Jump to content

Talk:Women in STEM fields: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Assessment: banner shell, Women scientists (Mid) (Rater)
Line 62: Line 62:
== Notice: Article Contribution ==
== Notice: Article Contribution ==
Hello, my name is Sammas9. I added this section to the talk page because I am contributing to this article. I plan to add more statistics and data about Latin American in Latin America other areas being published in the Central and South American section of Representation of Women Worldwide. I look forward to receiving any feedback from the community. If you want to read what I have so far feel free to take a look at my sandbox. [[User:Sammas9|Sammas9]] ([[User talk:Sammas9|talk]]) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Sammas9. I added this section to the talk page because I am contributing to this article. I plan to add more statistics and data about Latin American in Latin America other areas being published in the Central and South American section of Representation of Women Worldwide. I look forward to receiving any feedback from the community. If you want to read what I have so far feel free to take a look at my sandbox. [[User:Sammas9|Sammas9]] ([[User talk:Sammas9|talk]]) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

== 'Gender equality paradox' - a 'well-established phenomenon'? ==



Hello, I'm thinking this little section needs some changing:

<blockquote>
Recent research<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education|first1=Gijsbert|last1=Stoet|first2=David C.|last2=Geary|date=14 February 2018|
journal=Psychological Science|volume=29|issue=4|pages=581–593|doi=10.1177/0956797617741719|pmid = 29442575|s2cid=4874507|url = http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf|type = Submitted manuscript}}</ref> reveals an interesting phenomenon that has been called the [[gender-equality paradox]]: the more gender equal societies are, the less equal they are in the choices men and women make with respect to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education and careers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/|title=The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM|first=Olga|last=Khazan|date=18 February 2018|publisher=}}</ref> The reasons for this now well-established phenomenon remain a matter of speculation.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patriarchy-paradox-how-equality-reinforces-stereotypes-96cx2bsrp|title=Patriarchy paradox: how equality reinforces stereotypes|first=Tom|last=Whipple|date=15 September 2018|publisher=|via=www.thetimes.co.uk|newspaper=The Times}}</ref>
</blockquote>


1. It ought to specify a time period, rather than simply saying 'recent' - it won't be recent ten years from now.

2. Remove the word 'interesting' - does not fit encyclopaedic tone

3. I don't believe this should be called a 'well-established' phenomenon for the following reasons:

* The 2018 study by Geary et al. in that first citation seems to be the only study covering this.

* The words 'well-established' give the impression that this has been studied and understood for some time, when in fact it comes from Geary et al.'s single, rather recent study.

* The researchers of the 2018 study originally used an undisclosed and unvalidated methodology. When they issued a correction using a new method they could not recreate their findings.

* Separate Harvard researchers could not reproduce the 2018 study's findings.

* Various researchers found there were problems in the study's methodology - the accuracy of its data, the method by which it determined 'gender equality', and the method by which it determined female representation in STEM.

I think the study should still be mentioned, but I think it is being given far more weight than it ought to be, and its various problems should be addressed.

If anyone happens to find a <u>''study''</u> covering this area other than Geary et al. and the Harvard one, I think it would be useful here. I don't mean a news or science news article, or a blog post - every one that I have found has been referencing that same 2018 study.

I'd like if some other people could weigh in here as well and tell me what they think. I'm not a particularly experienced Wikipedian so I'm not very confident when it comes to 'fixing' things and ensuring they meet the website's standards/policies.

Thank you.

Revision as of 08:40, 19 November 2020

Template:WAP assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kikinunez (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yellowapple51 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AllisonBailund (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PadillaRaquel (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammas9 (article contribs).

sources

Anyone think STUDY: Women leaving STEM due to depression, unhappiness this source and The Relationship Among Stigma Consciousness, Perfectionism, and Mental Health in Engaging and Retaining STEM Women should not be added as external links in the article? Why? --2001:8003:4023:D900:E187:794D:3126:2B87 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't provided the slightest evidence that any reliable source -- and CampusReform.org is pretty much the OPPOSITE of a reliable source -- gives a damn? See WP:DUE. --Calton | Talk 13:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The campus reform article is predicated on this study, led by department of Veteran Affairs Researcher Erin Reilly, published in the newest issue of the Journal of Career Development. The height of reliability. --2001:8003:4023:D900:E187:794D:3126:2B87 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, are MTV and Huffington Post reliable and unbiased? These two sources are in this Wikipedia page. --2001:8003:4023:D900:E187:794D:3126:2B87 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not MY job to refute anything: it's YOUR job to offer justification for the addition. 2) Nevertheless, I've done so, a couple of times now. 2a) the first ref is a shitty source 2b) the second ref is a primary source, being laundered through the first shitty source. WP doesn't use primary sources without interpretation, and the breathless rants of political hacks doesn't count. 3) WP:UNDUE says that some ACTUALLY reliable sources have to actually CARE about it for it to be included. If you've got an axe to grind, go find a blacksmith's shop instead.

by the way, are MTV and Huffington Post reliable and unbiased?

Since they have nothing to do with your additions, why should I or anyone else give a shit? --Calton | Talk 14:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already, time and time again, offered valid justification for the two external links - that one I a based on academic study and the other is that source. If you think it's undue, add a couple of external links that you think are due, if you can. --2001:8003:4023:D900:1840:A296:7972:846 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something is an "academic study" doesn't mean it should be linked into any related article. The fact that something cites an academic study; even less so. Lenina Libera (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
campusreform.org is an advocacy website and not RS for anything but what it says, attributed to itself. There is no encyclopedic value there, and it is just spam.
The other is a primary source, and we build articles from secondary sources. So thanks on that as well. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the comments at ELN: I agree with removal of the external link and that neither should be used as refs. The study might someday be useful for additional details if any of the research pans out, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. If we would never use a source for reasons of reliability or significance, and it doesn't have some special relationship to the article (such as, an unreliable source that is actually the subject of the article itself), then it shouldn't even be linked to. If there are other external links in the article that you find suspicious (you being the OP, not you, Ronz), we can discuss them. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Physics/Biology pages

I was curious on why there was no Women in Physics/Biology pages/why it is forwarded to Women in Science? There is a page for women in geology, chemistry, and so on. So why is there no page for the women physicists/biologists? Even just a basic list with some information like the other women in ... pages. Especially since the gender gap within this field is so apparent for physics. I think it would be beneficial to have a page that shows a strong representation of the leading women in these fields. I'd be happy to start these pages, just want to make sure this discussion had not already taken place. --Kate Madsekad (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madsekad, I think it's a great idea. Not only could we use those pages, but the entire area would benefit from some organization and appropriate hatnotes and maybe a navbox and/or outline to help readers can navigate from one article to another. For example, we have:
...and many more. Leviv ich 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, thanks for the response. I couldn't agree more! I was taking a closer look at the Women in Chemistry page and thought the organization was well thought out. I'm going to start with the Women in Physics page. Hopefully I can get a Nobel Laureates section, a timeline (hopefully similar to the one found on the Women in geology page), and a section on the gender gap found in this field, if enough information is available. If anyone happens to have a good source for the latter I'd greatly appreciate it! Kate Madsekad (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Madsekad, thanks for taking it on! Leviv ich 18:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Article Contribution

Hello, my name is Sammas9. I added this section to the talk page because I am contributing to this article. I plan to add more statistics and data about Latin American in Latin America other areas being published in the Central and South American section of Representation of Women Worldwide. I look forward to receiving any feedback from the community. If you want to read what I have so far feel free to take a look at my sandbox. Sammas9 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Gender equality paradox' - a 'well-established phenomenon'?

Hello, I'm thinking this little section needs some changing:

Recent research[1] reveals an interesting phenomenon that has been called the gender-equality paradox: the more gender equal societies are, the less equal they are in the choices men and women make with respect to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education and careers.[2] The reasons for this now well-established phenomenon remain a matter of speculation.[3]


1. It ought to specify a time period, rather than simply saying 'recent' - it won't be recent ten years from now.

2. Remove the word 'interesting' - does not fit encyclopaedic tone

3. I don't believe this should be called a 'well-established' phenomenon for the following reasons:

  • The 2018 study by Geary et al. in that first citation seems to be the only study covering this.
  • The words 'well-established' give the impression that this has been studied and understood for some time, when in fact it comes from Geary et al.'s single, rather recent study.
  • The researchers of the 2018 study originally used an undisclosed and unvalidated methodology. When they issued a correction using a new method they could not recreate their findings.
  • Separate Harvard researchers could not reproduce the 2018 study's findings.
  • Various researchers found there were problems in the study's methodology - the accuracy of its data, the method by which it determined 'gender equality', and the method by which it determined female representation in STEM.

I think the study should still be mentioned, but I think it is being given far more weight than it ought to be, and its various problems should be addressed.

If anyone happens to find a study covering this area other than Geary et al. and the Harvard one, I think it would be useful here. I don't mean a news or science news article, or a blog post - every one that I have found has been referencing that same 2018 study.

I'd like if some other people could weigh in here as well and tell me what they think. I'm not a particularly experienced Wikipedian so I'm not very confident when it comes to 'fixing' things and ensuring they meet the website's standards/policies.

Thank you.

  1. ^ Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (14 February 2018). "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education" (PDF). Psychological Science (Submitted manuscript). 29 (4): 581–593. doi:10.1177/0956797617741719. PMID 29442575. S2CID 4874507.
  2. ^ Khazan, Olga (18 February 2018). "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM".
  3. ^ Whipple, Tom (15 September 2018). "Patriarchy paradox: how equality reinforces stereotypes". The Times – via www.thetimes.co.uk.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_STEM_fields&oldid=989492490"