Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Women in engineering

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Women in engineering
Status	closed
Request date	01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Tricia20
Mediator(s)	martinlc
Comment	full stall As a neutral observer, it seems that this dispute could be resolved by revising the wording of the claims made. Because wikipedia is about verifiability not truth WP:V, it should be possible to devise a NPOV statement which reports the controversy rather than tries to settle it, perhaps along the lines of The small number of women choosing engineering as a career in the past may have been the result of perceptions that 'male' skills such as spatial ability would be needed (ref for this perception - maybe an old careers guidance book). This has led some to argue that women are biologically unsuited to the field (ref for biology, preferably a quotation saying this), although this has been questioned by those wishing to increase the proportion of women engineers (ref for saying that biology is not a problem) .

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Women in engineering]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Women in engineering]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_engineering&oldid=286267133

The dispute is on the statement, "Innate biological differences in ability contribute to the under representation of women in engineering." (See sections in the article on "Biological Factors" and "Inappropriate reversion" on the discussion page).

The following is a quote from the one of the references given to "prove" that spatial sense is a contributor to under representation of women in engineering. The other user is clearly using this reference out of context and in no way does this paper conclude his supposedly well established and acknowledged link to be true (in fact, it claims the opposite):

"The existence of a gender difference on only one task cannot begin to account for such vast differences in choice of profession." (The Effect of Spatial Experience on Engineering Students’ Visualization Abilities)

Tricia20 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is based on research that males outperform females on tasks of mental rotation. Many references have been provided to support the claim that males outperform females on such tasks. However, no strong link between this ability and enrollment/success of women in engineering has been provided. Initially, no reference was provided to substantiate this link. After being pressed on this, as a first attempt to prove that such a link exists, an aptitude test was provided as a reference, which concludes nothing and simply shows that a test has been developed to test an individual's spatial ability (among other things)^[1]. Also a reference was provided to a study titled 'Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing?' which states that, "Mental rotation tests such as the one we have described are used ... for selection of candidates for drafting, architecture, and engineering programs"^[2]. This is not an adequate reference. Firstly, the paper is not about the effectiveness of mental rotation as a predictor of enrollment/success in engineering. Secondly, many different things are used for selection of candidates for engineering programs - as a part of my application process, I had to write a book review. In no way does this make conclusions on the effectiveness of reading comprehension as a predictor of success/enrollment in engineering.

Many many studies have been completed on the under representation of women in engineering which focus on both enrollment and success of women in engineering. Ultimately, If this was such a well established cause of under representation of women in engineering, it would be well documented and it would be possible to find a paper published which makes direct conclusions on the effectiveness of mental rotation as a predictor of enrollment or success in engineering.

It seems quite obvious to me that the individual posting this statement is grasping at straws to find proof for his personal (and unsubstantiated) theory. It is quite clear that his belief in this theory is not based on any peer-reviewed research or he would have provided this upfront to substantiate his claims rather that providing flaky references in hind-sight upon the issue being pressed.

Most importantly, please consult Wikipedia's standard of Verifiability. If no research paper exists that has examined and concluded on the impact of mental rotation on the under representation of women in engineering then this is not a verifiable cause of under representation. It is simply one individual's theory and should not be presented as a fact and does not belong on Wikipedia.

As a senior engineering student, I am fully aware of the extremely different skill sets that can make up a successful engineer. Which is why I find it hard to believe that this difference in mental rotation is the cause (or even a significant contributor) of under representation of women in engineering. Without a single source that comments on this theory it absolutely does not belong on Wikipedia presented as a well established fact.

Personally, I am in a program (Mechanical Engineering) which most would assume would require one of the highest levels of mental rotation. I personally have terrible spatial sense. However, I am still extremely successful both in the classroom and in the workplace. If his theory was true and the link was so profound, then I should be at the bottom of my class and struggling to maintain employment. Engineering is an extremely broad field which encompasses so much. I know that this anecdotal evidence does not prove anything - however, neither does his personal theory. Tricia20 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your post for clarity. I have changed this page so that the topic of the dispute is more clear, and put your arguments into the "Dispute" section. I hope you don't mind.

Tricia seems to accept the fact that women have, on average, much lower spatial skills then men, especially on certain tests, such as the Mental Rotation Test, since it is supported by such a massive amount of evidence. This topic seems to have been studied for almost 40 years, and many meta-analyses of these studies have been done. The effect spatial skills have on ability in engineering is also well supported, by the references I have given. Also, many of my references make the connection between lower female spatial skills and lower potential in engineering. Further, even if this is not the case, the fact that tests such as Mental Rotation are used on admissions tests, implies that the enrollment of females may be lower by virtue of poorer scores on these tests.
I really don't know what Tricia means by, "flaky". The references I have given appear in influential, peer-reviewed publications and have received a high number of citations. I don't think that questioning the statements of these references is appropriate. The reference Tricia refers to was published in Behavior Genetics and has received 113 citations. The reason I included Differential Aptitude Test (5th ed.), is that it summarizes the evidence that the DAT correlates with course grades in drafting, data processing, graphics, and engineering.

