Theory, Women, and STEM
As a graduate student, I distinctly recall being asked to distinguish between a theory and philosophy. This was an important test because I began my studies as a philosophy of education student. While working with some of the premiere philosophers in the world, studying St. Augustine, Plato, and other White male philosophers I became troubled. How could their opinions, no matter how intriguing, be used to encourage the necessary transformation for kids navigating economically stressed schools?
One day, during an independent study exercise with my advisor, we were discussing the practicality of philosophy. How can Rorty’s ideas of pragmatism, for example, improve the educational system for those students forced to endure under-resourced schools? The response was that philosophy is posing good enough questions that will lead to other good questions. I was told that if I want to solve problems I should go work with the sociologists of education. It was all I needed to hear. With that answer I pursued courses in sociology of education with an emphasis on children and childhoods.
The shift, however, did not provide me an infinite amount of answers. Theory, I learned, was as slippery a concept as philosophy. Instead of philosophy’s drive to be about the thinking of thought; theory was a lens requiring empirical proof. To this day, when teaching students at ASU, I liken theory to the lenses of glasses. The wearer’s interpretation of a given situation or phenomenon will be shaped by the lens. Take for example CGEST’s work.
Often, I am asked why we focus on girls/women of color. Aren’t women, in general, underrepresented in the field? In essence this question assumes all women and their experiences are alike. If you were to assume a different lens than the all-women argument, the following statistics take on a different meaning:
Latinx women are most underrepresented in computing Bachelor’s degree completion rates relative to their population in postsecondary education.
Let’s break this down for a minute. In 2018, it was reported that of the total percentage of BS degrees awarded in CS:
American Indian/Alaska Native/Pacific Islander American women = 0
Black women = 5%
Latina women = 5%
Asian women = 32%.
Of total Master’s degrees awarded in CS:
American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander American women = 0
Latina and Black women = 1%
Asian women = 1%
Of total PhDs awarded:
American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander American women = 0
Latina = 1%
Black women = 2%
Asian women = 10%
We know that STEM is important. However, technology plays an increasingly important role in helping us find innovative solutions to pressing social, economic, environmental, health and education challenges of our time. Yet currently, women of color are not entering the fastest growing of STEM disciplines—namely technology.
As I stated in an earlier edition of Kim’s corner, intersectionality matters. CGEST applies intersectionality as a lens to helps us understand why/how the educational landscape looks different for different students as well as how systems of power can limit the opportunities available for some while making them readily possible for others.
Without ensuring girls of color have equitable access to resources, classes, mentors, and educational experiences in STEM, we cannot improve the system. As we move into the future, it is important to recognize and support the talent from all communities. This means making sure that girls of color have early access to opportunities that increase their knowledge and capacities in computing and STEM, in general.
This brings me back to my discussion on the Intersectionality Manifesto. For CGEST, we are driven by Intersectionality serving as both a theory and a methodology. As an analytical tool, intersectionality jaundices our perspective about a “level playing field.” Instead, we accept that the computing field is set within a system that privileges certain knowledge systems. As a methodology, we design research projects with a heightened sensitivity to power and privilege. Through both quantitative and qualitative strategies we identify and analyze where power resides in a given system; who benefits from possessing it and who remains at a disadvantage; how the system is rigged to maintain the hierarchy; and what levers can be pulled towards nurturing more technosocial change agents. To this end, our work revolves around analyzing and unpacking the complex structures that can poise more girls of color to possess the technical and, what I call the power skills to change their communities.
This type of work is not done in isolation. As we partner with a multitude of organizations, institutions, and individuals (including male allies and non-women of color) our growing collective is expanding intersectionality in ways that challenge ourselves and the work.
Executive Director
Center for Gender Equity in Science and Technology
Professor School of Social Transformation
Arizona State University
