When it comes to attracting young people to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) formal education cannot do it all. So informal education organisations such as science centres and museums have been playing a key role in sparking the interest of this new generation for STEM studies – and that of girls in particular.
Despite these efforts, girls are still under-represented in science study programmes and women are less likely than their counterparts to embrace scientific careers. It is time to look back at the different approaches taken so far to attract girls to science and to re-think our model, working towards innovative ways of achieving more gender-inclusive science engagement.
The approach taken to communicating science and to engaging girls into STEM careers has changed over time, as illustrated by an analysis of EU-funded science education projects. This feature offers a perspective on these past approaches and how they’ve changed. It’s based on the Criteria for Gender Inclusion report produced by Marianne Achiam and Henriette Tolstrup Holmegaard for the new EU-funded project Hypatia.
Hypatia has helped to develop innovative communication strategies and activities that are more gender inclusive by considering every individual to be different, and that gender is a social construct and not the result of a biological sex. Although the arguments presented are related to STEM, they should be taken as a provocation to rethink the way we shape gender-diverse activities in any other field.
STEM the gendering
We’ve long assumed science to be a gender-neutral practice. However, research shows that many STEM subjects are constructed and enacted in terms of descriptors such as rational, technical, hard and independent; characteristics often connected to masculinity. This implies that individuals (female or male) who do not identify with such characteristics are not able to see themselves in STEM professions. In formal and informal education contexts, STEM is often gendered in this way as well, reflecting explicit or implicit assumptions about what constitutes a standard student, the so-called ‘implied student’, or in the case of science centres and museums, the ‘implied visitor’ – generally a boy or man.
Gender vs biological sex
Gender has long been assumed to be synonymous with biological sex. Recent research suggests differently. Rather than the simple translation of biological difference, gender should be approached as a complex category that individuals make themselves recognisable through and perform in various ways. Gender is not only culturally embedded, but also performed by the individual. Individuals adapt to the cultural contexts they participate in, and so do not position themselves in the same way across different arenas.
An example of performance gender is given by educational pyschologist Dorte Marie Søndergaard who describes how some female students downplay their femininity by dressing in neutral clothing to emphasise their competence within their studies’ masculine-gendered topics.
Fill the ‘GAPP’: equality and difference feminism
How has gender been tackled over time within informal education? Previous European projects gave us some hints to this. GAPP, TWIST and Science It’s A Girl Thing all addressed the issue of STEM and gender, albeit in very different ways.
The 2007-2008 GAPP project (Gender Awareness Participation Process: Differences in the choices of science careers) stated: “Meeting scientists who are women and sometimes mothers could have an impact on girls who otherwise would not have chosen a career in science and technology, thinking that it would not allow them to lead a career and a family/social life at the same time.”
By assuming that girls and boys are essentially equal in their approach to science, and that gender inclusion therefore entails removing external obstacles to girls’ participation in science, GAPP employs an equality feminism approach, wherein men and women are equal in terms of their ability to reason and achieve goals both at work and at home.
However, GAPP also assumed that girls and boys are fundamentally different in their approach to learning – difference feminism – by asserting that there are differences between men and women, and that they therefore should not be considered equals. It argues for gender-specific approaches based on what is assumed to be intrinsic gender differences. According to the GAPP report, “The ideas that science is only for excellent students and nerds and that research topics are too specific and not related to social aspects are to be demystified; role models are to be used, visiting and interacting with scientists and female scientists in particular”.
The Science: It’s A Girl Thing (2012-2015) campaign launched by the EC aimed to convince 13-18-year-old girls to pursue careers in science. It is clearly underpinned by difference feminism, because it assumes that women and girls have particular characteristics perceived as ‘feminine/female’, and that these characteristics should be recognised and acknowledged. The website (http//science-girlthing.eu) portrays science as an undertaking that makes a difference by improving lives, counteracting disease or protecting the environment; problems emphasising the ‘feminine’ extremes of the science spectrum.
The postmodern feminism TWIST
Equality feminism: men and women are equal in terms of their ability to reason and achieve goals in both the work and home front. Equality feminists recommend a strict equalitarian treatment of genders.
Difference feminism: there are differences between men and women, so they should not be considered equals. Gender-specific approaches should be based on what is assumed to be intrinsic differences between genders.
Postmodern feminism: there is not one unique, absolute definition for gender. It is a discursive construction and performance rather than a biological fact. Gender will be “performed” in different ways according to the situation.
Equality & difference drawbacks
There is evidence that societal and cultural conditions represent obstacles to women’s participation in science, meaning that equality feminism does have merit. However, research shows that removing external barriers to women’s participation does not completely close the gender gap. Thus, additional measures are needed.
The issue of the difference feminism approach of adjusting science subjects to what are thought to be typical girls’ interests, as exemplified in the projects GAPP, TWIST and Science: It’s A Girl Thing!, is that it may contribute to the cementation of the stereotypical gender identities the initiative was intended to overcome. This means that female-friendly approaches to science education give girls the choice of opting out or performing gender in the specific way sanctioned by scientific culture. Either choice serves to maintain, not erase, stereotypical gender identities.
The difference feminism argument presented in TWIST (i.e. biological differences between girls and boys mean they learn in different ways) is coming under increasing scrutiny. Research shows that the ‘essential, hardwired differences’ between the two sexes may be a majority opinion rather than a scientific fact, and therefore it cannot be taken for granted that learners have the same preferences and requirements simply because they have the same biological sex.
Rising postmodern feminism
A paradigm shift started with TWIST, which shows aspects of both difference and postmodern feminism. Postmodern feminism argues that capabilities, interests, personalities and aspirations vary as widely within biological sex groups (girls and boys) as between the groups – for any given variable, we’re as likely to find similarities between a girl and a boy as between two girls or two boys.
TWIST states that although there are clear differences between boys and girls, “there will always be exceptions. Every child is different. Variations in the way children learn are found not only between the genders, but also within them”. Thus, TWIST appears to challenge the notion that female and male learners are united, respectively, by biological sex.
Hypatia: celebrating differences
Hypatia, the latest EU-funded gender and STEM project (2015-18), is aligned with this theory that every child is different both within and outwith their gender. For this project, gender is understood as a social construct and not as the result of a biological sex. So all of its communication strategy and activities will continue to be more gender inclusive, considering each individual to be different.
Hypatia aims to bring together science centres and museums, schools, institutions and industry with gender experts and teenagers. It intends to reach diverse audiences and fulfill its most important goal: getting girls’ minds and hearts tuned in to science.
Balancing out for the future
To change youths’ access to science in a manner that transcends the ways they perform gender we must understand how the STEM cultures include specific ways of constructing and enacting gender while excluding others. This entails not only regarding male-dominated sciences and the girls and women within them, but also regarding more feminised sciences and the boys and men in them.
Science education initiatives based on postmodern feminist like Hypatia would encourage all learners, irrespective of biological sex, to value their own experiences and interests and reflect on their relevance for science learning. This practice may also help to establish an increased awareness of all marginalised groups of learners, irrespective of sex.
Hypatia Hubs
NEMO Science Museum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, is coordinating the Hypatia project, which comprises fourteen hubs. Hypatia project partners include the National Museum of Science and Technology Leonardo da Vinci; University of Copenhagen; Bloomfield Science Museum Jerusalem; Universcience; Experimentarium; Ecsite; L’Oreal Foundation; PPG Industries and BureauQ. ?