Can Female Role Models Reduce the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from Classroom Interventions in French High Schools with Clémentine Van Effenterre

Women are underrepresented among technical degree holders and STEM workers, and the gender segregation in these occupations has remained fairly consistent over time. How can we design interventions that might help fix the gender gap in science? WAPPP Postdoctoral Fellow Clémantine Van Effenterre presented the results of her study on the effects of STEM role models in the classroom.

SETTING

This study focused on French high school students in year 10 and year 12. At the end of year 10, students choose to specialize in a science, social science, or humanities track, conditional on performance in these areas. At the end of year 12, students sit for their graduation exam, the Baccalauréat, which is the gateway to pursuing higher education. In order to gain entry to certain higher education tracks, year 12 students can opt to pursue highly selective prep classes (classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles), including in science.

Women are slightly overrepresented in year 10 science courses, but are underrepresented in science in year 11 and year 12, as well as in the selective science classes préparatoires.

DESIGN

This study was a large-scale randomized experiment, with control groups and treatment groups of year 10 and year 12 students.  Students in treatment groups had a one-hour session with a female STEM role model, either a “professional” (private employees in a STEM field) or a “researcher” (PhD candidates or post-doctoral students in the sciences). The role models presented on career prospects and wage rates in the sciences versus the humanities, the diversity of jobs in the sciences, and the underrepresentation of women in STEM jobs.

In addition to sharing their own experiences, the role models showed two videos. The first emphasized that men and women have the same “science potential” and that there are no biologically-determined sex differences with respect to science aptitude. The second video focused on how much workers in STEM occupations enjoy their workplace culture and work/life balance, as well as the shorter-than-expected duration of many science degree programs.

Dr. Van Effenterre and her colleagues surveyed students on the intensity of their stereotypical views of STEM jobs and women in science and their choice of school tracks, and collected data on their grades and higher education admission outcomes.

RESULTS

Beliefs

Students in the treatment group, both male and female, changed their beliefs regarding careers in science and women in science. Female year 10 students were less likely to think that studying for a science degree takes a long time, that science jobs are dreary or solitary, or that it is hard to achieve work-life balance in STEM. With respect to women and science, the intervention emphasized underrepresentation and debunking biological essentialism. While students reduced their stereotypical beliefs in this area, they were more likely to think that “women like science less than men” and that “progress for women in science is slow.”

This is an interesting result: after the intervention, students are aware that men are disproportionately represented in science, but that the reason is not biologically determined. To make sense of this state of affairs, Dr. Van Effenterre and her colleagues hypothesize, students think that women must either not like science and not pursue it, or go into STEM fields and face discrimination or other obstacles to success in the field.

The effect sizes were larger for female students, but male students changed their beliefs too; the intervention may have been more salient for female students, but had an effect for all treated students.

School Tracks

This study revealed no change in track choices for year 10 students, but year 12 students in the treatment group significantly increased their likelihood of pursuing selective preparatory STEM programs: male students’ participation increased by 38% and female students’ by 20%, which are large increases over the low baseline for these selective programs.

Dr. Van Effenterre and her colleagues were initially puzzled by the lack of movement for year 10 students, but realized that student’s track choices are in some ways predetermined by past academic performance and other social factors, and are likely very hard to change with a small intervention. 

MECHANISMS

The role models may have impacted students’ beliefs and choices in a variety of ways: students may have been inspired to increase their effort to gain access to science jobs or may have experienced a boost in self-confidence or sense of fit in STEM roles after interacting with role models.

Dr. Van Effenterre and her colleagues examined the impact of the treatment on the grades the students obtained on the Baccalauréat, compared to students’ grades on other standardized exams. On average, there was no significant response to the treatment in terms of grades on the Baccalauréat for male or female students, and so the “increased effort” mechanism does not necessarily explain the observed effect.

Role models in the “professionals” category had a greater impact on both the decision to choose a science track and admittance to it compared to “researchers” for both male and female students. One limitation of this study was that the role models were only quasi-randomized, but it appears that the “professionals” may have been more relevant and compelling to students than the “researchers,” which presents additional questions about how to tailor the best type of role model for students to achieve the intended effect.

