Working, It’s A Woman’s Choice

It is not a new thought.  Instead it is a reasoning that appears to be unyielding.  Women work jobs that are comparable to jobs their male counterparts work but do not receive the same wages as their male colleagues because women choose to focus on their families more than they focus on their careers.  It is the same reason that women are not promoted into higher level positions on pace with men, or so it is said.

February 7, 2011, Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams, two Cornell University professors and researchers, released their “Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science” report.  In the report, Ceci and Williams say that women are underrepresented in career fields that call for heavy math disciplines because of choices that women make and not due to discrimination.  The professors examined 20 years of data to arrive at their findings.  Although they do not assert that discrimination plays absolutely no role in the disparity in the numbers of women who work in science, they do say that, “More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains.”  The report continues, “We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed.”  Some of the closing arguments by Ceci and Williams state that, “Addressing today’s causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.” 

Partner’s Aspirations Impact Woman’s Ability to Land High Paying Jobs

It is not that women choose to start, nurture and support their families over developing strong careers in the sciences, it is that choosing to have a family, care for elderly parents and support a partner’s career aspirations impacts a woman’s ability to land in similar high paying jobs that men in science fill Womens ENews’ Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett state.  Rivers and Barnett take issue with Ceci and Williams’ statements in their “Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science” report that focus on discrimination against women in science is flawed because the focus looks to past events and hiring, promoting and terminating trends.  In fact, Rivers and Barnett state, “This rosy scenario about the decline of sex discrimination is very flawed.”

Rivers and Barnett point to the 2007 “Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” report by the National Academies Press wherein the report states that, “For women to participate to their full potential across all science and engineering fields, they must see a career path that allows them to reach their full intellectual potential. Much remains to be done to achieve that goal.”  The report goes on to assert that, “Women are a small portion of the science and engineering faculty members at research universities, and they typically receive fewer resources and less support than their male colleagues.

The representation of women in leadership positions in our academic institutions, scientific and professional societies, and honorary organizations is low relative to the numbers of women qualified to hold these positions. It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women. Neither our academic institutions nor our nation can afford such underuse of precious human capital in science and engineering. The time to take action is now.”

Some of the findings from the 2007 Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” report by the National Academies Press were that:

• Systematic constraints existed in science and technology that barred, prevented or impeded women scientists and technologists from advancing their careers.
  Assumptions that a lifelong commitment and focus on science or technology are required to continue to advance in the fields.
• Deviation away from unlimited focus on science or technology is an indicator that a professional, male or female, is less serious about their career than professionals who devote unlimited amounts of time, energy and focus to the sciences.
• Single scientists and engineers are disadvantaged because they lack the support to meet the demands of their jobs and careers.
• Sufficient data is needed on an ongoing basis to track trends and changes, whether they be improvements or declines, impacting women professionals in the science, technology and engineering fields.

Family Friendly Places Geared Toward Women Workers

The report also states that simply having “family friendly” policies at a university, college or commercial or non-profit organization does not afford women scientists, technologists and engineers the support that they need to continue to advance in these career fields.  Instead, the report asserts that, “Well-planned, data-driven efforts to remove institutional constraints on women academics’ careers can produce significant results.”

Much of the argument presented in the 2007 “Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” report as well as those presented by Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett were raised in a 2006 report written by Dr. Eileen Trauth, a Penn State researcher.  In her 2006 report, Trauth echoes similar findings similar to those presented in the 2007 “Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” report.  Namely, Trauth states that “one-size-fits-all” policies do not serve diverse populations well. 

Dr. Eileen Trauth says that, “Policy makers, educators, managers need to recognize that you can’t generalize to all women.”  She continues, “There is far too much variation in the paths that women take for anyone to assume that women’s career motivations are the same, their methods of balancing work and family are the same, or their responses to motherhood are the same.”

Why Women Earn Less Than Male Counterparts

Trauth interviewed 167 women technologists working in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland to compile data for her report.  The question that remains open, despite the aforementioned reports, is why women earn less than their male counterparts or do not advance as quickly as men who perform jobs comparable to theirs.  If women left the raising of children entirely to men would the numbers start to change?  Would women start to earn salaries equal to or higher than men on a wide scale basis? 

If men were presented the opportunity to take as much time away from work as women do after they give birth, would nations see a change in the numbers of men who are promoted to high levels in science and other academic and innovative fields?  The Guardian’s February 1, 2011 “Women Still Face a Glass Ceiling” article reports that an Institute of Leadership and Management survey discovered that of its 3,000 respondents, 73% of the women managers felt that barriers to advancement for women continued to exist, while only 38% of the male respondents felt that barriers continued to exist at executive levels for women.

As The Telegraph’s “Concrete Ceiling, or a Woman’s Choice?” September 2008 article asks is there a reason why single women who do not have children earn higher salaries compared to their counterparts who are married mothers? 

If the latter is the case, one would hope that organizations would value family and see that the drive to create strong families can co-exist alongside a woman’s drive to advance her career.  Not only are women helping to develop the next generation’s leaders and innovators as they choose to parent effectively at the same time that they hold down challenging jobs in a competitive market, the skills that women use at home (e.g. learning and development, decision making, conflict resolution, resource management) are the very skills that are demanded of leaders in the marketplace.

Learn more about Long Walk Up and Spiral at www.chistell.com

Sources:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/02/1014871108.abstract (PNAS: Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Under Representation in Science)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3561919/Concrete-ceiling-or-a-womans-choice.html (The Telegraph: Concrete Ceiling or a Woman’s Choice)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/ps-wcc051606.php (Eurek Alert: Women’s Career Choices Influenced More by Culture Than Biology)

http://womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/110218/flawed-study-dismissing-job-bias-thrills-media (Womens Enews: Women in Science)

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11741&page=1 (The National Academies Press: Beyond Bias and Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering)