"More than Just a Princess" - GoldieBlox

We hear all the time that women are underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology Engineering, and Mathematics), with the solution usually being proposed that education and encouragement needs to happen for girls when they are young.  But just how do we make that happen?

A new startup called GoldieBlox will soon be manufacturing a toy specifically designed for young girls to teach them concepts related to engineering.  Founder Debbie Sterling raised nearly double the funding goal she set on Kickstarter, from over 5500 donors giving on average $51.  She spent a year researching the way girls play and how they would best engage with an engineering tool, discovering that girls enjoy reading much more than boys do.  By combining reading with building, Sterling has provided an enticing new way for girls to engage with engineering concepts very early on.

There is clearly a need for more STEM-inspired toys that appeal to girls.  Without getting into the whole ultra-gendered nature of kids toys and whether that's good or bad, I think we can all agree that if you walk into a toy store, there are clearly "boy" toys and "girl" toys.  Some brands, like Lego, have tried to get around this issue with gender-neutral advertising - there's a great piece on the Sociological Images blog about this campaign and why it failed.  We can learn from marketing efforts like the Bic for Her fiasco, that simply making a pink version of something is not going to cut the mustard.

And that's what I like about GoldieBlox.  It's designed from observing how girls and boys differ in how they play (whether we socialize it into them is another whole issue).  And it specifically targets those differences to get girls more interested in engineering concepts.  It doesn't just focus on making something "pretty" or smell nice or whatever it is that girls are supposed to aspire to with most of their other toys.  It looks much deeper at how girls like to play, and how that enthusiasm doesn't have to be limited to dolls playing house.

I'll end this post with a personal note about why it's so important for girls to learn about engineering at an early age.  When I was a junior in high school, I received an award from the Society of Women Engineers because I excelled at math and science.  And I and NO IDEA what an engineer was, and no idea what that meant for my own career.  And all I learned about the Society of Women Engineers is that they give high school girls awards and then never contact them again.  But maybe they've changed in the last decade.  Anyway, it did get me to look up what engineering was, and I did apply to (and was accepted to) a top engineering program for college (though opted for a traditional liberal arts college instead).  But clearly there this is not an efficient way to get girls into STEM.

There's much more work that needs to be done to encourage girls and young women to go into STEM fields, and I have personally felt this need.  We need more entrepreneurs like Debbie Sterling to develop thoughtful approaches to encouraging girls to engage in fun STEM activities.  I wish her all the best in developing her line of engineering toys that engage girls.

What do you think of STEM toys targeted at young girls?  I'd love to hear your feedback!

The Broad Experience Podcast Series

I've recently discovered a podcast series about professional women that is really fantastic.  Ashley Milne-Tyte, a British-American journalist based in NYC, publishes a series of interviews with an array of accomplished leaders, all around the topics of women and work.  Each addresses an important issue for professional women, from entrepreneurship and technology to ambition and power.

She even has one on diversity training for white men, which addresses what sociologists would call intersectionality (see?  I'm bring in the Sociology here).   Intersectionality is a theory that describes a situation where two characteristics of a person, such as race and gender, when combined, amplify social inequality associated with each of the characteristics.  Two (or more) statuses can interact, usually in a negative way, to cause worse discrimination than if the person only had one of the characteristics.  So, in general, being a woman and being non-white in the US is related to more discrimination than being a white woman or a non-white man.  Of course there are always exceptions, but these terms help us to understand the unique experiences that different kinds of minorities face in work and entrepreneurship.

Each podcast is about 10 minutes, and she brings on a ton of interesting, articulate guests from a variety of industries.  Worth a listen for anyone interested in gender and social psychological processes as they happen in the workplace.  Or anyone who is looking for career guidance, or who is simply interested in understanding more about how gender affects work.

So take a break and check out The Broad Experience.  There's also a newsletter you can sign up for, as well as a Facebook group.  I, for one, look forward to seeing what she comes out with next!

Why Aren't There More Female Programmers?

I usually don't get too excited about days dedicated to some historic figure, but yesterday National Geographic published an article about the October 16 being the day dedicated to the first person to write a computer program.  Why is this so interesting?  Because the first person to write a computer program was none other than poet Lord Byron's daughter, Ada Lovelace in 1843.  Very interesting considering computer most computer programmers in the US are men.

