Talk:Women in STEM fields

Gender paradox paragraph

Hi, I am trying to improve the article paragraph that muddles multiple studies without specifying which ones are being referred to. It is very confusing as I was trying to see which ones are being referred to out of the 8 sources at the end.

The current wording says:

"A 2018 study originally claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Some commentators argued that this was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox. However, a 2019 correction to the study 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". Harvard researchers were unable to independently recreate the data reported in the study. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis." Then 8 confusing sources.

1) For one there are two 2018 studies. Falk 2018 and Geary 2018. Falk is independent of Geary and does not even use the "gender equality paradox" term. Geary uses that term. Geary in not a commentator, but a researcher. Makes it seem like one is a researcher the other is a commentator. Geary 2018 does not cite Falk 2018 either. So how can Geary be a commentator of Falk?

2) Geary and Richardson are debating each other with Geary writing the 2018 paper, then Geary wriitng a correction - clarifying his paper, Richardson replying to the original paper and correction, and Geary replying to Richardson. Falk is not addressed by Richardson, only Geary is.

3) I separated Falk since his study is an independent study of Geary and Richardson.

4) The current wording makes it seem like there are two responses to Geary, when there is only one - Richardson.

As a result of all of this muddling in the above paragraphs, I see WP:SYN in the current wording.

Here is is my edit in 3 colors (purple wording not changed, just attributed; blue - contextualized per source; green - extra source to try to balance previous paragraph) :

A 2018 study by Falk and Hermle claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.[171][172]

A 2018 study by Geary and Stoet argued that there was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox.[173] However, Geary and Stoet issued a correction in 2019 clarifying that they were measuring two things: the percentage of girls likely to succeed in studying STEM via PISA scores and the "propensity" of women to graduate in STEM fields.[174][175] A follow-up paper by Richardson et al. in 2020 claimed that the negative association between gender equality and women’s STEM achievement does not persist when the measures of gender equality and achievement change.[176][177] Geary and Stoet responded to Richardson's team in a follow-up paper in 2020 stating that their results are consistent with broader literature on other traits that show larger gender gaps in more egalitarian countries and that independent studies such as Falk and Hermle (2018) reached the same conclusion on preferences for STEM among the sexes.[178]

A 2020 study by Breda et al. argued that gender stereotypes associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries and that this is associated with various measures of female underrepresentation in math-intensive fields such STEM fields. They argue that gender norms, instead of innate preferences, can explain the gender-equality paradox.[179]

My edit clarifies what each source is saying - the views should be presented as each source says it, who is responding to who, and is eliminating WP:SYN with attributions to follow the sequence of arguments. I also added another independent source at the end. If no objections to this, I will re-insert the improvement. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your revision relies far too heavily on primary sources. According to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Please see also WP:EXCEPTIONAL, a section of WP:V: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

In addition, your edit changed the whole sense of the passage so as to make it appear that the so-called "gender-equality paradox" is widely accepted. The earlier version made it clear that the methodology of the studies that claimed such a paradox was questioned, and the research was not replicable.

The gender-equality paradox is indeed an extraordinary claim, because it is contradicted by a historical examination of women in STEM in most parts of the world. In the US, for example, the advances women made in many areas starting with the second-wave women's movement in the 1970s included major increases in women's representation in STEM. The same is true in most parts of Europe and Latin America. There are some countries that have poor records on women's equality but where women professionals (including scientists) are not treated badly. Those are countries where STEM professionals are part of a highly privileged class and where it's generally women of the lower economic classes that suffer the worst inequality. In short, the "gender-equality paradox" defies history and common sense.

I agree with you that parts of the earlier version were poorly written. Moreover, that version also relied on primary sources. If it's not possible to find secondary sources that discuss the "paradox" in a balanced way, I think it would be best to simply delete the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you noticed, I did not change the the wording in purple, just attributed; the blue I was contextualizing per the sources (Richardson commentary and Geary commentary both 2020), and the green is an extra source trying to balance the arguments, as other explanations could exist.

