Whether we like it or not, science and technology are integral to our lives, and it is hard to imagine a future where that is no longer true, apocalypses aside. It is perhaps surprising then that much of science often is – and is seen as – the preserve of the wealthy ‘pale, male and stale’, when it affects each and every one of us. Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being an old, white man – some of the people I most admire are old, white men – but sometimes the status quo needs to change.
Science, technology, engineering and maths are often bundled together and given the acronym ‘STEM’. The importance of STEM subjects at school and beyond is widely recognised, and industry is often touted as facing a ‘STEM skills shortage’. In an economy with a growing tech sector, skills such as computer programming, software development, engineering, information security or communications are in high demand. People with the right skillset are in such short supply that recruiters are struggling to fill posts, setting the sector back an estimated £1.5bn a year in recruitment, temporary staffing, inflated salaries and additional training costs.
Against this backdrop of high demand, the lack of diversity in our STEM students and workforce is astonishing. Women, people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are under-represented in a whole swathe of sciences. These groups contain so much untapped potential. Industry’s needs aside, we owe it to these people to open up science and STEM to everyone.
But why is there a problem? Surely science already is open to everyone? In the words of disgraced physicist Alessandro Strumia, “It is not as if they send limousines to pick up boys wanting to study physics and build walls to keep out the women.” Literally, that is clearly nonsense. But figuratively… are there walls that keep women out? Though the barriers to STEM might not be obvious to those for whom they didn’t exist, that doesn’t deny their reality for others.
Put ‘scientist’ into your favourite image search engine, and you will be presented with pictures of people in white coats staring at glassware full of colourful liquids or maybe squinting down microscopes. For a start, there is so much science that has nothing to do with white coats and test tubes that gets entirely missed out of this stereotypical portrait. But if you start to look at the people, chances are the line-up doesn’t look terribly diverse, with a disproportionate number of Einstein-lookalikes. This is what people think of when they think ‘scientist’. Scientists are either lab rats or lone geniuses with crazy hair. If that’s not how you see yourself, well then maybe you’re not cut out to be a scientist…
The saying goes ‘if you can’t see it, you can’t be it’
Scientist gender stereotypes are ingrained from an early age. When asked to ‘draw a scientist’ in a recent US study, although 58% of school-age girls drew their scientist as female, only 13% of boys did. (This is nevertheless is a vast improvement on a similar study undertaken in 1966-77, in which 99.4% of scientists were drawn as male.) The stereotypes are also international: data from 66 nations in a 2014 study indicated strong associations between science and men across the board. If your self-concept and your idea of what a scientist should be like are so distinct, are you very likely to pursue science? The same study showed that in countries with a stronger gender-science stereotype, there are fewer women enrolled in tertiary science education and lower female employment in the researcher workforce. Although it isn’t clear whether the stereotype impacts the employment figures, or whether poor employment figures drive the stereotype (and it seems quite possible that this is a vicious circle), the stereotype of science as male needs to go.
Above and beyond stereotypes, role models play a key part in paving a path into STEM fields. A survey by Microsoft in 2018 demonstrated that UK girls are more interested in STEM subjects when they have a role model who is interested in STEM. In addition, girls with role models in STEM were found to believe more strongly in their STEM abilities: more of them evaluate themselves as high performers across every STEM subject compared to girls without role models. These role models didn’t have to be real, either, to have an effect. The portrayal of female scientists in our films and books is thus crucial, and there is clearly an appetite for it. From Gravity to Ghostbusters, via blockbuster Marvel adventure Black Panther, we are starting to see more women scientists centre stage on our screens. The 2016 film Hidden Figures, which tells the story of black female mathematicians at NASA during the Space Race, grossed $236 million worldwide and received three Oscar nominations and two Golden Globes. These stories and characters are not just a niche interest for a few feminist scientists – their appeal is global.
But while our STEM workforce remains relatively non-diverse, we have a problem. Either the visibility of diverse role models will remain relatively low, because there statistically just aren’t that many people of colour or women in certain fields, or else those minority scientists will be called upon to do a disproportionate amount of ‘limelight work’ that gives them a platform to stand as role models but takes them away from their research. There is not a straightforward way out of this dilemma, and minority groups are bound to lose either way.
Role models also play into career aspirations. The same study by Microsoft found that more girls can imagine themselves in a STEM career if they have a STEM role model. Nevertheless, an appreciation of what a STEM career might look like is often missing. I know from experience that if you ask a classroom of 12-year-olds what career they might have if they do a physics degree, you will by and large get two answers: physics researcher and physics teacher. Of course, this is only a tiny fragment of the opportunities opened up by studying a physics degree – or any STEM degree for that matter. But as far as students are aware, these are the main routes out of a physics degree, and if they’re not paths you want, why would you invest in the first place?
