VIEWPOINT: SEVEN EXPERTS ON FUNDING STRATEGIES TO INCREASE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR GIRLS.

Where are the women and girls?

Science and technology careers offer abundant opportunities today, yet women and girls continue to be a minority in these fields. While the percentage of women in math, engineering and technology has increased significantly in the past thirty years, we still have a long way to go, and in some areas we are even losing our gains.

Less than one in five bachelor degrees in engineering go to women (NSF, 1997a), and the proportion of women earning bachelor’s degrees in computer science between 1984 and 1997 dropped from 37% to 27% (NSF, 1997b). Even colleges with strong recruitment and retention programs for women in engineering, such as Purdue University, have seen enrollment plateau at about 20%.

With science and technology jobs often going unfilled for lack of skilled applicants, we have an opportunity to encourage girls and young women to enter these fields and succeed. If we expand opportunities for girls in science, math, and technology programs (SMET) we can open the doors to these careers for more women.

The Three Guineas Fund interviewed seven women experts in the science, math and technology fields to explore how foundations can best make strategic funding decisions to increase the number of girls and women in science and technology. Here are their viewpoints and recommendations.

Interview Participants:

• Ruta Sevo, National Science Foundation (Government funder)
• Cherrill Spencer, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center & Math/Science Network (Senior scientist & board member of girls program)
• Carol Muller, MentorNet & Institute for Women and Technology (Program leader)
• Pat Campbell, Campbell-Kibler Associates (Researcher)
• Grace Coates, Lawrence Hall of Science, EQUALS Program (Teacher Educator)
• Sokunthear Sy, Accenture (Young woman in Science, Math, Education and Technology (SMET))
• Jaleh Daie, David and Lucille Packard Foundation and Founder of Women in Science and Technology Alliances (Private funder)

“Why aren't there more women in science and technology fields?”

Pervasive Gender Stereotypes: Teachers and counselors in schools steer girls away from technical interests and scientific careers, often inadvertently. For example, when high school girls are choosing electives, teachers, counselors, and parents may neglect to give them information about what classes they need for careers in SMET. And some teachers discourage girls’ participation in co-ed science classrooms.

Programs for Girls and Women Perceived as Remedial: At the pre-college and college levels as well as in industry, programs to support girls and women in science, math and technology (ex. after school programs or mentoring programs), are often viewed by girls and women and their male peers as remedial. They reinforce the stereotype that girls and women are not as capable as men and need extra help.

Structure of Science Education and Practice: There is continuous attrition among women all along the science, math and technology pipeline, in part because of how science is taught and practiced. Science education often uses a one-size-fits-all model ignoring differences in learning styles. In addition, science is still generally perceived as a solitary and competitive endeavor, while women are often encouraged to value relationships and cooperation.

Science does not seem relevant to personal lives: Girls are not making the link between science classes and career opportunities.

Lack of Support in Academics and Industry: With few women in science, math and technology careers, many work cultures have developed without women and created challenging environments for women to work in. This results in poor retention of women. Challenges that women face in industry include:

• Negative attitudes toward women from senior male managers and faculty
• Infrastructure unfriendly to families with children e.g. hours, travel
• More informal support structures for men e.g. ease of forming relationships with senior men in the company

Persistent Racism and Classism in Schools and Administration: Encouraging low-income girls and girls of color in science and technology, without first dealing with access to courses and the quality of courses in their schools is, as Paul Tsongas [insert title] once said “ a cruel hoax”.

“How would you design a funding strategy to encourage girls in science, math, and technology programs?”

1. Focus on Transitions
Four key transitions in young women’s educational careers offer opportunities for intervention:

• Middle school -- Encourage girls in their interest and pursuit of science in courses and in participation in science fairs and camps.
• High school -- Educate girls about requirements for science and technology careers. Introduce them to careers in these fields and the shortage of scientists and engineers in industry. Encourage them to keep their options open by enrolling in higher level courses.
• College education, especially freshman gateway courses.
• College to workforce transition

Show Career options: Present information about science, math and technology careers all along the education transitions. Use role models and images that girls and young women can relate to and link the information to the context of their lives. Include information on personal finance and the salaries of science, math and technology careers (compared to traditional “women’s work”, science and technology pay better).

2. Scale-Up Proven Programs

Fund and expand proven programs: Look for programs where the leadership understands and has incorporated the latest research on girls in science, math and technology, and support them.

Integrate effective programs into the school system: Instead of keeping girls’ science, math and technology programs separate from the school system -- building the perception that the programs are remedial -- introduce elements of successful programs into existing curricula and teacher education programs.

3. Broaden the Funding Base
One interviewee noted that of the large foundations that fund science, math and technology programs, only one — Alfred P. Sloan Foundation — has a gender-specific focus.

