National Academies Press: OpenBook

Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective (1995)

Chapter: PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...

« Previous: PART II ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS . . .
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

PART III
Analyzing Trends in Science and Technology Careers: Factors Determining Choice

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Overview of Technical Papers

Wendy Hansen

BACKGROUND

Development and adoption of new technologies is key to economic prosperity in an increasing global economy, an economy that is altering economic and employment structures. As globalization develops and accelerates, our workforce will be a key determinant of our ability to compete and prosper.

Understanding the scientific and technical workforce is becoming a top priority of countries around the world. The increasing international mobility of our scientific and technically trained people adds additional and immediate pressures. It is now, more than ever, critical to understand just why individuals choose to pursue education and training in science and technology and to proceed on to careers in their specialized fields.

INTRODUCTION

This summary paper has been prepared based on the papers submitted for discussion in Panel 3: Analyzing Trends in Science and Technology Careers: Factors Determining Choice. Science and Technology Careers: Individual and Societal Factors Determining Choice by Thomas Whiston and Factors Behind Choice of Advanced Studies and Careers in Science and Technology by Torsten Husén probe the factors influencing an individual's decision to pursue scientific and technical studies and to continue on to a career in science and technology.

Factors Influencing Choice

What are the factors influencing a man or woman to pursue studies in science and technology? What factors contribute to the decision on whether or not to opt for a career in science and technology?

1. Sociocultural Environment
  • Stereotyping manifests itself in childhood, shaped by the family environment, friends, and the community.

  • A parent is a powerful role model. The parent may influence the choice of curriculum and scholastic achievement, directly and indirectly.

  • Social acceptance—the status of science and technology both real and perceived—impacts upon the choice of the individual.

2. Teaching of Science in Schools
  • The quality of teaching directly influences a student's scholastic achievements, limiting or enhancing program prospects. This can impact at an early stage when poor marks in mathematics and science limit future educational options, and also affect a student's self image and confidence in the subject. Poor teaching is a factor that not only may

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

influence the individual's scholastic achievement, but also may inhibit the student's interest in science and his or her attitude toward science.

  • The teacher provides a role model for the students. A good teacher can put the student at ease with science.

  • The student-teacher relationship is an important factor in scholastic achievement and the student's future decisions.

  • The workload of science and technology programs is often measured against that of other specializations and is often perceived as far more difficult and heavy.

  • Science departments are often, whether real or perceived, separated from the rest of the school's programs and activities.

3. The Gender Gap
  • Regardless of culture, men and women undergo different life experiences according to their gender. Choice of program and career are affected by gender stereotyping. For example, analyses show that there seem to be ''male" and "female" specializations in science and technology. Men exhibit greater attraction to applied and physical sciences while women show greater propensity to life sciences like agricultural and biological sciences.

  • Gender stereotyping may also influence scholastic achievement, as well as program choice. Young boys are encouraged to enter and excel in science; do young girls receive the same encouragement?

    Science and technology programs are seen as rather confined avenues of learning. Women may be deterred by the narrowness of learning that science programs offer.

  • There is a perception of a hostility of the scientific community to accept women.

  • Women are underrepresented in the scientific community—there are few role models to encourage women to pursue studies in science and technology and provide examples of successful careers in the scientific community.

  • The academic and career path is seen as inflexible to women—reentry is difficult and women are led to feel they must choose between a career and a family.

4. The Image of Science
  • Is science beneficial or harmful? Scientific contributions to society often seem unheralded while, with the help of the media, science is often perceived as harmful, even evil. It is seen as an ally to industries, which are themselves perceived as dirty and heartless.

  • Science continues to have a mystique, making it rather unapproachable. It is often seen as an elitist discipline. Whether real or perceived, this may deter individuals from entering studies or careers in science.

5. Career Prospects
  • Science and technology curricula are perceived as narrow, and thereby limiting career flexibility.

  • The health of the economy influences the availability and attractiveness of jobs in science and technology. The perception of availability of good jobs and fiscal reward is an important factor in an individual's choice of program of study, as well as continuance in the field.

  • The nature and type of scientific and technical activities change over time. Science is known for so-called "hot areas," and the built-in time lag of the educational process may lead to a mismatch of available talent and demand, and result in low demand in particular areas. This may in turn lead to perceptions of lack of jobs in science in general.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

IMPLICATIONS

An individual makes choices based on life experiences and perceptions of consequences of those choices. More often than not, decisions are based not on a single causal factor but on a series of events with various intertwined factors exerting their influence along the decision path.

Our questions still outnumber our answers. More research is needed to address the challenges nations around the world are facing—when and how to best intervene in the process to maximize influencing the educational and career choice of individuals to ensure we have a highly skilled scientific and technical workforce to face the challenges of today and bring us into the future.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Science And Technology Careers: Individual And Societal Factors Determining Choice

Thomas Whiston

PROLOGUE: CAREER SELECTION IN THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REALM

First, let me honestly state that this is a difficult topic to write about. For sure it is not that difficult to put forward (as I later do) a sequential dependency model that attempts to break down the human decision process into a series of interdependent and converging phases, to provide statistics and policy implications at each phase, and hence to suggest a quasi-integrative schemata of theme. In so doing, that may be the best that can be achieved: provide a systems model that attempts to maximize a desired goal—namely, the attainment of the greatest number and the best students at reasonable cost into areas of science and technology (S&T). But before going into that let me make a few points with regard to factors affecting career choice (and polices to influence that choice).

Over an academic career of about 30 years, I have had upwards of 3,000 students, many of whom I have had the opportunity to know fairly well. The vast majority had, when questioned, little idea why they chose their undergraduate course of study. (In many cases, "chose" was the wrong word, for progression had been quasi-automatic, as much to do with external forces as free will.) They might be able to list a range of factors: "I was good at chemistry at school"; ''I liked the teacher" (was this because he was good at the subject, enjoyed praise?); "I didn't want to go into an office"; "I might be able to do some good with my degree"; "The job prospects appear good... but I'm not really sure what I want to do..."; "My father studies..."; "My career master advised me..."; "Our school wasn't good at teaching—otherwise ... ." Or, on the "negative" side: "Science has done so much harm"; "Math is boring"; "The sciences are too hard, too deterministic, little chance for personal creativity ..."; and so on.

But in nearly all cases this might well be construed as post-decision rationalism, cognitive dissonance, or, at best, a compounding of many factors, the dominant one unknown.

Often it was even more entangled than single-factor causation. Thus, S&T was seen to be entangled with industry, and the image of industry might be seen as dirty, inhospitable. If it was career rather than an intellectual discipline that shaped the psychological image (and hence choice), then choice was determined by some forward imagined event rather than rationalized past experience. In such a context, many of the more simplistic standard survey questions regarding career choice become somewhat suspect.1 At another level, individuals chose a subject but delayed choice regarding career. Indeed, in many cases the connection was hardly made! Career was determined by contemporary factors (at the point of, or close to, graduation) such as economic conditions, relative proportion of job openings, and perceived career prospects. Of course by then many avenues were closed—it was unlikely a physicist would become an accountant, or a sociology student a research chemist. (Though we must remember that while the former is possible, the latter is not.) Transfers do, of course, occur (my own life experience testifies: a first degree

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

in chemistry, a postgraduate degree in ergonomics and cybernetics, another in physical chemistry/solid state physics, a doctorate in cognitive psychology), but it was until recently comparatively rare.

Perhaps the best that we can hope for in optimizing and encouraging entry into the S&T arena, as this paper seeks to illustrate, is that at each stage of the formal educational process we aim, at a macro policy level, to:

  • provide the best infrastructure and facilities for instruction and learning environment;

  • attempt at the early stages of the educational process to overcome undue cognitive specialization and reject syllabus, certification, and examination procedures that separate individuals into arts and science before they reach FE and HE stages;

  • maximize, in whatever ways possible, the participation rate in FE and HE, and encourage flexibility of entry and reentry;

  • provide student financial support wherever possible and reasonable;

  • encourage by numerous means [both formal and informal—media, science center (see OSC below) industrial-academic linkage, science-society syllabus inputs] maximum and stimulatory information regarding the positive contributions that S&T makes in all walks of life to encourage the view that S&T can be a warm subject, motivating and personally involving; and

  • encourage industrial/academic crossover and wider societal input into syllabus and organizational structure, staff exchange, and challenging field projects at all levels of the educative process, again with an enabling and motivating purpose in mind.

In short, the aim is to maximize fluidity and flexibility in an organizational sense, while fostering latent ability into shaped performance and interest. By following these two broad principles and translating them into a host of human resource policies, we may:

  1. maximize the number of entrants into S&T commensurate with societal needs; and

  2. encourage the flowering of the best talent (both cognitively and motivationally).

To say that is not to emphasize so-called manpower planning or human resource engineering, but to seek a socioeconomic and institutional pathway that is more open, more natural than is presently the case.

A small minority of individuals know what they want to do early in life; an even smaller minority are so gifted that there seems no point in doing anything other than following their particular intellectual bent. Even in these cases, support mechanisms can help (identification of gifted mathematicians?—such programs existed in East Europe). However, for the vast majority of a nation's student population, it is a case of introducing policies that minimize dropout and discard, of positive encouragement needs. We might make reference here to Kurt Lewin's "field theory": viz. shaping the external environmental circumstances that contain or influence the individuals' decision threshold . . . an aiding of the mechanisms: economic, organizational, institutional, informational, encouragement, human interest programs, and policies that specifically aim at the removal of the worst obstacles that hinder interest, skills, involvement, and creativity: viz. poor teaching methods, inadequate resources, false information, too early specialization, counterproductive false images regarding S&T ....

On this latter point—the image of S&T—there is considerable room for policy maneuver; it may be one of the most important areas in which we can act. The existence and success of the Ontario Science Center (OSC) in Canada2—now a world famous Institute—is instructive. In 1967, the Centennial Year of Canada, each province celebrated with a major commemorative project. Ontario's project was the OSC. One of its major raison d'être was to attenuate the wrong image of S&T so prevalent among young people in the late 1960s. For many, science had the wrong image: it was environmentally damaging, industry was not nice, and scientific study was not fun. Many students essentially forfeited S&T careers in that at the critical decision stage of entry into HE, they based their decision on false or limited information. The OSC sought to short-circuit that problem on a provincial scale (science center, science museum, hands-on participation, university-school linkage, information lectures, or whatever). In my responsibility for the basic science section and the encouragement of industrial involvement, I had a little part to play. In essence, young students previously had little real

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

information about the work of a scientist or technologist on which to base selection of HE subjects (and possibly a career). If they didn't choose the subject, the career was forfeited.

The important policy point here—explored more fully later in this paper—is to provide information and sustenance, image and function prior to a critical decision step or a choice point. This should not be ad hoc or piecemeal but part of a well thought out consistent policy. It applies at every phase of the long sequence of events that parallel initial learning, further study, and career choice. There is a progressive ladder and many fall by the wayside at each step who with encouragement or intervention might otherwise not. It is not sufficient to rely solely upon market forces, the hidden hand of the marketplace, and self-optimization theory.

INTRODUCTION

The case does not have to be made regarding the enormous need in all nations for a highly skilled scientific and technological workforce (or indeed a scientifically literate society in almost all branches of modern life). Numerous governmental and industrial surveys testify to that need, whether in the pure or applied sciences, in engineering, technology, manufacturing, productive or more advanced research areas. Every sector—chemistry, physics, biological sciences, computers and systems areas, information technology, electronics, biotechnology, materials science, all branches of engineering—signals that increasing need.

More problematically there may well be, over a period of time, new and variable demands for the overall portfolio required as new areas (biotechnology, information technology, materials science, advanced systems analysis needs, or whatever) emerge. Local shortages, oversupply in certain areas, and inadequacies in relation to specialized multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary skills may then emerge. (Related to this, there may be delivery or scheduling problems from academe due to temporal-reorientation and infrastructural adjustment requirements—a much neglected area in national policy terms.)

In relation to the above, detailed policy analysis, manpower forecasting, and related analytic studies are continually under way in most nations or major trading blocs. Need is identified; policies of fulfillment are encouraged or enacted. But there are difficulties.

Many studies testify to the difficulties of such human resource or manpower planning. There are, in free market economies, numerous obvious difficulties. For example, individuals are free to choose their own area of study and interest, large time-lags in market adjustment can ensue before market need is satisfied, and the overall production time of technical personnel (from school through higher education) may not marry well with more immediate societal needs. Individuals may reject (for numerous reasons) scientific careers. Schools may be inadequately equipped (in either personnel, equipment, or curricula) to initiate the process of learning (or motivation to learn) at an adequate pace or on an adequate scale. Individuals may observe greater economic (or social) reward in other areas of commercial activity. In short, the adequate delivery at a sufficient level, of appropriate quality, is circumscribed by the wide range of difficulties in a free market economy.

It is not the purpose of this paper to review, categorize, or detail the scale of, form of, or need of S&T human resources; the prime purpose is to examine the reasons why individuals chose scientific or technological careers, the ways in which our very limited understanding of that process has or can be translated into policy-suggestive mechanisms, and the extent to which further analysis in this area is required. Necessarily this also behooves us to consider the reasons why individuals either actively reject such careers or encounter barriers and obstacles, and are inadequately supported in the furtherance of following S&T careers; or whether the scale of academic infrastructural support is less than adequate. In commenting upon the latter, we may then be able to seek new pathways of encouragement, new policy-support mechanisms, and new approaches, as well as amplification of existing but insufficiently resourced mechanisms.

Some analysts might argue that the prime lever in ensuring an adequate supply is an economic one: all may be seen in terms of supply and demand curves, relative rates of pay and conditions of work, job security, and socioeconomic status. Such a perspective is woefully inadequate, however. It takes little credence of the need to build up whole delivery infrastructures in academe (often requiring decades of sustenance). It fails to recognize the importance of selective interventionism; the encouragement of particular skills; the coordination of primary,

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

secondary, and tertiary educational systems; and the nurturance and selective support of specialized research areas. It is not good enough to say that much of this will be taken care of by the private sector; that academe merely has to produce generalists (at all levels); and that fine tuning, extra training, and skill-substitution will then become the prerogative of the marketplace. A biochemist cannot readily become a computer engineer, and a technician is not the same as a highly specialized research chemist.

Thus, much directive planning, in terms of human resources, is required. But, as we have already noted, such planning, such centralized policy and interventionism, is always at the mercy of the vagaries of individual choice and freedom. It is therefore imperative that we understand as fully as possible the factors influencing that choice in order to be able to encourage, respond, attenuate. This, as we shall see, is no easy thing to do, for the long decision chain that leads to and influences career choice permits a large number of variables that need to be controlled or influenced—many of which are not easily amenable to policy or interventionism. (Thus, if parental influence, internal psychological satisfaction, or peer respectability play a part, then although policies may be explored to influence these domains, it is no easy task.)

If all of these difficulties did not exist, then most nations would not have experienced the shortfalls and scientific manpower dilemmas that they have in the past—experience therefore pays witness to the difficulties. Having said this, the scale and form of shortfall (if we ignore demographic factors for a moment) varies quite a lot from nation to nation. Germany, Japan, and several southeastern Asian countries encounter fewer difficulties than, say, the United Kingdom. Or, yet again, certain countries (Ireland, the Netherlands, and Italy) have at various times been able to significantly improve their scientific manpower requirements. Also, several LDCs and NICs have achieved oversupply (in part due to the less than fully developed state of their respective formal economies—see especially India). It is not our purpose here to examine such intercultural differences, but there is much potential in such an analysis.

Against the above scale of difficulties regarding adequate manpower provision of S&T skills, perhaps a case could be made that the major task of any society is to encourage what we might call a maximization threshold insurance policy. By this it is meant that at every stage of the educational and wider economic process, sufficient support (teachers, good curricula, number of student places, scholarships, grants, rates of pay, etc.) be made available to satisfy threshold requirements. Once commensurate with individual taste, scientific participation will be maximized. For very rich societies this may be possible; however, it is obviously an expensive route. Nevertheless, it may be the best. Alternatively, we may seek selective positive discrimination: the application of policy levers at what are considered to be important, indeed critical, decision points in career choice, intellectual development (which underpins and precedes career choice), and continuing study. In order to do the latter, we need to consider the factors influencing choice, the shaping and development of scientific personnel in a systematic way. It is to that process that we now turn. As will be seen, it is useful to consider a rather long chain of events. As we identify and to some extent isolate critical stages, we may note (later) policy issues and possibilities for action.

In the sections that follow, the discussion is broken into three main categories or levels. First, we provide a sequential step-wise model of the main stages and associated phases, or decision stages, that would seem to influence choice of S&T as a career. At each of the levels there is room for policy enaction. Second, we consider some of the difficulties (and supportive literature or research) that focus on each level. This sets the scene for the third, the types of policies that are presently being used or explored. In conclusion, we briefly indicate the forms of further research, evaluation, and analysis that need to be undertaken.

UNDERSTANDING THE MECHANISM OF CHOICE

How can we best capture and comprehend the factors that influence an individual's career choice, in this case scientific or technological? It is patently obvious that there are numerous considerations: school experience, quality and ethos of early instruction in formative years, innate and shaped ability, stimulating experience, external motivational factors, socioeconomic and demographic background, facilities for further education, ease of entry into higher education, market opportunities (both real and perceived), locality, state-incentive, influence of the corporate process in academic life, relative economic reward, ease of transfer from discipline to discipline,

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

educational selection process, retraining opportunity, motivational challenge, peer respect, special support mechanisms that encourage entry, level and form of societal demand (viz., the sociotechnical state of development of a society), facilities of compensatory learning (distance learning, modular degrees, external degrees), influence of professional societies, influence of media, and societal, educational, and industrial propaganda, for example. Is it possible to organize such a list into a satisfactory, robust model that leads to a less than random policy apparatus?

We suggest, as illustrated in Figure 1, that it is useful to consider a sequential chain of events, critical stages if you will, that to some extent leads to a clearer picture. However, we should not be over-deterministic in our interpretation with regard to sequential dependencies. Nevertheless, there are some obvious points to be made regarding dependence. Thus, if an inadequate level of instruction in science, curricula deficiencies, insufficiency of resource-support, or grossly poor tuition occurs at an early stage, it is less likely that a student will progress into further or higher education in that area. Similarly, if there is little latent ability, it is equally unlikely that an individual will follow S&T as a career. On the other hand, if, in concert with our early remarks regarding maximization threshold, early instruction is good, then latent ability has to be viewed in relative terms. Further along the career-choice chain, if rates of pay, societal esteem, career progression possibilities, or the general feel of a particular occupational setting are viewed in negative terms, then despite positive early educational experience, S&T may not be the career choice. Sequential dependencies do therefore exist, to some extent. Indeed, we may, with some justification, be even more mechanistic and note a hierarchical dependency. Thus, the more the conditions of the early stages are improved, the greater the number of

FIGURE 1 Sequential stages in career selection. (See text for policy application at each stage.)

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

individuals who (may) proceed to the next stage. Obviously some form of selection and filtration is necessary: this implies the value of evaluation, monitoring, examination, standards—all of which will also influence both individual (internal) choice and societal (external) choice. The policy skill is to get the balance right!

As will be noted at several of the stages in Figure 1, there is a continuing influence upon general attitude to subject matter, the opportunity of heightened or induced interest, and, as we progress from stage to stage, the possibility of a significant reduction in the total manpower resource available.

Stage A—the early school experience—is often critical as a determinant regarding the proportion of males or females who will carry on with scientific studies. Losses at this level almost automatically remove them from the pool available, for later decision, regarding the possibility of a later career in most areas of S&T. (There are considerable limitations at stage F—continuing education—as to the possibility of reentry or reorientation of career opportunity.) For those who retain a high degree of interest in science at stage B and also have their ability shaped and optimized to a level commensurate with the entry requirements at university level (stage C), there emerges a range of more subtle decision requirements.

Thus, a student may in choosing his or her area of study have a career path in mind that influences the degree choice. This can lead to a locking in—an important stage in the career selection process. Alternatively, and more likely (from several surveys), the student may select a degree topic for intrinsic reasons and not be committed at that stage to a career choice trajectory or future path. In this case, the critical decision will be at point X (or possibly X'). Factors, which we shall discuss later, may then be numerous and complex in how they influence the decision process. They may be of a broad socioeconomic nature that influences the general span of occupations available, the degree to which the student has enjoyed or been stimulated by his university instruction and experience, the specificity of linkage between the study period to date and subsequent occupational opportunities, the perceived images of career progression possibilities, the extent to which latent ability (in science) has flowered or withered, economic considerations, supply-demand considerations, etc.

In many ways the extra path (see X' in Figure 1) available to postgraduate students introduces an even more complex decision appraisal problem. On the one hand, specialized postgraduate study more closely links the student (if he or she has chosen an S&T area) with the possibility of an S&T career. On the other hand, an extensive period of specialized study sometimes alienates the student from subsequent follow-through. This is often compounded by the relatively high dropout rate in postgraduate research studies. In addition, postgraduate specialization may enhance the likelihood of following an academic career, but in many countries contemporary cutbacks and restructuring of research opportunities may not yield a sufficient range of career opportunities. Meanwhile, the student may have bypassed interest in an industrial career, thereby leading to a decision impasse.

As we shall see below, each of these levels of activity have been subject to study, analysis, and commentary. Equally, each level is (and has been) subject to a wide range of policy-supportive mechanisms aimed at both improving scientific and technological excellence and hopefully influencing in a positive way the decision to follow an S&T career.

However, we must also recognize that to talk of the overall population of students or individuals who might equally follow an S&T career is inappropriate. The total population is not homogenous—different cohorts experience different difficulties. They are subject to different social, economic, academic, and intellectual pressures (e.g., the likelihood of men or women following an engineering or scientific career, or different socioeconomic groups, or different ability groups ...). This heterogeneity undercuts the value of the simplistic sequential decision procedure indicated above and leads to the need of targeted and specialized policies. (Information technology, biotechnology, and manufacturing managerial skills call for their own specialized support mechanisms.) Policy has to be viewed in that more sub-categorized format. At lower levels of the educational process there are most probably generic, fundamental policies that can be universally applied. However, as we move along the decision ladder, more specialized considerations are required.

What evidence as to the nature of the decision process regarding each level is available? In the next section we consider some of the evidence and wider contributing factors. This is followed by a section detailing contemporary ameliorative policies that, in part, relate to such difficulties and concerns.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Factors Thought to Influence a Young Person's Decision to Select a Career in S&T: Some Survey and Analytic Data

As we have tried to indicate so far, there are a wide range of factors that are believed to influence the decision to take up a career in S&T.3 These may include motivational and special interest aspects; economic considerations; image of industry; personality; ability in relation to the scientific and technical field; perception of career opportunities; conditions of work and career prospects; general state of the economy; encouragement by, and influences of, peers, friends, mentors, teachers, and college professors through discussion and advice (a large literature attests to this); conscious and subconscious motivation; attitude to, and image of, S&T itself; availability of educational opportunity (which is then a bridge toward later career choice); family background and sociocultural setting; and so on.

We do not intend in this paper to exhaustively review all of these factors—the attached reference list goes some way in signaling the wide range of literature available. But we do provide a selective overview.

An early and exhaustive analysis of economic considerations in both a theoretical and practical sense was provided by R.B. Freeman in The Market for College-Trained Manpower: A Study in the Economics of Career Choice (1971). A related early study focusing on undergraduate careers in the United States is provided in the exhaustive NORC study Undergraduate Career Decisions (J.A. Davis, 1965). Such early studies provide a useful overview of the economic and socioeconomic factors that still pertain to the present time.

We should recognize, however, that the wider socioeconomic circumstances, the wider environmental framework within which an individual makes his or her decision or career choice changes from decade to decade. This goes beyond trade or business cycles. One needs to understand in much more subtle terms than mere supply-demand curves how science, industry, commerce, research opportunity, and types of scientific and technological activity change in society and status over time. Within this changing context, industry, for example, may seem unattractive at one time, more interesting and attractive at another. Similarly, the actual and perceived opportunity for academic S&T careers fluctuates over the years—as do relative rates of pay and career progression opportunities. Thus, there is not a social constancy in relation to the decision or choice procedure. Times change and, hence, so do the factors.

This dynamic sociological factor is captured well in A. Astin's study The Changing American College Student: Implications for Educational Policy and Practice (1991). Unlike several of the more micro, small sample surveys to which we will refer below, Astin's study is based upon survey data that typically involve 250,000 students covering 550 higher education institutions over a period between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s. Astin summarizes the major findings from 24 surveys under 2 headings—career and study plans, and personal values (life goals)—and how these have been changing over time.

He concludes that "between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s American college students became much more focused on material goals and less concerned with altruism and social problems, and these value changes were accompanied by dramatically increased student interest in business careers... 'being very well off financially'...(plus a reduced endorsement) of 'developing a meaningful philosophy of life.'" These changes are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

However, Astin also notes that "during the past two or three years most of these trends seem to have ended or, in certain cases, show signs of reversing direction ... protecting the environment appears to be the single greatest concern among American college students at the turn of the decade."

The above survey information can carry considerable implications for career choice (in S&T). Many surveys indicate that, for example, industry is not seen as an attractive career, but the shifts in value-change that underpin the Astin data can severely modify our understanding. This is, of course, reinforced by economic recessions, concern regarding job security, etc. Thus, the Astin data and more micro-survey data can provided important insight into decision procedure. Similarly, with respect to the environmental concern referred to above, this provides an important policy lever point in S&T careers. If financial reward is becoming an ever increasing choice factor (however other survey data queries this), then S&T careers have to be viewed in that light viz. relative rates of pay. However, in policy terms, this may be further complicated by the attraction of economically poorer socioeconomic social cohorts.

Undoubtedly there is a need to recognize that it is not only economic factors that predominate in the

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

choice of S&T career. Fuller (1991) examines the problem of scientific skills shortages in her study There's More to Science and Skills Shortages than Demography and Economics: Attitudes to Science and Technology Degrees and Careers.

SOURCE: Astin, 1991.

FIGURE 2 Freshman interested in business.

SOURCE: Astin, 1991.

FIGURE 3 Contrasting changes in two values (rated as "Essential" or "Very Important").

Based upon detailed interviews, the paper "explores first-year university and polytechnic students' attitudes to degrees and careers in S&T and the factors influencing their choices to pursue S&T or turn to alternative non-S&T areas. Students' choices and decisionmaking patterns provide pointers for those in schools, higher education, industry, and government who wish to understand why some students are deterred from studying S&T and who may be interested in making changes that could encourage underrepresented groups to pursue S&T further."

Fuller notes "skills shortages are one of the most talked about difficulties that British industry currently faces. Those concerned expect the challenge to increase as the demographic decline and the European Single Market begin to bite, and rapid technological change and intense global competition persist." And "adding to their concern are statistics (indicating) that only about a quarter of science graduates graduating in 1987 entered scientific employment. Furthermore, the total number of S&T students graduating in the United Kingdom has compared unfavorably in recent years with the numbers produced by West Germany, the United States, and Japan" (Paris, 1989).

In relation to these difficulties Fuller examined, through interviews, five areas:

  1. The nature of the decisionmaking process

  2. Vocational awareness and vocational flexibility

  3. Why students with S&T "A" levels turn to non-S&T degrees

  4. The effects of perceived ability on choices

  5. Factors affecting female students' choices

The Nature of the Decisionmaking Process

Here "the data indicated that two major influences, perceived academic strength and enjoyment, had affected both S&T and non-S&T students' academic choices. The students were asked to reflect carefully on other factors, such as school type, career guidance, teachers, parents, and friends, but, in almost all cases, participants insisted that success and interest formed their principal decisionmaking rationale." Early learning experience and academic attainment clearly

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

played a big part. (This reinforces a central argument that I am emphasizing here that early school experience is an important factor in later career choice.)

Vocational Awareness and Vocational Flexibility

Fuller posits, "In thinking about S&T skill shortages in industry it was interesting to discover at what point student's awareness of vocational options started to impinge on choices." Responses indicated that at 14-16 years old, decisions were not career-driven. At 18 it was a greater factor, but enjoyment and academic success were still the dominating factors—not an assessment of "opportunity structures within the labor market."

But students tried to keep options open (vocational flexibility), for example, by opting for general (not specialized) chemistry courses—which were seen to have "high exchange value in the labor market." Equally broad-based S&T topics would allow entry into non-S&T areas. The main point is that in terms of personal development, the ability to respond to a variety of career opportunities was retained. (A policy implication here is the importance of flexible postgraduate top-up or transfer of courses for those who may later wish to return to a S&T career.)

Why Students with S&T "A" Levels Turn to Non-S&T Degrees

Two categories were observed: those who consider that S&T degrees and careers would limit their personal development and those who wanted degrees but whose interest in S&T had waned. The first group often perceived themselves as intellectual and academic high flyers. They saw the S&T degree timetable as too full and inflexible, not allowing personal autonomy. They often saw S&T careers, particularly in industry, as constraining, promotion-limited, not challenging enough, and not permitting either self-employment or sufficient opportunity to articulate ideas and views.

As Fuller notes, the reality is different from employed graduate surveys and contradicts this assessment of career conditions:

We see here an important policy need in informational linkage between schools, university, and industry.

Regarding the second group (waned interest), Fuller points to the restructuring influence of lack of flexibility in British higher education: more cross-disciplinary options should be provided.

The Effects of Perceived Ability on Choices

Science subjects, particularly mathematics and physics, were perceived as more academically demanding where only the most intelligent can succeed. Thus, young, competent, but not brilliant, students were discouraged from following S&T courses in HE. Nevertheless, as Fuller points out, employers want a range of general strengths and good interpersonal skills, and will provide extra training. There is therefore "a gap between what some in education assume students need to pursue S&T and what large employers were looking for in their employees." Again, we see important policy implications here.

Factors Affecting Female Students' Choices

Female students often reported they were in a minority in chemistry, physics, and math classrooms; timetabling was seen to be against traditional female study areas.

Very few had been exposed to equal opportunity campaigns such as Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) or taken part in special events aimed to encourage girls into S&T. (Even the timing of these events was too late—after options had been chosen, again we see the importance of the decision chain in following a career.) The problems of combining career and family were constantly emphasized as a factor in career choice. Fuller suggests that seven major factors discourage many potential S&T candidates from choosing S&T options and subsequent S&T careers:

  1. You have to have a certain sort of mind to achieve in S&T at degree level.

  2. S&T subjects, especially mathematics and physics, are uniquely demanding academically.

  3. S&T degrees and careers do not require effective communication and interpersonal skills.

  4. S&T degrees and careers are insufficiently

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

stretching and rewarding for academic and intellectual high-flyers.

  1. Some S&T degrees lack vocational flexibility.

  2. S&T subjects at school and in higher education are male preserves and promote masculine values.

  3. It is particularly difficult to combine S&T careers with having a family.

Student responses indicated that these messages influenced individuals within three particular groups—high-flyers, the less-than-brilliant, and girls—to opt for non-S&T degrees.

(All of the above difficulties are subject to ameliorative policies. In addition, surveys of conditions in industry do not tally with student perceptions; this signals the importance of better academic-industrial linkage programs. The Enterprise of Higher Education Initiative aims to provide more students with the opportunity to gain industrial experience through project work, as does the Credit Accumulation Scheme. At the postgraduate level, such programs as the Teaching Company Scheme and the CASE Awards have equal importance at the research level.)

Career prospects have also to be viewed across a wider horizon. Thus, "(engineers) were optimistic that the advent of the Single European Market would bring about change in the UK because S&T workers would have increased opportunities to work in Europe... with benefit from comparatively higher status and salaries... and scientists point out that international mobility within their profession has been common in recent years." But the HE system has an important role in this. Fuller argues that her study has indicated that "S&T courses discourage suitably qualified students for two principal reasons: first, they are perceived as too demanding and second, as limiting autonomy and therefore personal development." The need is to review the process and content of courses to attract a wider variety of students and introduce more combined studies (e.g., engineering with business studies, encourage project work and academic-industrial exchange programs, and overall synergy and communication).