Ok for secondary sources we have: for the Falk 2018 paper [1] Scientific American - already in the article.

For the 2018 Geary source, we have a textbook Geary, David. 2020. Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. American Psychological Association. ISBN: 9781433832642. p 432-433. By the way their works has been cited at least 1000 times per google scholar. So it is not an exceptional thing. Furthermore, here is some research mentioning such research is common in the behavioral sciences [[2]].

For the Richardson commentary (2020) and Geary commentary (2020), they are both secondary sources, not primary sources. They discuss the topic one step away from primary sources as they are commentaries on research. This is common among science journals. And Geary states "More recently, Falk and Hermle (2018) came to a similar conclusion in regard to personal interests." so it is not true that their results have not been replicated or that there are no other papers supporting their claims. In fact Richardson does not make such a of claim in their 2020 paper - they used a different metric. Both papers have additional secondary sources - Slate and Buzzfeed - already in the article.

Here is another secondary source on the whole debate [3].

I think that the stuff in green was my attempt to provide an alternative source to balance out the section. Perhaps I can find a secondary source for this later on. But this is extra.

I think this addresses your concerns about sourcing. And this could have been avoided if the wording was more accurate per the sources instead of the WP:SYN that muddled the 8 sources. The wording could also be toned down for all of this, if you prefer different wording. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You have not addressed two central concerns I raised: (1) You radically changed the wording of the paragraph so that it would read as if the so-called "gender-equality paradox", which is an extraordinary claim that defies common sense (which is why it's called a "paradox"), is an established phenomenon. There's one group of psychologists who claim that it's some kind of general principle of women's level of participation in STEM fields worldwide and historically. Others have raised objections to the methodology, or have simply ignored it. If this bizarre theory is discussed in the article, the discussion has to comply with WP:NPOV. (2) If the theory has not received broad coverage in secondary sources, the paragraph should be deleted as WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at the first two sources you cite as reliable secondary sources:

The Scientific American article. It focuses on a single study. Let's read its description of the methodology of that study: "The Global Preferences Survey asked participants about how they would respond in different scenarios involving six social factors: risk taking, patience, altruism, trust, and positive and negative reciprocation (responding in kind to positive or negative interactions). For example, for positive reciprocity respondents had to settle on how much they would pay for a thank-you gift to a total stranger in return for a kind deed." Do you see any connection with women in STEM fields here? The article goes on to mention some experts who have criticized the study for being simplistic and ignoring important variables. Despite the title of the magazine, I don't see where the "science" is in this article. By the way, there's currently a discussion going on at Talk:Scientific American about how Wikipedia should describe the criticism of that magazine for having veered away from science toward politics and sensationalism.

The article in European Journal of Personality. This article doesn't directly mention the "gemder-equality paradox", although several article titles in the bibliography do. The article's abstract complains that the claims of biological reasons for the gender disparities in STEM fields "are commonly overlooked or downplayed", and states that its purpose is to argue against the view that biological explanations are unimportant or nonexistent. So the article admits that it's arguing for a viewpoint that is not common in the field ("commonly overlooked or downplayed"), and it's a summary of the case for one side of the debate. NightHeron (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. To your points:

1) I initially just worked with the sources that were in the article. I am trying to improve the wording, which you agree is not good.

If you have better wording that adequately represents the views in these sources in an NPOV way, please propose it.

I do not see where I "radically changed the wording of the paragraph so that it would read as if the so-called "gender-equality paradox" is an established phenomenon". As can be seen in the purple text, that was the original wording in the article. I merely attributed.

On the Blue I tried to elaborate on what the sources actually said - they were debating each other. Richardson is the only source to address Geary on STEM.

Again, if you have better wording please propose it. I think it can be contextualized or condensed. I just tried to flesh out what the sources were actually saying since it was muddled.