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The existence of a gender difference on only one task cannot begin to account for such vast differences in choice of profession." (The Effect of Spatial Experience on Engineering Students’ Visualization Abilities)

This is a quote from one of YOUR OWN REFERENCES (which you claim have not been taken out of context)

"The effect spatial skills have on ability in engineering is also well supported, by the references I have given. Also, many of my references make the connection between lower female spatial skills and lower potential in engineering."

This is simply not true. The references do not make any connection between lower female spatial skills and under representation of women in engineering. The references you have provided have not researched this connection and to imply otherwise is simply misrepresenting the studies you cite.

I personally never did a test on mental rotation for my admission application (nor do I know of any engineering school in Canada which requires such a test) so this is not used invariably by all schools. Many things have been anecdotally associated with success in engineering and are used in selection of candidates at some schools without any research on their effectiveness as an indicator of success. Just because this is one of the many things schools use does not mean that this conclusively contributes to under representation of women in engineering.

Regarding the your references being "flaky", I say this not because the sources are flaky but because of the context in which you are using them. In no way do I question the conclusions of the citations. However, none of the references make the conclusions that differences in mental rotation contribute to under representation of women in engineering. In fact some conclude otherwise (see above).

It simply boils down to the fact that none of your references make any conclusions on mental rotation as a cause of under representation of women in engineering.

Again, if this is so well established, why can't you provide one study which has been completed ON THIS TOPIC (not the topic of gender and spatial sense but the topic of spatial sense as a reason for under representation of women in engineering). Tricia20 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to comment on the following reference: 'The Effect of Spatial Experience on Engineering Students’ Visualization Abilities'

This has been your closest attempt at showing the connection between spatial sense and engineering however, all that this reference states is that spatial differences have been shown to be a reliable predictor of success in engineering GRAPHICS design class.

If you think this proves your connection, you obviously don't know too much about engineering as a profession. In my degree out of 43 required courses we have ONE course in first year on graphics design. Further, many disciplines have NONE.

It is quite a jump to say that spatial sense is a predictor of success in one first year course so therefore it must be a predictor of all of all engineering disciplines as a whole. This paper explicitly states that "the existence of a gender difference on only one task cannot BEGIN to account for such vast differences in choice of profession."

Further, this same study states that "This suggests that while a certain degree of visualization ability may be innate, performance is also dependant on experience, and therefore it is a learnable skill. This is supported by Peters, Chisolm and Laeng (1995)and by Greenfield, Brannon and Lohr (1994),". Which would nullify the entire argument because if visualization is a learnable skill then differences between the genders are not likely to be "innate biological differences"

The fact that your ONLY reference making any link between spatial ability and engineering EXPLICITLY states that this cannot account for under representation of women in engineering PROVES that you are taking references out of context to spread your own personal biases.

I am removing all your misinformation from the Women in Engineering Page until this is resolved. I will not replace it with anything contrary until this has been resolved.

Please respect that and stop vandalizing this page. Tricia20 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your response so it's easier to read.

Please note that I did not use the source you are referring to in order to show that gender differences in engineering are explained by spatial differences. I am simply using this source to show that spatial abilities contribute to potential in engineering. Further, this is a relatively obscure source, and not even close to as authoritative as my other sources, on the subject of gender differences in ability. Again, I simply use this source to show that spatial skills are vital for engineering, which is the main focus of the paper. I have tons of other sources showing how large the gender gap is in spatial ability.

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on the women in engineering page is that "innate biological differences contribute to women in engineering". Your reference clearly disagrees with that statement and further, none of your references substantiate this statement. (Also, please read the rest of my comments above on this reference and its relevance).

You have established a personal theory and it does not belong on Wikipedia because no reputable source has verified your theory.

Tricia20 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that "The existence of a gender difference on only one task cannot begin to account for such vast differences in choice of profession."

Many of my sources use other tasks besides Mental Rotation to evaluate spatial skills. Further, this statement is neither attributed to any source nor substantiated.

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer once again to the following reference: (Delgado AR, Prieto G. (1997), Mental rotation as a mediator for sex-related differences in visualization. Elsevier Science Inc) which concludes that when differences in mental rotation ability are controlled as a covariable, the effect of gender on visualization is eliminated.

