Article originally published in 2018
I met PhD candidate Gita Ghiasi Hafezi at a conference entitled “Women in Deep Learning” a few weeks back. In essence, Gita was explaining the systematic undervaluing of women’s contribution to science. When the first comment from a man in the audience was “This is wrong”, I confess I found it hard not to notice the irony of the situation. An update from Gita Ghiasi Hafezi.
What is the Matilda Effect?
The Matilda Effect was coined by science historian Margaret W. Rossiter as opposed to the Matthew effect. It refers to the systematic undervaluing of the contribution of women in science, whose work is often attributed to their male colleagues. The Matilda effect is named after Matilda Joslyn Gage, who first observed this phenomenon in the 19th century. In our research, we found that female engineers are less often cited despite the fact that they publish in journals with a higher impact than their male colleagues. This is consistent with the Matilda effect in that female publications receive less recognition than is expected – in this case, expected from the scientific journal in which their discoveries are published. When women are first authors, their papers receive citations from their co-authors at a higher rate than their male counterparts. This shows that even if women do little to promote their work, and their publications receive less recognition from the scientific community than those of their male peers, their work is still promoted and recognized at a higher rate by their immediate co-authors.
What are female stereotypes in the workplace?
According to Kanter’s theory of tokenism (1977), women have token status when they represent a minority in a male-dominated workplace. In her research, Kanter highlights the additional pressure token women feel as a result of their disproportionate representation and thus increased visibility. This often leads to exclusion and isolation from their peer group, and ultimately to poor community recognition. Because token women are perceived and treated differently, they are forced into a clichéd role, or in Kanter’s words: “a role with traps”. The researcher identifies four clichéd characters: the mother, the seductress, the pet and the iron maiden.
The mother: refers to women in charge of emotional work. It’s all about smiling, being caring, understanding and supportive, and exchanging pleasantries. Although the “mother” role can offer a privileged situation for women, women trapped in this role are often perceived as less serious professionals, due to their maternal or emotional responsibilities.
The seductress: this role refers to both sexuality and gender roles. Consequently, this category ranges from everything to do with dress and appearance, behavior and speech, as well as being “feminine”, right up to the victim of sexual harassment.
The pet: this role is considered cute, sweet or “girly”. This type of woman must stay on the sidelines or function as a decoration in meetings. They are perceived as less mature and less competent.
The iron maiden: this label refers to women who don’t adopt the feminine behavior expected of them and show masculine traits. This type of woman is perceived as non-conforming because she goes against the grain.
Why and how are women tokens in science?
The study by Larivière et al (2013) showed that the production of scientific articles is dominated by men: women account for less than 30% of authors. In this study, male-dominated disciplines are identified as military science, engineering, robotics, aeronautics, astronautics, high-energy physics, mathematics, computer science, philosophy and economics. Due to the low representation of women in these fields, they are more likely to be victims of tokenism.
Why are quotas not the solution?
Many argue that the introduction of quotas, as a stand-alone solution, could lead to tokenism and a high level of visibility. This increased visibility creates overwhelming pressure on women to succeed, and usually results in either under- or over-performance, both of which are obstacles to the advancement of women in science.
So what are the solutions?
Implementing quotas as a single measure would probably be superficial in repairing the brain drain and breaking the glass ceiling for women in science, unless it reinforces systematic economic equality measures in ways that support productivity, diversity and inclusion. I don’t have a definitive answer to this question. We researchers usually leave this to the decision-makers. The right policy decisions have the potential to frame a science system that not only attracts, but retains women in science, also fostering greater collaboration of weight with women. However, in my personal opinion, we (as individuals) are part of the solution. As professors, researchers, managers, graduate students, it’s important to keep in mind that there are gender biases in science. Taking equity measures into account is essential for hiring, evaluations and collaborative processes.
Why do women in science cite their own research less than men?
On the one hand, self-citations are an inevitable part of scientific research. They are reflected in the ongoing expansion of a researcher’s previous research. On the other hand, self-citations are powerful for artificially inflating citation rates and reinvigorating an author’s position among the scientific community. There are two possible reasons why women self-cite less than men:
– It could be due to the fact that scientific production is dominated by men, and the expansion of previous studies is more likely to be associated with men than with women.
– This may be linked to gender differences in the promotion of their work.
What is the selection effect?
Women are just as suggestible, if not more so, than their male counterparts in male-dominated engineering fields. This leads to a very strong selection effect: unless they are highly qualified and accomplished, women tend to leave the field.
How do women in science contribute to the reproduction of sexist prejudices?
Women contribute to the reproduction of male-dominated scientific structures by forming collaborations mainly with men. As a result, it could be said that women engineers are conforming to the male-dominated scientific system rather than changing its structure.
Gita Ghiasi Hafezi is a PhD candidate in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Concordia University and at the Interuniversity Research Centre for Science and Technology (CIRST). She holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Teheran and a master’s degree in international business from the University of Warsaw. Her thesis focuses on equity, equality and the challenges of nanotechnology development. More specifically, her research looks at the intersection of economic and gender inequalities, and examines the role of women in advancing nanotechnology applications to help eradicate poverty.
