Pedagogical Strategies for Increasing the Participation of Women in Philosophy

Irene Martínez Marín and Jeremy Page (Department of Philosophy, Uppsala Universitet)

 

1.     Introduction and Motivation

 

1.1.          The problem

At the most general level, the problem this paper aims to address is the underrepresentation of women in Philosophy. The data suggests that there is a generalized negative trend of decreasing participation of women as university studies progress from first-year undergraduate to doctoral studies (Haslanger 2008, Paxton, Figdor & Tiberius 2012, SWIP report 2011, APA report 2020). Importantly, the data shows that female students are enrolling in Philosophy in almost equal numbers to their male counterparts (46%) at the undergraduate level, they are more likely to drop out. The biggest dropout is to be found at Masters level (37%) and PhD (31%). The data suggests that this is a generalized global phenomenon rather than a peculiarity of any one national or particular system. Significantly, the data also shows that Philosophy seems to do ‘worse’ than other humanities disciplines (Languages: 70.7, Education: 76.5, Law: 62,4, Social Studies: 63.1 SWIP report 2011). Whilst different explanations may be given for this, we argue that it is likely that the specific environment in and around the classroom partly contributes to the decreasing number of female students. This will be our working hypothesis. Detailed scientific case studies specific to Philosophy are not available, but it is the large number of first-person experiences by Philosophy female students that we will use to support our hypothesis. A collection of these personal diagnoses, which have been retrieved from the blog What is it like to be a Woman in Philosophy?, seem to point out to something specific about the philosophy culture and its teaching methods.[1] From here, the project is to analyse ways in which classroom activities or the dominant culture and norms of philosophy that may lead to feelings of exclusion and falling female participation can be mitigated. It is through the analysis of empirically based specific in-class teaching and planning that we aim to do this.

 

1.2.          The challenge

 

What are the reasons which explain female underrepresentation? First of all, female underrepresentation in Philosophy could be solely explained by appealing to wider social and cultural factors like the spread of gender-stereotypic beliefs and the sort of human-social-centred careers commonly associated with women, though the data shows that undergraduate numbers between female and male are almost even (female students represented around 46%, according to the SWIP report 2011). This suggests that there are no major problems to ‘attracting’ women to Philosophy, as we see for example in STEM disciplines where the numbers are more uneven from the very start (Makarova, Aeschlimann, Walter 2019). It is common to see in student’s experience reference for their interest or love in the subject, even when the decision to abandon the studies is made:

 

Testimonial #1:

I love philosophy–at least I thought I did–but this whole experience is really making me wonder whether I can continue in such an environment. I’ll never be part of the boys club, and the time I spend in my department is a constant reminder of that, Anonymous.[2]

 

Thus, it seems likely that it is the student’s experiences of studying Philosophy and how some of those gender-stereotypic beliefs are manifested in the class that would contribute to the tendency of female students to abandon Philosophy. Secondly, the data shows that the dropout is not shared by other humanities disciplines, which also shows that there seems to be something specific about the teaching of Philosophy and/or its culture. So, there is good reason for thinking that the in-class/teaching/pedagogy environment contributes to falling participation. Also, that if specific aspects of the in-class experience of students can be identified as problematic and changed, female participation and a sense of belonging will be strengthened. We move now to identify a series of factors that if they are not recognized in one’s course design and teaching, may otherwise be exclusionary.

 

 

2.      Identifying negative aspects of Philosophy teaching

 

In this section, we attempt to identify teaching/in-class practices which negatively affect female participation. We will focus on three types of sources (i) anonymous student’s personal experiences outlining exclusionary teaching practices (highlighted), (ii) scientific case studies about factors bearing on female (and other underrepresented) students’ participation in general and in other disciplines (iii) literature on social norms, forms of implicit bias and stereotype threat which may be present (specifically those that bear on bias in estimating students abilities, bias in grading written assignments, bias in dividing attention between male and female students. 

 

2.1.          Male dominant reading lists

 

Testimonial #2:

The exclusion began my first day in political philosophy as an undergrad. I read through the syllabus and asked the TA whether we were really going to have a 100 per cent male viewpoint in the course and wasn’t there anyone who could represent the thinking of the other half of the human race? Nope. The great philosophers are ALL male but don’t worry their approaches are universal (..). It ended with me choosing a very difficult and non-theoretical dissertation topic involving intensive field research. Despite receiving excellent grant funding, I lost confidence and never finished.

 

Testimonial #3:

I’m a graduate student in a women friendly philosophy department. My research area is not in feminist philosophy. My first year at the program, every time I would run into the GPD he would ask me how the Certificate Program in Womens Studies was going (this is an option in my institution). This incident happened about 2-3 times. I would always smile and say that I’m not doing the certificate. I was also approached by another faculty member about a year or two later who urged me to pursue this certificate even though, again, it is not my area of research. I asked several male colleagues (who aren’t doing the certificate) if they had been urged by faculty to enroll in the certificate and, surprise!, they hadn’t.

 

 

Male-dominant reading lists are common in Philosophy. Especially in those courses with a strong historical focus. The work of women philosophers tends to be associated with feminist philosophy or scholarship of historical female philosophers (Haslanger 2008). The lack of inclusive reading lists with women authors publishing in mainstream journals can provoke a strong feeling of exclusion in female students and also create false assumptions about the kind of Philosophy they are expected to do.

