Haines, Valerie  A.

Wallace, Jean  E.

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

The Alberta journal of Educational Research Vol. XLVUl, No. 2, Summer 2002,3X8-292 Valerie A. Haines and Jean E. Wallace University of Calgary Exploring the Association of Sex and Majoring in Science One consequence of gender socialization is that different attitudes, behaviors, and aspirations are socially constructed as appropriate for men and women. It is no surprise, then, that arguments about gender socialization are widely used by researchers who study sex differences in those individuals who major in science (Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, & U z z i , 2000; Mcllwee & Robinson, 1992; Valian, 1999). We bui ld on this work and use the conceptual model presented in Figure 1 to explore whether gender socialization and its products, gender roles and gender stereotypes, mediate the relationship between sex and majoring in science. H I and H 5 specify the total and residual sex effects respectively. H2, H 3 , and H4 use theoretical and empirical arguments about gender socialization to identify three sets of factors that may link sex to majoring in science and thus help account for the gender gap in science. Hypotheses 1. There is a negative relationship between being female and the likelihood of being a science major. 2. Being female reduces the likelihood of being a science major because so-cial constructions of women and science associated with traditional gender roles contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science by identifying a male breadwinner and a female homemaker and by sustain-ing the social construction of science as a male field (Etzkowitz et a l , 2000; Rolin, 2001; Rosser & Zieseniss, 2000; Schiebinger, 1999; Tonso, 1999; Valian, 1999). 3. Being female reduces the likelihood of being a science major because it is associated with lower levels of high school science and mathematics preparation, which is necessary for pursuing science in university (Betz, 1997; Leslie, McClure , & Oaxaca, 1998; Sax, 1994; Yauch, 1999). 4. Being female reduces the likelihood of being a science major because it is associated with lower levels of mathematics self-efficacy, less interest in science and less encouragement to pursue science in university. Mathe-matics self-efficacy, interest in science, and encouragement to pursue science are all positively associated with majoring in science (Betz, 1997; Valerie Haines is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology. Areas of research interest include gender differences in academic choices, history of sociology, and resource allocation through social networks. She can be reached at haines@ucalgary.ca. Jean Wallace is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology. Areas of research interest include gender differences in academic choices, professional training and work experiences, and work-family balance. 188 Association of Sex and Majoring in Science Gender Role Attitudes Sex (Female) H,and H 5 Science Major High School Preparation University Self / Perceptions & Experiences Figure 1. Conceptual model of being a science major. Lee, 1998; Leslie et al., 1998; Rayman & Brett, 1993; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Sonnert & Holton, 1996; Ze ld in & Pajares, 2000). 5. There is a negative relationship between being female and the likelihood of being a science major over and above the effects of gender role at-titudes, high school preparation, and university self-perceptions and expe-riences. To test these hypotheses we use data from a sample of 121 science majors and 160 social science majors at a commuter university in a large city i n western Canada. Sixty-six percent of participants were women; 34% were men. Their average age was 24 years (SD=.27). Questionnaires were anonymous and con-fidential. Most questions were closed-ended, wi th participants checking off or circling the responses that described them. Table 1 describes the variables used in the analysis. We use logistic regression to analyze our data because the outcome variable, major, is a dichotomous unranked variable wi th values of 1 (science major) and 0 (social science major). M o d e l 1 of Table 2 shows that the total effect of sex on the likelihood of being a science major is negative and statistically significant. A s H I predicted, women are significantly less likely to be science majors. A d d i n g gender role attitudes i n M o d e l 2 shows that both variables have significant positive associations with the l ikel ihood of being a science major. Students who reject the breadwinner ideology and believe that when it comes to having a family and career, women can "have it a l l " are more likely to be science majors than are students wi th more traditional work-family attitudes. Students who reject traditional percep-tions of science as masculine, believing instead that society encourages women to pursue science, are also likely to be science majors. But because the addition of gender role attitudes does not reduce the coefficient associated with sex, neither factor mediates the effect of sex on this outcome. H2 is not supported. The results are different for our second set of variables. Wi th adjustment for high school preparation in mathematics and science in M o d e l 3, the coefficient for sex is reduced by 44% from M o d e l 2 (.879-.490/.879=.443) and rendered Method Results 189 VA. Haines and J.E. Wallace Table 1 Description of Variables 3 Variable Description Major (science) Sex (female) Nontraditional gender role attitudes "Having it all" Perception of science High school Mathematics preparation Science preparation University Mathematics self-efficacy Interest in science Encouragement to major in science Dummy variable, coded 1 if science major (biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, geology and geophysics, mathematics and statistics, physics and astronomy). Dummy variable, coded 1 if female. Belief that a family and a top-level science career are compatible for women. Coded 1-5; 1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree. Belief that society encourages women to pursue science. Coded 1-5; 1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree. Dummy variable, coded 1 if student took an advanced mathematics course in high school.6 Number of high school chemistry, biology, and physics courses, range is 3-9. Self-perceived mathematics ability. Coded 1-5:1 is bottom 10%, 5 is top 10%. Level of interest in science. Coded 1-5:1 is bottom 10%, 5 is top 10%. Sum of