CONCLUSION

Experiences with female STEM role models can be an effective policy tool to change beliefs and outcomes for male and female students, even in a limited, one-hour intervention. Dr. Van Effenterre emphasized that closing gender gaps today impacts the next generation: if they can see it, they can be it.

How Gender Stereotypes Constrain Women in STEM

Out of the 196 people who have been Nobel laureates in Physics, how many would you guess are women? Maybe 10 or 20? Try two. How about for Chemistry? Out of the total 166 laureates, only four have been women. Keep in mind that this would be double-counting Marie Courie, who received a Nobel Prize in both. This is just one indicator of the degree of diversity in the science fields. Why is this so and how is it a problem?

Corinne Moss-Racusin, Ph.D. has something to say about these questions, and she did, during this week's HKS WAPPP Seminar. She is currently conducting research on how gender stereotyping is a contributing cause to the under representation of women in STEM fields. Prior to her current work, research had shown that there are problems such as inequitable access to science resources for women, such as lab space, there was experimental evidence of bias in other fields, and there was anecdotal evidence of bias provided by STEM students. However, to provide more conclusive knowledge of the biases in the field, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues conducted experimental studies that provide insightful results.

Dr. Moss-Racusin at the HKS WAPPP Seminar

Her team was the first to run an experimental study about bias in the STEM context. They asked faculty to evaluate identical applications for a research position at a lab and rate them on  their competence, comment on how likely they would be to mentor such an applicant, make a hiring decision, and provide a figure for the salary they would pay the applicant. One group was given applications belonging to a person named "John", and the other group assessed identical applications belonging to a "Jennifer". The study finds no effect of the faculty member's race, field of expertise, gender, or background on the outcome. In contrast, there is a strong effect related to the applicant's gender. "Jennifer" was receiving about $4,000 less in starting salary, was rated as less competent, and was less likely to get mentoring. In other words, women are facing a negative bias, and it comes from men as well as other women. Moss-Racusin explained that this is "likely because we are all equally exposed to the same cultural biases... they might be being enacted by well-meaning individuals, they’re still biased choices”, she concluded.

It seems that we are all equally biased.

Dr. Moss-Racusin's team ran a second experiment. They recruited a group of undergraduate students unfamiliar with the research in this field and presented them with two articles about bias against women in STEM. The articles only differed on the punchline: One said the research showed that there was a bias and the other concluded that there was not. The students' attitudes towards STEM were measured after reading the articles. The researchers found that students presented with evidence of bias reported increased awareness of it, less sense of belonging in a STEM field, and reduced STEM aspirations as compared to their counterparts in the other group. The same results applied for men and women. This means that awareness of the bias seems to deter students from adventuring into the STEM field. What is most worrying, given these results, is that women on average tend to report much higher awareness levels about bias than men. In the real world, their awareness may be deterring them from entering STEM career paths. This is bad news for all because STEM jobs tend to be better paid and there is a predicted shortage of workers for the coming decades.

Finally, Moss-Racusin's research moved into what Professor Hannah Riley-Bowles called "daring" territory for scholars: practice. Looking for a way to improve diversity trainings that have produced mixed results, she partnered with professional filmmakers to create twelve high-quality films that communicated the findings of the latest research on gender bias. She then measured the difference between individuals randomly assigned to view this material versus a control group who was exposed to similar videos but which did not touch on the topic. Her results show that whether it is a narrative film that shows the findings in a story-telling manner, or a documentary-style intellectual approach, there is an effect that the videos can have that increases awareness and reduces gender bias, and it can last at least six months. Worthy of note was that the 'intellectual' format seemed to have a bigger effect, especially when the test subjects were STEM faculty  members.

Why should we care? As was mentioned, a recent White House report predicts that we may need at least a million more STEM majors to respond to the economy's needs. There is a large potential available in the female workforce to supply this expertise, "gender parity really is in the interest of our national competitiveness", as Dr. Moss-Racusin puts it. And moreover, the problem is not fixing itself. Her research finds no cohort effects, which means it is not a generational issue. The under representation of women in this fields is not going away unless we work at it. Finally, research has shown that diverse teams produce better results, so if we do not diversify science, we all stand to lose. 

Check out the event's page to listen to the podcast of the talk and take a look at the presentation that Dr. Moss-Racusin kindly shared with us.