Research Blog # 10: Final Abstract, Bibliography, and Link

Abstract 

The historically persistent issue of gender segregation is one that it is deeply rooted in, and reinforced by, our society. Gender segregation both in higher education and the labor force is a result of the gendered socialization process young men and women undergo within their social environment. Beginning in the earliest educational experiences, societal actors that include parents, educators, and the media, reinforce gender stereotypes by directing male and female students in opposing directions, fostering their interests and competencies in gender-divided subject areas. The gender-role stereotypes our society reinforces through gendered processes of socialization influence the development of young men and women, who become habituated to act in accordance with the expectations of their gender-role. Evidence of a gendered socialization process is prominently displayed in higher education, where a polarized distribution of male and female students across college majors has been discovered.  Gender segregation is to be analyzed from the societal level, as it is an issue of socialization. Gender segregation in higher education and consequently the labor force can be attributed to societal influences that direct male and female students in opposing directions based on deep-rooted and persistent gender role expectations.

Bibliography 

American Association of University Women., and Gender and Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June 19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1997.

 

Cohoon, J. McGrath, and Lecia Barker. "Harvey Mudd College's Successful Systemic Approach (Case Study 2)." National Center for Women & Information Technology. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Daymont, Thomas N., and Paul J. Andrisani. “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings”. The Journal of Human Resources 19.3 (1984): 408–428. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Dinella, L. M., Fulcher, M., & Weisgram, E. S. “Sex-typed personality traits and gender identity as predictors of young adults' career interests.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 43(3), 493-504. 2014.

Kimmel, Michael. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Location: Harper Collins, Tue. 26 April. 2016.

Malgwi, Charles A., Martha A. Howe, and Priscilla A. Burnaby. "Influences On Students' Choice Of College Major." Journal of Education for Business 80.5 (2005): 275-282. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ma, Yingyi. "College Major Choice, Occupational Structure And Demographic Patterning By Gender, Race And Nativity." Social Science Journal 48.1 (2011): 112-129. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ochsenfeld, Fabian. "Preferences, Constraints, And The Process Of Sex Segregation In College Majors: A Choice Analysis." Social Science Research 56.(2016): 117-132. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. 

Saujani, Reshma. "Teach Girls Bravery, Not Perfection." YouTube. TED Talks, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Somanader, Tanya. "Chart of the Week: Where We Stand on Equal Pay for Equal Work." The White House. The White House, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

 United Nations. "Emma Watson at the HeForShe Campaign 2014 - Official UN Video." YouTube. YouTube, 22 Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Zafar, Basit. "College Major Choice And The Gender Gap." Journal of Human Resources 3 (2013): 545. Project MUSE. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Link

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WDjvE83o3H5Ruquhj5hAOILQ-tF9vc38Wux8E-DWTFI/edit

Research Blog # 9 : Argumet and Counter Argument

My Argument: Gender segregation in higher education and consequently the labor force can be attributed to societal influences that direct male and female students in opposing directions based on deep-rooted and persistent gender role expectations

• An argument made in “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major” that I disagreed w/ was the broad blanket statement that in regard to occupational motivators, men more highly value income level and the potential for upward mobility. I don't discount that the research done by Charles A. Malgwi and other contributors demonstrated gendered-trends in occupational preferences and work values. I do, however, disagree that the conclusion can be drawn that men, in general, more highly value the monetary returns of their work and the potential for leadership opportunities. This is a gross generalization. Greater numbers of women enter the workforce every year, with increasing numbers of single-parent households and financially independent women. The world isn't was it used to be and the female gender has become much more competitive as a force, rising to the nature of their male counterparts. Perhaps if money wasn't a factor women would report more highly valuing job satisfaction to income level. But the reality is that money is a factor, for financially independent women as well as married women contributing to a dual-income family, which has also become increasingly more common and necessary with the rising costs of living. Therefore, I disagree with the conclusion Charles. A Malgwi and contributors drew from the research they collected. I see women today being equally motivated by income level and the opportunity for upward mobility with their careers to men, if not more so, as the monetary returns of work have become increasingly relevant.
• I’d also like to tie in “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings” by Daymont and Adrisani, as a counterargument to the claim Malgwi and contributors make in “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major”. “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings” discusses how women, in the traditional gender-based division of household labor, have historically bore the greater share of childcare and household responsibilities. Both being non-income activities. Claiming that men “value” income more highly than women do is a weak assertion in that it discounts the simple fact that men, historically, have been in charge of providing the family income. That has been their gender role in the traditional household division of labor. So although women have met the responsibilities imposed on them by their gender role in the traditional household division of labor, which involves non-income activates,  that does not signify the lack of value for the monetary returns of work.
• Further, Nancy D. Hall in “Strategies that Enhance the Persistence of Older Female Graduate Students”, discusses how the female role in the gender-based division of household labor is particularly constraining, as it is not conducive of a professional career. The role women need to fill, meeting non-income responsibilities at the expense of pursuing a high-level income career, is a hindrance on their professional development. Filling a gendered role imposed by society, that does not include the generation of income, does not imply a lack of value for income level or upward advancement.  

