Response to #1
Summary
In the journal article created by Cornell’s psychologists Ceci and Williams along with Cornell researcher Barnett, titled “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations”, the authors attempt to comprehend the reason why an increasing number of women are pursuing STEM-related degrees, but the number of women in STEM-related jobs is not increasing as rapidly. To understand the reasons behind this, the authors hypothesized that a circular relationship exists between various factors, the most important being biological sex. Biological sex in the article claims to be a critical factor since it impacts everything from hormones, thoughts on the tradeoff between career and family values, even SAT scores. To back up this theory, the article utilizes separate studies and datasets. The authors dive into other reasons to explain why more women do not enter into math-intensive careers, including motivations, historical context, and cultural factors.
Analysis
This article is like none of the others that I have read. Instead of just explaining the impact that society has on why more women do not enter into STEM-related careers, it examines biological reasons. The perspective that this article takes overall is more of a scientific view than a social perspective. I see myself using it to focus on these biological elements rather than the social ones that every other article references. This article relates to my other sources because they all attempt to explain why more women are not involved in STEM-related careers. It just takes the research a step further than the other sources that I have found because it uses scientific evidence to back up its claim. I must use the biological elements referenced, the statistics that the article provides to help back up my thoughts and other research. Overall, it will be crucial to use the scientific data to examine my question as to why under-representation matters to everyone and the reasoning behind why it exists to determine possible solutions to the issue.
Ceci, Stephen J., et al. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 135, no. 2, 2009, pp. 218–261., doi:10.1037/a0014412.
Response to #3
In recent discussions of subtle sexism, Katharine Schwab presents a controversial issue on whether open office workspaces provide more benefits than costs. On one hand, some argue that the open space encourages engagement and breaks open the chain of command thoughts. From this perspective, these individuals argue that the benefits outweigh the costs and therefore open office spaces should be utilized. On the other hand, however, others argue that the open office space violates people’s right to privacy and encourages subtle sexism. In the words of Schwab, “This kind of all-glass, no-privacy environment leads to a subtle kind of sexism, where women are always being watched and judged on their appearances, causing anxiety for many employees.”. According to this view, open office spaces cause harm towards women within the organization and would therefore do the opposite of their original intent, make for a tense environment where women do not feel safe.
My own view is that Schwab fails to address some of the solutions to the issue at hand. Schwab is right that those open office spaces violate the right to an individual’s privacy. I will be extending the argument by providing my own solution to the problem. Many organizations are beginning to understand the benefits that meeting pods/quiet pods hold for workers within the organization. Not only do they provide a space for an employee to relax without having to listen to the loud and rambunctious open office space, but it allows for privacy. The women in the article address that in their current open office space, there is nowhere to go besides the restroom for an escape from others watching them. A meeting pod would allow for a location where females could go to work without having to worry about others watching them for however long they need away from the open office space. Obviously, it is difficult once you enter a lease or commitment for a new office to leave that behind due to monetary constraints or legal contracts, but meeting pods provide a solution to the problem. With all of the hyperlinks provided in the article, I am surprised that Schwab did not address what other companies have been doing for a long time, and how pods have benefitted their employees. Other alternatives could include what Google has begun to do in its offices, which is that they introduced inflatable walls.
Although I believe that it is important to create a sense of privacy in the workplace, I do also believe that having open areas where people can communicate and engage with each other is critical to the success of an organization. Therefore, I believe that a hybrid workplace, where there are 50% meeting pods and 50% cubicles/open areas where people can engage would be the best solution to the issue. For my TSIS templates, I used one from the introduction in the book, along with another from chapter five. I feel as though I have become more comfortable with using them which is great. Below I have attached some links to information on meeting pods and Google’s inflatable walls.
Hi Julia,
I loved reading your response to #1 because it is such a refreshing feeling when you find a source that gives you a new perspective. Not only just a new perspective, but one that allows you to form your own distinct opinion, which makes your work so successful. Im really curious to see what the biological reasonings are as to why the numbers are low, as well as the cultural and historical factors you mentioned. I am eager to see how all of the factors bounce off of each other. Have a great day!
Julia–I would encourage you to look at what others have had to say about this research study, so that you have some clarity on how it was received within its research community. The authors themselves, in their abstract, seem to downplay the role that biological differences might play, as compared to social and cultural ones, so be careful to provide context around these claims (“The evidence indicates that women’s preferences, potentially representing both free and constrained choices, constitute the most powerful explanatory factor; a secondary factor is performance on gatekeeper tests, most likely resulting from sociocultural rather than biological causes.”). The general pattern of your annotation is solid–summary (make sure you define what the source is, in addition to what it says!) and discussion.
Thanks for the interesting note about meeting pods–good work in pushing the conversation further.