A Study of Barriers to Women in Undergraduate Computer Science
Greg Scragg & Jesse Smith
SUNY Geneseo
Dept. of Computer Science
Geneseo, NY 14454, USA
scragg@cs.geneseo.edu
jds97@cs.geneseo.edu
Abstract
Worldwide, there is a significant discrepancy between the numbers of male
and female graduates from computer science programs. SUNY Geneseo offers
no exception. The literature cites a number of plausible explanations for
the problem, but no definitive answers. We conducted a study to determine
why few women complete our own computer science major. Our major finding
is that (at least on our campus) the problem is not actually one of retention.
Few women--even those in the introductory computer science courses--actually
plan to major in computer science to begin with. Although some barriers
suggested in the literature do operate within the major, they seem much
less significant than the low entry rates. Retention of women once they
enter the major is important, but it is secondary to getting women into
the major initially. This suggests that the most effective solutions will
be those that concentrate not on retention but on recruitment (including
outreach to secondary schools).
1. Introduction
At SUNY Geneseo, the members of the the Computer Science Department informally
observed that: although roughly 2/3's of the college's students are women
and roughly 1/2 of all students in introductory computer science courses
are women, less than 1/4 of the students who graduate with degrees in computer
science are women. This apparent attrition of women in our computer science
program would be consistent with national patterns [3]. Although many barriers
to women in the academic pipeline have been suggested in the literature
as explanations for these patterns [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7], there are good reasons
to expect that these barriers should be lower, or even totally absent at
Geneseo: Four out of 9 faculty in the Department are women. Therefore,
female role models and mentors are more available than at many other schools.
The campus is located in a safe rural setting. This should reduce concerns
about safety working late in laboratories and traveling home after hours.
Our curriculum emphasizes mathematics and experimentation in addition
to traditional programming in computer science.
Finally, we encourage students to work together rather than alone. Our
students should thus realize that computer science is not just a discipline
of solitary hackers.
In spite of any such expectations, women at Geneseo clearly don't receive
computer science degrees at a rate proportional to their numbers in the
campus population--not even in proportion to their presence in the introductory
course. Therefore, we decided to replace our informal sense that there
was a problem with a more rigorous search for the causes.
2. Our Study
We studied the problem in two stages: First, we ran a series of focus groups,
attempting to identify specific barriers to women computer science students
that operate at Geneseo. Second, we used the results from the focus groups
to help develop a directed questionnaire to study the most likely barriers
more scientifically.
The focus groups generated little consensus among participants about
specific barriers to women. In addition, they were they were too poorly
attended to be statistically valid. We were, however, able to base a questionnaire
on a combination of the most frequent comments from the focus groups and
on hypotheses from the literature that seemed most plausible locally. The
initial surveys suggested six general hypothetical barriers we wanted to
test via the questionnaire:
-
General social pressures (e.g., attitudes of friends and family) discourage
women from pursuing computer science.
-
Women face more crises of self confidence over their performance in computer
science than men do.
-
Women don't have as much chance as men to contribute ideas in classes,
and their contributions are under valued when they are made.
-
Women believe that computer science is too dominated by men.
-
Women believe math is an important part of computer science, yet suffer
more than men from math anxiety.
-
Women feel more strongly than men do that they want to raise a family,
but that a career in computer science is incompatible with this goal.
The questionnaire covered the above areas along with general background
information (course the student was taking, gender, intended major, etc.).
We did not ask for names or ID numbers. We administered the questionnaire
to all sections of introductory computer science courses at the end of
the spring semester of 1995 (year 1). To check the repeatability of our
results, we gave the same questionnaire to a follow up group of introductory
computer science sections at the end of the spring semester of 1996 (year
2). Because of the smaller sample (161 students as opposed to 297) and
the fact that some follow up respondents may also have responded to the
original survey, we used the follow up data solely as a "sanity check"
on the initial results. We did not pool the data or use follow up data
to support new conclusions, but merely checked for inconsistencies. The
complete questionnaire is available at:
http://www.cs.geneseo.edu/projects/3-Fold/survey.html .
3. Results
In all, 297 students--133 women and 164 men--responded to the year 1 questionnaire.
The questionnaire included multiple questions testing each of our general
hypotheses. For each proposed barrier, we identified specific null and
alternative hypotheses related to the expected answers for men and women.
For each general hypothesis, we therefore presented several questionnaire
questions, with mean answers and significance test results (usually t tests)
appropriate to the null and alternative hypotheses for those questions.
We used a significance level of p 0.05 throughout. We address each hypothesis
separately.