Ada Lovelace Day is marketed as a day to recognize the contributions of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. While you can read all about the many accomplishments of women in STEM fields elsewhere, what I wonder is why did something that was developed by a woman become a field entirely dominated by men?  And why aren't there more women programmers?

It could be that women just aren't good at learning how to program, and Ada Lovelace was just kind of strange.  While she may have been strange, it's unlikely that other women can't be good programmers.  Time and time again, studies show that women don't lack the brain capacity needed for programming.  First off, women are better at learning new languages than men, down to the biological level.  Second, women now score higher on IQ tests than men.  Third, women and men show no difference in the old analytical reasoning section of the GRE nor in the new analytical writing section.  So we really shouldn't be seeing differences in ability to program by gender.

Maybe women don't want to be programmers.  That's what Justin James argues when he writes that "women are not attracted to programming at all."  But if that were really so, we wouldn't see any women in programming, and it doesn't explain why 30 years ago there were nearly equal numbers of men and women in computer science courses at universities.

If it's not ability or preference, then it must be something outside a woman's control.  I don't have all the answers or explanations.  But, my earlier post on stereotype threat and organizational culture discusses how the culture of technology firms and university departments systematically excludes women, leading many to abandon the career path they otherwise would have wanted.

So on this day that at least a few people are talking about Ada Lovelace, it's a good time to think about what we can do to diversify the programming workforce and create an environment where all people can and do pursue their desired career.

Women, Technology, and Stereotype Threat

It's no secret that women are underrepresented in the tech world.  With a smaller proportion of women receiving computer and information science degrees in 2009 than in 1985 (it went from 37% women in 1985 down to 18% in 2009!), the future for women in computer science looks bleak.  A recent article on the Women 2.0 blog by Christian Fernandez highlighted the lack of female representation in computer science courses in universities, with women representing only 10-20% of students graduating with computer science degrees, despite some programs starting with a 50/50 gender ratio.  He attributes this to women feeling intimidated by a hostile environment that leaves them feeling inadequate.

The sociological term for this phenomenon is called "stereotype threat," and it means that the individual (woman in this case), being part of society, recognizes that there is a negative stereotype about them. In this case, the stereotype is that women are not as good as men at technical stuff.  Because they recognize this, they become anxious that they will inadvertently confirm the stereotype.  In response, they behave in certain ways that can undermine their success, or, they may overcompensate for what they think will be a negative reaction by working harder than everyone else.  In the first case, they are faced with failure, and in the second, with burnout.  Sociologists have studied this phenomenon in great detail when it comes to racial stereortypes.

But stereotype threat is also a concept that tends to blame the victim.  By saying that women's worries about confirming negative stereotypes are causing them to drop out and feel inadequate, we are missing out on the importance of the social context in contributing to women's under-representation in technology.  In particular, Fernandez's report that women felt the environment in computer science courses was "hostile" towards women, indicates that this is not just about how these women feel about themselves and their abilities.

The context and culture of the university (or workplace) are critical in creating this hostile environment.  This includes things like whether women are in leadership positions, whether the work is structured as competitive or collaborative, and whether efforts are made to highlight the contributions of minorities and ensure they are included in activities.  Thus, it is one thing to prepare young women for university-level coursework, but it is altogether another to create an environment in which they can thrive without gender being an issue.


What's the solution?
Universities and high schools need to place an emphasis on structuring the work environment in a way that doesn't privilege the status quo.  For example, women may feel isolated from the community of computer science students if study or work groups are divided by gender.  Providing opportunities for more interaction among students in a non-competitive environment may help to bring down some of the barriers women face in these programs.  Young women may also be looking for role models, and either bringing in guest lecturers or hiring more female faculty members would provide young women with an opportunity to learn from those who have been there before them.

Why does this matter for startups?
In industries where there are few minorities, like women in tech, it's important to be aware of ways you may be alienating those who are not typical of your industry.  For example, while Beer Fridays can be a great team spirit-building time for small companies, they may also exclude those who choose not to drink alcohol, or who feel obligated to drink alcohol when they'd prefer not to.  This is something that women think about because they are physically smaller and cannot process as much alcohol as men, so two beers for a petite woman could make her quite tipsy while a 200 pound man would barely notice it.  Because of this, some women or people who do not drink alcohol, may remove themselves from otherwise fun group activities.  So try to make your events as open and welcoming to all kinds of people in your business.

What else can universities or businesses do support gender equality in computer science and technology programs?