About thinking and learning:

Belenky et al. (1997) have shown that men’s and women’s ways of thinking and the developmental stages through which they pass as they mature tend to differ. While many men are at ease as ‘separate knowers’, women are more likely to feel comfortable as ‘connected knowers’.

Separate knowers try to subtract the personality of the perceiver from the perception, because they see personality as slanting the perception or adding ‘noise’ that must be filtered out. Connected knowers see personality as adding to the perception, and so the personality of each member of the group enriches the group’s understanding. . . . Through mutual stretching and sharing the group achieves a vision richer than any individual could achieve alone. (Belenky et al., 1997, p 119)

About Role Models:

In a U.S. study, Yancey et al. (2002) report that a majority of adolescents aged 12 to 17 have a role model, and that the influence of role models is constructive by a number of measures.

people you admire or look up to . . . are there any people or individuals you really want to be like? (excerpt from question, Yancey et al., 2002)

Having a role model, particularly an individual known to the adolescent, was . . . associated with higher self-esteem . . . and higher grades. (researchers’ finding, Yancey et al., 2002)

About Critical Mass:

Critical mass is variously defined as the proportion of a minority group required for that group to be accepted as an integral part of the larger group, as the proportion required for a minority group to be retained at the same rate as other groups, as the proportion required for new participation rates to be maintained without the need for affirmative action strategies. Critical mass applies to women or men working in non-traditional areas, to racial or religious minorities breaking into educational and professional fields, and to minority groups in parliaments.

The Byrne (1993) scale of non-traditionality is shown in Table 3.4. While numerical critical mass cut-off points vary in a number of studies, the descriptors here are useful. Byrne suggests that student enrolments above 30% of the whole cohort are necessary for women (or men) to be seen as normal by the rest of their cohort. Only those comfortable with being seen as abnormal will survive in a discipline where they comprise less than 15%, and where they comprise 8% or less they “do not count as in any way representative or as transferable role models” for other women (or men).

Table 3.4: The Byrne scale of non-traditionality, after Byrne (1993)

• Recruitment of both sexes above 30% of enrolments: Students and teachers seen as sex-normal for both sexes, therefore the discipline is seen as sex-neutral
• Recruitment of either sex at 16 – 29% of total: Seen as sex-normal for the majority sex and untypical but sex-normal for the minority sex
• Recruitment of either sex at 9 – 15% of total: Seen as sex-normal for the majority sex and abnormal for the minority sex
• Recruitment of either sex at 8% or less of total: Seen as sex-normal for the majority sex and both abnormal and ‘the rubric of exceptions’ for the minority sex, i.e. they do not count as in any way representative or as transferable models

Voluntary seating patterns can be used to establish whether a minority group is above or below critical mass. Gender-related social choices and pressures are part of students’ university experience. Both men and women preferentially sit with a same-sex laboratory partner. Why would behaviour change at some threshold? Perhaps when the numbers of the minority group are very small, some members of that minority group feel the need to group together to attain some feeling of normalcy. It is suggested that the slight increase in the deviation from random seating choices as the proportion of the minority group decreases, and the sudden change at around 20% of the cohort, may be an indicator of the stress in the learning environment of some members of the minority group.

The availability of other women with whom to work and bond may be a factor that supports women in staying in male-dominated disciplines. It is suggested that the proportion of women in each laboratory group should be at least 25%, resulting, necessarily, in some all-male groups. This would ensure that laboratory classes exceeded critical mass and provide women the opportunity to choose a same-sex laboratory partner. This simple strategy may have significant impact on the retention of women in male-dominated disciplines.

Some more references:

• “Seating in laboratory classes – achieving critical mass” is available in this PDF file, pages 112-115

References cited:

• R. Ivie, R. Czujko, & K. Stowe, in B.K. Hartline, & Dongqi Li (eds.) AIP Conference Proceedings, 62 (2002)
• M. Sadker & D. Sadker, Failing at fairness. Touchstone (1995)
• B.L. Whitten, S.R. Foster & M.L. Duncombe, Physics Today 56 (9) 46-51 (2003)
• E.M. Byrne, Women and science: the Snark syndrome. The Falmer Press (1995)
• J. Ainley & P. Daly, in A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (eds.) Gender in policy and practice: perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. RoutledgeFalmer (2002)

See Also:

• “[Womoz] Why so few women? Leave or don’t join in the first place?”
• “[Womoz] About RMLL 2010″