P SY CHOLOGI CA L S CIE NCE IN THE PUB LIC INTE RES T
Editorial
Complex Questions Rarely Have Simple Answers Susan M. Barnett Wolfson College, Cambridge University, and Cornell University
The subject of this monograph—sex differences in science and mathematics—is controversial. Although a topic of discussion for years, this issue was brought to public attention again in 2005 by the much-quoted comments of Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, suggesting that at least part of the reason for the dearth of women at the top in math and science professions is a lack of intrinsic aptitude. Any claim that genetic differences between the sexes are somewhat responsible for the underperformance of women in some valued field is going to provoke debate, and this was no exception. Both academic and public debate ensued. This monograph follows on the heels of a report by the blueribbon Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2006), of the National Academy of Science (NAS), which concluded that ‘‘It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women’’ (p. S1) in these fields. Although intended to resolve some of the debate, that report generated controversy of its own, including suggestions of environmentalist bias in the makeup of the committee. The current monograph was written by a smaller group of eminent experts in the study of sex differences. The authors come from different subdisciplines that have historically not agreed about the causes of sex differences in mathematically intensive STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). When a diverse group such as this can unite behind at least some conclusions, we are rewarded with a bedrock of knowledge upon which to build. Some of the stronger claims that individual contributors might have wished to include have no doubt been left out—that is the price of consensus—but what is left should be largely beyond dispute. Unlike the more policy-oriented report of the NAS task force, this article focuses on the scientific evidence regarding the causes of the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. The authors conclude that ‘‘early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways’’ (p. 1). They note that, if readers were expecting a single
Volume 8—Number 1
conclusion, they ‘‘are surely disappointed’’ (p. 41). Perhaps so, but complex questions rarely have simple answers. The authors point out that one problem in attributing causation in the area of sex differences is that, although relationships can often be found between variables, the direction of causality is often unclear because experimental manipulation is frequently impossible. For example, the monograph reviews considerable evidence showing that men’s and women’s brains differ, but conclusions are necessarily hard to draw: Is it that innate brain differences cause males and females to have differing interests and abilities? Or are the observed brain differences the consequence of differing experiences? As the authors mention, the brain ‘‘remains plastic into very old age’’ (p. 3). Similarly, girls’ and boys’ interests also differ, but are males more interested in STEM fields because they are better at them, or could they be better because they are more interested or are socialized to believe they are more competent? One of the most frequently cited bodies of evidence mentioned in the article, suggesting ability differences as a major cause of the dearth of women in advanced STEM fields, is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) by Benbow and Stanley. This research program has consistently shown strong male superiority in math aptitude scores for mathematically advanced middle schoolers. However, even these results are open to interpretation. According to the monograph, ‘‘25 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the [mathematics portion of the SAT] at age 13. Now the ratio is only 2.8:1’’ (p. 13). Such rapid changes suggest strong environmental effects, highlighting Halpern et al.’s caution that ability is an environmentally influenced measure, not a pure measure of innate talent. The finding that international differences in math performance swamp intranational sex differences also suggests that cultural factors play an important role. The authors sought evidence for sex differences earlier in life, to reduce the potential for environmental causation, and found a considerable body of evidence—but again, without clear-cut conclusions. Young boys are better than girls at many measures of early visuospatial skill, but it is unclear how important these various visuospatial skills are for high-level mathematics and
Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com by guest on MarchScience 5, 2015
i
Editorial
science performance in adulthood, in comparison with verbal and other skills at which girls often excel. Similarly, evolutionary psychology has many plausible hypotheses about how observed differences between men and women may be the genetic result of evolutionary pressures, but whether or not abilities selected due to their utility in spear throwing and animal tracking are the determinants of modern-day male dominance in mathematically based fields is a question requiring more research. Both of these examples highlight a more general point: Efforts to understand why there are more males than females in mathematically intensive STEM-based careers are unlikely to be successful until we have a theoretically based understanding of the cognitive and other requirements that determine success in these careers. That is currently lacking.