I am very well aware that your statement in not attributed to any source, hence it is unsubstantiated.

Tricia20 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This only shows that the differences in sex in "visualization" can be explained by differences on MRT. However, many other spatial skills tests test the same underlying abilities tested by MRT. For example, if there was nothing "underlying" that the MRT was testing (if it was only testing the ability to mentally rotate shapes) then of course it probably wouldn't relate much to engineering, because engineers don't necessarily have to rotate shapes mentally, but they do have to think use visualization. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. stated that, "Results showed that sex differences are significant in several tests".

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this is ultimately a moot point. The reference in discussion (which states that these differences do not account for under representation) was not a study on just mental rotation but rather on spatial experiences in general. So you are still grasping at straws. Not to mention, that you should already know the study is not just on MRT because it is your own reference. (Also, please refer to the rest of my comments on the use of that reference above) Tricia20 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is considered very poor practice to modify old statements in a discussion. It is extremely important to keep a record of the exchanges that were made throughout the entire history of the debate, in order to see arguments/counter-arguments. If old statements are modified to incorporate new arguments, it obliges everyone else involved in the discussion to modify his/her old arguments. I respectfully ask that you remove :

"The existence of a gender difference on only one task cannot begin to account for such vast differences in choice of profession." (The Effect of Spatial Experience on Engineering Students’ Visualization Abilities)

(and all other changes you made to old posts after I responded to them) from your first and second statements, and incorporate it into a new response, if you desire. You can learn more about standard practices at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments

Thanks,

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will avoid this in the future. However, I plan to leave the comment I have added. Tricia20 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important that you remove new material from old statements, otherwise I will have to change my old statements (to respond to the new claims), and it will get messy.--66.189.98.178 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there may be a conflict of interest here, as Tricia seems to be trying to use this article in order to get more women into engineering, as evidenced by her posting her blog on here. --66.189.98.178 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not some scam to increase the number of women in engineering. It is a collection of posts by current women in engineering with the goal of highlighting the experiences of women in engineering. I linked to the blog because the stories of current women in engineering are likely to be of interest to those who visit the "Women in Engineering" wikipedia page. In no way is that trying to use the article to get more women into engineering. It is simply trying to make the article more useful to those looking to learn about women in engineering. I have done quite a lot of reading on women in engineering and I know many women in engineering. Neither of these constitute a conflict of interest. My only motivation is to ensure that the Women in engineering page is accurate and free of bias. Tricia20 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tricia,
Here is a very highly cited paper (398 citations on google scholar--you may have read it in Scientific American) which makes many of the same points I tried to. It doesn't specifically mention engineering but talks about mathematics. [1]
Here is another highly cited paper which I suggest both you and the future mediator read. [2]
--66.189.98.178 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you do not appear to be reading your references very thoroughly. In your first reference, it appears that you only read male strengths and not female strengths. In the image of problem solving tasks favored by each gender it shows that "men tend to do better than women on tests of mathematical reasoning", however, it also says "women do better than men on mathematical calculation tests". These are both important skills for engineering (although again, there is so much more to engineering than mathematics). On one skill, men out perform women. On the other, women out perform men. I am failing to see how this concludes anything. This is a perfect example of why your statement is not verifiable without a substantiating reference. You cannot assert the significance of differences in gender abilities without a thorough examination of the strengths of both genders and the statistical impact that these strengths have on each gender's career choices. Such an examination should be done in a peer-reviewed journal article not by yourself on Wikipedia. Tricia20 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this study does not make the same points that you do. It makes no conclusions on under representation of women in engineering. Perhaps you are confused on the point of contention in this debate. Tricia20 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your second reference is not a study on sex differences but rather a study on the science and politics of comparing men and women. It discusses common statements on the validity of experiments on sex differences and examines the accuracy of these statements. It was an interesting paper, However, it is not a study of sex differences but rather a study of studies of sex differences. Tricia20 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask the question, if this is such a well established "fact" why is it such a struggle for you to find one reference which has conclusively studied the impact of spatial differences on under representation of women in engineering? Tricia20 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the old page, I am using the following to show a link between spatial ability and engineering:

1. ^ GP Adanez, AD Velasco - Journal of Geometry and Graphics, 2002, Predicting Academic Success of Engineering Students in Technical Drawing from Visualization Test Scores ([3])
2. ^ S Hsi, MC Linn, JE Bell - JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION-WASHINGTON-, 1997, The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction
3. ^ N Newcombe, MM Bandura, DG Taylor - Sex Roles, 1983 ([4])
4. ^ C Leopold, RA Gorska, SA Sorby - Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 2001 ([5])
5. ^ Bennett G.K., Seashore H.G., Wesman A.G. Differential Aptitude Test (5th ed.). New York: Psychological Corporation, 1974
6. ^ C Skorupan - The Penn State Behrend Psychology Journal, 1998 The Effect of Spatial Experience on Engineering Students’ Visualization Abilities ([6])

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting old so this is going to be brief.

