Voice, Vision, Echo

Note: This is a longish version for a quick summary and is just pulled from my faculty fellowship application. We've collected pilot data from a sample of first and fourth year students and are getting ready to start the data analyses.

The shorthand version of what I plan to do revolves around Carol Gilligan's concept of "voice" -- a sense of self-confidence and assuredness. Gilligan posits that early in development this sense of voice is present in young girls and it unfortunately vanishes as girls become more feminized and sensitive to the social pressures of being female (developmentally around the age of 10). One of the main problems with this is that 'voice' is notoriously difficult to quantify (Harter, Waters, Whitesell & Kastelic, 1998). To assist, I plan on tying this into a similar phenomenon (both in time and scope): that of girls’ interest in the sciences which also diminishes at the same level at about the same point in time.


Further, I want to tie this concept of voice into college women and their choices for post-graduate education. In many ways, the majority of the incoming students who arrive on campus seem to have regained their "voice" over time (they are back to being self confident and assured when they arrive here). Over the four years of college, a number of these women will change or give up on their original plans for post-graduate education. This process is remarkably similar to what Gilligan describes at the earlier stage of development - I see this as an ''echo" of that original process and want to explore this further. Through a series of interviews and questionnaires, I want to plot out these students' plans and aspirations and follow the changes that occur to these plans during their time in college. More importantly, I want to measure the sincerity in these plans, gain some objective measures of the real feasibility of these plans, and assess what it is in the college culture or their lives which cause them to shift their focus from their original intentions.


I. Girls in the classroom


Educators and psychologists have often been forced to deal with a basic conundrum regarding females and the sciences: Despite all the evidence that females seem to excel in the school environment from the earliest grade levels; why is there such inconsistency between the genders when it comes to the sciences?


There is a substantial literature documenting that females show high levels of competence, and thrive in the classroom environment despite the presence of many factors that could diminish their chances of success (e.g. discrimination, differences in attention given by teachers, etc.). For example, girls tend to achieve higher grades and have higher aspirations than boys from the first grade of elementary school to the last grade of high school (AAUW, 1992). Girls are also less likely to have documented learning disorders, are less likely to drop out of school, and are more likely to attend college (National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 1998). The one exception to this pattern of girls’ higher academic performance is in the area of math and science achievement where males have greater levels of achievement in adolescence and beyond. In college, females form only a small percentage of the students majoring in math-based subjects and the physical sciences (Dey & Hurtado, 1999), and have lower expectations for themselves (Hafner, 1985).


Over the last decade, there have been many attempts to deal with long-lasting and emerging inequalities within the classroom environment. Two of the most comprehensive of these studies, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Report (NRC, 1998) and the American Association of University Women’s report How Schools Shortchange Girls (AAUW, 1992) reached many of the same basic conclusions. Both reports agree that one area that requires substantial commitment from all educators and communities is the teaching and retaining of women in the areas of math and sciences.


II. Girls in the sciences.


There is evidence that gender differences in math and sciences are decreasing somewhat, but these studies only consider enrollment in classes and ignore the fact the these “signs of improvement” may be nothing more than an artifact of new requirements by school boards or state legislatures; the numbers are evened out by new requirements not by active choices by the students (NCES, 1998). Orenstein (1994, p.94) goes so far as to describe the common reformation by many school systems as one of “add women and stir.” In an attempt to reverse issues such as the gender disparity in classes, school systems have taken steps to increase the number of required courses in the life and physical sciences throughout high school. They can rightfully point to the new gender parity and evidence that the girls in these classes perform just as well as the males (Voyer, 1996). This strategy however still has not had any major impact on females as they enter into college in these fields.


The American Association of University Women report How Schools Shortchange Girl (AAUW, 1992), was one of the first reports to identify the trends in math achievement, but argue that the gender gap in the sciences (even for those who are highly competent in math or science ability) continued to persist and, was in fact increasing. The AAUW report concludes that females are much less likely to seek out careers in the sciences or technology than their male counterparts. Fennema and Sherman (1999) suggest that females see math and science as “something men do” and this may precipitate a drop in their confidence in their own ability during the middle school years. The most unusual finding in this research is that this drop in confidence occurs prior to any documented drops in achievement. In other words, there is little to suggest that girls lose confidence in their abilities in response to achievement failures; rather their achievement may drop because they’ve lost confidence in themselves in other ways.


III. Voice


Carol Gilligan (1992, 1993; Brown & Gilligan, 1992) has attempted to document the developmental changes (moral, cognitive, personality, self-esteem) in girls through the period of adolescence. Based on her in-depth interviews, Gilligan claims that young girls (prior to the age of 11) are generally strong and confident of their own thoughts and opinions (using her terminology, they have a level of “voice”). Not only is there a respectably strong level of self-confidence (barring of course any negative external factors such as abuse), but also they are true to themselves and willing to call others to task for what they see as “giving in” to stereotypical or “truth-less” behaviors. This clarity in thought and the tendency to express their opinions diminishes as they approach puberty. Gilligan (1992) claims that during the normal transition of adolescence, girls begin to identify with the established cultural role of the “good woman” quickly perceiving that the desirable stereotype in our culture (as demonstrated by role models such as their mothers) is being nice, polite to others, unassuming and quiet. Given that this stereotype conflicts with self-expression and the “voice” that they have, they receive the message that in the adult world, women keep quiet and begin to feel that their opinion is neither valued nor sought.


