Skip to main content

Exploring Gender Inequality and Practical Solutions for an Equitable Environment for Women in Scientific Vocations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Managing Complex Tasks with Systems Thinking

Abstract

Despite progress towards gender equality in science and education, women remain underrepresented in decision-making roles, and unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion processes remains a persistent challenge. Systems thinking provides a helpful framework for identifying the complex causes of gender inequality and developing realistic strategies and solutions. The dynamic hypothesis of gender inequality proposes the existence of four feedback loops, each with four cycles of reinforcement, that contribute to structural inequality between men and women in science. To effectively address gender inequality, a multifaceted approach is needed that targets the various feedback loops reinforcing gender disparities and addresses the structural factors that shape social inequalities. This could include combating unconscious bias, reducing gender-based stereotypes, and increasing access to resources. Continued efforts toward gender equality and equality of opportunity are crucial for creating a more equitable and inclusive scientific community. By applying systems thinking and taking a comprehensive approach to address gender inequality, we can progress towards a more just and equitable society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A. R., Seymour, G., & Vaz, A. S. (2013). The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. https://doi.org/10.35648/20.500.12413/11781/ii1g1i

  • Amato, L. M. (2021). Barriers to a STEM career.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann, C. (2009). Gender inequalities in the transition to college. Teachers College Record, 10(111), 2320–3234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busso, M., & Messina, J. (2020). La crisis de la desigualdad: América.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabay, M., Bernstein, B. L., Rivers, M. B., & Fabert, N. (2018). Chilly climates, balancing acts, and shifting pathways: What happens to women in STEM doctoral programs. Social Sciences, 7(2), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casad, B. J., Garasky, C. E., Jancetic, T. R., Brown, A., Franks, J. E., & Bach, C. W. (2022). U.S. women faculty in the social sciences also face gender inequalities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J. (2007). Women in science: Gender similarities in abilities and sociocultural factors. American Psychologist, 62(6), 593-603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilli, S., & Westerhuis, G. (2018). How institutions and gender differences in education shape entrepreneurial activity: A cross-national perspective. Small Business Economics, 2(51), 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egne, R. (2014). The leaky pipeline in the scientific career. EMBO Reports, 15(7), 673–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elenbaas, L., Penner, A., & Saperstein, A. (2020). The effect of systematic exclusion on the social construction of gender and race in the United States. American Sociological Review, 85(4), 637–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420930551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, U. G., & Sharma, R. (2002). Gender inequalities in science: An overview. Journal of Education and Psychology, 6(2), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S. L., Schaub, M., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Gender stratification in the science pipeline. Gender & Society, 3(10), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckenberg, R., & Druml, C. (2010). Gender inequity in science education: An Australian perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology 19(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9187-8. Interamericano de Desarrollo. https://publications.iadb

  • Lampón, J. F., et al. (2020). Towards a gender‐inclusive academia: A call to action for the neuroscience community. European Journal of Neuroscience, 52(3), 2537–2546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Macaluso, B., & Cronin, B. (2013). The impact of research funding on scientific productivity. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.799805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. D. (2016). Gendered systemic analysis: Systems thinking and gender equality in international development. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohtar, L. E., Halim, L., Rahman, N. A., Maat, S. M., Iksan, Z. H., & Osman, K. (2019). A model of interest in STEM careers among secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(4), 404–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, G., Garrett, J. D., Trautwein, U., Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Gendered high school course selection as a precursor of gendered careers: The mediating role of self-concept and intrinsic value. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 242–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). GenderNet practice notes—Gender equality indicators: What, why and how? Available online: www.oecd.org/social/gender-development/44952761.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2016.

  • Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2008). Behavior validity of a simulation model for sustainable development. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qudrat-Ullah, H., & BaekSeo, S. (2010). How to do structural validity of a system dynamics type simulation model: The case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2216–2224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedler, B., Stéphenne, N., Aguilar-Moreno, E., Jagaille, M., Monfort-Muriach, A., Fiore, G., & Antoniou, N. (2021). Towards gender equality in education and career in the earth observation and GI Sector. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLIII-B5-2021, 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, A. S. (1965). Women in science: Why so few? Science, 148(3670), 1199–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saw, G. K., Chang, C.-N., & Chan, H. L. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staniscuaski, F., Simplicio, A. M., Gomes, I. L. M., Garcia, C. S. S., & Luchiari, A. C. (2020). The role of motherhood in the career development of female scientists: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2016). Will I fit in and do well? The importance of social belongingness and self-efficacy for explaining gender differences in interest in STEM and HEED majors. Sex Roles, 75(3–4), 148–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp-Knowles, P. (1995). Women in science: Barriers to progress. Journal of Women’s History, 7(3), 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Degol, J. L., & Ye, F.-F. (2015). Math achievement is important, but task values are critical, too: Examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2013). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403–4408.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. J. (1970). Sex differences in abilities: A critique of the research. Harvard Educational Review, 40(1), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, E. N., Unfried, A., & Faber, M. (2018). The relationship of STEM attitudes and career interest. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 14(3), em1531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zippel, K. S., & Ferree, M. M. (2018). Organizational interventions and the intersection of gender and institutions. Sociology Compass, 12(9), e12613. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12613

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge-Andrick Parra-Valencia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Parra-Valencia, JA., Lizette-Massey, M. (2023). Exploring Gender Inequality and Practical Solutions for an Equitable Environment for Women in Scientific Vocations. In: Qudrat-Ullah, H. (eds) Managing Complex Tasks with Systems Thinking. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40635-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics