Pseudoscience and stereotyping won't solve gender inequality in
science
Pseudoscience and stereotyping won't solve gender inequality in
science. A parenting guide aimed at drawing more girls into science
lacks evidence and promotes old-fashioned gender stereotypes. Recently
the Daily Mail heralded a piece of pseudo-neuroscience so ridiculous
that explaining it required inventing a new part of the brain - the
"central lobe". Not to be outdone, the Guardian then upped the ante,
publishing a stereotype-enforcing guide to addressing the gender
imbalance in science. Central to many of the tips offered to encourage
girls to take an interest in maths are purported facts about gender
differences in behaviour and the developing brain.
Generalisations about education based on supposed
differences between boys’ and girls’ brains are unhelpful.
Photograph: Frank Baron/Guardian |
For instance, the author argues that girls are more responsive to
colour than boys, so parents of daughters - the target audience of this
piece - should "colour-code toys and blocks for sorting and patterning
beginning at an early age".
But does this argument stand up to the evidence? The nature of gender
differences in adult colour vision is controversial, with some
peer-reviewed studies pointing to a female advantage, others to a male
advantage, and yet others indicating no difference.
This complexity is mirrored in pre-school children, with boys and
girls each showing advantages under different conditions. It distorts
current knowledge to say that girls are categorically more responsive to
colour.
Difference
What about the claim that "girls generally begin processing
information on the brain's left, or language, side" and therefore that
girls "deconstruct math concepts verbally"? Existing studies do indicate
a slight advantage for girls in acquiring language at a very young age
(1-2 years), but - crucially - this difference has been shown to
disappear by the age of six. A recent review even concluded that overall
sex differences in language ability and language-related brain functions
are "not readily identifiable".
Bafflingly, the recommendations in the article that shouldn't be
specific to girls - such as encouraging puzzles and having children read
out loud - are worded as if it is assumed that parents and daughters
don't already do them, or that girls are deficient in puzzle-making and
recipe-reading. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a developmental neuroscientist at
University College London, points out that finding reliable gender
differences in the brain is complicated by individual differences:
"There are a lot of girls who are better than boys at maths, for
example, and a lot of boys who are better than girls at cooking.
Therefore, these generalisations based on gender are unhelpful."
Two recent books - Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender and Rebecca
Jordan-Young's Brain Storm - rigorously test many assumed sex
differences, and find all of them lacking.
Brain function
Even in cases where gender differences in behaviour or brain function
can be shown, where is the evidence that such distinctions can be
applied usefully to tailor learning? How do we know, for example, that
advice such as making "domestic scenario[s] more mathematic and
scientific" wouldn't apply equally to boys? As Blakemore puts it,
"Making mathematics relevant to everyday life problems (e.g. cooking,
supermarket shopping) is a good idea when teaching all children, not
just girls."Yet where the article touches on such evidence, it remains
not only gender-specific, but gender-conformist: "Research shows that as
girls get older they retain their mathematical and scientific abilities
when applied to domestic scenarios."
Equally surprising is the recommendation of authoritarian tactics,
which tend to backfire when parenting. Never tell your child the answer
to anything? Make them play with things whether or not they want to?
Never give her space to express her fears and disappointments? The
author frames these recommendations as ways to overcome our
gender-biased "nurture" rather than "nature", but it is unclear what
nurturing is in this disastrous manifesto. Finding ways for girls to
integrate interests in science and shopping doesn't work if girls think
this is the only way to engage with it. Girls are not a monolithic, pink
princess-loving entity that responds uniformly to the same siren calls
of colour, shopping and cooking. None of these was present when we were
evolving; none of this is universal, hard-wired, or intuitive.
And if so many of these gender-conforming expectations are so harmful
to boys' and girls' identities, why would we rely on them as a means
through which to teach science? Dean Burnett has brilliantly pointed out
this error by turning the tables with a similar list of recommendations
for boys.
Structural inequality
We suggest an alternative to pseudoscientific list-making, and that
is to identify and address structural inequality in our societies. There
are two broad factors that drive our behaviours: our own individual
agency, and the institutions around us. While it is useful to think
about ways we can draw more girls into science by integrating it with
their existing interests, it is also limiting. For instance, most adult
women who hit the glass ceiling are just told to work harder, to be more
pro-active, to seek more mentorship, and this can feel exhausting,
especially if she already feels like she is doing those things without
results. This is because it's hard to win on agency if you're not also
winning on institution.
The broader societal constraints that lead so few girls to consider
themselves "science people" by middle school derive not from whether we
push them into science, but what we value in girls as a culture.
What gendered representations of science continue to exist in
underperforming countries like the US and UK? What messages do we send
about how we value intelligence and knowledge, about how girls
contribute to society? And, what would it take to overcome these
obstacles to produce a more egalitarian learning environment? Just
telling parents of daughters to force their children to become
scientists, without providing the foundational support of institutional
change (or at the very least, some institutional navel-gazing), is
telling parents to work alone and with the wrong tools. We would rather
see a systematic approach to combating social inequality than another
list that tries to tell parents they're doing something wrong.
Storytelling is fun. But storytelling without evidence, with a loose
narrative barely tied together with pseudoscientific claims, can only
misinform and mislead. Further, by keeping the focus on claims of
differences in how girls and boys learn, we are missing the broader
societal issues that are likely driving girls to underperform in some
countries while soundly defeating boys in others. Let's turn our
attention to structural inequality and teach girls and boys that we
value them for the infinite, amazing ways they can contribute their
intellect, innovation, curiosity and cooperation to society.
-Guardian.co.uk
|