3.0. Student Background
We collected background data for classification purposes. We were obviously
aware that women do not enroll in computer science courses at the same
rates as do their male classmates (less than 50% are women in spite of
a student body with 67% females). However, we initially assumed that among
students who actually enrolled in introductory computing classes, the percentage
who were majoring in computer science would be about the same for women
and men. However, this is not the case. The number of men majoring in computer
science was 37 (22.6% of the male respondents) but only 6 women (4.5% of
female respondents) were computer science majors. Although our alternative
hypothesis was that women major in computer science a lower rate than men
do, we had not expected the difference to be nearly so large. Interestingly,
men and women minor in computer science at statistically equal rates: 43
men (26.2%) compared to 32 women (24%).
Women in our survey also had substantially less pre college computing
experience than did men. Asked to measure pre college experience on a scale
from 1 to 7, women's mean response was 2.54, men's 3.38; the difference
is significant with p = 0.001.
The follow up survey supported the above results in all respects.
3.1. Impact of Social Pressure
To address hypotheses 1--that simple social pressures discourage women
from pursuing computer science--we asked respondents to agree or disagree
with the following statements (answered on a 7 point Likert scale, with
1 defined as "Very Strongly Disagree", 4 as "Indifferent", and 7 as "Very
Strongly Agree"):
"I would approve if a male friend said he was looking for a job in
computing".
Women's mean = 5.59 Combined mean = 5.67
"I would approve if a female friend said she was looking for a job
in computing".
Women's mean = 5.78 Combined mean = 5.62
"My friends would approve if I chose a career in computing".
Women's mean = 5.54 Men's mean = 5.38
"My parents would approve if I chose a career in computing".
Women's mean = 5.67 Men's mean = 5.67
None of these results suggest that there are particularly strong social
pressures against women entering the field. We analyzed the answers given
by women to the first two questions to see if women themselves believe
that computer science was more suitable for one gender than the other.
We also compared the answers given by men and women to see if the groups
differed in their answers. We found no statistically valid evidence to
reject the null (no difference) hypotheses (for the first, p = 0.221; for
the second p = 0.636). Similarly, we cannot reject the null hypotheses
that with equal likelihood male and female students believe friends (p = 0.251)
and parents (p = 0.992) approve of their seeking computing careers. Thus,
we found no evidence of peer, parental, or personal perceptions that computer
science is a career inappropriate for women.
The follow up questionnaire supported these results.
3.2. Relative Self Confidence
To determine if men and women are equally comfortable in class debate,
we asked how strongly respondents agree or disagree with the following
statements (answered on the same scale as the questions about social pressure):
"I feel good about my performance in this course".
Women's mean = 4.73 Men's mean = 4.85
"Overall, I do better in the my classes than most of my classmates".
Women's mean = 4.22 Men's mean = 4.26
"I do better in this class grade wise than most of my classmates".
Women's mean = 3.90 Men's mean = 4.18
"I am comfortable debating with my classmates in class discussions
in every class in which such debates arise".
Women's mean = 4.07 Men's mean = 4.53
We conclude here that women are indeed less comfortable in our class situations.
That is, the null hypothesis, that men and women are equally comfortable
in class debate, is rejected with p = 0.008. Our alternative hypothesis,
that women are less comfortable in class debates than men, is supported.
We also asked two questions about willingness to express one's own opinions
in class (answered on a 7 point Likert scale, with 1 defined as "Never"
and 7 as "Always"):
"When the professor makes a mistake in class, I correct him/her".
Women's mean = 2.91 Men's mean = 3.40
"When I know the answer to a question in class, I raise my hand to
answer it".
Women's mean = 3.57 Men's mean = 3.62
On the first question, but not the second, we again found a difference
between the genders: the null hypothesis, that men and women are equally
likely to correct a professor, is rejected with p = 0.004; our alternative
hypothesis, that women are less likely to correct a professor, is supported.
But on the second question we found no evidence that women were less willing
to speak up in class.
The follow up questionnaire produced very similar means, and generally
similar tests of significance. Surprisingly, the follow up data for the
question about comfort in class debates failed to reject the null hypothesis
(women's mean = 4.05, men's = 4.30, p = 0.251). The only other difference
was that the follow up data marginally failed to reject the null hypothesis
for "when the professor makes a mistake in class, I correct him/her" (p
= 0.076).
In summary, we did find evidence for the hypothesis that women in our
introductory courses feel less self confident than do men. However, we
believe that the impact of this difference may be small since (a) both
men and women answered questions toward the "confident" end of the scale,
and (b) the evidence was not uniform across the questions (in the initial
survey, one out of the four showed no evidence; in the follow up, 2 of
the 4 showed none).
3.3. Are Women's Contributions Under Valued
We asked 3 questions to measure differences in the perceived value of men's
and women's contributions in the classroom. In each case answers are on
a 7 point Likert scale (1 defined as "Only Men's Contributions are Valued",
4 as "Men's and Women's Contributions are Equally Valued", and 7 as "Only
Women's Contributions are Valued"):
"Rate the relative value your classmates attach to men's and women's
contributions in this class".
Women's mean = 4.00
"Rate the relative value the professor attaches to men's and women's
contributions in this class".
Women's mean = 3.88
We found little evidence of this problem. In neither case can we reject
the null hypothesis (that the opinions of men and women are equally valued)
(p = 1.000, and p = 0.063, respectively).
We also asked how strongly respondents agree or disagree with the statement:
"My professor gives me a fair chance to participate in class".
Women's mean = 5.21 Men's mean = 5.35
And we cannot reject the null hypothesis that women and men feel equally
fairly treated (p = 0.336).
The follow up questionnaire did find a difference for one of the questions:
that professors valued their classroom contributions less than men's (mean
answer = 3.81, p = 0.011), but confirmed all other first year results.
Overall, it is likely that women have a slight feeling that their contributions
to class are undervalued by professors. On the other hand, there is no
evidence that women feel discriminated against in opportunity to contribute
to class, nor that they feel that their contributions garner less respect
from fellow students than men's do.
3.4. Is Computer Science too Male Dominated?
We asked respondents about their perception of the male female balance
in computing compared to the balance they would prefer in their career
field and found evidence that women think computing is more male dominated
than they would like:
"What is the distribution of men to women in computer related careers?"
Women's mean = 3.16
"In your ideal career, what would the distribution of men and women
be?"
Women's mean = 3.87
We reject the null hypothesis, that women think computing has an ideal
balance of men and women (p 0); our alternative hypothesis, that women
think computing is more male dominated than they would like, is supported.
However, the women in this survey didn't see the field as much male dominated
as we expected, describing it closer to their ideal than we anticipated.
The follow up data generally supported these results, although with
a slightly higher ideal balance (3.99) perceived by women.
3.5. Math Anxiety
To find out about the impact of math anxiety, we asked respondents to agree
or disagree with the following statements:
Neither result suggests that math anxiety plays an important role. We reject
the null hypotheses for the first, that these answers are neutral (4.00),
with p 0 in each gender. The data supports our alternative hypotheses,
that women alone, and men and women combined, recognize the importance
of math to computer science. More importantly, men and women both agree
that they are comfortable using math, with no statistically significant
difference between them (p = 0.94). We therefore find no evidence that
women leave our program because of math anxiety.
The follow up questionnaire produced similar results in all respects.
3.6. Does Computing Conflict with Family?
We asked how strongly respondents agree or disagree with the following
statements:
"Computer scientists spend more time on work than on family".
Women's mean = 3.89
"Having time to raise my own family is a high priority for me".
Women's mean = 5.68 Men's mean = 5.42
This data does not suggest any significant difference. We cannot reject
the null hypothesis for the first question--that women's mean answer should
be 4.00 (i.e., "Indifferent") (p = 0.227). While both men and women felt
that raising a family was important, there was no statistically significant
difference in their responses to the first question (p = 0.147). We thus
find no reason to believe that women leave our computer science program
because they think a career in computer science conflicts with raising
a family.
The follow up results were similar, except that women do disagree to
a weak but statistically significant extent with the statement that computer
scientists spend more time on work than on family (mean answer = 3.75,
p = 0.011).
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Our results must be interpreted with care. The population we studied was
restricted to students in introductory computer science courses at SUNY
Geneseo. The barriers we studied may operate more strongly on students
who never take any computer science, on younger or older students, or on
students in other schools. Furthermore, we didn't test all of the barriers
suggested in the literature. Nonetheless, we do believe that we can reach
some interesting conclusions:
Of the six barriers explored, the results from only two--self confidence
and male dominance--yielded significant differences that might explain
our inability to retain women within the field. And even for the two barriers
to women detectable in our program, the evidence was fairly weak or mixed.
Far more significant (in both senses of the word: "interesting" and
"statistically significant") were the backgrounds of women at the time
they enter our introductory computing courses:
women enter with far less computing experience than do men.
And most significant was the observation that:
most women in our introductory courses never plan to major in computer
science at all.
Put another way, the largest barriers to retaining women in computer science
may be circumstances that occur long before they enter our programs. We
did not identify the exact sources of these barriers: they may be systemic
societal problems or may be caused by the early education process. But
the simple observation remains: at the time women enter our program, have
had less experience with computing and do not intend to continue in the
major.
One possible conclusion we could draw here is that we should throw up
our hands and say "it isn't our problem!" While a certain amount of recruitment
can be done at the college level (e.g., through departmental publicity,
campus poster sessions or other presentations, etc.), these results support
the arguments that the roots of women's disinterest lie in childhood and
even infancy [7]. A complete solution to such deep seated problems may
be beyond the reach of college computer science departments.
At Geneseo we prefer to think that this simply suggests that the problem
is not one of retention as we thought it to be. Rather it is a problem
of recruitment or outreach. The basic problem of retention of women into
computer science may simply be getting women into the major in the first
place. Even within the college environment, there are at least some steps
that we can take:
Outreach programs to school age girls (e.g., summer "camps") can be
conducted by college computer science departments, and seem to be quite
effective in awakening girls' interest in computing [8, 9].
At least in the U.S., undergraduate colleges are crucial training grounds
for elementary and secondary teachers; computer science departments can
work with schools of education to ensure that these teachers are suitable
computer science role models for their students, and are prepared to accurately
present the field to them.
Mentoring programs, drawing on upper level women students, women graduates,
or women faculty as mentors for younger women, may reduce the background
problems. Getting women into the major is the most important step, but
we can't ignore the barriers that women face once there. Women's relative
lack of pre college computing experience is particularly significant, as
it may hurt their performance in the first course relative to men [6].
This in turn can compound problems of flagging self confidence. Departments
should also raise faculty consciousness about working with less self confident
students and fairly valuing all students' opinions.
Our results should not be accepted without question yet. They need
to be confirmed by broader based studies at other schools. If such studies
support our results (or even if they consistently produce different results),
computer science will have an important guide to correcting its gender
imbalance.
Acknowledgements
This study is the work of an on going curriculum development project at
Geneseo, headed by the authors and Hans Koomen. A large number of student
research assistants were invaluable to the project: Lisa Ciferri and Steve
Bender provided the energy to plan the study and get it started; Lisa,
Wendy Abbott, Nandini Mehta, Rebecca Lilley, and Cristin Donaher moderated
focus groups and helped administer questionnaires; Jason Kapusta did the
statistical analysis of the year 1 data. Jim Bearden and James Watson of
Geneseo's Sociology Department advised us on survey research methods (although
the authors, of course, take full responsibility for any failure to follow
that advice). Nancy Jones, Indu Talwar, Homma Farian, Ron Lin, and Lee
Bryant, in addition to the project directors, graciously allowed us to
administer questionnaires to their classes. Funding for this study came
from the U. S. Department of Education, under grant number P116B20753,
and from a SUNY Geneseo Research Incentive Grant.
References
1. Cottrell, J. I'm a Stranger Here Myself: A Consideration of Women in
Computing. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM SIGUCCS User Services Conference
(Nov. 1992). pp. 71 76.
2. Howell, K. The Experience of Women in Undergraduate Computer Science:
What Does the Research Say? SIGCSE Bulletin , June 1993 ( 25:2).
pp. 1 8.
3. Klawe, M. and Leveson, N. Women in Computing: Where are We Now?
Communications of the ACM , Jan. 1995 (38:1). pp. 29 35.
4. Liu, M. L. and Blanc, L. On the Retention of Female Computer Science
Students. Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh SIGCSE Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education (Feb. 1996). pp. 32 36.
5. Pearl, A. et al. Becoming a Computer Scientist. Communications
of the ACM , Nov. 1990 (33:11). pp. 47 57.
6. Sackrowitz, M. and Parelius, A. An Unlevel Playing Field: Women
in the Introductory Computer Science Courses. Proceedings of the Twenty
Seventh SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Feb.
1996). pp. 37 41.
7. Spertus, E. Why Are There So Few Female Computer Scientists? MIT
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report number 1315, 1991.
Available at http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/Gender/pap/pap.html
8. Teague, G. J., and Clark, V. Attracting Women to Tertiary Computing
Courses: Two Programs Directed at Secondary Level. Proceedings of the
Twenty Fourth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(Feb. 1993). pp. 208 212.
9. Townsend, G. Viewing Video Taped Role Models Improves Female Attitudes
Toward Computer Science. Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education (Feb. 1996). pp. 42 45.