‘Leaning In’ or Challenging Barriers? Gender, Academic STEM and Women Scientists’ Perceptions of Career Opportunities

• In Event: 2332 - Jobs, Occupations, and Professions I

Abstract

Women’s underrepresentation in the United States science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce has garnered considerable attention over the past decade. Academic research identifies institutionalized gender barriers and implicit biases as major factors in women’s recruitment, retention and promotion in STEM disciplines (e.g., Britton 2017; Branch 2016). Popular discourse offers multiple explanations for this persistent problem. Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, for example, advocates that women “should be leaning in” (2013, p.8)—suggesting that women who invest more in human capital succeed, while Michele Obama argues, “It’s not always enough to lean in because that shit doesn’t work all the time” (NPR, December 3, 2018)—suggesting that systemic barriers still hold women and other underrepresented groups back. Tensions between arguments about how “the system” appropriately rewards hard work and how the system is “rigged” are not new. The study of what women think about the extent to which their immediate work environments are meritocratic or “rigged” and what causes these differing perspectives, however, is (Cech and Blair-Loy 2010). Using interview data from 53 STEM women faculty working in university settings, this study examines the range of personal views held about the extent to which opportunity and success are function of meritocracy. Results show that while almost a third of participants expressed the view that opportunities and advancement are primarily a function of meritocratic processes, about two thirds viewed meritocratic processes as flawed. We discuss the implications of these findings for broader institutional efforts to reduce inequities in academic STEM.

Authors

• Sharon R. Bird, West Virginia University

• Laura Rhoton