Abstract of "Female-Friendly Science--Including Women in Curricular Content and Pedagogy in Science"
Author(s):
Sue V. Rosser
Rosser proposes a new format for curricular content and
teaching techniques to alleviate an expected dearth of
scientists, and to evolve an improved science. The format
involves a progression though six phases:
- Absence of women is not noted
- Recognition that most scientists are male and that
science may reflect a masculine perspective
- Identification of barriers that prevent women from
entering science
- Search for women scientists and their unique
contributions
- Science done by feminists/women
- Science redefined and reconstructed to include us
all
The United States currently faces a shortage of scientists
and engineers. It is argued here that this shortage will become
more severe unless science adapts to accept and warmly welcome
the work force predicted for the year 2000. The new work force
growth will comprise 90% women and minorities, and 23% of the
new employees will be immigrants. To attract large numbers of
women and minorities, science must become more friendly to the
interests and learning styles of these groups.
Phase 1
Absence of women is not noted
Rosser writes,
"Most science curricula are in phase I." In this phase, many
scientists would suggest that science is by nature objective,
both womanless and manless. They do not realize that gender can
influence science through theories, data collection, subjects
chosen for experimentation, or questions asked.
Phase 2
Recognition that most scientists are male and that
science may reflect a masculine perspective
Most scientists
are aware that women are underrepresented in all natural
science fields. Some scientists believe that since women are
not present at the decision-making levels of science, current
science views the world from a male perspective. This leads to
scientific theories, practices, and approaches reflecting a
masculine approach to the natural, physical world and to
science curricula. To correct such influences, Rosser
recommends:
- Undertake fewer experiments likely to have direct
military applications, and instead support more experiments
to explore problems of social concern. Some women feel
uncomfortable with the destructive applications for which
technology has been used (i.e., the Vietnam War, pithing the
brains of frogs during a common introductory biology
experiment, calculating bomb trajectories for homework). But
women can be encouraged into science with the idea that they
will have influence over the uses of advancing
technology.
- Consider problems that have not previously been
considered worthy of scientific investigation because of the
field with which the problem has been traditionally
associated. Just as adolescent boys may have little facility
with recipes and the kitchen for preparing meals, adolescent
girls often have little familiarity with scientific
terminology, equipment, and subjects. Women may feel less
alienated by science if asked to solve problems designed for
areas that are traditionally female-dominated (e.g.,
nursing).
An emphasis on a relationship with the object of study
will also help attract females to science. Rosser writes,
"Females are likely to feel more comfortable in approaching
laboratory experiments if they understand the relationship of a
given experiment to others, and the importance of the
particular phenomenon being studied for the organism as a
whole."
Phase 3
Identification if barriers that prevent women from
entering science
Topics of current research suggest female
scientists are viewed as anomalies or face numerous problems
due to their gender. Questions have been raised about value
neutrality for male-led research. For example, the exclusion of
females as experimental subjects, a focus on problems of
primary interest to males, faulty designing of experiments, and
interpretations of data that are based in language or ideas
constricted by patriarchal parameters have all led to biased or
flawed experimental results in several areas of biology. Ways
to correct this include:
- Increase the numbers of observations and remain longer in
the observational stage of the scientific method. It is
important to counter the gender gap in use of scientific
equipment and experimental materials, by providing more
hands-on experience during an increased observational stage
of data-gathering.
- Incorporate and validate personal experiences women are
likely to have had, as part of the class discussion or the
lab exercise. Quite simply, people feel more comfortable with
taking a familiar situation as an example for a scientific
problem in class.
- Decrease laboratory exercises in introductory courses in
which students must kill animals or perform acts that may be
perceived as particularly harsh.
- Expand the kinds of observation beyond those
traditionally carried out in scientific research Rosser
notes that:
The expectations of teachers reinforced by
experiments in the laboratory manuals convince girls and women
that they are not scientific because they do not see or are not
interested in observing the 'right things' for the experiment.
This lack of interest or feeling of inferiority may come from
the fact that most scientific investigations have traditionally
been undertaken by males who determined what was interesting
and important to study. The expectations and biases of a
researcher may color observations to such an extent that the
data is not perceived correctly.
Phase 4
Search for women scientists and their unique
contributions
Women have been present in science throughout
history, albeit in small numbers. Searching for the examples of
women scientists whose work has been credited to others,
brushed aside and misunderstood, or classified as non-science,
and giving these women the credit they deserve will encourage
other women to believe that success is possible in spite of the
traditional barriers. For example, Rosalind Franklin's crucial
work on the x-ray crystallography of DNA made it possible for
Watson and Crick to speculate on the double helical nature of
the molecule, yet her work continues to be brushed aside and
undervalued. Using less competitive models and more
interdisciplinary methods to teach science will make science
less intimidating for women. Rosser notes: While male
students may thrive on competing to see who can finish the
problem first, females prefer and perform better in situations
where everyone wins. ... Because of their interest in
relationships and interdependence, female students will be more
attracted to science and its methods when they perceive its
usefulness in other disciplines. Teaching math and
science with the intention of delivering skills and
communicating is radically different from teaching with the
intention of weeding out all but the top of the class. The
weed-out techniques were developed in an era when a surplus of
scientists was expected. Our era faces the reverse--a shortage
of scientists--and different techniques of teaching are needed
to cope with the situation.
Using scientific terminology in everyday conversation with
non-science people will help reduce the apprehension many feel
when faced with a technical term, and will also expose girls to
technical language at an earlier age.
Another major issue for many women is the possibility, and
difficulty, of combining a scientific career with marriage
and/or family. Many women see later marriage and/or later
childbearing as the only possible way to achieve their career
goals. It is crucial that the role of a female scientist be
compatible with the role of a wife and a mother.
Phase 5
Science done by feminists-women
Recent
research suggests possible differences between males and
females in the degree of intimacy expressed by the scientist
toward the subject of study, the use of experimental subjects,
and the use of language. For example, a male researcher
referred to a group of primates as "the stud" and "his harem,"
while a female researcher pointed out that only one male
primate was needed to perform the role the group needed
(impregnating the females). Having more women in science will
keep scientists aware of forms of gender bias and assist in
countering them. Rosser emphasizes the importance of:
- Using precise, gender-neutral language in describing data
and presenting theories.
- Uncovering biases such as those of gender, race, class,
sexual orientation, and religious affiliation which may
permeate theories and conclusions drawn from experimental
observation.
New theories and hypotheses should be relational,
interdependent, and multi-causal, rather than hierarchical,
reductionistic, and dualistic if they are to maximize females'
interest in the subject at hand. Females are often more eager
to discover how one bit of information is related to and
influenced by other factors. One lab instructor commented that
"The boys won't listen to the instructions: they can't wait to
play with the equipment. The girls always want more information
about what they're doing and how it relates to other topics
we've already studied."
Phase 6
Science redefined and reconstructed to include us
all
This phase is designed to result in a better science
that suffers from fewer flaws and biases. Rosser points out
that "As more people from varying backgrounds and perspectives
become scientists, they increase the likelihood that the
scientific method will be able to function as it should." A
homogeneous group of scientists possesses a homogeneous
perspective on the world and on problems at hand. An increased
diversity will "increase the perspectives of the scientific
community and strengthen the rigor of the scientific method."
--abstract by Online Ethics Center staff