A consequence of being aware of this inconsistency in their emerging self and the norms of society begin to cause the young girl to “lose her voice” and becomes hindered by the image of the “perfect girl” (Gilligan, 1993). Given that the risk of expression to the adolescent girl is at best, tension or conflict and at worst, anger or abandonment, many choose to abandon their “self”. This abandonment of self leads them to constantly interrupt themselves to inject statements like “I don’t know” as an attempt to cover up what they really do know. This loss of voice and the constant devaluing of their ideas and thoughts can easily lead into the decreases in self-esteem seen during the middle-school years (Harter & Rosenberg, 1990; Orenstein, 1994). These effects of lowered worth and self-esteem are further reinforced in the classroom by differential treatments of males and females. Teachers ask more questions of males, give more feedback (praise, criticism, and correction), and give more specific and valuable comments to boys. By the time students reach college, men are twice as likely to initiate comments as women (Bailey, 1993; Sadker & Sadker, 1986; Wingate, 1986). To add insult to injury, girls are also at a loss in the science labs: boys tend to dominate the use of equipment in the labs (Rennie & Parker, 1987) and girls are more likely to be exposed to subtle forms of sexism such as academic dependence and nonrigorous instruction (Lee, Marks, & Boyd, 1994). Girls are constantly receiving the message “you tried” whereas boys receive the message “try harder” (Horgan, 1995).


As influential as Gilligan's work has been, one criticism that has repeatedly been leveled is that this concept of "voice," while interesting and potentially important, is also notoriously difficult to quantify. Harter and her colleagues (1998) have spearheaded some of the most rigorous investigations into the quantification of voice and have yet to yield results consistent with the findings of Gilligan. So, even though a good number of developmental psychologists buy into the idea of "voice" we have yet to find a mechanism through which we can study it. It is my contention that voice can possibly be measured through an analogue process of interest in the sciences. Further, this same (or similar) phenomenon seems to be present when we examine the changing expectations of women as they go to college.


IV. Girls in college


In a study of college women’s perceptions, Ridgwell (2002) investigated factors either in college or secondary schools that influenced their decision to continue into a post-graduate career. She indicates that there are a large number of women at all levels of college who cannot see themselves as potential graduate students, even in spite of strong GPA’s. Of those who have always envisioned continuing on into higher education or who came to envision this possibility in college, two factors seemed to emerge. The first factor was the presence of a strong mentor (this was particularly true in the sciences); and the second factor was exposure to the tools and practice of the discipline.


While mentoring has long been seen as an important factor in one’s investment in education, Ridgwell’s work suggests that, for girls, the presence of a strong male role model may be more important than a female role model. While an interesting finding, it is still possible that Ridgwell confounded gender and age of role models in her studies. The majority of the male role models at the institutions she examined were also individuals who are relatively younger than the female role models, many having just finished graduate school in the previous 5-6 years. Nonetheless, it is an interesting finding.


The exposure to the tools of the sciences is closely tied into what Newmann (1992) terms engagement. Engagement refers to the quality of being psychologically committed to learning and being able to envision yourself succeeding in similar situations. It is likely that one aspect of losing their “voice” is that girls are no longer able to envision themselves in those domains that are viewed as more male-dominated. Interventions prior to this loss of voice as well as the establishment of solid and sustained familiarity with the mechanics of the laboratory procedures and principles combined with reinforcement from teacher/mentors might enable girls to persist in these domains.


V. Research Plan


This particular research project involves questions that we all care about; what makes someone (in this case females) more committed to themselves and their education? While the majority of my activities during my sabbatical on this project seem to be more planning and piloting, these are extraordinarily important steps given the fact that once started, these projects will take 4 to 10 years to complete. The investment in the planning and piloting (and training a good set of students in the very messy art of interviewing) of this project will lead to very useful data being made available to educators.
The research itself will involve 4 major components:

∑ First, a series of semi-structured interviews asking questions about students' educational plans and aspirations, decision-making, experiences of importance, and their view of graduate school and the sciences. These interviews will last approximately 30-45 minutes and each participant will take part in 2 or 3 interviews per year. I will likely test a cross-sectional sample of students next year and try to draw some conclusions that I will build into the formalized interviews for the following year.

∑ Second, a series of general opinion questionnaires about their educational beliefs and a few standardized tests that can be self-administered will be given. These will be given out at the end of the first interview session and participants will have a week to return them. Questions will be tailored to issues we might include in future interviews as well as any demographic information we might consider important.

∑ Third, a collection of quantifiable data on the participants. One of the greatest weaknesses of much of the research in this area is that there is little attempt to follow through and find out information on the actual participants. As an example, imagine that during an interview with a college student, she states that she has decided not to go on for a graduate education in the interview. Ridgwell (2002) would classify this person as a "dropper" -- someone who had plans and then decided against them. For me, it would be important to know if instead of being a "dropper" she is actually a "dropped on her head" -- someone who initially believes that she'll be going on into graduate school, but her 1.2 GPA doesn't allow for it (I know…not the classiest of titles, but I'm sure my meaning is clear). At both age ranges it is important to get an anchor in reality if these findings are going to have any meaning.

∑ Finally, a collection of data on the institution. A final thing that is necessary to tie all of the information together is a sense of the overall institution. Some of Ridgwell's (2002) conclusions are not as mysterious as she claims if she had had more information about the institution. Sweet Briar College was one of the colleges where testing was done on this project, and a number of her phenomena take on a new light if an individual has a decent level of knowledge about the testing environment. While there is always a risk that having this knowledge can predispose you to think in specific ways, it also allows for you to ask better questions; a point which is commonly lost in this research area.