Target corporations and corporate foundations as sources of funding: Industries understand that there are not enough young women or men entering the science, math and technology pipeline. Since these workforce shortages directly impact their bottom line, corporations should be educated about the problem, and corporate foundations targeted for funding.

Facilitate collaborations among funders interested in girls and science, math and technology: Leverage existing funds by pooling dollars.

4. Leverage Research
Much of the research on girls and science, math and technology languishes in the files and minds of individuals.

Establish an information clearinghouse: Consolidate new and existing research on girls in science, math and technology. Create a database of effective programs and funding sources to increase access to this information.

Conduct new research: Broaden research since most current research focuses on middle school girls.

5. Educate the Public, Media, Policymakers
Societal influences as well as public policies can pose enormous barriers to girls’ involvement and persistence in science, math and technology careers.

Educate Girls: Conduct market research to determine what messages will attract girls into science, math and technology, and use this in a national media campaign.

Educate adults—teachers, counselors, professors, employers, parents: Incorporate gender awareness into professional development for teachers, counselors, and employers to address the subconscious ways that they treat both genders differently.

Introduce a gender component into co-ed science, math and technology programs: There are many coed programs that serve mostly boys and male college students but very few incorporate gender awareness.

Educate the general public: Counter the perception that barriers to women entering into science, math and technology careers have been eliminated.

6. Create a Locus of Activity around Girls’ science, math and technology Programs:

Gather a portfolio of proven girls’ science, math and technology programs that are ready for scale-up and institutionalization:

• Convene a national gathering of girls’ science, math and technology programs. and funders
• Determine selection criteria and pick programs for the portfolio
• Determine how to scale up and institutionalize these programs in schools

Convene a consortium of funders to fund these programs:

• Create a Funders’ Collaborative (modeled after Ms. Foundation Healthy Girls/Healthy Women Collaborative)
• Host a non-profit venture fair where scalable programs present to potential investors (modeled after CraigsList and Springboard 2000)

These gatherings could target corporations and corporate foundations as well as other large foundations. They can use the workforce argument that supporting girls programs addresses industry shortages, and that participating in a collaborative leverages funds towards systemic change

REFERENCES

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1991). Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. Washington, DC: Author.

Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (CAWMSET). (2000). Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Foundation [Online]. Available: www.nsf.gov/od/cawmset/report/cawmset_report.pdf.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997a). Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to women increase overall, but decline in several fields. Data Brief, NSF 97-326. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997b). NSF Science and Engineering Degrees:1996-97. Arlington, VA: Author.

APPENDIX

LIST OF LITERATURE REVIEWED

Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (AWSEM). Gender Equity Facts in Brief. Beaverton, OR: Author. AWSEM [Online]. Available: http://www.awsem.com/gender.html.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1991). Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. Washington, DC: Author.

Breaking Free: Women in Nontraditional Careers. Teen Voices, 8(3), 44-47.

Campbell, Patricia B., & Clewell, Beatriz Chu. (1999). Science, Math and Girls…Still a Long Way To Go. Education Week, 19(2), 50-53.

Campbell, Patricia B., & Hoey, Lesli. (1999). Saving Babies and the Future of SMET in America. Groton, MA: Campbell-Kibler Associates Inc.

Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (CAWMSET). (2000). Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Foundation [Online]. Available: www.nsf.gov/od/cawmset/report/cawmset_report.pdf.

Education Development Center (EDC). Edequity Digest [Listserv]. Newton, MA: Author. EDC [Online]. Available: www.edc.org./WomensEquity/edequity/hypermail/date.html.

Expanding Your Horizons. (1998). 1997-1998 Expanding Your Horizons in Science and Mathematics Annual Report. Oakland, CA: Math/Science Network.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (1999). A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter, 11(4). MIT [Online]. Available: web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#What%20the%20Committee%20Learned.

National Coalition of Girls’ Schools. (1993). Girls and the Physical Sciences: Symposium Highlights. Concord, MA: Author.

National Coalition of Girls’ Schools. Girls & Technology: An Idea Book for Educators and Parents. Concord, MA: Author.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997a). Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to women increase overall, but decline in several fields. Data Brief, NSF 97-326. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997b). NSF Science and Engineering Degrees: 1996-97. Arlington, VA: Author.

Rasmussen, Claudette. (1995). Critical Issue: Ensuring Equity and Excellence in Mathematics. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). NCREL [Online]. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/math/ma100.htm.

Sanders, Jo. (1994). Lifting the Barriers: 600 Tested Strategies the Really Work to Increase Girls’ Participation in Science, Mathematics and Computers. Seattle, WA: Jo Sanders Publications.