Lisa Meitner, Chien-Shiung Wu, Alice Ball, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Rosalind Franklin, Ada Lovelace: What do all of these names have in common? They are all female scientists from various cultural races that have been discredited for their work and discoveries within the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) despite playing critical roles (Lee, 2013). In recent decades, there has been a rise in the number of women in STEM, but that does not preclude systemic racism and sexism from occurring in these fields (Hess et al., 2013). Unequal opportunities for career advancements have greatly contributed to the barriers that women of colour (WOC) in STEM face due to the misrepresentation and underrepresentation of them within these fields. This negative representation then deters WOC who want to pursue STEM careers in the future. However, these negative impacts can be lessened through the policy implementations outlined below.

​

Firstly, the misrepresentation and underrepresentation of WOC pursuing careers within the STEM fields contribute to the lack of opportunities for that same group to be promoted, which encourages a cyclical process of erasure. These negative representations occur when the scientific contributions of WOC are not accredited to them within the scientific community. Instead, those achievements are credited to their male counterparts; this results in female scientists experiencing what was known as the Matilda effect. Female scientists experience the Matilda effect for their contributions and discoveries simply due to their gender and ethnicity. 

​

For example, Alice Ball was the first African-American woman to complete both a Master’s degree and obtain a professorship in the University of Hawaii’s Chemistry Department. Here, she studied the properties of chaulmoogra oil to help cure leprosy and went on to develop it into an injectable form of the cure by removing its active ingredients. Unfortunately, before she could publish her work, Ball died from an unknown illness at the age of 24 and her work was claimed and completed by another scientist who failed to credit Ball for her initiation of the work (Pak, 2019). Similar to Ball, Chien-Shiung Wu, a well-known Asian-American physicist during the 1940s and '50s, played a prominent role in the making of an atomic bomb. Wu nullified one of the laws of physics on parity through her experiments using cobalt-60. The nullified law stated that “in quantum mechanics, two physical systems—like atoms—that were mirror images would behave in identical ways” (Lee, 2013). This innovation won two scientists the Novel Peace Prize in 1957; neither of the recipients was Wu (Lee, 2013). 

​

While it is easy to assume that this misrepresentation of WOC in STEM fields is a thing of the past, as of 2010, WOC make up only 5.7% of the STEM doctorates employed as faculty within post-secondary institutions: 3.2%  are assistant professors, 2.9% are associate professors, and 1.0% have a full professorship (Hess et al., 2013). However, this low statistic is not due to a small population; WOC in STEM represent 15% of working-age adults (ages 25 to 64 years old) in America (Hess et al., 2013). This shows that WOC pursuing STEM careers do not often get the opportunity to advance within their fields and when they do, their work is often overlooked, making them less likely to be recognized (or awarded) than their male counterparts (Van Meigrot & Glass, 2019). Because of this, female scientists have to continuously prove themselves for their major contributions.

 

Conversely, men experience the “Matthew effect,” which is “the tendency to preferentially and cumulatively bestow accolades to the same few eminent scientists, thus increasing the gap between [the] ‘have’ and ‘have nots’” (Van Meigrot & Glass, 2019). Essentially, the current patriarchal structure ensures that men receive recognition, oftentimes without having to ask for it. Therefore, the disparity between women's constant push for credit and the tendency for men to obtain credit at the expense of the others involved demonstrates a systemic issue that does more than discredit WOC in STEM: It also stunts innovation in unimaginable ways.

 

This gendered disparity in career advancements also has had a negative impact on the WOC who are either currently employed in the STEM field or who are planning to be in the future. The unjust opportunities lead WOC to experience decreased self-esteem and self-confidence due to stereotypical implications reinforced by phallocentric societies. One study showed that women (both white and non-white) are more likely to experience delays in productivity (i.e. taking longer for their publications to process) when they receive “unprofessional” reviews on their publications. This led to women developing self-doubt about their aptitudes within the fields because their contributions and achievements go unnoticed (Nyssa, 2019). Additionally, gender stereotypes are perpetrated when WOC in STEM are forced into teaching, administrative, and other non-research positions, which reinforces the stereotypes of a “nurturing and kind” nature among women (Van Meigrot & Glass, 2019). 