ii
Finally, the ability of women to build successful careers in STEM and other fields is dependent upon the time and effort they can devote to their work. As long as women continue to play a greater role in child rearing than men, they will have fewer hours to invest in their careers. And in demanding fields like science and mathematics, this is likely to affect their success. REFERENCE Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (Prepublication copy). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com by guest on March 5, 2015
Volume 8—Number 1
Editorial
Complex Questions Rarely Have Simple Answers Susan M. Barnett Wolfson College, Cambridge University, and Cornell University
The subject of this monograph—sex differences in science and mathematics—is controversial. Although a topic of discussion for years, this issue was brought to public attention again in 2005 by the much-quoted comments of Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, suggesting that at least part of the reason for the dearth of women at the top in math and science professions is a lack of intrinsic aptitude. Any claim that genetic differences between the sexes are somewhat responsible for the underperformance of women in some valued field is going to provoke debate, and this was no exception. Both academic and public debate ensued. This monograph follows on the heels of a report by the blueribbon Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2006), of the National Academy of Science (NAS), which concluded that ‘‘It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women’’ (p. S1) in these fields. Although intended to resolve some of the debate, that report generated controversy of its own, including suggestions of environmentalist bias in the makeup of the committee. The current monograph was written by a smaller group of eminent experts in the study of sex differences. The authors come from different subdisciplines that have historically not agreed about the causes of sex differences in mathematically intensive STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). When a diverse group such as this can unite behind at least some conclusions, we are rewarded with a bedrock of knowledge upon which to build. Some of the stronger claims that individual contributors might have wished to include have no doubt been left out—that is the price of consensus—but what is left should be largely beyond dispute. Unlike the more policy-oriented report of the NAS task force, this article focuses on the scientific evidence regarding the causes of the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. The authors conclude that ‘‘early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways’’ (p. 1). They note that, if readers were expecting a single
Volume 8—Number 1
conclusion, they ‘‘are surely disappointed’’ (p. 41). Perhaps so, but complex questions rarely have simple answers. The authors point out that one problem in attributing causation in the area of sex differences is that, although relationships can often be found between variables, the direction of causality is often unclear because experimental manipulation is frequently impossible. For example, the monograph reviews considerable evidence showing that men’s and women’s brains differ, but conclusions are necessarily hard to draw: Is it that innate brain differences cause males and females to have differing interests and abilities? Or are the observed brain differences the consequence of differing experiences? As the authors mention, the brain ‘‘remains plastic into very old age’’ (p. 3). Similarly, girls’ and boys’ interests also differ, but are males more interested in STEM fields because they are better at them, or could they be better because they are more interested or are socialized to believe they are more competent? One of the most frequently cited bodies of evidence mentioned in the article, suggesting ability differences as a major cause of the dearth of women in advanced STEM fields, is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) by Benbow and Stanley. This research program has consistently shown strong male superiority in math aptitude scores for mathematically advanced middle schoolers. However, even these results are open to interpretation. According to the monograph, ‘‘25 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the [mathematics portion of the SAT] at age 13. Now the ratio is only 2.8:1’’ (p. 13). Such rapid changes suggest strong environmental effects, highlighting Halpern et al.’s caution that ability is an environmentally influenced measure, not a pure measure of innate talent. The finding that international differences in math performance swamp intranational sex differences also suggests that cultural factors play an important role. The authors sought evidence for sex differences earlier in life, to reduce the potential for environmental causation, and found a considerable body of evidence—but again, without clear-cut conclusions. Young boys are better than girls at many measures of early visuospatial skill, but it is unclear how important these various visuospatial skills are for high-level mathematics and
Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com by guest on MarchScience 5, 2015
i
Editorial
science performance in adulthood, in comparison with verbal and other skills at which girls often excel. Similarly, evolutionary psychology has many plausible hypotheses about how observed differences between men and women may be the genetic result of evolutionary pressures, but whether or not abilities selected due to their utility in spear throwing and animal tracking are the determinants of modern-day male dominance in mathematically based fields is a question requiring more research. Both of these examples highlight a more general point: Efforts to understand why there are more males than females in mathematically intensive STEM-based careers are unlikely to be successful until we have a theoretically based understanding of the cognitive and other requirements that determine success in these careers. That is currently lacking.
ii
Finally, the ability of women to build successful careers in STEM and other fields is dependent upon the time and effort they can devote to their work. As long as women continue to play a greater role in child rearing than men, they will have fewer hours to invest in their careers. And in demanding fields like science and mathematics, this is likely to affect their success. REFERENCE Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (Prepublication copy). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com by guest on March 5, 2015
Volume 8—Number 1
