy Center, The Urban Institute; and 2Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.Focusing on “where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going,” the authors examine minority women’s and Whitewomen’s progress in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) over the past decade. Starting from anexploration of participation and achievement data, the authors move on to cover the theories behind SMET genderdifferences, including those based on testing, biology, social-psychology, and cognitive sciences. Looking at practice as wellas theory, the authors explore the impacts that interventions and contextual influences, such as societal change and educationreform, have had on efforts to achieve gender parity in SMET. The article concludes with the recommendation of logicalnext steps to preserve and expand the gains made by women in these fields.INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this article is to trace the trajectory of women’s progress in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) over the past decade and suggestdirections for the future of women’s participation in these fields. To do this, we trackindicators of women’s progress toward attaining parity, review the research and theoriesthat attempt to explain reasons for male-female differences in SMET participation,consider the role of intervention approaches (on the basis of the findings of research) inaddressing these inequities, and discuss contextual influences such as societal change andeducation reform on efforts to achieve gender parity in SMET. We ask the question, Giventhe advances made by women in SMET up to this point, what are logical next steps topreserve and expand the gains made by women in these fields so that true parity1 may beachieved? Answering this question will require an identification of gaps that still remainto be closed, as well as fundamental premises that may need to be reexamined. Figure 1shows the conceptual framework that guides our thinking about these issues.According to our framework, differences between males and females in terms ofSMET course taking, performance, degree attainment, and workforce participation havegenerated a number of theories to explain the differences. These theories can be groupedunder four main headings: testing-based theories, biologically-based theories, social-*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia B. Campbell, Campbell-KiblerAssociates, Inc., 80 Lakeside Drive, Groton Ridge Hts., Groton, MA 01450; e-mail: campbell@campbell-kibler.com. The authors wish to thank Ben Pogodzinski, Ella Gao, Sarah Manes, Laurie Forcier, Joan Burrelli,Lesley Perlman, and Earl Hadley for their assistance with this article. They would also like to thank the twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.1True parity will be achieved when an individual’s sex or race/ethnicity is not a predictor of his or her jobor profession. 256B. C. Clewell & P. B. CampbellJournal of Women and Minorities in Science and EngineeringFigure 1.Conceptual framework.Difference Between Males andFemales in:• Coursetaking (M/S courses)• Performance on M/S standardized tests• Acquiring M/S degrees• Participation in the M/S workforceChanges in:• Coursetaking• Performance• Degree acquisition in M/S fields• Workforce participation in M/S fieldsIntervention Strategies/Approaches:• Role models/mentors• Career awareness• Extracurricular activities• Supportive educational environment• Supportive environment - out of education• Instructional approaches• Redefining the disciplineTheories That Explain Differences:• Test-taking theories• Biologically based theories• Social-Psychological theories• Cognitive theoriesOther Influences:• Math/Science education reform efforts• Societal changes• Workforce issues• Technology revolution Taking Stock257Volume 8, Issues 3&4psychological theories, and cognitively based theories, each of which attempt to explain thedifferential participation of women and girls in SMET fields. The theories and researchstudies suggest intervention approaches to address the problem of gender inequity inSMET. Some of these interventions have been widely implemented and may havecontributed over time to the narrowing of gender equity gaps in course taking, perfor-mance, degree acquisition, and workforce participation. Concurrently, other influences,such as those of education reform, changes in society such as the women’s movement,workforce pressures, and the technological revolution, may have also helped promotegender-equitable policies and practices. Finally, in a feedback loop, gender equity changesin SMET