encouragement to pursue science from fathers; mothers; peers; high school teachers, counselors, university professors, or graduate teaching assistants; and mentors. Coded 1 if received support, range is 1-5. aAII measures are based on self-reports. ''Based on research demonstrating the predictive value of elective mathematics courses (Chipman & Wilson, 1985; Farmer, Wardrop, Anderson, & Risinger, 1995). nonsignificant. Almost half of the apparent sex effect was due to the high school preparation of students: a f inding that supports H 3 . A d d i n g the final set of variables in M o d e l 4 shows that interest in science and encouragement to major in science have significant positive associations with the l ikelihood of being a science major. Students who report higher levels of interest i n science and students who received more encouragement to pur-sue undergraduate majors in science are more likely to be science majors than students w h o report lower levels of interest and encouragement. Contrary to H4, however, the effect of sex on the likelihood of being a science major is not mediated by either of these factors. In fact the coefficient associated with sex increases slightly. Discussion T w o things are clear from our results. First, H5 is not supported. Sex does not have an effect on the likelihood of being a science major over and above the estimated effects of gender role attitudes, high school preparation, and univer-sity self-perceptions and experiences. Second, although fewer traditional work-190 Association of Sex and Majoring in Science Table 2 Logistic Regression Results Predicting the Likelihood of Being a Science Major (/V=253) Model 1 Model 2 Model3 Model 4 Sex (female) -.882*** -.879*** -.490 -.604 Nontraditional gender role attitudes "Having it all" .205* .284** .454** Perceptions of science .369** .321* .423* High school Mathematics preparation 1.243*** 1.037*" Science preparation .312*** .241" University Mathematics self-efficacy .274 Interest in science 1.375*** Encouragement to major in .436** science Constant .337 -1.047* ^1.239*** -11.362*** -2 Log likelihood 336.260 326.300 278.875 201.188 Goodness of fit 252.999 251.126 263.832 204.806 Improvement in chi-square (df) 10.664(1)*** 9.960(2)*** 47.425(2)*** 77.687(3)**" */x.05; **p<.01;***p<.001. family attitudes, fewer traditional perceptions of science, greater interest in science, and more encouragement to pursue an undergraduate major in science all increase the likelihood of being a science major, none of these factors mediates the effects of sex on the likelihood of being a science major. Only high school preparation i n mathematics and science mediates this relationship. O u r f inding that high school preparation i n mathematics and science ac-counts for over 40% of the effect of sex on majoring i n science carries important implications for interventions designed to reduce the gender gap i n science. Al though a "multitude of interventions" (Sonnert & Holton, 1995) is needed, policies targeting factors that l ink sex to majoring i n science may prove espe-cially efficacious. Educators should intervene early, promoting curriculum reforms and classroom practices that increase the number of mathematics and science courses young women take i n high school. Acknowledgmen ts We wish to thank Rebecca Davidson for her assistance in this project. We are grateful for the support provided by the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Social Science of the University of Calgary to Valerie Haines. This research was also supported by a fellowship from the Calgary Institute for the Humanities, University of Calgary, awarded to Valerie Haines. References Betz, N . (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school: Effects on achievement and performance (pp. 105-140). Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage. Chipman, S.F., & Wilson, D. (1985). Understanding mathematics course enrollment and mathematics achievement: A synthesis of research. In S.F. Chipman, L. Brush, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics (pp. 275-328). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 191 V.A. Haines and J.E. Wallace Etzkowitz, H . , Kemelgor, C , & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, M A : Cambridge University Press. Farmer, H.S., Wardrop, J.L., Anderson, M.Z., & Risinger, R. (1995). Women's career choices: Focus on science, math, and technology careers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42,155-170. Lee, J.D. (1998). Which kids can "become" scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61,199-219. Leslie, L.L., McClure, G.T., & Oaxaca, R.L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 69,239-276. Mcllwee, J.S., & Robinson, J.G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Rayman, P., & Brett, B. (1993). Pathways for uvmen in the sciences. The Wellesley Report, Part 1. Wellesley, M A : Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women. Rolin, K. (2001). Gender and physics: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7,1-8. Rosser, S.V., & Zieseniss, M . (2000). Career issues and laboratory climates: Different challenges and opportunities for women engineers and scientists (Survey of Fiscal Year 1997 Powre Awardees). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 6,95-114. Sax, L.J. (1994). Retaining tomorrow's scientists: Exploring the factors that keep male and female college students interested in science careers. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1,45-61. Schiebinger, L., (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N . (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, C O : Westview Press. Sonnert, G. , & Holton, G. (1995). Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Sonnert, G. , & Holton, G. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American Scientist, 84,63-71. Tonso, K.L. (1999). Engineering gender—Gendering engineering: A cultural model of belonging. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5,365-405. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? Cambridge, M A : MIT Press. Yauch, C .A. (1999). Majoring in engineering: A study of gender differences. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5,183-205. Zeldin, A.L. , & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215-246. 192 

Exploring the Association of Sex and Majoring in Science

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/54922/41977

Exploring the Association of Sex and Majoring in Science

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting