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



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 77
PART III Analyzing Trends in Science and Technology Careers: Factors Determining Choice

OCR for page 77
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 77
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

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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

OCR for page 77
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: maximize the number of entrants into S&T commensurate with societal needs; and 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

OCR for page 77
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,

OCR for page 77
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,

OCR for page 77
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.)

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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

OCR for page 77
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

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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.

OCR for page 77
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: In what ways can the research described by the speakers assist us in monitoring S&T careers? 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.

OCR for page 77
Basically, the conclusions of gender differences in science are these: Gender differences exist in attitudes, in achievement, and in entrance into S&T careers. Gender differences increase with age. Special programs and initiatives to encourage female participation in science do help to close the gap. 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

OCR for page 77
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: Do you find science interesting? Do you feel you have the ability to go on in S&T studies? To pursue an S&T career? Are you intending to go on to further education in a S&T field? Is an S&T career a possibility for you?

OCR for page 77
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

OCR for page 77
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: The choice of a career is not made on any single factor alone; a number of things contribute to any given career choice. 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. There are many possible points of intervention in the contexts that provide experience in science and that generate attitudes toward S&T careers. 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. 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

OCR for page 77
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.