Gender bias in physics labs 鈥 where women typically work more on the computer and on communication tasks, while men more often handle equipment 鈥 is not rooted in personal preference, according to new Cornell research.
A team led by , the Ann S. Bowers Assistant Professor in the 麻豆视频 and 麻豆视频, set out to interview and survey physics undergraduates to see what role their preferences play in the in physics lab courses. The researchers found that the preferences of men and women for engagement and leadership were remarkably similar.
The finding shows there is potential for instructional interventions that could correct the gender inequity in physics labs.
The team鈥檚 paper, 鈥,鈥 published Jan. 20 in Physical Review Physics. Holmes served as principal investigator and lead author.
鈥淭he big gist of what we鈥檙e trying to figure out is why is this happening, and how do we mitigate it,鈥 Holmes said. 鈥淎re these disparities just about preference and an unfortunate set of stereotypes? But what we find is that, for the most part, men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 preferences are very similar. Women like handling the equipment just as much as men do. Which raises this question of why are women not being allowed to do the thing they like to do? This rules out one possibility.鈥
The researchers conducted the initial interviews in fall 2019, and then distributed follow-up surveys in fall 2020, collecting data from a total of 100 undergraduate students in an honors-level physics course. Approximately 70% of the students were physics majors, and the remainder were either undeclared or majored in another science or engineering. Approximately 30% of the students self-identified as women and 70% as men.
The team鈥檚 additional findings show that:
- very few students indicated a preference for a single leader in the group
- men and women overwhelmingly had no preference for their group鈥檚 gender composition
- women generally preferred sharing, rather than dividing or rotating, roles.
鈥淭he interviews also revealed something that is important, 鈥 Holmes said. 鈥淲hen we asked students how these roles get assigned, everyone said, 鈥業 don鈥檛 know, it just kind of happens.鈥 So they鈥檙e not really having explicit conversations about whose turn is it. It鈥檚 just all very implicit, and everyone鈥檚 trying to be casual.鈥
鈥淚 think this shows that no one wants to be the boss and tell people what to do,鈥 Holmes said. 鈥淎nd that leads to this sort of chaos and lack of authority. That鈥檚 where we think these gender dynamics and implicit biases and assumptions kind of play out.鈥
The good news is that since a lack of structure may be allowing biases to flourish, instructors can play a larger role in ensuring more equity in the lab groups, which usually consist of three to four people. Though that, too, may present its own set of challenges.
鈥淚t sort of flies in the face of what we鈥檝e been doing in the labs, and across the campus, this movement towards students being a little bit more agentic and really taking control of their learning,鈥 Holmes said. 鈥淪o I think this sets us up for a really interesting tension. You don鈥檛 want to over-structure something and tell students what to do. But at the same time, if you leave it totally open, we鈥檝e got these problems festering. So what鈥檚 a good way to intervene without being overly prescriptive?鈥
Holmes now plans to study how student preferences evolve over time, as well as dig deeper into the preferences of students who aren鈥檛 physics majors. Her team is also experimenting with designing lab groups that bring together students who share the same preferences, to better balance lab roles.
Co-authors include Sophia Jeon 鈥21; former postdoctoral researcher Yasemin Kalender; doctoral student Emily Stump; and researchers from Loyola University, Kansas State University and University of Calgary.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.
.
More News from A&S
Government
Social sciences
