The Myth of Gender Neutrality Melissa Dancy Western Carolina University, Cullowhee NC [email protected] It is well known that women are underrepresented in physics. The prevailing view is that there is a “leaky pipeline” of female physicists which has lead to a focus on providing mentors and increasing the opportunity for girls to experience science. The assumption is that the numbers of women in physics can be increased by integrating women into the existing structure. Although it may seem reasonable, women are making only small gains in participation levels [1]. In this paper, I explore the idea that there is no leaky pipeline. Rather, the environment is fundamentally “male” and women will never be equally represented until fundamental changes are made in both our educational system and in the cultural assumptions of our physics community. In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions [2], is still fundamentally biased. I'll illustrate Kuhn describes asserts that there are this with some examples from assessment paradigms under which a scientific that show that gender bias can and does exist community operates. Someone working even when something appears on the surface within the paradigm makes certain to be gender neutral. assumptions and fails to question those basic assumptions to the point that he or she is not The SAT is designed for colleges “to help even aware they exist. Although many estimate how well students are likely to do views within the paradigm may not hold at its school” [3]. Women earn higher grades under scrutiny, the paradigm still holds and in college [4]. If the test was achieving its is very difficult to change as the prevailing goals, women would haves higher SAT forces will work to maintain it. The targeted scores. But men get higher scores on both poster session, Considering Data from a the verbal and the mathematical sections. Broad Perspective: What About Including There is an obvious bias here since the test Social and Economic Factors in Physics clearly does not fulfill its purpose with Education Research?, which included this respect to the sexes. So what is going on? paper, was in many ways, an attempt to examine some of our community's basic Before 1972, women outscored men on the assumptions in an effort to see more clearly verbal section of the SAT. In 1972 questions the paradigms in which we operate. were added referring to science, business, and practical affairs. Questions referring to I chose to tackle the issue of gender. My human relations, arts, and humanities were goal was not to fully answer the question of eliminated. According to ETS they did this why there is gender bias in the educational to create “a better balance for the scores system, nor was it to offer a solution to the between the sexes.” [5] Since then, men problem. Rather, I wanted to propose that have scored higher than women. It is the issue is much deeper than most assume interesting that the gender gap is so easily and to provide some seeds of thought. manipulated by the test makers. After a careful study of the SAT, Rosser [5] stated What gender bias? I don't discriminate that “Test makers could easily construct a in my classroom and neither do my test on which one sex nationally scored as colleagues. much as 50 points better than the other…This change would be accomplished While the vast majority of teachers believe solely with items that could pass through in equality and do not intentionally ETS’s current screening process.” The discriminate in their classroom, our system framing of the questions does matter and can beliefs rather than accepting authority. favor one gender of the other. Therefore, women may score below men because they answer based on what they There is also evidence [6] that girls are less believe, rather than what they are told. Men likely to take risks and guess at the right give the answer they are told to believe. answer. Since the SAT penalizes for incorrect guesses, girls leave more questions In collaboration with Timothy McCaskey blank. Also it appears that timed tests and and Andrew Elby the hypothesis was tested. multiple-choice tests favor boys. So The study is more fully described in although the SAT may look gender neutral McCaskey's paper, Effects on Assessment on first glance, it may test for gender as Caused by Splits between Belief and much as it does for aptitude. Understanding, which also appears in this proceedings. In short, after taking the FCI, Laura McCullough [7] has found similar students were asked to go back and indicate context dependency with the Force Concept which answer they really believed and Inventory. She created an alternate version which answer they thought a scientist would of the FCI in which the situation of the give. As we predicted, women reported a questions was altered to be more feminine. split between their beliefs and what they For example, the war-like image of a thought a scientist would believe much more bowling ball falling from airplane was often than men. Also as we predicted, replaced with a flying eagle dropping a fish. women were more likely than men to The response patterns of males and females answer based on their belief. While changed. The FCI can be manipulated to supportive of the hypothesis, this splitting change the difference in performance did not account for the gender gap. between the sexes WITHOUT changing any of the physics tested. Our result was very exciting because it was based on an idea that was outside the Considering PER from a Radicalized mainstream. Yet, our predictions were Gender Perspective: A Research Example confirmed. Thinking from a different perspective (as radical as it may seem) gave Men consistently outperform women on the an interesting and surprising result. It FCI. The reason for this gap is not appears that the FCI may not be equally understood. Suppose we take a radical view valid for both men and women. We have of gender in physics and ask a question that also shown that there is a gender effect that is outside of our paradigm. Does the FCI goes beyond simple context dependence. actually test more than just knowledge of physics concepts? Could it also be testing Eliminating Bias/Educating Women for gender? If so, what is the mechanism? Before our system can be changed to truly I asked this question and came up with the encompass both genders it is essential that following hypothesis which was partly we understand that there is no such thing as inspired by Clark Chinn’s talk, Knowledge, a neutral stance. That is, a neutral stance is Belief, and Understanding in Learning actually a stance for the prevailing view. In Science, at the winter 2003 AAPT meeting, this case, the prevailing system works to in which he showed evidence of the divide favor men so any teacher or classroom that between what students understand and what does not actively and deliberately work they believe. Could it be that males, toward a more encompassing environment inclined to operate within a hierarchy are will unwittingly contribute toward gender more willing follow authority, even if they bias. don’t believe in it? Women, inclined toward cooperation and negotiation, may keep their So where do we go from here? The accommodate, and resist societal following is from the book Women's Ways definitions of authority and truth. -pg. of Knowing [8]. 7 In considering how to design an The full findings of the Women's Ways of education appropriate for women, Knowing analysis are too extensive to suppose we were to begin by asking, summarize here. However, their description simply: What does a woman know? of two flavors of procedural knowing seems Traditional courses do not begin particularly relevant to our discussion. here. They begin not with the These two views are summarized in the students’ knowledge but with the table below but anyone with an interest in teacher’s knowledge. The courses these issues is encouraged to read the full are about the (dominant) culture’s description in the book itself. questions, questions fished out of the “mainstream” disciplines. If the Connected Knowing (Associated with student is female, her questions are Women) unlikely to intersect with the culture’s A view of knowledge characterized by trying to questions, since women, paddling in embrace new ideas, asking what in someone the by waters of the culture, have had else's experience led them to their point of little to do with positing (its) view, listening to others, using self-insertions questions or setting (its) agendas. – or projection in the good sense, and the mode P. 198. of learning is personal. Devalued and discouraged in traditional Sixteen years before the Women's Ways of education. Knowing book was published, William Perry published his influential book [9] Separate Knowing (Associated with Men) outlining epistemological development in An adversarial stance toward new ideas, look the college years. Despite being based for flaws in reasoning, demand empirical entirely on Harvard men, it is often looked justification, requires self-extrication or to as a guide to all students. Women's Ways weeding out of the self, benefit from of Knowing provides us with an analysis of partnership with friends willing to behave as women, reporting on the results of enemies interviews with 135 women about their Dominate mode of instruction views on knowledge and learning. Goldberger said about their work [10], The dominate educational system values a way of making sense of the world that Our interviews with women involves argument, the defense of ideas, and uncovered salient themes (missing or competition.