The above comments depend, in the main, upon attitude surveys; however, preference is also indicated in an empirical sense at the macro level by the numbers entering various fields of higher education and the choice of first destination of career. The first category influences career choice (though we have just seen that it does not automatically confirm it), while the second category tells us more of preference commensurate with market conditions and hence sectoral opportunity.

At an EC level, various OECD and EC publications reveal gross statistics. For example, Figure 4, taken from Europe in Figures (Eurostat, 1992), indicates the changing pattern from 1970-1972 to 1988-1989.

As can be seen, both engineering and natural sciences have failed significantly in percentage terms over that time, although the absolute number has increased.

However, "the social sciences accounted for about one student in seven in 1988-1989 compared with a figure of one in nine in 1970-1971. Arts students headed the list at the beginning of the 1970s (16.5 percent) but had dropped to second place in 1988-1989 (14.1 percent)." We therefore begin to see a pattern of expressed preferences especially toward the social sciences here.

In terms of first career preference, Bee and Dolton (1990) provide for the UK extensive data. They provide an overall national analysis of the initial career pattern of all university graduates over time and across faculties for the period 1961-1962 to 1986-1987, based upon First Destination Returns, which has been compiled nationally by the UGC and the USR. The authors identify the main trends and seek to explain these by relating them to changes in the occupational structure of the UK labor force. They conclude, "It is demonstrated that, while there is some correspondence between the two, the relationship is neither simple nor exact... the pattern of graduate first destinations has depended not only on structural changes in the economy but also on a range of institutional and market forces that have operated specifically on the demand for, and supply of, highly qualified manpower."

How did S&T fare in this? What does this tell us regarding changing patterns of preference? Figures 5 through 11 are of particular interest.

As Bee and Dolton note, "shifts in graduate career preferences, affecting the relative attractiveness of different occupations, have undoubtedly occurred." Important is the "persistent failure of industry to attract arts and social science graduates, the dominance of sciences in research, and the growing attraction of commerce for scientists and technologists ... as is the surprisingly high (though falling) percentage of scientists who embark on teacher training."

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Eurostat, 1992.

FIGURE 4 Part-time and full-time third-level students by field of study in EC (percentage).

SOURCE: Bee and Dolton, 1990.

FIGURE 5 Graduate first destinations: cumulative percentage (1962-1987).

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Bee and Dolton, 1990.

FIGURE 6 Graduate first destinations: numbers (1962-1987).

Proportion of UK labour force in industry

FIGURE 7 First destination of university graduates: industry.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Bee and Dolton, 1990.

FIGURE 8 First destinations of university graduates: industry.

SOURCE: Bee and Dolton, 1990.

FIGURE 9 Research percentage by faculty (1962-1987).

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Bee and Dolton, 1990.

FIGURE 10 Public service: percentage by faculty (1962-1987).

FIGURE 11 Commerce: percentage by faculty (1962-1987).

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

It is important, however, to recognize that there are considerable international differences that complicate any robust analysis. The UK is not necessarily typical of Europe at large. For example, in recent years the UK government has introduced polices to expand university intake4 for a variety of reasons. However, under free market conditions, the uptake in various faculty areas has been extremely uneven as shown in Figure 12.

SOURCE: THES, 1992.

FIGURE 12 Increase in undergraduate numbers, 1991/2-1992/3.

[As can be seen, increased intake into engineering and science has been disappointing. Policies are now being considered through the unit of resource (effectively the income universities received in relation to student area of study) to be reduced in classroom-based areas (arts and humanities) as a means to encourage recruitment to engineering and technology courses (THES, p. 3, December 4, 1992).]

But the UK may not be typical of the EC at large as shown in Figures 13 through 15, which reveal different patterns of career preference (and educational provision).

We have indicated, so far, that career aspiration is a function of a wide range of personal, institutional, and socioeconomic factors. Are more precise survey details available? Boys and Kirkland (1988) undertook a survey of 6,000 final year undergraduates in 1982 (of which 58 percent were completed and analyzed). A follow-up survey in 1985 yielded a 59 percent response rate. In their text Degrees of Success: Career Aspirations and Destinations of College, University, and Polytechnic Graduates, they examine qualifications and career aspirations, early destinations, career opportunities and prospects, realization of aspirations, level of income factors, and retrospective evaluation of degrees.

In terms of aspiration and career they note, inter alia, the data indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

In terms of ranking various factors in relation to long-term career plans, Table 2 is informative. However, Boys and Kirkland are fairly sanguine regarding its interpretation. Thus, they state:

As Table 2 shows, there was not consensus among respondents that any of the career aspirations presented to them were very important. In the highest ranking, 59 percent of all final year undergraduates in 1982 felt that a job that offered good long-term opportunities was very important, 31 percent fairly important, and only 10 percent not important to them.

The majority of graduates attached at least some importance to 17 of the 22 items. Among these, the importance attached to a high starting salary, ranked 17, was much lower than that attached to a high future salary, ranked 2. Only 10 percent considered a starting salary very important, and 44 percent felt it to be of little importance, compared with 40 percent and 18 percent respectively for long-term earnings. Half of all undergraduates attached little importance, and very few a great deal of importance, to careers that offered social prestige and status or good pension plans.

While there were correlations between particular aspirations and the type of institution attended or subject studies, these were in most cases weak. Largest subject variations were found in the importance attached to working in industry. Here subjects could be classified into three groups. Four-fifths or more of lawyers,

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: HMSO, 1991.

FIGURE 13a Careers seriously considered by UK students (1990).

SOURCE: HMSO, 1991.

FIGURE 13b Students seriously considering manufacturing as a career (1990).

SOURCE: HMSO, 1991.

FIGURE 14a Public expenditure on education (1986).

SOURCE: HMSO, 1991.

FIGURE 14b Comparisons of participating rates of 16- to 18-year-olds in education and training (1986).

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: IMS, 1990.

FIGURE 15 Degrees Awarded, 1986 (as percentage of age group).

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

TABLE 1 Career Aspiration as a Function of Discipline

71 %

of

Lawyers wanted to pursue careers in the legal profession

65 %

of

Engineers wanted to pursue careers in the engineering profession

38%

of

Commercial graduates wanted to pursue careers in the finance profession

55 %

of

Chemists wanted to pursue careers in scientific research, design, or development

40%

of

Mathematicians or Computer Scientists wanted to pursue careers in the management services (associated with computer science)

 

SOURCE: THES, 1992.

TABLE 2 1982 Career Plans Ranked by Average Score Based on the Question: How important are the following factors in your long-term career plans?

Factor

Rank

Score

A job that gives me good long-term career opportunities

1

2,4873

A high future salary

2

2,2236

The opportunity to be creative and original

3

2,1315

The opportunity to use knowledge gained on my degree course

4

2,0969

A job with a lot of responsibility

5

2,0812

A suitable geographical location

6

-

A job that will give me the opportunity for rapid promotion

7

2,0228

The opportunity to use the skills I acquired on my degree course

8

2,0210

Long-term job security

9

2,0172

Work in which I'm independent of supervision

10

1,9143

A job with flexible working hours

11

1,8594

A job with good fringe benefits

12

1,8075

The opportunity to travel and work overseas

13

1,7949

A job in which I will work as part of a team

14

1,7709

A job that is concerned with helping others

15

1,7681

A career that will allow me to move from job to job

16

1,7532

A high starting salary

17

1,6656

A job with social prestige and status

18

1,6252

A job with a good pension plan

19

1,5978

A job in industry

20

1,5479

Probability of eventual self-employment

21

1,5298

Work that will be mainly out-of-doors

22

1,2296

 

SOURCE: Boys and Kirkland, 1988.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

graduates studying other arts and humanities, social sciences and history attached little importance to industry. A little over two-fifths of economists, mathematicians or computer scientists, chemists and other scientists gave it at least some importance, although only between 14 and 18 percent felt that such a career was very important. Finally, over half of the engineers and commercial graduates attached at least some importance to industry. Of these two subjects, engineering students were the more industry motivated: 43 percent felt it very important, and 34 percent fairly important, compared with 24 percent and 30 percent from commercial subjects. As discussed below, these variations were also associated with institutional factors.

Commercial, engineering, and law undergraduates were more likely than others to attach importance to those aspirations that could be described as 'extrinsic rewards' (Niessen and Pescher, 1981). These included financial and other material benefits (a high starting salary, good pension plan, high future salary, and good fringe benefits) and others such as social prestige and status and the opportunity for rapid promotion. History, other arts and humanities and social science undergraduates were less likely to attach importance to such factors.

More specifically, in relation to industrial careers and the need to attract the ''brightest and highest caliber products of our Universities and Polytechnics into the wealth-creating segment of Society," the (UK) Committee for Research into Public Attitudes, under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden, undertook a detailed study based upon 1,007 "lengthy personal interviews with undergraduates and polytechnic students in 55 carefully selected and stratified educational institutions" (see Attracting the Brightest Students in Industry, 1985). Of particular interest is that the numerous tables of detailed results are categorized and tabulated not only by subject area of study, but also by expected degree class and attitude to industry. We cannot present all the results here, but note several of the most significant findings:

  • The importance of job satisfaction/enjoyment... "overwhelmingly anticipation of enjoying the job is what points graduates in a particular direction."

  • Although, at first, high starting salaries were not that important, "we suspect that, in practical terms, money is a powerful attraction."

  • The prospect of good training and job experience facilities is a key motivator.

  • A high score goes to good career prospects; they want a job to have a series of opening doors.

  • Career advisory staff have a large influence on influencing career choice. (We shall refer to this shortly.)

Some of the findings are reflected in Tables 3-5.

We indicated above the importance of career advisory staff as facilitators for S&T students to undertake S&T careers. Connor et al. (1992) provided a highly detailed review and analysis of this area in the report to the Engineering Training Authority, A Careers Service for Engineering. Numerous tables, descriptants, and survey results are provided. An overview is given in Figure 16.

The study emphasizes that it is of considerable importance to maintain such inputs right through the whole educational life cycle. (See Table 6.)

Such a facility then relates to the sequential decision steps described in earlier sections of this paper. Occupational selection should not be (and indeed in many ways is not) a random process. It is influenced by a whole chain of events over many years. That is what sequential dependency means. Information provision, continuous good instruction and learning facilities, maximizing student intake at each level, and close societal-academic informational links and exchanges are all part of that cumulative process. Each is potentially subject to many policy inputs.

Policies to Improve S&T Literacy (and Possible Selection of S&T as a Career)

As will be seen in Table 7, a wide range of policies, supporting mechanisms, are presently being used to improve scientific instruction, to increase interest and motivation regarding S&T areas, and, either directly or indirectly, to increase the chances of

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

TABLE 3 Question: What are your reasons for thinking that a particular career is what you want?

Base: All who have decided on careers

Career Choices

All

682 %

Computing

67 %

Teaching

58 %

Non Academic Research

31 %

Unspecified Engineering

55 %

Electronic Engineering

60 %

Civil/Struct Engineering

48 %

Law

40 %

Management

35 %

Accounts Finance

41 %

Am interested/would enjoy it

45

57

43

68

44

52

46

50

46

27

Can use degree subject

18

28

12

32

16

25

13

20

23

7

Intellectual challenge

12

12

5

10

4

12

19

10

14

15

Would be good at it

10

7

16

3

13

12

10

15

11

10

Have had experience

10

18

9

13

13

7

2

8

6

10

Job satisfaction

9

9

10

3

4

8

13

10

6

2

Earn a lot/financial reward

9

16

5

3

5

8

8

15

9

22

Good promotion prospects

8

10

--

--

5

15

4

10

17

32

Involves working with people

7

--

31

10

5

--

2

5

11

5

Socially worthwhile

5

1

7

10

4

2

8

3

--

--

New/expanding area

5

19

2

6

4

13

2

--

3

--

 

SOURCE: "Attracting the Brightest Students in Industry" (Opinion Research and Communication, 1985)

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

TABLE 4 Question: Here are some of the attributes that might make an organization attractive to graduates. Please put the following as per choice (percent making each aspect first or second choice).

BASE

EXPECTED DEGREE

ATTITUDE TO INDUSTRY

ENGINEERING

SUBJECT

ALL

(1007)

1st/2nd

(663)

Other

(266)

Positive

(675)

Neg.

Neutral

(330)

Gen Mech

Prod

(94)

Electric

Electron

(117)

Aero

(56)

Other

(122)

Math

Physics

(92)

Biology

Chem

(109)

Computers

(77)

Bus,

Econ,

Accts

(99)

Social Studies

(80)

Humanities

Law

(136)

Offering job satisfaction

69

69

70

68

70

74

72

63

58

69

82

65

65

69

73

Good training and job experience facilities

43

43

44

44

43

46

49

45

51

45

38

45

44

35

39

Offering career prospects

43

43

40

45

37

48

45

36

40

42

46

34

39

38

45

Salary and pension arrangements

16

16

18

17

15

8

16

24

21

22

11

26

15

17

13

Working for a successful and prestigious organization

12

13

12

12

12

14

9

9

10

16

19

10

14

 

12

13

12

12

12

14

9

9

10

12

10

16

19

10

14

Offering a varied choice of location

11

11

12

9

16

8

7

6

18

7

7

9

16

18

11

Good fringe benefits

4

3

5

3

5

1

2

7

1

3

4

6

4

5

4

 

SOURCE: Opinion Research and Communications, 1985.

TABLE 5 Question: Within job satisfaction, which two individual items do you consider important? (Percentage)

BASE

EXPECTED DEGREE

ATTITUDE TO INDUSTRY

ENGINEERING

SUBJECT

ALL

(1007)

1st/2nd

(663)

Other

(266)

Positive

(675)

Neg.

Neutral

(330)

Gen Mech

Prod

(94)

Electric

Electron

(117)

Aero

(56)

Other

(122)

Math

Physics

(92)

Biology

Chem

(109)

Computers

(77)

Bus,

Econ,

Accts

(99)

Social Studies

(80)

Humanities

Law

(136)

Finding work  intellectually stimulating

72

76

63

73

70

72

75

75

66

68

73

77

66

73

79

Working with compatible people

60

62

58

61

57

62

59

61

65

60

63

57

59

15

60

Having a friendly management style

24

24

26

28

18

36

25

25

30

21

17

29

30

18

15

Feeling that one was doing  a good job for society generally

22

19

29

15

37

10

15

11

20

22

28

10

23

40

31

Good working conditions

21

19

23

22

18

20

25

29

18

29

19

23

18

18

15

 

SOURCE: Opinion Research and Communications, 1985.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

TABLE 6 Quality of Education/Industry Links

 

Group Trng Associations

Engineering Companies

Large Engrg Companies

Large Companies

Primary Schools

Excellent

6

5

10

0

Good

7

13

21

15

Indifferent

13

14

21

23

Poor

13

7

12

12

Non-existent

54

54

27

38

Not answered

8

7

9

12

Secondary Schools

Excellent

17

19

33

0

Good

61

44

53

65

Indifferent

13

13

9

12

Poor

3

6

0

4

Non-existent

3

14

2

12

Not answered

4

3

2

8

FE and 6th From Colleges

Excellent

17

16

30

4

Good

44

37

40

46

Indifferent

17

17

16

19

Poor

4

4

1

12

Non-existent

8

18

7

12

Not answered

10

8

6

8

Uni and Poly Departments

Excellent

1

14

23

15

Good

26

35

56

77

Indifferent

15

16

15

42

Poor

17

9

0

0

Non-existent

31

22

5

0

Not answered

10

3

1

4

Uni and Poly Careers Service

Excellent

0

4

11

19

Good

14

19

49

58

Indifferent

11

19

23

15

Poor

17

9

5

4

Non-existent

46

41

7

0

Not answered

13

9

4

4

LA Careers Service

Excellent

39

7

15

0

Good

50

29

44

38

Indifferent

8

22

21

31

Poor

1

13

15

4

Non-existent

0

22

4

19

Not answered

1

7

1

8

N =

72

209

81

26

 

SOURCE: Connor, 1992.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Connor, 1992.

FIGURE 16 Overview of how occupational information on engineering is provided in careers, education, and guidance.

an individual selecting a career in a related area.

As we noted earlier in this paper, individual freedom of choice is a paramount concern in a free market economy. Success is therefore variable. It is also highly dependent upon wider socioeconomic factors. At times of recession, individuals are only too keen to take up whatever employment is available; thus, temporal long run comparisons of the effectiveness of policy are difficult. Similarly, S&T innovatory diffusion is itself a subject of evolution and change. New areas emerge—the biological sciences, information technology—and are presently preeminent, and this can in many subtle ways influence interest and the propensity for uptake of a particular career. Much of industry is no longer the old steam industry of the past; it is more dynamic, cleaner, more high-tech. This again can, if transmitted to potential applicants, significantly influence interest and involvement.

Similarly, the perception of academe as an ideal location for a scientific research career has in recent years become somewhat compromised. This is due to a range of resource allocation reasons, which can have a carry-over effect into the expectancy and career search pattern of individuals. Across the EC there is at present only a preliminary stage of cross-national exchange of employment opportunity. Much may change in the post-1992 years and needs to be carefully considered and monitored. (Harmonization of qualifications, standards of employment, and much else will then influence the subject matter we are discussing here, not of least importance will be linguistic ability.)

The policies and mechanisms indicated in Table 7 are not exhaustive, merely illustrative. Some are of a general nature, others are specific to particular cohort

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

TABLE 7 Examples of Policies and Mechanisms for Improving the Propensity to Take Up an S&T Career

Level or Area of Application

Direct or Indirect Effect (D, I)

I Early School Experience

 

Improved instruction technique

I

Resource support

I

More challenging and involving syllabus

I

Emphasis upon creativity in Science

I

Social societal and environmental awareness

I

Overcoming too early specialization approach

I (D)

Non-formal institute inputs (e.g., OSC)

I

II College Level

 

Sandwich course schemes

D

Industrial Placement Program

D

Wider interdisciplinary syllabus

I

Academic-industrial linkage programs

D

Industrial sponsorship (research) programs

D

Industrial scholarship program

D

Generally improved financing

I

Preferential grants to Science students

D

Preferential financial input to faculty at Institute level

D

(Unit of Resource)

 

HITECC (1988)

 

IT Initiative (1983)

 

Engineering Technology Program (ETP) (1986)

 

Manufacturing Systems Engineering (MSE) Initiative (1988)

 

III Postgraduate Level

 

Academic-industrial liaison schemes

D

Teaching Company Scheme

D

Industrial Sponsorship

D

Society relevant research projects

I, D

SISCON program

I, D

Master of Engineering courses (MEng)

D

Jupiter program (1989)

1, D

Postgraduate Engineering Summer Schools (SERC)

D

IV Continuation Level

 

Transfer and reorientation program

D

Integrated Graduate Development program

D

Flexible reentry program

D

Modular retraining program

D

V Infrastructural Level

 

Increased resource to Academe

I

Increased research facilities

I

Distance Learning programs

I (D)

Involvement in Science Parks

 

Industrial-Academe Campus Linkage

 

Opening Windows for Engineering

 

Neighborhood Engineers schemes

 

Young Engineer for Britain

 

Local Career Exhibitions, National Exhibitions

 

SCIP

 

Insight into Industry

 

VI Demographic or Sociocultural Level

 

Awareness and understanding of Science programs

I

Programs specifically geared to increasing women's participation (WISE)

D

WISE [Women into Science and Engineering (1984)]

I,D

Engineering award scheme for women (1980-82)

 

Inright

 

GATE (1984)

 

TESS (1985)

 

VII International Level

 

International exchange program

 

Comett

I,D

Erasmus

I,D

Petra

 

Force

 

Eurotecnet

 

(Lingus)

 

Tempus

 

(Youth for Europe)

 

Specific Academe Exchange programs; intercollated experience, postgraduate courses; Research Council and other Foundation funding programs

 

UNESCO Fellowships

 

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

groups. We have attempted to group or cluster the various mechanisms, policies, or concerns in accordance with the decision-schemata referred to earlier. It is important to recognize that this is this writer's classification. There is no national or pan-European body that has carefully thought out a master blueprint. In that sense there may be an element of artificiality. Similarly, the table does not imply any degree of individual weighing of the various sub-components, or their relative importance, to the overall scheme of things. It is important to recognize this absence of priorities, for without a blueprint much policy is piecemeal. Policy may thus serve a particular direction but relative importance and resource weighing (and hence adequacy of that weighing) is often not forthcoming. This is an important consideration for further research in this area. For example, who can say, at present, whether resource allocation should be primarily directed at the early stages of the educational process, or at later stages? How can we measure policy efficiency and effectiveness? Many measures come to mind (numbers staying with science, evaluatory scores, attitude measures), but at present they are not being explored in a coherent manner. There is much room for a systems-analysis type research procedure here.

Thus, before examining Table 7 in any detail, it is worth making the following overarching point that should influence future analysis. Let us consider the following question: Where is it most beneficial, cost-effective, to apply policies that aim to increase an individuals' propensity to take up an S&T career? More than that, in macro terms, what is the aggregate gain (viz. when we summate across the number of individuals involved)? Have we any idea, any way, of measuring the total societal return? More subtly, are there surrogate influences on which we should act or apply policy levers? For example, if science is better taught, more fully comprehended, does this increase the individual's propensity to stay with the subject to the point of full-time career involvement? Or-much more difficult to analyze-if syllabuses can be evolved that provide a flexible generic base to an individual's understanding and range of applicability of that knowledge, does this then overcome the problem of rigid stratification into particular occupational areas? This is an important question since skill substitution effects can offset more restrictive limited manpower provision. Such questions have been barely explored.

Sooner or later societies will have to examine such questions in fine detail. On the one hand, the high cost of education has been recognized-in most nations it is the higher proportion of state expenditure. On the other hand, the socioeconomic opportunity costs of an insufficiently well-educated, non-motivated, or insufficiently scientifically and technologically involved populace is a major limit, perhaps the limiting factor on socioeconomic progress. However, because of the high input cost at the aggregate level, we may be forced to examine policy mechanisms in terms of a wider societal value-added approach. (See Figure 17.)

FIGURE 17 Selective filtering.

At level A, basic education (which involves the mass of society), we could seek, by various policies and research inputs, to improve instruction and involvement. The cost would be high, but it would touch hundreds of millions of individuals. If this induced, say, 10-20 percent more individuals to want to seek higher education, to follow through into S&T careers, the social return is equally enormous.

Alternatively (or in addition), we might wish to concentrate effort at level A' or B. Smaller numbers of individuals are involved, but because of the degree of training (sunk costs), the value added of not losing them from S&T careers at this stage justifies particular policy input. We will not explore all the possibilities here, or provide a detailed socioeconomic return calculus, other than to make the point that the shopping list portfolio of policies inherent in Table 7, which reflects in many ways eclectic and incoherent state policy, might benefit from a more holistic socioeconomic analysis. To date this has been insufficiently addressed. It is a major research requirement.

Having made this general analytic point, if we examine Table 7 we can observe that policies are being applied at most levels of the educative process and at

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

many industrial-educational, demographic-educational, and societal-educational interface points. Inter alia, they may have considerable direct, or indirect, effects upon both the propensity for greater numbers of individuals to follow an S&T career and for them to be more productive having done so. It would be overclaiming, however, that all of the programs or policies listed in Table 7 are specifically aimed at increasing the propensity to choose an S&T career. While some are (e.g., those geared to increasing the participation of women in science, engineering, etc., or industrial sponsorship programs aimed at engineering undergraduates), many of the other policy inputs listed in Table 7 may well have just as great an effect in terms of influencing an individual's aspirations to undertake an S&T career.

A few examples follow: a syllabus design that is less theoretical in emphasis, more explorative, can do much to motivate and involve, and improved teaching techniques can get individuals across the decision threshold (or certification-grade requirement) to participate in higher education (on a science course). Once over that hurdle, the chances are greatly increased that an S&T career may be followed. Or, in another attitudinal area, close industrial-academic liaison that demonstrates the challenges to be found in industry (similarly with increased attention to socio-environmental issues, say) can lead to the desire to be involved. Thus, in many ways, the cognitive and affective dimensions intertwine.

Two guiding principles might be considered for the formulation of policy geared to increase the likelihood of later propensity to take up an S&T career. They are as follows: (1) the greater the number of individuals who progress with a scientific and technological education (across the various decision thresholds—see Figures 1 and 7) then, in statistical terms, the greater the chances of later career involvement; and (2) the opportunity cost to society of individuals who have progressed right across the various educational levels and do not then take up an S&T career is considerable. Thus, in many ways, these two somewhat opposing principles have to be influential in shaping policy deliberations. The extent to which this is, at present, the case is debatable.

Also, we must consider the external world. Career uptake, as we have seen, depends also upon perceived image of industry, of academe's (teaching and research) condition, and of relative social, economic, and psychological reward. To a large degree this external world is not subject to change via centralized policy. Industry has to sell itself, persuade, cajole. Every day, through marketing and the competitive stimulus, it does this with respect to its products: the skill is to do this with regard to its own organizational and cultural condition.

Finally, it should be noted that this paper has not considered in any detail the demand side of S&T careers (or, perhaps of even more importance, the changing pattern of demand: new skill requirements, new combinations of skills). Undoubtedly, demand has an effect upon choice of career, as do new opportunities, new challenges. The interfacing in policy and analysis terms of supply and demand in S&T occupation no doubt merits a full, and later, analysis. Necessarily, any such analysis (and subsequent research programs) should spill over into the influence of changing demand, changing S&T structure, into educational policy at all levels of the education process.

We have also noted that there are many difficulties of coupling, of sufficiency of knowledge between student, graduate, or academe on the one hand, and the real world of scientist, industry, or research institution on the other. The opportunity to mix, meet, intermingle prior to various stages of the decisionmaking process regarding career choice is obviously of much potential and actual importance. At graduate (and international) levels, such EC programs as Erasmus or Comett are of much importance and relevance.

The principal aims of Erasmus are "to increase the number of students spending a period of study in another member state, to foster cooperation among universities in all member states, and to increase the mobility of teaching staff and thus improve the quality of education and training provided." With respect to Comett, "the objective is to improve technological training, especially in the advanced technologies, the development of highly qualified human resources and hence the competitiveness of European industry."

The program comprises three elements: (1) cooperation between industry and universities, (2) better training in new technologies, and (3) cross-border cooperation. More specifically, with regard to Comett, there are five main strands of activity:

Strand A—development of University Enterprise Training Partnerships

Strand Ba—student placements in enterprises

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Strand Bb—fellowships

Strand C—development and testing of joint university-enterprise projects in continuing education

Strand D—multilateral initiatives for the development of multi-media training schemes.

Both directly and indirectly, such programs facilitate knowledge, awareness, and challenge in the S&T area. They can, therefore, greatly upgrade the propensity to take up an S&T career. The Comett program has been evaluated by Whiston and Senker (1989) in a large study commissioned by the EC (jointly undertaken by SPRU, University of Sussex, and Coopers and Lybrand). The program was seen to be working well. Many projects were identified that would not have been undertaken without some EC sponsorship. The quantitative effect in terms of later career uptake (or attend career aspirations) was neither sought in that study, nor known. It is not difficult to argue, however, that such important, large-scale international initiatives play an important stimulatory role in encouraging later careers in S&T.

Undoubtedly, the opportunity to communicate and work with peers and to experience new S&T challenges in new settings provide such stimulation and encouragement. Both Erasmus and Comett are important facilitators and bridging mechanisms in that respect.

In EC terms, in addition to these two programs, we would also note the value of the following:

  • Petra, which seeks to ensure vocational training;

  • FORCE, which addresses training schemes, vocational training;

  • Eurotecnet, which considers both "basic and continuing vocational training, with the aim of taking account of current and future technological change and its impact on jobs and work and the qualifications and skills that are needed";

  • Lingua, which promotes language improvement;

  • Tempus, which provides EC assistance in restructuring HE in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in order to facilitate their speedy adaptation to the requirements of the market economy; and

  • Youth for Europe, which promotes the exchange of young people (outside school) and encourages awareness of Europe.

The extent to which specific S&T components permeate through such programs varies considerably. However, the coupling of academe and the wider society is a common component. In some programs (viz. Erasmus and Comett) specific exchange, opportunity of involvement with other scientists, is a large part of the program.

Individual countries have their own initiatives (i.e., the United Kingdom: Teaching Company Scheme, CRAC, IGD, industrial scholarship programs; the United States: "Learning from Scientists at Work," etc.). Evaluation and analysis of such programs from the perspective of influence on career choice would be invaluable as a further guide to policy formulation.

This takes us to our last comment. It is a tentative one, but worthy of careful consideration. If one scans the more contemporary literature regarding S&T career choice, it is immediately obvious that much research focuses upon the male-female gender participation issues (and also upon minority groups). In one sense what we may be seeing here is an attempt to expand the demographic catchment area beyond its historical pattern. That in itself is worthy and very necessary. At the same time, much literature testifies to the large proportion of individuals who, having received much expensive S&T training, decline to take up a career (hence, the pressure to expand the social-catchment area). Much further policy research is required on these latter topics to ensure the most effective and socioeconomically beneficial returns for both the individual and for society-at-large. Broad-brush policies, initiatives based on faith, may well have to be more finely attenuated as the scale and form of need becomes more critical to the development of society. In one sense we are talking of areas that account for billions of dollars of expenditure, of high wastage-rates dependent upon one's perspective. We are also seeing critical national and world sociotechnical needs partially unfulfilled due to human resource bottlenecks, which demands an even wider policy analysis or research agenda than has been signaled in this brief paper.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

FUTURE RESEARCH TASKS

What now needs to be done, to be taken further? We would suggest the following research tasks, which if acted upon in more detail and with greater precision, may help to improve the uptake into S&T career paths:

  1. Provide a fully developed systems model or assessment of the whole educative process in order to guide the relative weighing, importance, and role of each of the present separate policies that obtain at each phase of the educational process. (This is an economic, strategic, evaluatory, and sociotechnical task.)

  2. Identify more clearly the critical individual steps that influence the life cycle decision pathway and evolution of an individual's experience prior to choosing a career, and then assess policy needs.

  3. Evaluate the effectiveness of all policies more fully through wide and detailed comparative survey.

  4. Examine the major perceptual barriers and ignorance that characterize students' knowledge of S&T careers outside academe. Translate this into much greater synergies between academe and commerce, and academe and society at all levels of the educative process.

  5. The importance of flexibility at every facet of education, syllabus, reentry possibilities, organizational structures, and combination of courses cannot be overemphasized.

Flexibility, however, is a much misused term. It is often a euphemism for uncertainty and ignorance. Therefore, care must be taken in understanding in human resource terms exactly what one is trying to address and achieve. To formulate policy based upon past experience of industry, commerce, and academic structure is dangerous. The need is for detailed analytic study of likely future S&T trajectories, future skill needs, future research priorities. To involve government, industry, commerce, and academe in that analysis and later transmission to the whole student body by the widest means possible. Organizational synergy comes with informational and perceptual transparency. Fluidity of movement improves with individuals who are well informed and confident of their knowledge. We see, there, a massive information distribution task.

We have seen the difficulties of manpower forecasting; nevertheless, the social costs of error are enormous. Equally, the cost of training numerous individuals only to see them not take up S&T careers presents problems (though we must recognize that they contribute to the general economy in other areas).

The general concerns signaled in this paper can be translated into the need for more data and surveys in the areas listed below in which more detailed national and international comparative data are required—especially at a time of increasing migratory and exchange programs and new national linkages at the global level. This requires improved knowledge regarding the following questions:

  • What major factors influence career choice in S&T and how might these be changing under new world conditions?

  • Can we rank these influences into differing orders of magnitude?

  • What are the major career decision steps and how might they be influenced by policy enaction? What proportion of individuals are lost at each stage?

  • Are there different patterns relating to subject area (e.g., physical sciences, engineering, biological sciences, computing) and also career choice?

  • How is all of this influenced by an individual's educational/training background?

  • What are the major barriers and obstacles to the likelihood of taking up a certain career pathway? How does this vary from subject area, discipline, and occupational area?

  • How is career choice influenced by the changing S&T scene, changing world conditions?

  • What policies are most effective in encouraging placement in (or return to) an S&T career?

  • What are the effects of oversupply (nationally and internationally) in discipline areas?

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
  • What differences are there relating to career choice regionally, nationally, and culturally? Are there significant cultural differences?

  • Are there different patterns and mechanisms relating to career uptake at different levels (e.g., technician, undergraduate, and postgraduate)?

  • In what ways is the process influenced by the eliteness of the educational establishment or university or college?

  • Which S&T career paths are the most (or least) sought after and why? How does this vary from nation to nation?

  • What different patterns and mechanisms of choice are observed between gender or ethnic grouping?

  • Are there significant national or international poaching problems across careers or nations? Which non-S&T areas lay the biggest claim to S&T graduates?

  • What international/governmental developments are playing a significant role in our understanding of the above (e.g., international migration ease, standard qualifications and training, multinational linkage, etc.)?

  • Which S&T subjects or disciplines lead to the highest uptake in S&T careers? How does this vary internationally?

  • Does the degree of specialization (or multidisciplinary training) play a significant role in subsequent career uptake?

At present we lack sufficient data or knowledge in all the above areas. This compromises our ability to formulate the most effective policy agenda with respect to influencing career choice in S&T areas. The subsequent loss to society at large, to scientific endeavor, and to technological and industrial development is no doubt considerable.

NOTES

1.  

In this sense, much of the research and extensive writings of my old mentor, Professor John Cohen (Manchester University, UK), in contradistinction to such researchers as Eysenck or Cattell, might be usefully considered.

2.  

See Whiston, T.G. (1969), Future Trends in Science Education, Education in Chemistry 6(4), pp. 133-136.

3.  

In using the term ''career," we are not distinguishing the type of occupation, which may be in the public or private sector, industry or academe, productive, research, teaching, or whatever. Obviously, perceived opportunity, market conditions, individual interest, and capability all play a part.

4.  

The recent removal of the HE "binary line"—separating polytechnics and universities—is also of much importance to our analysis here. The polytechnics (now "universities") have a tradition of applied work, of graduates seeking S&T careers. In future years, UK statistics may therefore change significantly.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

REFERENCES

Astin, A. 1991. The Changing American College Student: Implications for Educational Policy and Practice. Higher Education. 22:129-143.

Atkinson, J. 1989. Corporate Employment Policies for the Single European Market, IMS Report No. 179, IMS University of Sussex.


Bee, M. and P.G. Dolton. 1989. What Do Graduates Earn? The Starting Salaries and Earning Prospects for University Graduates 196086. University of Bristol, Department of Economic Working Paper 89/246.

Bee, M and P.J. Dolton. 1990. Where Do Graduates Go? The First Destinations of University Graduates, 1961/62-1986/87. Studies in Higher Education. 15(3):313-329.

Benditt, J. 1992. Women in Science: First Annual Survey. Science. 255(5050): 1363-88.

Birch, W. 1988. The Challenge of Higher Education: Reconciling Responsibilities to Scholarship and to Society. SHRE/Open U.P.

Bon, C.A. et al. 1991. Effects of a Pharmacy Student Recruitment Programme. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 55(3):258-63.

Boys, C.J. and Kirkland, J. 1988. Degrees of Success: Career Aspirations and Destinations of College, University and Polytechnic Graduates. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Brennan, J. 1992. European Higher Education Systems: Germany, the Netherlands, the UK. CNAA.


Clark, B. (ed). 1987. The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary and Institutional Settings. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Confederation of British Industry. 1989. Towards a Skills Revolution. Report of the vocational education and training task force. London CBI.

Connor, H., C. Jackson, G. Pike, and B. Ball. 1992. A Careers Service for Engineering, IMS Report No. 219 IMS University of Sussex.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Washington, D.C. [Sponsoring Agency] Science Lives: Women and Minorities in the Sciences. Minnesota University, Minneapolis, KUOM Radio (13 half hour programmes).

Council for Industry and Higher Education. 1987. Towards a Partnership: Higher Education, Government, Industry.


Daune-Richard, A.M. 1992. Women in "Male" Careers: The Case of Higher Technicians in France. Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche sur les Qualifications, Paris (France). Training and Employment: French Dimensions Newsletter 6:1-4.

Davis, J.A. 1965. Undergraduate Career Decisions, Aldine Pub. Co. Chicago DES (1975), Curriculum Differences for Boys and Girls, DES Education Survey 21 , London HMSO.

DES. 1991. Education and Training for the 21st Century, HMSO.

Dick, T.P. and S.F. Rallis. 1991. Factors and Influences on High School Student's Career Choices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(4):281-92.

Dolton, P.J. 1989. The Early Careers of 1980 Graduates: Work Histories, Job Tenure, Career Mobility and Occupational Choice. Department of Employment Research Paper.

Durndell, A. 1990. Why do Female Students Tend to Avoid Computer Studies? Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2): 163-70.


Eden, D. 1992. Female Engineers: Their Career Socialization in a Male-Dominated Occupation. Urban Education, 27(2): 174-195.

Engineering Professors Conference Research Unit. 1986. Careers of Scientists and Engineers. University of Liverpool.

Eurostat. 1992. Europe in Figures, EEC (3rd Ed.) Brussels.


Finniston, M. 1980. The Finniston Report. Engineering Our Future: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession. London HMSO Cmnd 7794.

First Destination Statistics, USR/CDO, Annual Report.

Freeman, R.B. 1971. The Market for College Training Manpower: A Study in the Economics of Career Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Frieden, C. and B. Fox. 1991. Career Choices of Graduates from Washington University's Medical Training Program. Academic Medicine, 66(3): 162-64.

Fuller, A. 1991. There's more to science and skills shortages than demography and economics: attitudes to science and technology degrees and careers. Studies in Higher Education, 16(3):33341.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Fulton, O., A. Gordan, and G. Williams. 1982. Higher education and manpower planning: A comparative study of planned and market economies. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Galbraith, M. 1992. Understanding career choices in men in elementary education. Journal of Educational Research, 85(4):246-253.

Garrett, L. 1986. Gender differences in relation to science choice at "A" level. Education Review, 38(1).

Gellert, G. (ed). 1992. Higher education in Europe, J. Kingsley.

Gordan, A. and Pearson, R. 1984. Manpower for IT. IMS Report No. 83. A report to SERC, IMS University of Sussex.

Gordan, A., R. Hutt, and R. Pearson. 1985. Employer sponsorship of undergraduate engineers, IMS April 1985.

Gothard, W.P. 1982. Brightest and the best: A study of graduates and their occupational choices in the 1970s. Chester: Bemrose Press.


Hackett, E.J. 1990. Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 61(3):241-279.

Higher Education Policy (Special Theme). 1992. Research and Training: Towards innovative strategies of financing. The Quarterly Journal of the International Association of Universities. 5(2).

Hilska, U. 1990. Recruitment of students to Universities of Technology in Finland. European Journal of Engineering Education, 15(4):361-368.

HMSO. 1987. Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, Cmnd 114 1987. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (1991) Innovation in Manufacturing Industry, Vol. 1 - Report HMSO London.


Imperial Ventures Ltd. 1989. Survey into the attitudes and intentions of graduating engineers.


Kelly, A. (ed). 1981. The missing half - girls and science education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kelly, A. 1988. Ethnic differences in science choice, attitudes and achievement in Britain. British Educational Research Journal, 14(2).

Kelsall, R.K. 1957. Report on an inquiry into applications for admission to universities . Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the U.K. Published by the Assoc. of Universities of the British Commonwealth. London.

Kelsall, R.K., A. Poole, and A. Kuhn. 1972. Graduates: The sociology of an elite. Methven, London.

Kennan and Newton. 1979. A Longitudinal study of engineers. University of Edinburgh. Kennedy, A., Rotherham, L. and Whiston, T. G. (1983) A review of the SERC Integrated Graduate Development Programme. 2 vols. 1983 [published by Technical Change Centre London TCCR-83-005 Report to SERC]


Lawton, D. 1973. Social change, educational theory and curriculum planning. London: University of London Press.

Lent, R.W. 1991. Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to Science-Based careers choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4):424-430.

Lips, H.M. 1992. Gender and science-related attitudes as predictors of College student's Academic Choices. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 40(1):62-81.

Luttikholt, H.W. 1989. EED Sources of support for higher education and research in 1990: A policy paper. Liaison Committee of Rectors Conferences of Member States of the EC, Brussels 1989.


Mabey, C. 1986. Graduates into industry - a survey of changing graduate attitudes. Henley Management College.

McCormick, K. 1988. Engineering education in Britain and Japan: Some reflections in the use of 'Best Practice models' in International Comparison. Sociology, 22(4):583-605.

Mervis, J. 1991. Educators rally to salvage science dropouts. Scientist, 5(4) p 1, 4, 10. Morgans, C.J. (1991) Engineering the way to becoming a Federal Engineer. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 52(1):38-42.


National Science Foundation. 1990. NSF's Research experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program: An assessment of the First three years NSF Report 90-58 29 pp.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

National Academy of Sciences, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel. 1991. Women in Science and Engineering: Increasing their numbers in the 1990s - A statement on policy and strategy. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

NFER (for DES) Noncompletion of engineering courses (ongoing).

NFER (for DES) Images of Engineering (ongoing, 1990).

Opinion Research and Communication. 1985. Attracting the brightest students into industry. Vol. 2. Career attitudes and aspirations of the undergraduate population . London, August 1985.

OTA. 1991. Federally funded research: Decisions for a decade [Chapter 7: Human sources for the research work force]. Congress of the United States. Washington DC OTA-SET-490.

Otto, P.B. 1991. One science, one sex? School science and mathematics, 91(8):367-372.


Parsons, D. 1986. Employment Brief No. 8 School Leaver Supply Trends for the 1980s, IMS, University of Sussex.

Pearson, R. 1989. Postgraduate training and careers in the United States—Trends and Issues. Report to SERC, IMS University of Sussex, IMS Report No. 165.

Pearson, R. et al. 1990. The recruitment and retention of University academic and academic related staff. Report to the Assoc. of University teachers and CVCP. Sept. 1990, IMS University of Sussex.

Pearson, R., G. Pike, and S. Holly. 1991. The IMS Graduate Review 1991, IMS Report No. 206, IMS University of Sussex.

Pearson, R., F. Andrentti, and S. Holly. 1990. The European Labour Market Review: The key indicators. IMS Report No. 193, IMS University of Sussex.

Pearson, R. and G. Pike. 1989. The graduate labor market in the 1990s. IMS Report No. 167, IMS University of Sussex.

Pearson, R. 1988. Scientific Research Manpower: A review of supply and demand trends. IMS.

Pearson, R., G. Pike, A. Gordan, and C. Weyman. 1989. How many graduates in the 21st Century?—The choice is yours. IMS Report No. 177, IMS, University of Sussex.

Pike, G. and H. Connor. 1990 Evaluation of the Teaching Company Scheme—The Associates. IMS Paper No. 159 IMS University of Sussex.

Post, P. 1991. Self-efficacy, interest and consideration of math/science and non math/science occupations among Black Freshmen. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 38(2):179-186.

Paris, S. J. 1989. Qualified manpower on engineering: Britain and other industrially advanced countries. National Institute Economic Review, 127:76-83.


Raisman, J. 1991. Industry and Education: Strengthening the partnership. Paper to the AGM of IMS. IMS Paper No. 168, December 91, IMS University of Sussex.

Redpath, B. and B. Harvey. 1987. Young people's intentions to enter Higher Education, CS/HMSO London 1987.

Reid, M. I., B.R. Barnett, and H.A. Rosenburg. 1974. A matter of choice. A study of guidance and subject options, Slough, NFER.

Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd. 1990. European students attitudes to business, Report No. NJ 5896.

Ryrie, A.C., A. Furst, and M. Lauder. 1979. Choices and chances: A study of pupils' subject choices and future career intentions. Scottish Council for Research in Education. Hodder and Stoughton, London.


Sanyal, B.C. 1987. Higher education and employment: an international comparative analysis. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Sax, L. 1992. Predicting persistence of science career aspirations: A comparative study of male and female college students. [Paper presented at the America Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA; April 24, 1991.]

Senker, P. 1992. Industrial training in a cold climate: Assessment of Britain's training policies, Aldershot, Avebury.

Smith, J. 1987. Graduate recruitment to Engineering. EITB 1987.

Stock, J., R. Pearson, and H. Connor. 1990. The careers and training of engineers—some research issues. IMS, University of Sussex.

Stock, J., H. Connor, and R. Pearson. 1990. The careers and training of engineers. SRC/IMS, IMS University of Sussex.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Taber, K. S. 1992. Science-relatedness and gender appropriateness of careers: Some pupil perceptions. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10(1): 105-15.

Taylor, J. 1985. Employability of graduates: Differences between universities. University of Lancaster.

THES. 1992. V-cs fear 'extreme' cuts. The Times Higher Educ. December 4, 1992 p 3. (S. Griffiths and C. Sanders).


Vaughan, D. K. 1990. The image of the Engineer in the Popular Imagination, 1880-1980 Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 10(5-6):301304.


Waite, R. and G. Pike. 1989. School leaver decline and effective local solutions. IMS Report No. 178. IMS University of Sussex.

Walker, B. 1991. Environmental health and African Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 81(11): 1395-1398.

Waltner, J. C. 1992. Learning from scientists at work. Educational Leadership, 49(6):48-52.

Wankowski, J. 1968. Random sample analysis: Motives and goals in university studies. Educational Survey. University of Birmingham.

Warren-Piper, D. and S. Acker (eds). 1984. Is Higher Education fair to women? SRHE 1984.

Weir, A. D. and F. Nolan. 1977. Glad to be out? Edinburgh, Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Whiston, T. G. 1988. The coordination of education policies and plans with those for Science and Technology: Western Europe and Developing Countries [plus an annotated bibliography of 400 references]. Complete Issue of The Bulletin of the International Bureau of Education. April-June 1988, 247:1-144. Geneva. (In English and French).

Whiston, T. G. 1987. Restructuring and selectivity in academic science. Science Policy Support Group (SPSG) London. Concept Paper No. 5.

Whiston, T. G. (ed). 1979. The uses and abuses of forecasting. London: Macmillan.

Whiston, T. G. 1992. Managerial and organizational integration. London and Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Whiston, T. G. and J. Senker. 1989. Evaluation of the COMETT Programme, Brussels: Commission of the European Community April 1989. (Also available in German and French).

Whiston, T. G. 1987. The training and circumstances of the Engineer in the Twenty-First Century. A study undertaken for the Fellowship of Engineering, March 1987, SPRU University of Sussex, 234 pp.

Whiston, T. G. 1984. Written evidence on New Technologies and UK Educational Policy Response. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology: Education and Training for new technologies. HMSO 3:472-478, London.

Whiston, T. G. 1969. Future trends in science education. In Education in Chemistry (Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), 1969 6(4) 133136.

Whiston, T. G. and R. Geiger (eds). 1992. Research and Higher Education: The UK and USA Scene. Open University Press Milton Keynes.

Whiston, T. G. 1986. Management and assessment of interdisciplinary training and research, Paris: ICSU and UNESCO Press.

Whiston, T. G. 1982. Interdisciplinary Training: Problems and perspective—a study of the ESRC-SERC Joint Research Committee Doctoral Programme (3 vols.). Report to ESRC-SERC. University of Sussex 1982 (Also published in condensed form by SERC as Interdisciplinary Research: Selection, Supervision and Training a summary of the Whiston Report. SERC Monograph April 1983, Swindon.

Whiston, T. G., P. Senker, and P. MacDonald. 1980 An annotated bibliography on the relationship between technological change and educational development. Paris: UNESCO Press.

White, R. M. 1991. Engineer your child's way to the top, PTA Today, 17(1):18-19.

Women in Science Newsletter. 1992. [Issued by SPSG, London] updating details of WITEC (Women in Technology in the EC) and WISE (Women into Science and Engineering launched by the Engineering Council and the Equal Opportunities Commission).

Woods, P. 1976. The myth of subject choice. British Journal of Sociology, 27(2):130-149.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Factors Behind Choice of Advanced Studies and Careers in Science and Technology: A Synthesis of Research in Science Education

Torsten Husén

In 1989, as part of the celebration of its 250th anniversary, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences held an international symposium on issues in science education. The subtitle of the symposium report was Science Competence in a Social and Ecological Context (Husén and Keeves, eds., 1991). Since I was invited to organize the symposium, I shall take some of the issues we dealt with as a point of reference for the present paper. The main concern behind our present conference is the difficulty encountered by many industrialized countries on both sides of the Atlantic in recruiting a sufficient number of young people to careers in science and technology. It is a problem that has to be seen in a wider context than we usually do. It is not just a problem of getting enough young people with good specific abilities and competencies. In our highly complex, technological society we need to recognize the strong motivating effect of the growing concern of the ecological and social effects of applied sciences and how they affect the public image of science and its uses. Thus, science education reaches far beyond the pedagogical problem of what abilities are needed, what specific competencies should be taught to young people, and what standard of knowledge should be achieved.

BRIEF REVIEW OF RELEVANT FACTORS

What factors have an impact on young people's motivation to embark upon advanced studies in the natural sciences and eventually upon their willingness—or reluctance—to pursue careers in the field? I shall briefly review what many would regard as the main factors.

  1. The home background, particularly parental education and occupation, is important not only in providing role models but also in shaping attitudes and influencing motivation. Mention should be made of the sociocultural milieu with its gender stereotypes and influence on attitudes.

  2. I have already mentioned the image of science young people get in today's society via the home, the school, and, not to mention, the media. Increasingly over the last few decades, young people have begun to ask themselves to what extent science and its applications are beneficial or harmful to mankind. Science has become integrated into the economy of industrialized societies in what could be called a techno-system. George Henrik von Wright (1989), in his Jubilee Lecture on Science, Reason, and Value, pointed out that "a loss of prestige for science due to the misuse made of it in technology... (implies) a weakening of the intellectual curiosity which is the psychological motive for the epistemic orientation of science." This tends to affect young people's attitudes toward science as a field of study and their willingness to embark upon careers in science and technology.

  3. The teaching of science in school, how well it is taught and how difficult and elitist it is perceived by the students, tends to have a profound influence

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

on the willingness to pursue advanced studies. Attitudes to science are shaped at a very early stage in school. Not in the least, girls are turned away by the elitist perception that science is something mainly for boys, which is closely linked to teacher competence in this particular subject area. There is no need here to point out the difficulties one has in many countries in recruiting competent teachers. Those who study science at the tertiary level are attracted by several other, better remunerated careers than teaching. I was struck by this when I was invited to a hearing by the National Commission on Excellence a decade ago. So many high school science teachers in the United States have not even majored in science.

  1. Science is often perceived as a difficult school subject, particularly by girls. Its close relationship with mathematics and its own abstract features tend to have an abhorrent effect on students. It deals with strict laws, principles, and rules that cannot be substituted by verbal form.

  2. Of special concern is the big gender gap in the percentage of young people embarking upon advanced studies and careers in science and technology. Girls represent an enormous, untapped reserve of ability in the field, even with regard to existing sex differences (whatever their cause may be) in science achievement in school. I shall devote a major part of the paper to sex differences in science achievement, abilities related to science, and motivational orientation toward science studies and careers.

  3. Finally, career prospects in the higher education system, and in business and industry, play an important role in attracting young people with a high level of abilities and creative minds. These prospects, in turn, depend upon the financial auspices and the willingness of the political system to invest in science and technology.

In his analysis of factors influencing participation in science after completion of secondary schooling, Keeves (1992) identified the following:

  • science values (as reflected in attitude scales measuring career interest and perceived beneficial aspects of science);

  • aspirations (expected postsecondary education and subsequent occupation);

  • amount of science studies (courses, class time, and homework); and

  • science attitudes (interest in science and perceived ease of learning science).

The data analyzed were collected by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), which conducted two international surveys in some twenty countries. The multi-variate analysis of IEA data presents no evidence that the sex of students has a significant direct effect on future participation in advanced science studies or occupations. However, the striking sex differences in participation are due to indirect effects of values, attitudes, aspirations, sex stereotypes, and amount of science studies at the secondary school level. These attitudes and values are shaped by the sociocultural environment.

ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

The factors influencing science achievements and aspirations to pursue careers in science shall be elucidated by drawing upon existing empirical data, most of which comes from the IEA cross-national surveys. I do not pretend to present a complete, comprehensive, state-of-the-art picture of the research on what makes young people opt for or not opt for advanced studies and courses in science and technology. My ambition is limited mainly to cross-national surveys in mathematics and science, which I was instrumental in launching in the early 1960s, and which have since been repeated. Thus, I am referring to the science education surveys conducted under the auspices of the IEA.

First, I will provide a thumbnail sketch of the enterprise. A feasibility study was carried out in 1959-1961 (Foshay, ed., 1962), and the first full-scale survey took place in the mid-1960s and targeted mathematics (Husén, ed., 1967). In 1970, the first science study was conducted in 19 countries on students at 3 grade levels in primary and secondary schools (Combes and Keeves, 1973). A second science survey occurred in 1983-1984 in 23 countries (Rosier and Keeves, 1991;

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Postlethwaite and Wiley, 1991; Keeves, ed., 1992), and a third survey is being conducted in some 40 countries; data collection on the two occasions is presently being prepared and is expected to be completed by 1999.

It would take me too long even if I tried to deal briefly with the main complicated technical problems we have to cope with in conducting studies of this magnitude. Instead, let me simply hint at some of the problems and refer to the IEA literature, which by now comprises more than 50 monographs in book form and hundreds of minor publications in scholarly journals. Three major technical problems stand out:

  1. Selecting target populations and drawing representative samples have had to be identified at various levels of the national educational systems.

  2. Test instruments for assessing student competence in science and attitudes toward science and science careers have had to be devised. This requires, among other things, thorough analyses of science curricula in all participating countries and testing the proposed sample questions in each country. Of the latter, very few questions survived the scrutiny needed to make the achievement and attitude tests cross-nationally valid. In addition to the tests, questionnaires had to be devised and administered to students, teachers, and school administrators.

  3. Data processing techniques and—above all—multi-variate analytic techniques have to be developed to cope with the enormous mass of data. The analyses were aimed at accounting for the differences between countries, schools, and students in terms of social background factors, teacher competence, methods of instruction, and school resources.

Since IEA has conducted surveys with certain time intervals, it is now possible to measure trends over time in science competence and attitudes toward science. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study will be conducted during the 1990s. It entails a follow-up component (i.e., the same students are tested with a few years interval). This allows us to assess the growth of competence in the individual student over time and will give us a better picture of the trends than those of cross-sectional studies.

ATTITUDES AND VALUES AFFECTING PARTICIPATION, ACHIEVEMENT, AND CHOICE OF CAREER IN SCIENCE (IEA SURVEYS)

In the following I shall deal mainly with IEA attitudinal studies focusing specifically on:

  1. interest in and attitudes toward science as a school subject, and perceptions of its difficulties;

  2. perceptions of the beneficial and harmful aspects, respectively, of science in society; and

  3. career interests in science.

We shall deal with secondary school students at the beginning and end of the stage (i.e., with 14-year-olds and 18-20-year-olds, respectively).

In the First International Science Survey (FISS) (Combes and Keeves, 1973), students at the 10-, 14-, and 18-20-year-old level were given attitude and interest inventories where they expressed, among other things: (1) interest in science, (2) attitudes toward school science, and (3) attitudes toward the role of science in the world today.

Those in FISS who explicitly disliked science among those taking it in the final grade of secondary school were, as one would expect, rather few in comparison with those who did not take it. Those expressing dislike ranged from 22 percent in Germany to 6 percent in Sweden. The percentage among those not taking science ranged from 70 percent in England to 14 percent in Hungary.

The responses to the attitude items were combined into a standardized scale, Belief in Science, with an international mean of 0. (See Figure 1.) On the positive side, we consistently find Hungary (far above the other countries), and, on the negative side, the Netherlands, Sweden, England, and India, strangely enough, among those also taking science in the last grade of secondary schooling. This was at a time when young people began to realize the ecological effects of applied science.

In the Second International Science Survey, 1983-1984, attitudes toward science and its effects were studied more in depth by means of five scales

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Boys, 14- and 18-year-olds, in Various Study Programs

Standardized Mean Score

14-year-old Students

18-year-old Non-Science Students

18-year-old Science Students

Cumulative Distribution For All (%)

 

.91 Hungary

 

 

.88 Hungary

 

.86

 

80%

 

.67 Hungary

 

70%

.55

 

 

.47 Finland

 

 

.35 Thailand

 

 

.34 England

 

 

.33 Thailand/USA

 

.27

 

.28 Chile

 

60%

 

.20 Finland

 

 

.19 Thailand

 

 

.17 Chile

 

 

.13 W. Germany

 

 

.12 USA

 

 

.06 Australia

 

 

.01 USA

 

0

INTERNATIONAL MEAN SCORE 50%

 

 

-.16 Chile

-.16 W. Germany

 

 

-.17 India

 

 

-.18 Finland

 

 

-.21 Sweden

 

 

-.25 Netherlands

 

-.27

-.27 Australia

 

 

-.29 Japan

 

-.29 Netherlands

40%

 

-.35 W. Germany

 

 

-.38 Australia

 

 

-.40 Sweden

-.40 England

 

 

-.44 England

 

 

-.47 India

 

 

.48 Sweden

 

-.55

-.55 India

 

30%

 

-.68 Netherlands

 

-.86

 

20%

SOURCE: Husén and Mattsson, 1978.

FIGURE 1 Standardized mean score on the attitude scale: "Belief in Science."

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

measuring attitudes and values:

  1. Interest in science at school. To what extent is science liked more than other subjects and science lessons regarded as particularly stimulating and interesting?

  2. Ease of learning science. To what extent does the student find science easy to learn?

  3. Career interest in science. To what extent does the student aspire to a career in science in order to use science learned at school? To what extent does he or she consider science a field for creative people? To what extent does it provide good and prestigious jobs?

  4. Beneficial aspects of science. To what extent is science considered important for social and economic development and for making the world a better place to live in? To what extent is it worth spending public money on research in science?

  5. Non-harmful aspects of science. To what extent does the student consider science as non-harmful to environment? To what extent does science contribute to the problems besetting the world and to the creation of anxiety? Can scientific discoveries be considered to do more good than harm?

The country profiles for the three target populations (10-, 14-, and 18- to 20-year-olds) for four of the scales (ease of learning science is left out because of doubtful validity) are presented in Figure 2 on a standardized scale ranging from -100 to + 100. The value of zero represents a neutral level of attitude.

As can be seen, attitudes toward science are, on the whole, positive, indicating strong support for science and the study of science. Fourteen-year-olds tend to be more positive than those in the final grades of secondary school. There is also, on the whole, a consistency in attitudes across grade levels. Students in Hungary, Italy, and Thailand tend to hold more favorable attitudes, whereas those in the Netherlands, Japan, and Sweden tend to be less favorable. These findings, along with those from other surveys, show that countries in the beginning phase of industrial and technological development generally encounter rather favorable attitudes toward science from students.

Attitudes are less favorable in countries experiencing a high level of industrial and technological development. In these countries, young people have had ample opportunity to experience the ecological effects of an advanced society. This explains, for instance, why Swedish students, in spite of relatively favorable attitudes toward science as a subject field, hold rather strong reservations about the beneficial impact of science in society and do not play down its harmful effects. Similar tendencies can be observed in the United States.

There is a trend of declining interest in careers in science from the 14-year-old level to the final secondary school grades in Australia, England, Finland, and Hungary. This is partly due to the retention rate and the selection that takes place in secondary schools. In Finland and Hungary, a very high proportion of girls are retained in school and their less favorable attitude toward science lowers the overall average. The polarization of students in England and Australia into science and non-science-oriented courses during the last few grades explains the drop of career interest in these countries. The relatively low interest of Japanese students at the secondary level in science careers may seem puzzling; however, one important explanation could be that the proportion of an age group entering advanced science programs at the tertiary level is by far much lower in Japan than in all the other highly industrialized countries. In Japan, the majority of students go on to technological studies.

The tricky problem of if and to what extent attitudes influence achievements in science, and if and to what extent it is the other way around has been treated with the multi-variate analysis methods that modern statistics has made available in the social sciences. The analytic approach employed allowed estimations of the reciprocal effects. By repeating the procedure in all countries and population levels, outcomes gain strength of validity.

The analyses gave the following outcomes. The effects of interest in school science are greater than the effects of achievement on interest. This has to be interpreted in the context of the problem of the quality of teaching. A major concern in science education has to do with the difficulty of recruiting competent teachers in science. In countries, such as the United States and Sweden, a high proportion of science teachers at the secondary level lack adequate subject matter preparation. Low quality teaching often may be the result, which, in turn, may affect not only achieve-

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Keeves, 1992.

FIGURE 2 Attitudes compared across countries and populations, 1983-1984.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

ments but also student interest in and attitudes toward science.

The effects of attitudes dealing with the beneficial aspects of science on achievements are of the same strength as the effects of achievements on the attitudes to the beneficial aspects.

The effects of the perception that science is easy to learn based on science achievements are significantly greater than the effects of these attitudes on achievement.

So far we have been dealing with two categories of attitudes:

  1. attitudes toward science as a school subject and the ease, or difficulty, to learn science; and

  2. science values as expressed in terms of the attitudes of beneficial and harmful aspects of science and career interest in science.

These attitudes and values operate at two levels, both within schools and classrooms and between schools and classrooms. Analyses were conducted at the 10-year and 14-year level, where 100 percent of the age groups is in school. Both clusters, attitudes and values, turned out to have a direct and/or indirect effect on differences in science achievements in all countries. With the exception of England and Australia, the average level of attitude toward school science and the average level of values significantly accounted for the difference between classrooms and schools.

The latter finding has important implications for the teaching of science. By keeping the students' home background and ability under control, science attitudes and values held by the student are significantly influencing the achievements in science. This attribute is an important role for the teacher in influencing attitudes. Thus, teachers can directly and indirectly influence the achievements of their students in science via the classroom climate by inspiring interest and convincing their students that science is not necessarily difficult to learn nor necessarily harmful and that it is worth investing in a science-based career.

CAREER IMPLICATIONS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS AND ATTITUDES TO SCIENCE (IEA SURVEYS)

The sex differences in secondary school science participation, science achievements, and attitudes were studied in-depth by both of the international surveys on science education in 1970 (Combes and Keeves, 1973; Kelly, 1978) and in 1983-1984 (Rosier and Keeves, 1991; Postlethwaite and Wiley, 1991; and Keeves, ed., 1992). As can be seen in Figure 3, there were substantial sex difference in achievements on both occasions. The differences were, as was shown by Kelly (1978), consistent across countries and social strata within countries. The so-called effect size, which made it possible to compare age levels and countries by means of the same scale, showed the following:

  1. Differences are comparatively small at the 10-year-old level. However, they increase and are rather large at the 18-year-old level.

