It is a known fact that women are underrepresented (relative to their proportion of the workforce) in several sectors, engineering or technology to name a few. Most women also fail to progress to become managers or leaders.
Putting glass ceilings (as well as quota debates) aside for a moment, I think a behavioral, sociological or even neuro-biological analysis are good starting points here. I don't have any expertise in any of these fields, but have generally been interested in these three fields for a number of years, and have done a small share of reading.
To start with neuro-biology, the main debate is whether we, as humans, are blank slates or genetically and/or evolutionarily conditioned (read Steven Pinker for a crash course on this topic). Could we, as women, be just as interested as men in physics and computing in theory and in practice? Or has biology and/or evolution conditioned us to be interested in other issues, e.g. to better equip us to take care of our children? Or are we just socialized this way, in order to keep us where we are? I'd like to believe in the blank slate theory, but a lot of research tends to point to at least some degree of predetermination.
Sociologically, the question is how do we deal with different interests, ways of dealing with issues, etc. Do we follow our biological instinct (if there is one)? Do we follow rigid social expectations? Are we equipped with the right strategies and tools to go against the flow, if needed?
A behavioral analysis would be a combination of the above, focusing on our interests, but also looking at what may condition these interests (e.g. legal or societal norms that restrict choices). I already mentioned the Economist's article "Nudge nudge, think think" in a previous post, but I think this type of analysis is key to moving forward. If not in opening up new fields to women (maybe we're simply not interested?), at least to remove barriers that keep us from progressing (which I think most of us would be interested in, or?).
No comments:
Post a Comment