It’s Not About the Numbers.
For the past two years, I have been deeply involved in initiatives that support women in science and technology. I volunteer with ACM-W Europe, an organization dedicated to empowering women in computing. Whenever people ask me how we can “get more women into STEM,” I always begin by making one point clear.
Women are not underrepresented in STEM.
That statement often surprises people, but it highlights a common misunderstanding. What many people actually mean is that women are underrepresented in specific STEM disciplines, particularly engineering, computer science, and some areas of physics. STEM is much broader than that. It also includes fields such as pharmacy, biochemistry, biology, and chemistry, where women often make up close to half, or even the majority, of students.
The problem, therefore, is not STEM as a whole. It is where women end up within STEM and what happens to them once they are there.
This distinction matters because it changes the question entirely. Instead of asking how to increase the number of women entering STEM, we should ask why women remain disproportionately absent from positions of influence, leadership, and decision-making across many scientific disciplines.
It Is About Quality, Not Quantity
I do not volunteer for women in computing because I believe we simply need higher numbers. Numbers alone say very little.
Imagine a university where women account for 50 percent of students in a discipline, yet only 15 percent of professors, department heads, or research directors. Statistically, women are well represented among students, but structurally they remain underrepresented where power, prestige, and resources are concentrated.
This phenomenon has been documented repeatedly across scientific fields. Women often leave academic careers at higher rates than men, a pattern frequently described as the “leaky pipeline.” The causes are complex and include unequal access to mentoring, implicit bias, workplace culture, family responsibilities, and promotion practices rather than differences in ability or ambition (Shaw & Stanton, 2012).
If we genuinely want to improve STEM, then our objective should not be to increase female enrolment at any cost. It should be to remove unnecessary barriers that prevent talented women from building successful scientific careers.
A Pattern That Keeps Repeating
History suggests that perceptions of “male” and “female” disciplines are remarkably unstable.
I study philosophy, a subject that was historically regarded as unsuitable for women. For centuries, women were largely excluded from universities and philosophical scholarship. Today, in many countries, women make up a substantial proportion of philosophy students, although senior academic positions still show considerable gender imbalance.
The arts present a similar story. Numerous professions that were once overwhelmingly male gradually became gender balanced or even female dominated once institutional barriers changed.
This historical pattern should make us cautious whenever we describe an entire discipline as being naturally “for men.” Social expectations, educational opportunities, cultural stereotypes, and institutional structures have changed dramatically over the past century. The modern women’s rights movement in many Western countries is barely half a century old. From a historical perspective, this is an extremely short period.
Why, then, should we assume that today’s gender distribution across STEM fields reflects fixed biological preferences rather than social and institutional conditions that continue to evolve?
Engineering Is Not All of STEM
Much of the public discussion unintentionally treats engineering and computer science as if they represented all of STEM.
They do not.
Different scientific disciplines have developed distinct cultures, career paths, and histories. Biology and pharmacy look very different from software engineering or mechanical engineering. If one field achieves gender parity while another continues to struggle, it makes little sense to conclude that “women are underrepresented in STEM.”
Precision in language matters because it shapes public policy. If we misdiagnose the problem, we are unlikely to design effective solutions.
The Goal Should Be Equal Opportunity
There may indeed be individual disciplines that naturally attract more men or more women. Human interests are diverse, and equal opportunity does not necessarily produce identical outcomes.
However, that possibility should never be used to excuse institutional barriers or unequal treatment.
The real objective should be straightforward. Every woman who wants a career in engineering, computer science, chemistry, mathematics, or any other STEM discipline should have the same opportunity to succeed as her male colleagues. She should not encounter additional obstacles because of her gender.
That is a far more meaningful goal than simply celebrating higher enrolment statistics.
If we focus only on increasing numbers, we risk declaring victory too early. True progress is measured not only by who enters STEM, but also by who stays, who leads, who innovates, and who is given the opportunity to shape the future of science.
References
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S. & Williams, W. M. (2014) ‘Women in academic science: A changing landscape’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), pp. 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
Shaw, A. K. & Stanton, D. E. (2012) ‘Leaks in the pipeline: Separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279(1743), pp. 3736–3741. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1492
UNESCO (2021) To Be Smart, the Digital Revolution Will Need to Be Inclusive. Paris: UNESCO.
Wang, M. T. & Degol, J. L. (2017) ‘Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions’, Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), pp. 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.