2) United Nations UNESCO - [4]

UNESCO report - [5] "The information and communication technology (ICT) gender equality paradox refers to the surprising lack of a direct relationship between gender equality levels and the proportion of female students pursuing advanced-level digital skills. In other words, countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas." (p.78) and even states "The ICT gender equality paradox, demonstrated here for the first time, bears similarities to a phenomenon that Stoet and Geary (2018) observed in cross-country analysis of gender participation in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programmes... The attractiveness of ICT vis-à-vis STEM was not enough to change the paradox and regional groupings observed by Stoet and Geary."(p. 79)

UNESCO - [6] "However, gender disparities in ICT are complicated. The gender equality paradox – which applies to both ICT and STEM subjects overall – countries with higher levels of gender equality do not necessarily have more girls enrolled in ICT or STEM programmes in school. In fact, the report points out that Arab states, have relatively higher proportions of women studying ICT. Possible explanations for the gender equality paradox in ICT may be individual-level decisions regarding learners’ belief in the value of an ICT degree, or cultural practices preventing girls and women from pursuing ICT and STEM course work even when gender equality in a country is otherwise strong. Either way, the roots of the gender disparity run deep."

Swedish Academy of Sciences seminar- [7] "Underrepresentation of women in the STEM fields (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) is more pronounced in more gender-equal countries. This is part of the gender-equality paradox, a well-established phenomenon – yet counterintuitive –, where differences between men and women tend to grow as countries become more developed and gender-equal."

A review of scientific literature [8] - "The systematic narrative literature review investigated recent studies on gender differences in basic skills and personality to determine whether cross-national relationships can be found with gender equality. The goal was to assess whether theories predicting that gender equality is linked with smaller gender differences have empirical support or whether a gender equality paradox has emerged in recent years. The general trend considers gender equality as either being connected to an increase in gender variations or having no relation with them, with a gender equality paradox occurring for gender gaps in some cognitive domains (attitudes toward mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, mathematics anxiety, and reading) and personality." they also state "Lastly, the gender equality paradox is an emerging phenomenon that has gained substantial scientific support across subjects (Falk and Hermle, 2018; Campbell et al., 2021; Block et al., 2022; Vishkin, 2022). It requires attention from both the scientific community and the public because attempting to close gender gaps following traditional social-role theories and applying conventional methods, might end up exacerbating gender variations."

Also a textbook Geary, David. 2020. Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. American Psychological Association. ISBN: 9781433832642. p 432-433

On the article in European Journal of Personality, I was just trying to show that there are other dimensions from other fields like behavioral sciences that chime in on the issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for those quotes. Concerning the UNESCO one: (1) Note the wording "countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas." Saying that there is not always a direct correlation is very different from saying that there's a reverse correlation (between gender equality and participation in a STEM field such as ICT). (2) They say nothing about biological reasons for the supposed paradox. (3) The source mentions the example of some countries of the Middle East. What the quote does not explain is that the very negative reputation countries such as Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar have on gender comes primarily from reports of mistreatment and lack of rights of poor women, mainly guest workers brought in from south and southeast Asia. The situation for professional women is much better. In contrast, in the US most working-class women have better treatment and more rights than in the Mideast (with the exception of undocumented migrant workers), but professional women in ICT in Silicon Valley California have been subjected to tremendously discriminatory treatment. (4) So the situation is far more complicated than what's misleadingly conveyed by the catch-phrase "gender-equality paradox" and is also much more complicated than what's explained either in the original paragraph or your rewritten version. NightHeron (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the situation is complex. We are limited by what the sources say. No explanation will convince everyone and no single source will solve the mystery or answer every possible question we can think of so it makes sense to not debate on which theory is better between you or I. I am focusing on stating what the sources say. I think that instead of these 8 sources on the Geary and Richardson debates, etc we can just use the Balducci source, which is a scientific literature review [9]. They provide numerous explanations (cultural, evolutionary, etc) for the wider gender gaps in more egalitarian societies. What do you think?

They discus multiple explanations from the strengths and weaknesses of the cultural arguments to arguments by evolutionary biologists. It comprehensive.