American Association of University Women., and Gender and Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June 19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1997.

Daymont, Thomas N., and Paul J. Andrisani. “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings”. The Journal of Human Resources 19.3 (1984): 408–428. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Research Blog #8: Case

The case my research paper is making is that gender segregation is deeply rooted in, and reinforced by, our society. The different socialization processes male and female students experience, influences both their interests and perceptions of personal ability, directing them towards different subject areas. This manifests itself in college, where an evident unequal distribution of male and female students across college majors has been discovered. This trend projects into the labor force, which also remains segregated by gender. Why are men socialized in a way that habituates them to be more competitive, more prone to take risks, whereas women are socialized in a way that encourages them to be organized, helpful, get goof grades, and be largely more submissive. When we look at issues today, such as the gender gap in earnings, we can attribute them to the socialization process. Men are more likely than women to negotiate higher salaries, to pursue more challenging careers with higher income levels, and to take greater risks that sometimes bring about greater rewards. In regard to the gender gap in college majors, a variety of studies have concluded that while male students are more likely to chose majors in fields based on income level and opportunity for career advancement, female students are more likely to chose majors based on aptitude in the subject area. This is also a reflection of the socialization process. Women pursue college majors and careers with a mentality that they need to avoid risk and failure, and this greatly limits their opportunities for career advancement and higher income levels. This form of socialization speaks greatly to the fact that women are still largely underrepresented in STEM fields today. The case my research paper is making is that gender segregation in college majors and the workforce, and the consequential gender wage gap, is a societal level issue of socialization. 


(youtube video on a TedTalk)
"Teach girls bravery, not perfection | Reshma Saujani"
https://youtu.be/fC9da6eqaqg

Research Blog #6: The Visual

The image displayed here depicts the median earning among 2008 college graduates in 2012. There is a lot of debate surrounding the gender wage gap that exists today. I chose the image above because it negates several of the arguments that have been made that deny the existence of the gender wage gap, or say that is an issue of the past which has since been corrected. The image clearly depicts the existence of a gender wage gap as well as it's persistence into 2012, a mere four years ago. Clearly, gender segregation in the work force and a consequential gender gap in earnings still exists today. Also, there has been controversy surrounding the issue, in that many will argue that the gap in wages is a result of men pursuing higher-level income careers and women working in lower-level income job fields, such as education or health sciences. The image above however negates this statement and shows wage gaps by field. Women in engineering and computer sciences, high-level income fields that are traditionally male dominated, are still making significantly less than their male counterparts. I plan to include this image in my presentation and final paper because it is effective in illustrating the gender wage gap which is a result of gender segregation, which my topic addresses.

Research Blog #7: Frame

Theoretical Frame or Approach

Social scientists have suggested a multitude of theories to better explain, and account for, sex segregation in college major choice. “Preferences, Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice Analysis” offers the theory of “Gender Essentialism”, which emphasizes the influence of gender stereotypes. Essentialism theory regards college major choice as “an instance where individuals behave in accordance with societal expectations of what constitutes gender-appropriate behavior,” (Ochsenfeld, 119). This theory suggests that we, as a culture, cultivate gender stereotypes and expectations, and instill them in children at a young age which guides their development of interests and self-concept. Gender essentialism claims that “culturally dominant stereotypes learned during childhood and adolescence guide the development of strongly gendered tastes,” based on which women and men form “systematically different” college major preferences and vocational interests” (Ochsenfeld, p119). Gender essentialism attributes gendered college major preferences to societal influences that have reinforced gender stereotypes throughout children’s development, depicting parents and educators as major actors in the influence process. Gender essentialism holds that parents and educators with gender-biased perceptions, direct male and female student’s interests in diverging directions, which influence their self-perception and development of competencies in various subject areas. Male students feel more competent in math, where they are most encouraged by parents and teachers, and therefore gravitate more towards math-intensive subject areas throughout their educational careers. Gender Essentialism views gender segregation in higher education and the labor force as a result of deeply-rooted gender stereotypes, reinforced throughout childhood, that influence the development male and female student’s interest and aptitude in different subject areas. 

