This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in STEM fields article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, I am trying to improve the article paragraph that muddles multiple studies without specifying which ones are being referred to. It is very confusing as I was trying to see which ones are being referred to out of the 8 sources at the end.
The current wording says:
"A 2018 study originally claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Some commentators argued that this was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox. However, a 2019 correction to the study outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". Harvard researchers were unable to independently recreate the data reported in the study. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis." Then 8 confusing sources.
1) For one there are two 2018 studies. Falk 2018 and Geary 2018. Falk is independent of Geary and does not even use the "gender equality paradox" term. Geary uses that term. Geary in not a commentator, but a researcher. Makes it seem like one is a researcher the other is a commentator. Geary 2018 does not cite Falk 2018 either. So how can Geary be a commentator of Falk?
2) Geary and Richardson are debating each other with Geary writing the 2018 paper, then Geary wriitng a correction - clarifying his paper, Richardson replying to the original paper and correction, and Geary replying to Richardson. Falk is not addressed by Richardson, only Geary is.
3) I separated Falk since his study is an independent study of Geary and Richardson.
4) The current wording makes it seem like there are two responses to Geary, when there is only one - Richardson.
As a result of all of this muddling in the above paragraphs, I see WP:SYN in the current wording.
Here is is my edit in 3 colors (purple wording not changed, just attributed; blue - contextualized per source; green - extra source to try to balance previous paragraph) :
A 2018 study by Falk and Hermle claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.[171][172]
A 2018 study by Geary and Stoet argued that there was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox.[173] However, Geary and Stoet issued a correction in 2019 clarifying that they were measuring two things: the percentage of girls likely to succeed in studying STEM via PISA scores and the "propensity" of women to graduate in STEM fields.[174][175] A follow-up paper by Richardson et al. in 2020 claimed that the negative association between gender equality and women’s STEM achievement does not persist when the measures of gender equality and achievement change.[176][177] Geary and Stoet responded to Richardson's team in a follow-up paper in 2020 stating that their results are consistent with broader literature on other traits that show larger gender gaps in more egalitarian countries and that independent studies such as Falk and Hermle (2018) reached the same conclusion on preferences for STEM among the sexes.[178]
A 2020 study by Breda et al. argued that gender stereotypes associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries and that this is associated with various measures of female underrepresentation in math-intensive fields such STEM fields. They argue that gender norms, instead of innate preferences, can explain the gender-equality paradox.[179]
My edit clarifies what each source is saying - the views should be presented as each source says it, who is responding to who, and is eliminating WP:SYN with attributions to follow the sequence of arguments. I also added another independent source at the end. If no objections to this, I will re-insert the improvement. Ramos1990 ( talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Please see also WP:EXCEPTIONAL, a section of WP:V: "
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
The Global Preferences Survey asked participants about how they would respond in different scenarios involving six social factors: risk taking, patience, altruism, trust, and positive and negative reciprocation (responding in kind to positive or negative interactions). For example, for positive reciprocity respondents had to settle on how much they would pay for a thank-you gift to a total stranger in return for a kind deed." Do you see any connection with women in STEM fields here? The article goes on to mention some experts who have criticized the study for being simplistic and ignoring important variables. Despite the title of the magazine, I don't see where the "science" is in this article. By the way, there's currently a discussion going on at Talk:Scientific American about how Wikipedia should describe the criticism of that magazine for having veered away from science toward politics and sensationalism.
are commonly overlooked or downplayed", and states that its purpose is to argue against the view that biological explanations are unimportant or nonexistent. So the article admits that it's arguing for a viewpoint that is not common in the field ("commonly overlooked or downplayed"), and it's a summary of the case for one side of the debate. NightHeron ( talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas." Saying that there is not always a direct correlation is very different from saying that there's a reverse correlation (between gender equality and participation in a STEM field such as ICT). (2) They say nothing about biological reasons for the supposed paradox. (3) The source mentions the example of some countries of the Middle East. What the quote does not explain is that the very negative reputation countries such as Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar have on gender comes primarily from reports of mistreatment and lack of rights of poor women, mainly guest workers brought in from south and southeast Asia. The situation for professional women is much better. In contrast, in the US most working-class women have better treatment and more rights than in the Mideast (with the exception of undocumented migrant workers), but professional women in ICT in Silicon Valley California have been subjected to tremendously discriminatory treatment. (4) So the situation is far more complicated than what's misleadingly conveyed by the catch-phrase "gender-equality paradox" and is also much more complicated than what's explained either in the original paragraph or your rewritten version. NightHeron ( talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of the original paragraph. However, what you replaced it with is not at all an accurate summary of the UNESCO sources. Those sources do not claim that "there is a general negative correlation". Rather, according to the UNESCO quotes you gave above, "countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas" and "countries with higher levels of gender equality do not necessarily have more girls enrolled in ICT or STEM programmes in school". The meaning of the words "do not always" and "do not necessarily" is very different from claiming a general negative correlation.
After this lengthy discussion, we still haven't arrived at a reasonable way to very briefly describe the concept of a so-called "gender-equality paradox". So it seems to me that the best option is not to bring it up at all, except perhaps for a link to Gender-equality paradox in the "See also" section. NightHeron ( talk) 01:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ritalyo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo ( talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loudcat44 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by PurplePhoneLaptop ( talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in STEM fields article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, I am trying to improve the article paragraph that muddles multiple studies without specifying which ones are being referred to. It is very confusing as I was trying to see which ones are being referred to out of the 8 sources at the end.