  2. Differences are relatively small in biology, intermediary in chemistry, and rather large in physics.

Given the consistency of these findings across cultures, countries, and social strata, one is tempted to arrive at the conclusion that they are genetically determined. But such a conclusion would be premature for the following reasons. First, since this is the easiest factor to investigate, we have to consider the proportions of boys and girls studying science beyond the level at which it is a mandatory subject. But taking this into account, we still find large sex differences in achievement.

At the stage when taking science is no longer mandatory, we can note large sex differences in participation in the three main subfields: biology, chemistry, and physics. Figure 4 presents the enrollment rates (for boys) in biology, chemistry, and physics in nine countries at the pre-university level. The rank order between the three subfields is consistent across all countries: the highest enrollment is in physics, chemistry is in the middle, and the lowest participation is in biology. For girls at the pre-university level, the rank order is the reverse—the same trend as achievement.

Second, we notice that there are significant reductions in sex differences over the 14-year interval between the two surveys. Countries with a significant decline at the upper secondary level are Australia, Finland, Hungary, Japan, and Sweden. In Australia and Sweden, the drop in differences at this level are particularly striking in physics. This should be looked at as the outcome of attempts to involve girls in science

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

SOURCE: Keeves, 1992.

FIGURE 3 Sex differences in science scores and subscores at different ages, 1970-1971 and 1983-1984.

SOURCE: Keeves, 1992.

FIGURE 4 Percentage males of total group of science specialist students studying biology, chemistry, and physics at the pre-university level, 1983-1984.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

and technology programs that were launched in the 1970s in these countries.

In conjunction with the enrollment explosion taking place at the upper secondary level, the proportion of boys and girls in academic programs (including science) has changed. In some countries, boys tend to go to vocational programs that lead directly to employment, whereas girls more often take academic programs. The ratio of male to female students in academic programs in the upper secondary level in Finland and Hungary, for instance, decreased from 0.8 to 0.6 and from 0.8 to 0.6, respectively.

It was found that sex differences in attitudes toward science increase with age, a phenomenon parallel to that in achievement.

The multi-variate, causal analyses conducted show that the sex of the student has a direct influence on both achievements and attitudes. Thus, as students move from primary school to lower secondary and pre-university upper secondary school, a gender gap, particularly in physics, emerges. But it needs to be underlined that in the IEA surveys sex of the student has only a weak—and indirect—influence on science achievement.

ATTITUDES AND MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION (NON-IEA STUDIES)

In two articles in The New York Times (January 25 and 26, 1993), Shirley M. Tilghman cites statistics on female scientists in the United States. In 1966, 23 percent of bachelor's degrees in science were held by women, and by 1988, this had risen to 40 percent. Women tend to choose biology instead of physics or chemistry. Thus, in 1988, 50 percent of the biology majors holding a bachelor's degree were women.

There was also an increase of women studying at the advanced level. Thus, 9 percent of the doctorates in science in 1966 were held by women, a proportion that rose to 27 percent for 1988. However, half of the increase was in psychology degrees. Little progress had been made at the graduate level in mathematics, physics, and engineering. Only 7 percent of doctorates in engineering were held by women by 1988.

Fortunately, available empirical studies, 1965-1981, with a quantitative approach dealing with correlations between gender, ability, attitudes, motivation, and achievements have been reported by Steinkamp and Maehr (1983 and 1984). They identified 66 studies published during the period 1965 to 1981, and 255 gender correlations between achievement, attitude (effect), and ability were subjected to a meta-analysis.

The gender-achievement correlations have consistently showed a small, but significant, superiority for males. Kelly (1978), in her study of sex differences in 19 countries, found the same in all countries. Interestingly, the highest differences were found in physics. In a study using a semantic differential scale, Weinreich (1977) showed that students ''perceive physics, mathematics, and engineering as masculine" (Steinkamp and Maehr, 1983). The masculine image of physics is reinforced by the school where physics teachers and students are mostly male. Several studies indicated that physics is influenced more by out-of-school learning than any other branch of science. Boys are more active with appliances and engines, while girls are more interested in plants and pets.

Boys tend to be slightly superior to girls in quantitative and spatial-visual ability. In particular, there are more boys than girls among the top 5 percent of students in these abilities. Cognitive ability was positively related to achievement in science (r=.34) but almost unrelated to science-related attitudes, which were significantly correlated (r=.19) with achievement.

Steinkamp and Maehr (1983) concluded, "It all seems simple enough: one should like what one does well and do well what one likes. Simple it may be; correct it is not." The picture is much more complex when it comes to school science. Boys no doubt score slightly better than girls in both science and science-related abilities. But girls do not like science in school any less than boys. It is "primarily the acquisition of proficiency that leads to positive attitudes." Cultural stereotypes, such as science is not for girls, and expectations operate as instruments of cognitive socialization.

Regardless of whether they like science or not, girls may heed achievement goals comparable with those among boys. Thus, Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) synthesized the research literature on motivational orientations toward achievement in school science, aware of the disturbing, undisputed fact that women are heavily underrepresented in the scientific community or in professions based on science. Are gender differences determined by experiences at the very early school age? Can they be ascribed to motivation shaped at this stage or even earlier? Again, the existing literature between 1965 and 1981 was scanned. The search yielded 83 studies. Boys tend to be slightly superior to girls in

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

motivational orientation, but the difference is so small that it cannot serve as the main explanation for female underrepresentation in science professions. Various dimensions of motivational orientation were elucidated by the reviewed investigations. When asked, girls responded affirmatively more often than boys that science is not just for boys. But when asked about their relationship to science, girls responded more negatively. Furthermore, girls are less frequently involved in extracurricular activities than boys. Girls think that science-related occupations are more difficult to combine with family duties. Females who would otherwise have chosen science careers are afraid of hostile male colleagues.

Thus, girls verbally object to traditional stereotypes about their relationship to science, but when they are faced with situations in which they personally have to make a choice, such as engaging in science-related achievements or embarking on careers in science, they tend to behave traditionally. It should also be pointed out that there are few female role models in science.

There are, however, as we have seen above, differences between the various branches of science with regard to motivational orientation. Girls have a stronger motivational orientation than boys in biology, whereas the opposite is the case in physics and general science. Enrollment statistics in upper secondary and tertiary education show that girls enroll more often than boys in courses dealing with life processes. Combes and Keeves (1973) had data for 10 countries showing that the proportion of women in physical science courses was much lower than that in biological science courses. One out of five doctorates in biological sciences were awarded to women but only one out of twenty in the physical sciences. The same tendency is also prevalent among academically exceptional students. Stanley found in his sample of high-ability youth that more females planned to major in biology than males, but the opposite was true in physics and engineering.

Variations across countries indirectly support a cultural or social-psychological explanation as against a genetic one for gender differences in motivational orientation toward science. The largest sex differences were found in Japan, which also had the lowest enrollment in science at the tertiary level of all the countries in the first IEA survey of girls. On the whole, the largest differences in motivational orientation were found in technologically developed countries, such as Japan, the United States, and Sweden. It is interesting to combine this finding with that by cultural anthropologists that femaleness is related to science achievements in low-achievement-motivated cultures as compared to high-achievement-motivated ones. This is contrary to generally held beliefs.

It has been pointed out that sex differences have decreased significantly in several countries from 1970-1971 to 1983-1984, particularly in countries where special efforts have been made to stimulate the participation of girls in science programs. This refutes the hypothesis close at hand that sex differences in achievement are mainly genetically determined. This brings me to trot on the thin ice of speculation, which I so far cannot support by any empirical evidence.

It is of interest to take an epistemic look at how science, particularly physics, goes about investigating the laws and secrets of nature. To what extent is the approach so far dominating in Western science a male one? Why do girls perform relatively better in biology and why do they hold relatively more favorable attitudes of this subject? Is the mode of inquiry more feminine? In most universities, girls enroll in art courses much more frequently than boys. One can account for this by pointing to the less abstract and rational way of knowing when it comes to understanding and appreciating art. The philosopher George Henrik von Wright (1983), quoted previously, pointed out that there are post-modern signs not only in art but also in other fields of inquiry. The Western dominated culture—including its scientific paradigms—has been put to question. This tendency is inspired by the loss of prestige of science due to the misuse of technology as "a consequent weakening of the intellectual curiosity which is the psychological motive for the epistemic orientation of science."

I would not have brought up his speculative view if there had not been some reason to ask ourselves whether the receding interest of young people in pursuing advanced careers in science has not had some of its inspiration from irrational sources of the kind hinted above.

All the way from Sputnik in 1957 until now, achievements in science and its applications have been seen as sharpening a nation's competitive edge in the world market. Scientific discoveries and their use have been perceived as instruments not only in improving the progress of national economies but also in establishing better conditions for individual human beings, at the very least, by improving the standard of living. We have taken this for granted recently when our globe has been beset by ecological problems that

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

threaten the quality of life. I think that the attitude toward science and the willingness—or reluctance—of young people to embark upon careers in science ought to be examined in this context. The yielding interest in scientific careers may be an outcome of an ongoing silent revolution.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Factors influencing science achievement, attitudinal and motivational orientation toward science, and, in the long run, propensity to embark upon careers in science are many and operate in an intricate interplay with each other. Ability plays a role but not the most decisive one. Attitudes and motivation anchored in a particular culture are often more important. Thus, the degree of achievement-orientation, the existence of role models, and the concept of science as a difficult subject has to be considered in this context. The role of gender has been increasingly the focus of studies conducted in a field with great sex differences, particularly in physical sciences, with regard to actual achievement, motivation, enrollment patterns, and career choice.

The implications for educational and scientific policy of the research reported here are not straightforward and easy to bring out. On the one hand, it is evident that steps have to be taken to shape and stimulate motivation to study science and pursue careers in science. This relates particularly to females who are hindered by cultural stereotypes. On the other hand, there is an epistemic problem stemming from the way knowledge of science is acquired as compared to that in the humanities and arts. The two main areas of human knowledge and insight have different grammars. The way they are learned early in life, both inside and outside of school, determines how many young people will devote their life to careers in the respective fields.

REFERENCES

Campbell-Ricardo, R. 1985. Women and Comparable Worth. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution and Stanford University.

Combes, L. C. and J. P. Keeves. 1973. Science Achievement in Nineteen Countries. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. New York: Wiley.


Engström, Jan Ake. 1994. Science Achievement and Student Interest: Determinants of Success in Science Among Swedish Compulsory School Students. Stockholm University: Institute of International Education. (Studies in Comparative and International Education, No. 28).

Engström, J. A. and R. Noonan. 1990. Science Achievement and Attitudes in Swedish Schools, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 16:443-456.


Foshay, A. W. ed. 1962. Educational Achievements of Thirteen-year-olds in Twelve Countries. Hamburg. UNESCO Institute for Education.


Garfield, E. 1993. Women in Science. Part 1: The Productivity Puzzle. Current Contents, 25(9):3-5

Grasz, B. J. 1991. Report on Women in the Sciences at Harvard. Part I: Junior Faculty and Graduate Students. February 13, 1993. (mimeo)


Hurd, P. 1991. Why We Must Transform Science Education. Educational Leadership, 49(92):33-35.

Husén, T. and I. Mattsson. 1978. Ungdomars attityder till naturvetenskapen: en internationell jämförelse (Young people's attitudes towards science: An international comparison). Pp. 6782 in P. Sörbom (ed) Attityder till tekniken (Attitudes towards technology). Stockholm: Bank of Sweden Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering.

Husén, T. and J. P. Keeves (eds). 1991. Issues in Science Education: Science Competence in a Social and ecological Context. Oxford: Pergamon.

Husén, T., et al. 1974. Sex Differences in Science Achievement and Attitudes. Comparative Education Review 18(2):292-304.

Husén, T. and I. Mattsson. 1978. Ungdomars attityder till naturvetenskapen. En internationell jämförelse. (Young Peoples' Attitudes Toward Science: An International Comparison). Stockholm: Liber/Allmänna förlaget.


IEA. 1991. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Vancouver, B.C., Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

IEA. 1988. Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.

Keeves, J. P. 1992. Learning Science in A Changing World: Cross-National Studies of Science Achievement 1970 to 1984. The Hague: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

Keeves, J. P. ed. 1992. The IEA Study in Science III: Changes in Science Education and Achievement, 1970 to 1984. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kelly, A. 1978. Girls and Science: An International Study of Sex Differences in School Science Achievements. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.

Korballa, T. R. 1988. Attitude and Related concepts in Science Education. Science Education, 72(2): 115-126.

Krynowsky, B. A. 1988. Problems in Assessing Student Attitude in Science Education. Science Education, 72(4):575-584.


Mählck, L. 1980. Choice of Post-Secondary Studies in a Stratified System of Education: A Swedish Follow-Up Study. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.

McKnight, C. C. et al. 1987. The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics from an International Perspective. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Co.


Oliver, J. S. and R. D. Simpson. 1988. Influences of Attitude Toward Science, Achievement Motivation, and Science Self Concept on Achievement in Science: A Longitudinal Study. Science Education, 72(2):143-155.


Postlethwaite, T. N. and D. E. Wiley. 1992. The IEA Study of Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-Three Countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Postlethwaite, T. N. and D. E. Wiley. 1991. The IEA Study in Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-three Countries. Oxford: Pergamon.


Rennie, L. J. and K. F. Punch. 1991. The Relationship Between Affect and Achievement in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2):193-209.

Rosier, M. J. and J. P. Keeves. 1991. The IEA Study in Science I: Science Education and Curricula in Twenty-three Countries. Oxford: Pergamon.


Steinkamp, M. W. and M. L. Maehr. 1984. Gender Differences in Motivational Orientations Toward Achievement in School Science: A Quantitative Synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1):39-59.

Steinkamp, M. W. and M. L. Maehr. 1983. Affect, Ability and Science Achievement: A Quantitative Synthesis of Correlational Research. Review of Educational Research. 53(3):369-396.

Steinkamp, M. W. and M. L. Maehr (eds). 1984. Women in Science. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.


Tilghman, S. M. 1993. Science vs. the Female Scientist. The New York Times, January 25, 1993, p. A17.

Tilghman, S. M. 1993. Science vs. Women—A Radical Solution. The New York Times. January 26, 1993, p. A23.


Von Wright, G. H. 1989. Science, Reason and Value. Jubilee Lecture of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Document No. 49. Stockholm 1989.


Zhao, S. 1993. Chinese Science Education: A Comparative Study of Achievements in Secondary Schools Related to Student, Home, and School Factors. Stockholm University: Institute of International Education (Studies in Comparative and International Education, No. 26).

Zuckerman, H. 1991. The Careers of Men and Women in Science. In H. Zuckerman et al. (eds) The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community. New York: Norton.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Critique of Technical Papers

Alfred McLaren

As the discussant for Panel 3 at the Trends in Science and Technology Careers Conference, I have been tasked with providing a critique of two excellent papers submitted by Torsten Husén of the University of Stockholm and Thomas G. Whiston of the University of Sussex. I am basically a scientist by profession and have recently become concerned with the promotion of interest in science and technology (S&T) careers. I am, therefore, grateful to Mary L. Durland of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, for her observations and contributions in the preparation of this critique. It is interesting to note that Ms. Durland was refused entry—even though she holds two Master's degrees and an all but completed dissertation—into the Ph.D. program in the Department of Science and Technology at Cornell University because "the Department was not equipped to handle a mature, interdisciplinary candidate."

Comments on Husén's and Whiston's papers will be followed by a general discussion that addresses two questions:

  1. In what ways can the research described by the speakers assist us in monitoring S&T careers?

  2. What further work would be needed to permit application of these research efforts to science and career studies?

Factors Behind Choice of Advanced Studies and Careers in Science and Technology: A Synthesis of Research in Science Education

by Torsten Husén, University of Stockholm

The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) cross-national surveys in mathematics and science, referred to in Husén's paper, provide a unique and invaluable source of data on young people's attitudes toward science. With his intimate acquaintance of these surveys and his thorough review of the research bearing on science attitudes and factors influencing participation in science in school and afterward, Husén is unquestionably authoritative. Rather than attempt to comment on the numerous observations he makes regarding student interest and achievement in science, a blanket statement might suffice: the sociocultural environment does indeed make a difference, whether it be the national environment or family and school. The fine points of direct and indirect effects of causal and correlative relationships are best left to the careful treatment they receive in the paper.