"The present review proposes that the evolutionary explanation for the gender equality paradox might be more complex than it appears due to the presence of socio-cultural elements in the evolutionary process. As previously noted, genetic effects depend on the environmental conditions (diseases and ecological stress) under which they occur, yet the environment is embedded into society. Thus, the gene–environment interplay is enclosed within a cultural context with specific social norms and, by itself, cannot encompass all involved elements (Figure 2). Stated otherwise, the gene–environment interplay is a function of culture (Uchiyama et al., 2022). Therefore, gender-specific genes can be expected to be emphasized in societies embracing cultural values that would favor the expression of these genes."

or perhaps: "Understanding the possible reasons for the increase in gender differences in countries that promote gender equality is important and relevant since these countries may be leading men and women toward gendered trajectories, a path that is already observable in higher education. Charles and Bradley (2009) noted that the most advanced societies demonstrate more pronounced gender segregation in education. Stoet and Geary (2018) also observed that more gender-equal nations (measured by the GGI) have the widest gender gap among STEM graduates."

Also the UNESCO source seems like good option. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the UNESCO source makes a reasonable summary statement to the effect that not all countries with a relatively high degree of gender equality also have a high representation of women entering STEM careers. There's no need to call this a "paradox", since it does not defy common sense just to acknowledge that a country with a good overall record would have gaps in that record, that is, areas where women suffer much discrimination. Conversely, there are countries that have poor records overall, but offer relatively good conditions for women in certain professions and other elite groups. I think we should avoid the sources that uncritically endorse the conclusions of studies that use faulty methodology to support an overhyped and implausible theory about a worldwide "paradox". NightHeron (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the original paragraph. However, what you replaced it with is not at all an accurate summary of the UNESCO sources. Those sources do not claim that "there is a general negative correlation". Rather, according to the UNESCO quotes you gave above, "countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas" and "countries with higher levels of gender equality do not necessarily have more girls enrolled in ICT or STEM programmes in school". The meaning of the words "do not always" and "do not necessarily" is very different from claiming a general negative correlation.

After this lengthy discussion, we still haven't arrived at a reasonable way to very briefly describe the concept of a so-called "gender-equality paradox". So it seems to me that the best option is not to bring it up at all, except perhaps for a link to Gender-equality paradox in the "See also" section. NightHeron (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I never agreed to removal. I suggested to replacement. So will restore original wording for the time being. UNESCO does say "The information and communication technology (ICT) gender equality paradox refers to the surprising lack of a direct relationship between gender equality levels and the proportion of female students pursuing advanced-level digital skills. In other words, countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas. The chart below makes this paradox visually apparent. It shows a negative association between gender equality levels and the proportion of women completing advancedlevel ICT degree programmes. It further shows that countries with lower levels of gender equality report relatively more women completing ICT programmes than do more gender-equal countries." (p. 78)

"The ICT gender equality paradox, demonstrated here for the first time, bears similarities to a phenomenon that Stoet and Geary (2018) observed in cross-country analysis of gender participation in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programmes. These researchers found that countries with high levels of gender equality also have some of the largest STEM gender gaps in secondary and tertiary education. This is paradoxical because more genderequal countries are those that offer girls and women more equal educational and empowerment opportunities, and generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields to close gender divides. While the ICT gender equality paradox chart (page 78) mirrors, in many ways, the STEM gender paradox identified by Stoet and Geary, including the two key groups of countries that drive the negative correlation, ICT and STEM have important differences." (p.79)

UNESCO acknowledged the paradox multiple times in their report and shows the graph too, it just differs on the explanations for it.

Please propose adequate wording. It just seems are imposing your views on everything and not trying to compromise. I even ignored the paradox terminology. if no consensus, then per WP:BRD the original wording will stay. I am fine with that now as an alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the earlier stable version, since I doubt that this discussion will lead to a better version that's NPOV-compliant. I noticed that very recently you changed the intro to Gender-equality paradox so that it concludes by giving the impression that the "paradox" is an established, uncontroversial fact. That's not an improvement. NightHeron (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ritalyo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loudcat44 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PurplePhoneLaptop (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)