1. There is so much more to engineering than technical drawing, as I have described multiple times above. This does not prove your claim.
2. I was unable to find this article or even an abstract of this article so unfortunately I cannot comment on it. I would greatly appreciate if you could send me a link to this article or its abstract. If that is available.
3. This makes no connection to engineering. It is a study on differences in male and female activities as of 1983. I would imagine that the activities of adolescent males vs. females may have changed considerably in the last 26 years.
4. This is a study on methods for improving spatial abilities in both males and females. It does not perform a statistical analysis on the success or enrollment of women in engineering based on spatial skills. To imply otherwise would be misrepresenting this paper.
5. This has been previously discussed. (It makes no conclusions - it simply demonstrates that a test exists to test spatial ability among other things)
6. This is another paper which links spatial ability to introductory graphical design classes. I will repeat myself again: to imply that this paper makes conclusions on the success or enrollment of women in engineering based on spatial skills is misrepresenting this paper.

Tricia20 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Here's another nice source which states, "Three-dimensional visualization skills are critically important for success in engineering careers."

1. ^ AC Medina, HBP Gerson, SA Sorby, Educational … - 1998 IDENTIFYING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE 3-D VISUALIZATION SKILLS OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS IN BRAZIL AND IN THE UNITED STATES ([7])

--66.189.98.178 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this does not appear to be an article from a peer-reviewed journal. Secondly, you are once again citing an improper reference. Although this reference makes that statement, no statistical analysis has been done to verify that statement or to analyze its significance. Further, verifying this statement is not the goal of the paper. You cannot use a source because of a statement which is peripheral to the analysis and conclusions of the paper - to do so is clearly misrepresenting the source. Tricia20 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support solving this issue as you've recommended IF there was actually controversy surrounding this debate. While it may be true that members of the misinformed general public believe that women are biologically inferior, there is no debate within the social sciences. There is absolutely no evidence that biological differences account for the under representation of women in engineering (I recommend that you read through the discussions here and you will see that all of the supporting references were quite blatantly taken out of context or are inappropriate).

I would only be comfortable with a statement that read more to the effect of: "Although some people may attribute the under representation of women in engineering to biological differences between the two genders, there is no evidence to support this belief."

However, this debate is not widespread enough for any reference to be provided. Which means it is not verifiable nor does it meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ultimately, while it may be true that this individual (and likely others) hold this belief, without any sources to even support that controversy/debate exist among experts, it hardly belongs on Wikipedia. Tricia20 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Fair enough. I think that there should be a section, with sources, which addresses reasons for past under-representation in the profession - any source directly saying that innate biological differences are responsible can be included here, but none has et been proposed.Martinlc (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with current under-representation, not past under-representation. The fact that almost almost all professions are traditionally male, but only few have stayed so needs explaining. If you read the old article, I proposed social and biological factors, which are both likely to contribute to under-representation. I urge you to review the sources I provided as evidence. It is very important to note that Tricia concedes that women perform poorly on various measures of spatial ability, and I have provided various sources showing the importance of spatial ability in math, science and engineering. As to the existence of debate, please go here for the well publicized and spirited debate involving former President of Harvard, Larry Summers:[8]

Here's an online debate with Harvard professor, Steven Pinker, advocating a similar view[9]. Here's another nice source,[10]. Also, please refer the book, Baron-Cohen, S. The Essential Difference: Men, Women, and the Extreme Male Brain (Allen Lane, London, 2003). There are, of course, many more examples that I can provide on request.

Thanks for taking the time to review this,

--69.0.9.247 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's interestering. The discussions could be referenced if they have been commented on by a third party source such as a news organisation. The PLOS article is a good soruce and is much more directly relevant that the sources you have previously suggested which did not address the question directly. Any more like this?

Can I suggest that you take some direct quotations from Baron-Cohen's book? We would then have a Reasons for under-representation section which would look something like:

"Baron Cohen etc argue that biological differences between the sexes will cause differential representation across professions needing different aptitudes quote quote quote

Feminists disagree, arguing that 'normative' explanations of this type use innate differences and traditional definitions of job roles and skills needed to justify the status quo whose origins lie in social expectations. quote quote quote" (maybe something from Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture By Judith Samsom McIlwee, J. Gregg Robinson on google books

Martinlc (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]