There is a lack of adequate careers provision in many schools and this will hold for anything beyond the most typical STEM careers. From special effects designer to patent lawyer or science journalist to games developer, the paths open from STEM apprenticeships and degrees are countless, but if students aren’t aware of the possibilities, you are reliant on them choosing to study the subject in spite of an apparent lack of career prospects. This can only limit the appeal of pursuing STEM studies in further and higher education.
From challenges to solutions
I’ve outlined here three important challenges that feed into the problem of a lack of diversity in STEM; pervasive, narrow stereotypes, a paucity of relatable role models and a lack of awareness of career opportunities all contribute to the ongoing under-representation of women, BAME people and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. These all present sometimes invisible but nevertheless extant barriers to pursuing STEM subjects, particularly if you don’t match the majority who have already made it. But these are barriers that we can – and must – break down.
Outreach in science and STEM is becoming increasingly valued, understood and professionalised. In August 2018 I was appointed as Hertford College’s STEM Outreach Officer to head up the college’s work on supporting and encouraging those from groups currently under-represented in STEM to study these subjects in further and higher education. STEM outreach takes many forms and increasingly focuses on facilitating public engagement with research. This can be anything from learning about a research topic to undertaking ‘citizen science’ projects, in which non-experts can access and analyse data, often through a helpful, step-by-step framework, leading sometimes to new discoveries and scientific papers.
STEM outreach also builds connections between scientists and those outside of science, which is critical for eroding some of the barriers to participation in STEM. Outreach gives people a chance to simply see real-life scientists. This might not sound like much, but it shows that scientists are normal people, with lives and interests and hobbies beyond their research. It also shows that science is not just microscopes and test tubes of colourful liquid. It’s fields and dinosaurs and maths and telescopes and programming and oceans and populations and graphs and so much more. By connecting scientists and non-scientists, we can build relationships and break down stereotypes.
This ‘humanising’ of scientists makes them more relatable, which is also important if they are to serve as a role model for future scientists. Moreover, the more scientists a young person sees, the more likely they are to find one they can look up to. Connecting directly with STEM professionals also offers the chance to learn more about potential career paths in a very tangible way.
There are many reasons to work together to tear down these barriers. The STEM skills gap faced by industry and employers needs bridging if we are to have a vibrant tech sector and thriving economy. A further economic motivator is that companies with diverse teams simply perform better. In a survey of 1,000 companies across 12 countries, management consultants McKinsey demonstrated that gender and ethnic diversity are clearly correlated with profitability. So even the most hard-nosed business person with no moral compass should be backing initiatives to bring in a more diverse workforce!
Everyone has the right freely to… share in scientific advancement and its benefits
UN Declaration of Human Rights
At any rate, the social justice motives for opening STEM subjects and careers to anyone and everyone are clear: everyone has a right to science. In fact, this is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which says that ‘Everyone has the right freely to… share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ To my mind, “sharing in scientific advancements” means more than just having the latest smartphone or the fastest broadband or access to revolutionary medicines. Sharing those advancements means appreciating and understanding them, being scientifically literate, and having science as part of our shared culture.
Moreover, a population with positive attitudes towards science is more likely to share in those advancements, and the benefits can be societal as well as personal. Vaccinations are, I think, a good example of this. A population with an awareness of risk, a penchant for critical thinking and an appreciation of good science is highly likely to ensure that all children, so far as is possible, are vaccinated against diseases such as measles. One in ten children with measles ends up in hospital and there is no treatment for the infection. Complications of measles include lung infections, diarrhoea and vomiting, ear and eye infections, febrile seizures and even hepatitis, meningitis and vision loss. In spite of this, some parents refuse their children the protection of vaccination. Not only does this put their children at risk, but it also increases the risk for children and adults who for medical reasons cannot receive the vaccine. Would this happen in a society that wholly values and shares in scientific advancements?
Working to make sure that everyone knows science is ‘for them’ is one of the key goals of STEM outreach. We want people to think not only that they can be a scientist or do science if they want to, but also that science is normal. Science is not just for boffins and brainboxes and clever clogs Einsteins. Anyone can share in the beauty and wonder and downright usefulness of science. And those of us who are lucky enough to have found a place for ourselves in STEM owe it to everyone.
