Gender-equality paradox

The gender-equality paradox is a phrase applied to a variety of claims, generally around gender differences being larger in more gender equal or wealthier countries.[1] The most prominent use of the term is in relation to the disputed claim that increased gender differences in participation in STEM careers arise in countries that have more gender equality,[2][3] based on a study in Psychological Science by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary,[4][5] which received substantial coverage in non-academic media outlets.[6][7][8][9] However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper.[10][11][12] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees".[11][10][3] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.[3][12] A follow-up paper in Psychological Science by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.[13][3] Another 2020 study did find evidence of the paradox in the pursuit of mathematical studies; however, they found that "the stereotype associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries" and could "entirely explain the gender-equality paradox".[14]

Not to be confused with Gender paradox or Gender paradox in suicide.

Gender-equality paradox in STEM

Stoet and Geary (2018) study

This research originally claimed that within the study's sample, more gender equality in a country is linked with a lower proportion of women studying STEM fields.[6][7][8][9] It conducted an analysis of the 2015 results (n=472,242 across 67 nations/regions) of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), focusing on the results of questions based on science aptitude and attitudes. This was contrasted with the level of gender equality as defined by the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI).

Findings

The study had a number of primary findings. These can be summarized as follows:

  • Girls performed similarly or better than boys in two out of every three countries, and were more capable of STEM tertiary education in nearly all countries examined.
  • Science or mathematics is much more likely to be a personal academic strength for boys than for girls
  • More girls entered STEM degrees than graduated.
  • The difference between both the performance of girls in PISA was inversely related to the country's GGGI.
  • This gap was found to be correlated with the STEM graduation gap, showing that there is a similar gap between the number of girls and boys that enter STEM university programmes compared to those that complete their degrees in more gender-equal countries.

It's important to note that the absolute size of the gap found was not shown to be significant. Rather it is the relative relationship between the two that was found to show an effect. In other words, no relation was found between the total number of girls who entered and completed STEM degrees and the GGGI of the country. Rather, the effect was between the relative difference in number of girls vs. boys who entered and completed STEM degrees, and the GGGI of their country.

Correction to original paper and Richardson et al. (2020)

Separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and after internal review at the journal, a correction was issued to the original paper.[10][11][12] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees".[11][10][3] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.[3][12] A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.[13][3] In February 2020, Stoet and Geary issued a reply, as a commentary in Psychological Science, defending their approach and results, and restated their hypothesis that "men are more likely than women to enter STEM careers because of endogenous interest", with the hope that future studies would "help to confirm or reject such a theoretical account."[15][16]

Breda, Jouini, Napp and Thebault (2020) study on economic development and gendered study choices

In 2020, a study by Thomas Breda, Elyès Jouini, Clotilde Napp and Georgia Thebault on PISA 2012 data found evidence to support the paradox of gender equality in the pursuit of mathematical studies, as the gap between boys and girls in terms of intentions to pursue mathematical studies were positively correlated with measures of development or equality. The study claimed that the "paradox of gender equality" could be "entirely explained" by the stereotype associating math to men being stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries.[14][17]

Usage to describe personality and preference differences by gender

The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe gender differences in personality tests and preferences in more gender equal and wealthier countries, primarily in relation to studies conducted by Falk and Hermie (2018) and by Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018).[1][18] Falk and Hermie (2018) used the 2012 Gallup World Poll that explored the preferences of around 80,000 people from 76 different countries and found that richer and more gender-equal countries had bigger gender gaps in people’s preferences.[1] Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018) found that women tend to rate higher than men on all five facets of personality on the IPIP‐NEO‐120 personality test and that the gap gets wider in countries that rank higher on the GGGI.[1][18]

Other usage in academic sources

The gender equality paradox has also been used to describe separate claims within the academic literature. Examples include:

  • Usdansky (2011) to describe a claim that "less educated couples with less skilled occupations and less money tend to voice more enthusiasm for specialized gender roles".[19]
  • A conference paper by Klaus and Kroezen (2017) to describe the rule differences by gender in professional tennis.[20]
  • Thelwall and Mas-Bleda (2020) to describe a claim that "countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". This was based on a "first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018".[21]

See also

References
  1. O'Grady, Cathleen (2018-10-18). "Why figuring out what's behind a big gender paradox won't be easy". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2021-01-10.
  2. Khazan, Olga (2018-02-18). "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  3. "Scholars Debate Causes of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM". The Scientist Magazine®. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  4. Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (14 February 2018), "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education" (PDF), Psychological Science, 29 (4): 581–593, doi:10.1177/0956797617741719, PMID 29442575, S2CID 4874507
  5. Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (14 February 2018). "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education" (PDF). Psychological Science. 29 (4): 581–593. doi:10.1177/0956797617741719. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 29442575. S2CID 4874507.
  6. Khazan, Olga (2018-02-18). "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  7. "Women in gender-equal countries less likely to gain STEM degrees". Times Higher Education (THE). 2018-02-23. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  8. Timmer, John (2018-02-19). "Women go into science careers more often in countries without gender equality". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  9. Taylor, Peter Shawn (March 26, 2019). "Could helping boys be the key to closing the STEM gap?". Maclean's. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
  10. Richardson, Meredith Reiches, Sarah S. (2020-02-11). "We Dug Into Data to Disprove a Myth About Women in STEM". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  11. "Corrigendum: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education". Psychological Science. 31 (1): 110–111. 2020-01-01. doi:10.1177/0956797619892892. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 31809229.
  12. "A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don't Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  13. Richardson, Sarah S.; Reiches, Meredith W.; Bruch, Joe; Boulicault, Marion; Noll, Nicole E.; Shattuck-Heidorn, Heather (2020-02-11). "Is There a Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)? Commentary on the Study by Stoet and Geary (2018)". Psychological Science. 31 (3): 338–341. doi:10.1177/0956797619872762. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 32043923. S2CID 211079357.
  14. Breda, Thomas; Jouini, Elyes; Napp, Clotilde; Thebault, Georgia (November 2020). "Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox". PNAS; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ISSN 1091-6490.
  15. Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (2020-02-11). "The Gender-Equality Paradox Is Part of a Bigger Phenomenon: Reply to Richardson and Colleagues (2020):". Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797620904134.
  16. "STEM's ongoing sex-difference debate". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  17. "Les stéréotypes de genre peuvent expliquer le paradoxe de l'égalité des sexes". CNRS (in French). Retrieved Jan 9, 2021.
  18. Radio, Sveriges. "Jordan B Peterson har delvis rätt om jämställdhetsparadoxen - Faktiskt". sverigesradio.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2021-01-10.
  19. Usdansky, Margaret L. (2011). "The Gender-Equality Paradox: Class and Incongruity Between Work-Family Attitudes and Behaviors". Journal of Family Theory & Review. 3 (3): 163–178. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00094.x. ISSN 1756-2589.
  20. Claus, Laura; Kroezen, Jochem (2016-01-01). "How Do Institutional Paradoxes Evolve? The Gender Equality Paradox in Professional Tennis". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2016 (1): 14026. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2016.159. ISSN 0065-0668.
  21. Thelwall, Mike; Mas-Bleda, Amalia (2020-05-28). "A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields". Quantitative Science Studies. 1 (3): 1260–1282. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00050.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.