Research Paper on Sex Differences in Math-Intensive Fields

The Theory and Research Presented in the Paper

The main idea that manifests itself in the research is the under-representation of women in mathematics-based fields. Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams discuss the potential reasons for the proportion of women in disciplines such as economics, engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics, and chemistry, is significantly low compared to less-mathematics-intensive fields. Since the turn of the 20th century, substantial progress has been made towards achieving gender parity in access to education. Educational developments over the last hundred years show that women can now access similar opportunities as men. However, evidence provided by Ceci and Williams suggest that the number of men enrolling for mathematics-oriented disciplines far outstrips that of women. For instance, the authors note that, in the top 100 hundred universities in the US, women occupy 9 percent to 16 percent of tenure-track positions in mathematics-based fields. Thus, the authors seek to know the reason for the significantly low number of women in mathematics-dominated disciplines.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Ceci and Williams narrow their potential causes for the underrepresentation of women in mathematics to three factors: sex discrimination, differences in ability in mathematics among women and men, and the difference in preferences and choices among men and women. In the case of gender discrimination, the researchers note that over the years, women have endured discrimination regarding access to educational and employment opportunities. However, in their analyses, the authors observe that discrimination has not been a factor influencing women's access to education and employment opportunities since the beginning of the 21st century. In effect, Cecil and Williams fail to find any evidence that sex discrimination is responsible for the underrepresentation of women in mathematics-based fields.

The authors further examined the possibility that sex differences in mathematical and spatial ability could be attributed to the fewer number of women in mathematics-leaning fields. The results of their analysis show that males dominated performance in mathematics scores. Even when Ceci and Williams analyzed the performance of K-12 graders in mathematics, it turned out that boy graders performed much better in mathematics than girls. They also observe that males exhibit a higher ability in rotating objects in three-dimensional space. However, the researchers note that females perform as much better as males in mathematics scores when top performers are examined, suggesting that the low performance in mathematics among females is not systematic.

Lastly, Cecil and Williams investigate the influence of differences in interests, preferences, and choices on the low number of women in mathematics-based fields. After analyzing the interests, preferences, and choices among adolescents, the authors report that girls named mathematics-intensive careers a lot less as their preferred career choices compared to boys. The researchers note that girls and women make these choices freely or constrained to do so by society and biology. It was also found that even women with a high aptitude in mathematics preferred and chose careers that are not mathematics-intensive.

How the Theory and Research Addresses the Applied Challenge

The challenge in the case study is that two interlocutors offer different explanations as to why there is an underrepresentation of women in math-intensive professions. One individual proffers that the fewer number of women in mathematics-intensive fields has been occasioned by sex discrimination whereas the other contends that men naturally have superior abilities regarding interpretation and application of mathematical concepts hence succeed more in math compared to women. Although both explanations appear valid, none offers a convincing account for the underrepresentation of women in math-based professions.

First and foremost, the view that sex discrimination disadvantages women from entering math-intensive professions is true, at least to some extent. It is common knowledge that women endured considerable struggles during the 20th century to be given equal treatment to male in all spheres of life. Although there are some areas in society that women still lack parity with men, Ceci and Williams do not find sex discrimination as a factor influencing women's success in mathematics disciplines. Therefore, this explanation cannot solve the 'conflict' in the case study.

On endowment perspective, it is common for people to be gifted differently in terms of abilities. Some can have high aptitude in mathematics while others may show a better understanding of concepts in life sciences/arts. However, evidence of variation based on the sex of the individual suggests that gender has little influence on the ability to grasp mathematical concepts. The study of Ceci and Williams find that males outperform women mathematics scores in both elementary education and higher institutional levels of learning. The research also finds that men are better in three-dimensional skills. Since the same study indicates that women can perform much better than men in math, the view that men are endowed with better mathematical skills cannot be sustained though some evidence suggests that they have an upper hand in this respect.

The underrepresentation of women in mathematics-oriented professions is caused by the interests, preferences, and choices which women exhibit regarding mathematics-based careers. This is the most appropriate response to the conversation in the case study. Accordingly, Ceci and Williams observe that women have better verbal skills compared to men. Such ability gives them a wide pool of career choices thereby allowing them to be spread in all disciplines, unlike men who duel more on math subjects because they understand that it is their area of strength. That is to say, once an individual realizes that career options are limited to the area where they excel, such persons are likely to pursue the path they consider cheaper in the context of their abilities. Additionally, societal and biological factors sometimes compel women to take up careers that are not compatible with mathematics. Professions that are mathematics-oriented tend to have more hours of engagement, especially in high academic levels such as PhDs. The need to work for long hours a day may not be in tandem with women who society expects to attend to children and other domestic issues. In the same breadth, biological reasons, such as delayed fertility choices, can influence women to prefer or choose programs that allow them to have the time to assume motherhood. Moreover, women prefer careers that are characterized by a higher degree of social relations. They are people-oriented beings. Therefore, women are as good as men in mathematics, but due to differing interests in life, they prefer or choose careers that are not mathematics-intensive hence the underrepresentation in math-leaning professions.

Works Cited

Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. "Sex Differences in Math-Intensive Fields." Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 19, no. 5, 2010, pp. 275-279.