Another theoretical frame to analyze gender segregation that “Preferences, Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice Analysis” provides is the theory of “Separate Spheres”.  Separate Spheres explains gender segregation in higher education and the work force “against the backdrop of the fact that men and women have historically assumed different roles in the household,” (Ochsenfeld, p120). The theory of Separate Spheres claims that men and women internalize these gender roles early in their development, and allow them to direct their academic and occupational preferences. For example, because men predominantly adopt the “breadwinner role” in the household, they tend to value material rewards more highly than women do. This would serve as an explanation as to why men pursue occupations based on income-level, more so than women. Male students feel more pressure to pursue majors with higher pay grades and opportunities for career advancement because they feel they need to meet the societal expectation that they one day support a family. In contrast, women, who have historically been in charge of childrearing and keeping up with the household, will gravitate more towards occupational fields that allow for a work-life balance. And women feel more pressure to pursue majors in fields that will accommodate work-life balance, to satisfy their future gender-typical role as a mother and housewife. “Separate Spheres” attributes gender segregation to the influence of historically rooted gender role expectations on the educational and occupational preferences of men and women. 

Literature Review Blog #4

Maryalice Hauer

Literature Review Blog #4

1.       Visual

2.       Citation

Ma, Yingyi. "College Major Choice, Occupational Structure And Demographic Patterning By Gender, Race And Nativity." Social Science Journal 48.1 (2011): 112-129. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

3.       Summary

“College major choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and nativity” analyzes whether occupational segregation influences college major choice. The information used is derived from the National Education Longitudinal Studies (NELS), which provides information on college majors, as well as the Public Use of Micro data (PUMS), which provides occupational structure information. The author uses these two sources of information to integrate stratification research both in higher education and the labor market, in aim to prove that college major choice is the link between the two. This article examines occupational segregation by gender, race, and ethnicity, but for my purposes, I will focus segregation by gender. Results of the cross comparison between these two sources of information demonstrate that the most evident gender divide, in both occupation and college major choice distribution, lies between technical and life/health science fields, with women more predominantly majoring and later working in life-health science fields than men.

4.       Author

Yingyi Ma earned her Ph.D from Johns Hopkins University in 2006, with focuses in education, migration, and gender.  Ma has written over 15 published scholarly articles in the last five years, as well as a book. She has raised hundreds of dollars in funds for education research in her specialized subject areas. I believe this author is an extremely reputable source to include in my final paper, not only based on her extensive research, but based on the diversity of her research areas. This article is unique in that includes race and ethnicity in its analysis of education and labor market segregation. I believe the inclusion of this perspective will be an interesting addition to my paper.

5.       Key Terms

●        National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS 1988-1994): provides information on college major and precollege information that may influence college major choice

-          Based on nationally representative sample of high school students

-          Contains information on students’ academic achievement, attitudes, and course taking

-          (considers this information as influential to college major choice)

●        Public Use of Micro data 1990 census 5% Sample (PUMS 5%): includes household and person records for a sample of housing, collected i a 1990 Census Questionnaire

-          Includes detailed information on individual occupations (using 3-digit occupation codes)

-          Superior to other national data sets because these three-digit codes allow for the inclusion of 500 occupations in the data set

6.       Quotes (3)

“Previous studies investigating the factors leading to college major choice examine the micro level influences, such as abilities and interests...This study, while recognizing the importance of those factors, focuses on...the macro influences of the social environment at the societal level.” (115)

“Friends and siblings, teachers and parents are agents of socialization, encouraging students to cultivate their competence and interest in a particular domain field.” (115)

“For example, work traditionally associated with women, such as the caring and nurturing professions, is devalued. More generally, women receive less compensation working in female-dominated jobs than in male-dominated or gender-neutral jobs.” (116)

7.       Value 

This article holds a lot of value, in several regards. First, although the focus of my paper will remain on gender segregation, it might be interesting to include some of the segregation by race and ethnicity that this article discusses. Particularly, the fact that sex segregation for Whites is the most severe among the four racial groups (White, Asian, Hispanic, and Black). It might be interesting to go into the implications of this finding, and tie that into my discussion of the societal influences that affect college major choice and, consequently, career trajectory. I also find this article's discussion of societal influences. Particularly its terminology, referring to family, peers, and educators as “agents of socialization” in a student's’ development. In conclusion, I think the most valuable aspect of this article is its final conclusion, which serves almost as a “bird's-eye view” of the entire phenomenon. This article's claim is that “seemingly individual choice of college major has deep structural roots at the societal level.” This is a broad claim, with may implication, that will be of value to my paper in that it will generate a great deal of discussion. I may choose to use this article as a focal point of reference in my final paper.