​

Additionally, when WOC are underrepresented in STEM, their contributions, recognition, opinions and (at times) presence is ignored, and they experience racist and sexist remarks, and scrutiny from their male colleagues, making those women appear uncredible in STEM (Wilkins-Yel, Hyman & Zounlome, 2019). A study interviewing female STEM aspirants and scientists asked both groups to describe their journeys and treatment within their fields. Here, one participant described how doors (metaphorically referring to opportunities) were opened for other people, but never for herself. On the other hand, another participant, a post-doctorate fellow, described her experience as a “chilly climate,” because her male supervisor did not believe the data that she collected to the same degree as he believed her male colleagues’ data.

​

Fortunately, all hope is not lost; the sexist and racist issues that have been outlined thus far have solutions that will positively influence the STEM fields for future WOC generations. The “Accelerating Change for Women Faculty of Color in STEM: Policy, Action, and Collaboration” document, developed by the Institute of Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) during the 2-day convening event held by IWPR, documents policies and actions to take based on the statistics of WOC in STEM. It focuses on how various sectors and levels of the STEM fields underrepresent WOC.

 

One of the proposed solutions includes advocating for WOC in STEM by publishing their achievements, contributions, and studies online through public platforms (e.g. websites, social media platforms, etc.) and research databases. By doing so, WOC will receive more attention and the gender and racial discrepancies in the field will receive more awareness through education and representation (2013).

 

IWPR also recommends that funding opportunities for WOC in STEM are improved and increased by creating scholarships, grants and/or other financial support programs through post-secondary institutions, to award, support, and encourage their works and scientific contributions (2013). This will stimulate these groups of WOC in a way that the STEM field has failed to do thus far.

 

Finally, institutional practices can be enhanced for WOC in STEM by taking the following actions:

1. Offer more sabbaticals targeted towards WOC

2. Strengthen policies that support career-life balances

3. Educate tenure and promotion committees about the specific challenges that WOC face

4. Build diverse search committees for new faculty hires

5. Execute leadership around the values of diversity

6. Implement “contextualized” mentoring plans that acknowledge common barriers and inequities affecting WOC in STEM. These should include tools and processes for mentor training and evaluation (i.e. case scenarios) (Hess et al., 2013).

In conclusion, when these solutions are implemented, more WOC will be given opportunities to advance their careers within STEM.

​

To summarize, the solutions to the misrepresentation and underrepresentation are more complex than simple retroactive accreditation.  Instead, deep systemic injustices need to be completely uprooted. As a WOC in STEM, I have watched my peers be discredited, despite the tremendous contributions they made towards their respective fields. And, because this discrediting is so pervasive, it is not uncommon for people to be unaware that it is happening at all, which makes starting these conversations that much more difficult.

 

References:

​

Hess, C., Gault, B., & Yi, Y. (2013). Accelerating Change for Women Faculty of Color in        

STEM: Policy, Action, and Collaboration. Washington, DC: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. doi:https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556719.pdf

​

Hoegh, J., & Pawley, A. (2010). AC 2010-1754: MODELING THE CAREER PATHWAYS OF 

WOMEN ENGINEERING FACULTY THROUGH ORAL HISTORIES AND   PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH METHODS. Retrieved from American Society for  Engineering Education.

​

Jewett, E. C. (2019). AP STEM Course-Taking and College STEM Major Selection: An   Examination of the Relationship and How It Differs by Gender and Race/Ethnicity   [ProQuest LLC]. In ProQuest LLC.

​

Lee, J. J. (2013). 6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/5/130519-women- scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/

​

Nyssa J. S., & Amber D. S. (2019). Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ, 7, e8247. https://doi-       org.ezproxy.mohawkcollege.ca/10.7717/peerj.8247

​

Pak, E. (2019). Alice Ball and 7 Female Scientists Whose Discoveries Were Credited to Men.  Biography. Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/news/alice-ball-female-scientists

​

Van Meigrot, H., & Glass, C. (2019). Awards recognition as a source of gender inequality in academic STEM.

​

Wilkins-Yel, K. G., Hyman, J, & Zounlome, N. O. O. (2019). Linking intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility to experiences of microaggressions among graduate women of colour in STEM. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.018.