This discussion will follow Husén's lead and focus on two matters with which his is concerned: gender differences in science; and the relationship of S&T to the present ecological mess, and the effect of these on students' attitudes toward S&T careers. The former is much studied, the latter, less so.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

Basically, the conclusions of gender differences in science are these:

  1. Gender differences exist in attitudes, in achievement, and in entrance into S&T careers.

  2. Gender differences increase with age.

  3. Special programs and initiatives to encourage female participation in science do help to close the gap.

  4. Gender differences can be almost entirely attributed to sociocultural differences rather than to innate biological differences.

It is clear that even in this day and age of supposed sexual equality there persist attitudes and practices that are not to women's advantage as they relate to science, first as students and then as possible career participants. Part of this may be the persistence of traditional attitudes and values despite educational and mass media efforts to the contrary. An interesting example of deep-seated habits of treating the sexes differently comes, ironically enough, in a 50-year history of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search (STS), published three years ago. Westinghouse and Science Service, the partners in this prestigious competition, have been leaders among for profit and non-profit corporations in bringing underrepresented students, including females, into science, and a very respectable percentage of its STS winners are young women. Yet, in the chapter devoted to them, they are not "young women" but "girls." The male winners are, of course, ''young men" not "boys," and they (as central actors) "have parents who..." while the young women winners are "the daughters of..." therein linguistically suppressing their independent actor status. It is the ubiquity of differentiations such as this that may adversely influence a young female interested and able in a scientific field. It would appear that a considerable body of research supports this. If a young woman is not discouraged from embarking on a scientific career, she may later find herself at a disadvantage when it comes time for promotions and raises. For although she may in fact be the prime breadwinner for her family (if she has one—singleness should not be a necessity for S&T career pursuits), her participation in the science work world may be regarded as a hobby/interest matter, not the serious job/livelihood undertaking it truly is. At the institutional level, many measures have been taken to reduce such blatant discrimination. Discrimination as it now exists at the interpersonal level and is fed by personal attitudes and assumptions about the sexes, however, can only be diminished by conscious change in individual behavior.

Then there is the vicious second shift where, although her job may be as time- and energy-consuming as her mate's, the woman nevertheless returns home to a second round of work: homemaking and child care. While the man may assist, in the vast majority of cases, the woman is still the prime parent and homemaker, and spends a disproportionate amount of time on these tasks. This apparently is a worldwide phenomenon and often requires "superwoman" energy. Some couples do come to an equitable division of labor, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Thus, Husén's statement that "girls think that science-related occupations are more difficult to combine with family duties" is a correct assessment and a sound reason for caution in career choice.

Of interest are the large sex differences Husén discusses with regard to participation in the three main subfields: biology, chemistry, and physics (see Figure 4 in Husén's paper). For example, males favor physics and females consistently favor the biological sciences; in fact, they enroll in them increasingly from the pre-university level to the Ph.D. level. This is true in all the surveyed countries. Why this occurs is open to speculation and includes observations of young women showing more interest in the life sciences, the mode of inquiry in biology being more feminine and not perceived as masculine, as physics is. Precisely why biology is more appealing to females than physics or chemistry could stand further research. It might result in some insights about differential functioning and values between the sexes.

Monitored too should be the salaries in the subfields, with particular attention paid to any trend toward lower, non-competitive compensation in biology. Will the biological sciences show, as other occupations have, the devaluation of that endeavor because women enter it in sizable numbers?

A last point regarding gender differences in science is a sticky one. Do females in fact have differently constituted brains than men? We know that socialization rapidly sees that the brains of girls and boys receive different inputs, and they are requested to respond in different ways. Whether through birth or through socialization, the evidence does seem to

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

indicate that the organ of thought does, with some consistency and across cultures, vary. Females tend to be right-brained in their mental functioning; men, left. The right-brain, responsible for intuitive and contextual perception, for global and integrative thinking, and for certain types of verbal and artistic facility, is, according to popular scientific culture, much undervalued in today's society. So the question becomes are women undervalued because they tend to be right-brained, or is right-brainedness undervalued because it is a characteristic of women?

Modern science does appear to proceed in a way that favors and rewards left-brain activity. This is not to say that there is no place in science for right-brain functioning. In fact, the processes characteristic of the right-brain produce breakthroughs when the linear, methodical left brain is stymied, and its inclination to see things in wholes rather than as isolated, fragmented parts is an ability much to be valued, especially in a mature science and in a world that is in sore need of wholeness. Perhaps women (and all right-brained people) would find science more comfortable and vice-versa if, in teaching and learning, in research, and in the communications of science, the monopoly of left-brain activity was broken.

Finally, the query "To what extent is science considered important for social and economic development and for making the world a better place to live in?" is a timely one, as is asking to what extent students consider science to blame for environmental deterioration and other social problems. That students from developed, highly industrialized societies are less enamored with science's capacity to benefit society and more inclined to pick up on its harmful effects than students from developing countries is not surprising. As Husén states, they have had ample opportunity to experience the ecological effects of advanced industry. Neither would it be surprising if they shied away from S&T careers, believing that their participation therein was hastening the world in directions they would prefer it did not go.

The best antidote to this may be to rapidly change our sciences and technologies to environmentally considerate ones—not because we want to attract young people to S&T careers, but because the world situation cries out for it. In responding to the need for environmentally kind and restorative technologies, many new jobs will be created, and new directions in science will be stimulated. We are, in our actions if not our attitudes, extremely slow and casual about reorienting our activities. Given the magnitude and immediacy of the problem, it would be desirable if no scientist felt they could proceed without considering the possibilities for a better world inherent in their undertakings. A transformed S&T will better attract enthusiastic youth.

Science and Technology Careers: Individual and Societal Factors Determining Choice

by Thomas Whiston, University of Sussex

Whiston is thorough in his inclusion of a considerable amount of data from a number of studies in his discussion of individual and societal factors in S&T career choice. Perhaps it is that the subject is too broad and/or that the available research is actually not focused sufficiently—at any rate, one is left with the feeling that very little can be said conclusively about career choices, save that many things affect them, which Whiston does say.

In this apparently very complex matter, it might be of help to focus first on individual dynamics affecting career choice, then separately on societal dynamics.

In regard to individual factors, surveys that elicit preferences, values, and intentions in a simple kind of rank order (which most of them do) produce percentages in a number of categories. In analyzing these, it is difficult to determine how the individual would actually incorporate them into career choice decisionmaking. While various kinds of statistical processing may seek to factor and weigh survey responses, these, may it be proposed, are a poor second to eliciting responses, via the surveying instrument, that give insight into how each individual actually uses his or her perceptions and preferences to come to a choice.

Eliciting responses around four main questions, and seeing these in relation to each other, might improve our understanding of how individuals perceive themselves in regard to S&T, and careers therein. The four main questions are as follows:

  1. Do you find science interesting?

  2. Do you feel you have the ability to go on in S&T studies? To pursue an S&T career?

  3. Are you intending to go on to further education in a S&T field?

  4. Is an S&T career a possibility for you?

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

With each of these four main questions could come a number of probes to get at the why and why not behind the stated perception or intention. These would yield a great deal of information on how the respondents have experienced science thus far in their lives and how they perceive the nature of, and opportunities in, S&T careers.

Such a questionnaire would not only reduce the second guessing that occurs when surveys do not contain within their own information-gathering parameters the responses necessary to make sense of the responses they do get, but also stimulate reflection on the part of the respondents. To probe into the whys and why nots of a given response is to come to know the factors and experiences that figure into the answer. With that information, we can better assess how societal factors, including education, are influencing S&T orientation.

Whiston provides his own suggestions for further research under his section entitled "Future Research Tasks." It is not that these would not be worthy undertakings, but whether they would get to the crux of the matter regarding individual choice as well as the four straightforward questions is questionable.

While there is much to comment on in a paper the scope of Whiston's, time does not allow. Further commentary is in fact incorporated under the general discussion section of this paper. Before moving to a consideration of societal factors in S&T choice, one further observation begs inclusion. Percentage-wise, trends show that young people tend to choose S&T less and fields such as social science and communications more. Perhaps we should keep in mind, when viewing this trend, that while the world of S&T is largely occupied by those producing such items, increasingly there is a need for, and are, science-affiliated occupations, such as management, communications, etc., which are in fact essential parts of S&T in today's world. Thus, the education and orientation of young people toward science so that they may be science-informed, if not science-productive, is of great importance. Attention to science-affiliated careers should be considered part of the task within the betterment of S&T careers overall.

In regard to societal factors including choice, Whiston puts forth many variables. He also details a number of "Policies to Improve S&T Literacy (and Possible Selection of S&T as a Career)" in his paper. No doubt solid, rewarding teaching; better ties between industry and education; coherent national policy; and the like would all be of benefit.

There may be an overarching circumstance that must be dealt with in order for these policies to have their desired effect. That circumstance is the contraction of the economies of many nations, along with prolonged recessions, and general economic bad times. We like to think skilled S&T manpower is much in demand and that more is needed. But the actuality, as experienced by those already in S&T careers and suspected by those who are considering them, is that jobs are sometimes very hard to find, and even a noteworthy previous career does not necessarily guarantee continued employment. Good S&T jobs may be especially hard to come by, with lateral and downward mobility being frequent. In this environment, it is no wonder that young people gravitate toward those occupations, and preparations for them, that they perceive (correctly or incorrectly) as offering reasonable chances of employment. A corollary of this is that it appears that some students may be opting for no preparation, as any preparation seems like a long shot, so why bother. This certainly appears to be true in the United States, where a substantial number of students are not sufficiently motivated to become truly literate, let alone specialize. It is highly doubtful that this is the fault of the education system.

What needs to be done is to reestablish the correlation between education and jobs, which has in truth been severely affected by recent economic events. Our youth and their talents cannot be treated as commodities in a free market economy if we wish to have them take education seriously, and this includes science education. Measures that will guarantee at least entry-level employment need to be taken; and if nations and corporations are so convinced that they need more skilled manpower, they must structure their occupational worlds to accommodate it. Until this is done, perhaps it would be prudent to regard S&T careers as subject to, along with everything else in the world, overpopulation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The best way to monitor trends in S&T careers, in my opinion, is to tap the collective experience of those already in them. Panel 3, devoted as it is to factors influencing choice among young people as they do or do not select S&T careers as desirable ones in which to

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

realize their abilities and aspirations, rightly does not have much to say about the careers themselves. It is for this conference on the Trends in Science and Technology Careers overall to do this; and from this conference, those concerned with the recruitment of competent young persons into S&T should be able to gain further insight into how best to modify and update the image of S&T careers that is presented, either intentionally or indirectly through the education they receive, to potential S&T career entrants.

In looking at career choice, there is always the question whether young men and women make their selections based on the reality of a given occupation or on other factors, such as an idealized or otherwise incorrect image, or on the supposition that what they did well in and liked in school will transpose via entrance into an occupation and ultimately into a satisfactory livelihood. What this panel session does offer is a chance to discuss whether S&T careers as they currently exist (and are likely to in the near future) do in fact offer young people what they desire. Together, the Husén and Whiston papers, composed of statistics from a number of sizable surveys, present a picture of considerations in career choice.

There is a temptation in science to feel that no matter how much data has been collected, more is needed, or at least desirable, and that the solution to a problem is to be found through further research. Indeed, this—suggestions for further studies of factors in S&T career choice—is what has been requested of the discussant. May it be proposed that what is needed is not more research, but action, based on what we know and suspect already. We already know the following:

  1. The choice of a career is not made on any single factor alone; a number of things contribute to any given career choice.

  2. The choice is normally not made once and for all at a given point in time; experiences and perceptions accumulate and change, and ultimately add up, or fail to, in favor of an S&T career.

  3. There are many possible points of intervention in the contexts that provide experience in science and that generate attitudes toward S&T careers.

  4. Intervening at these points and making changes in the experiences young people have with regard to science, particularly as they provide opportunity for a broad and realistic picture of S&T in the world, will improve the recruitment of suitable individuals to S&T careers.

  5. The exception to this will be if S&T careers are in reality not desirable.

Let us start with this last item. We live in an ever-changing world, a world full of discontinuities and surprises. As this translates to occupations, and S&T careers are no exception, it means that a person cannot enter any field with the expectation that it will provide a lifetime of growth, intrinsic gratification, and external remunerations sufficient for material well-being. In the face of this reality, one that young people seem to sense, the very basic "being well off financially" has crept up through the decades to be an essential or very important factor to over 80 percent of them, while the more luxurious "develop a meaningful philosophy of life" has dropped from over 80 percent to 40 percent. Supporting this is the Boyd and Kirkland data in which "a job that gives me good long-term career opportunities'' was the number one choice factor, with "a high future salary" being a close second. "The opportunity to be creative and original" did come in third, due largely to its importance to non-science majors. Thus, if S&T wants to attract young people, especially those with science backgrounds, it had better see to the stability of employment in S&T careers once entered.

Now, immediately, you who are scientists and engineers and technicians will say the following:

The stability and continuity and salaries within our occupations are not our doing. They (or their lack) are due to factors far beyond our control, such as government priorities and funding, and shifts in research and development as the result of new knowledge and changing demands. And besides (if the truth be known), we are too busy trying to retain and stabilize our own careers to attend to such things.

All true, but this does not negate the observation that if S&T careers are to appeal to the coming generation, they must offer a degree of stability and continuity. S&T degrees are realistically perceived by some young people as being too specialized to permit extra-science career possibilities and too demanding to undertake

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×

them without a reasonable assurance of employment once achieved. While institutions and corporations worry about a qualified workforce, young people worry about long-term occupational opportunity. It may be inferred that they will shy away from careers that appear to offer entry-level positions to many, but continuing employment opportunity to only a few.

S&T organizations need to be structured so that they offer a number of positions at a number of levels, with responsibilities and rewards increasing gradually and incrementally. Too often there is a tendency for organizations to become feudal in stratification, with a few amply rewarded individuals at the top and a number of workers consigned to low-level though skilled tasks that are perceived in many cases to be dispensable and, should they demand too much, replaceable. S&T can be and is often conducted this way with little harm to the task at hand. However, considerable harm is done to manpower resources when such qualities as originality and broad experience are not encouraged. This ultimately results in great harm being done to all young people who would seek a satisfying, lifelong career, which most consider to be of paramount importance.

If scientists and technologists cannot or do not want to create suitable organizations themselves, they need to hire science-informed individuals who will; and all need to argue for S&T policy that will accomplish it.

This discussion may seem like a long detour taken at the expense of traveling down what appears to be the main highway of education and its effects on S&T career choice. However, along that highway there are many intervention points, and few would argue that they shouldn't be taken advantage of and that the highway itself is variously in need of repair, upgrading, re-routing, and access ramps for those who have had unequal opportunity to use it. But if S&T careers are not in fact good places for long-term, reasonably rewarded employment, then even the best science education system will not produce new entrants into S&T careers.

Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"PART III ANALYZING TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAREERS ...." National Research Council. 1995. Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5109.
×
Page 132
Next: PART IV UTILIZING POINTS OF INTERVENTION TO ENHANCE AND SUSTAIN INTEREST . . . »
Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $39.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Every industrialized country is concerned with maintaining an adequate supply of individuals interested in careers in science and technology, yet little is known about these efforts outside national borders. This book represents the proceedings of an international conference on Trends in Science and Technology Careers, held in Brussels in 1993. Organized at the behest of OSEP and the OIA Committee on International Organizations and Programs, in cooperation with the European Commission (DG XII) and in response to a resolution of the International Council of Scientific Unions, the conference identified international data on career trends, assessed the research base engaged in studying science and technology careers, and identified ways in which international organizations could promote greater interest in science and technology human resource development. The conference laid the groundwork for continuing international discussions about the best ways to study and promote careers in science and technology and national dialogues about the ways to integrate this knowledge into human resources policies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!