The current wording says:
"A 2018 study originally claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Some commentators argued that this was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox. However, a 2019 correction to the study outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". Harvard researchers were unable to independently recreate the data reported in the study. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis." Then 8 confusing sources.
1) For one there are two 2018 studies. Falk 2018 and Geary 2018. Falk is independent of Geary and does not even use the "gender equality paradox" term. Geary uses that term. Geary in not a commentator, but a researcher. Makes it seem like one is a researcher the other is a commentator. Geary 2018 does not cite Falk 2018 either. So how can Geary be a commentator of Falk?
2) Geary and Richardson are debating each other with Geary writing the 2018 paper, then Geary wriitng a correction - clarifying his paper, Richardson replying to the original paper and correction, and Geary replying to Richardson. Falk is not addressed by Richardson, only Geary is.
3) I separated Falk since his study is an independent study of Geary and Richardson.
4) The current wording makes it seem like there are two responses to Geary, when there is only one - Richardson.
As a result of all of this muddling in the above paragraphs, I see WP:SYN in the current wording.
Here is is my edit in 3 colors (purple wording not changed, just attributed; blue - contextualized per source; green - extra source to try to balance previous paragraph) :
A 2018 study by Falk and Hermle claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.[171][172]
A 2018 study by Geary and Stoet argued that there was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox.[173] However, Geary and Stoet issued a correction in 2019 clarifying that they were measuring two things: the percentage of girls likely to succeed in studying STEM via PISA scores and the "propensity" of women to graduate in STEM fields.[174][175] A follow-up paper by Richardson et al. in 2020 claimed that the negative association between gender equality and women’s STEM achievement does not persist when the measures of gender equality and achievement change.[176][177] Geary and Stoet responded to Richardson's team in a follow-up paper in 2020 stating that their results are consistent with broader literature on other traits that show larger gender gaps in more egalitarian countries and that independent studies such as Falk and Hermle (2018) reached the same conclusion on preferences for STEM among the sexes.[178]
A 2020 study by Breda et al. argued that gender stereotypes associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries and that this is associated with various measures of female underrepresentation in math-intensive fields such STEM fields. They argue that gender norms, instead of innate preferences, can explain the gender-equality paradox.[179]
My edit clarifies what each source is saying - the views should be presented as each source says it, who is responding to who, and is eliminating WP:SYN with attributions to follow the sequence of arguments. I also added another independent source at the end. If no objections to this, I will re-insert the improvement. Ramos1990 ( talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Please see also WP:EXCEPTIONAL, a section of WP:V: "
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
The Global Preferences Survey asked participants about how they would respond in different scenarios involving six social factors: risk taking, patience, altruism, trust, and positive and negative reciprocation (responding in kind to positive or negative interactions). For example, for positive reciprocity respondents had to settle on how much they would pay for a thank-you gift to a total stranger in return for a kind deed." Do you see any connection with women in STEM fields here? The article goes on to mention some experts who have criticized the study for being simplistic and ignoring important variables. Despite the title of the magazine, I don't see where the "science" is in this article. By the way, there's currently a discussion going on at Talk:Scientific American about how Wikipedia should describe the criticism of that magazine for having veered away from science toward politics and sensationalism.
are commonly overlooked or downplayed", and states that its purpose is to argue against the view that biological explanations are unimportant or nonexistent. So the article admits that it's arguing for a viewpoint that is not common in the field ("commonly overlooked or downplayed"), and it's a summary of the case for one side of the debate. NightHeron ( talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas." Saying that there is not always a direct correlation is very different from saying that there's a reverse correlation (between gender equality and participation in a STEM field such as ICT). (2) They say nothing about biological reasons for the supposed paradox. (3) The source mentions the example of some countries of the Middle East. What the quote does not explain is that the very negative reputation countries such as Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar have on gender comes primarily from reports of mistreatment and lack of rights of poor women, mainly guest workers brought in from south and southeast Asia. The situation for professional women is much better. In contrast, in the US most working-class women have better treatment and more rights than in the Mideast (with the exception of undocumented migrant workers), but professional women in ICT in Silicon Valley California have been subjected to tremendously discriminatory treatment. (4) So the situation is far more complicated than what's misleadingly conveyed by the catch-phrase "gender-equality paradox" and is also much more complicated than what's explained either in the original paragraph or your rewritten version. NightHeron ( talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of the original paragraph. However, what you replaced it with is not at all an accurate summary of the UNESCO sources. Those sources do not claim that "there is a general negative correlation". Rather, according to the UNESCO quotes you gave above, "countries with higher gender equality levels do not always have a higher proportion of women pursuing ICT-related diplomas" and "countries with higher levels of gender equality do not necessarily have more girls enrolled in ICT or STEM programmes in school". The meaning of the words "do not always" and "do not necessarily" is very different from claiming a general negative correlation.
After this lengthy discussion, we still haven't arrived at a reasonable way to very briefly describe the concept of a so-called "gender-equality paradox". So it seems to me that the best option is not to bring it up at all, except perhaps for a link to Gender-equality paradox in the "See also" section. NightHeron ( talk) 01:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ritalyo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo ( talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loudcat44 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by PurplePhoneLaptop ( talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)