 

 

2.2.          The ‘philosophical mind’: Implicit bias and stereotype threat

 

Testimonial #4:

I’m an undergraduate student in Philosophy, and reading this blog made me think about an experience I had a while ago. I was having a discussion with another undergraduate student, who is male, about a priori truths, which I said I didn’t believe in (not sure I believe that now though!) He responded quite dismissively, but the conversation moved on; later on I was talking to him again we returned to the topic and when I began giving arguments as to why I didn’t believe in them he stopped me and said that he didn’t either, but earlier didn’t think I had actual reasons which was why he responded the way that he had.

 

Testimonial #5:

Regarding classroom dynamics, I notice that questions and comments are received much more favourably when they are presented by a student who is a man. When a woman asks a question or raises a comment, it tends to be a) misunderstood b) not deemed interesting enough to warrant attention/development, or c) briefly discussed only to be brought up again by one of the men, which somehow changes it into a point worthy of more attention. Rarely do I hear a professor (who is a man) praise any of the women for their contributions to discussion.

 

Testimonial #6:

(about a professor) As soon as we get outside, he tells me that there is no way I can take his course and that it is very clear to him that I don’t have what it takes to do well in philosophy. He believed these things only on the basis of looking at me.

 

Testimonial #7:

I’m a PhD student in a related field. Some time ago, I fell in love with a technical, highly male dominated subfield of philosophy. I was confident that I would make the transition into philosophy…and then I started hearing about philosophy’s “woman problem.” Then I started to experience it myself. Though I have training in certain formal methods, it was infuriating to discover that philosophers were inclined not to believe that I do in fact have this training or who just assumed that the male students were “smarter” than me, despite no evidence that this was the case.

 

 

Reflective character traits such as ‘logical’, ‘critical’, and ‘original’ thinking tend to be associated stereotypically with the male character, whilst, as feminist philosophy has shown, females have tend to be historically portrayed as more passionate, less objective and less cerebral than men (Haslanger 2008). Since philosophical work is very much based on the exercise of one’s reflective attitudes, female students can be discriminated based on such stereotypes. These stereotypes can be expressed in the form of implicit bias and other forms of discrimination. Implicit bias is an unconscious attituded toward particular individuals, where the individual is often unaware—or partially aware— of the attitudes. For example, educators exhibit these biases when they hold unconscious beliefs or values that can influence their students. At the core of the notion of implicit bias we find that, “bias” involves some form or degree of epistemic defect—for example, holding positive or negative stereotypes on the basis of limited or unrepresentative experience, or failure to be open to certain kinds of evidence, or partiality in the weighing evidence.[3] It seems likely, from the above testimonies, then that educators will display implicit bias against women, and that women in Philosophy will experience stereotype threat. Studies on stereotype threat show that we find underperformance by those stereotypically taken to be less good in an area of study (Steele 2010). It is worth noting, that the issue of stereotype threat isn’t merely one of underperformance. Being subject to stereotype threat is stressful (studies show that this state produces elevated heart rate and blood pressure). Someone who is subject to it on a daily basis will find Philosophy more stressful and less attractive as a major, in general, than someone who is not, and is, therefore, less likely to stay for long in this environment (Steele 2010, 111). Research also shows that we are all prone to have implicit biases (Vedantam 2005). This applies not only to members outside the stereotyped group, but to everyone. That is to say, for example, that even women have these implicit biases regarding other women. This means that biases need to be prevented by taking active steps given that most of them are profoundly shaped by learning mechanisms that are difficult to change at will. But it is when acknowledging and combating implicit bias that we achieve ‘threat-removing’ situations (Blair 2002).

 

 

2.3.          A combative culture

 

Testimonial #8:

I am a female student of philosophy at a German University, writing my master thesis. Over the last years I became more and more aware of male dominance in society in general and in philosophy in particular and this makes it harder for me to bear more and more meetings, seminars, talks, conferences, colloquia etc. (…) Now the semester began and I hear man talking, hear man fighting, see man sitting where women should sit and talk and many even fight as well.I do love philosophy, I want to do a ph.d., but I really don`t know if I can stand these male environment for a couple of years more. It makes me angry, sad and sick of after each meeting. It preoccupies my mind, keeps me away from work, makes me questioned, if this is worth it

 

 

The social norms that govern a Philosophy classroom tend to reproduce the philosophical combative culture of argumentation characteristic of the research seminar room. This is an adversarial method that tends to be aggressive and competitive (expression like ‘he destroyed your argument’, ‘he completely took you down’ are common in the field). This links in with stereotypes of outspokenness and combativeness which are associated with hyper-masculinity. Women have been historically educated or socialized to be compassionate and nurturing. A combative culture clashes with traditional ideas of how a woman ought to behave in a public setting. The consequence of this is that women do not ‘feel’ at home in these settings and because of this feel like they need to make changes in their identity or to abandon it (Haslanger 2008). Of course, this climate is also damaging for male students that are not conformable with these norms. It is also likely that a combative culture will discourage others from underrepresented groups who already feel that they do not ‘belong’ in Philosophy.

 

3.     Towards a more inclusive classroom

In this section we will use the research above concerning which teaching/in-class factors tend towards exclusion and a decreased participation of female students and suggest how these factors can be counteracted by teachers.

Before doing this, it should be noted that there are certain restrictions on how “heavy-handed” interventions should be. Clumsy interventions which aim to counteract implicit bias in grading and in assessing/assigning significance to female class participation can be inappropriate and counter-productive. There is a risk that interventions which obviously highlight or single out an underrepresented group can lead to problems in two main ways. Firstly, they can themselves act as a kind of stereotype threat. Clumsily actioned interventions (though well-intentioned) may themselves highlight or foist on female students an understanding of themselves as under-performing or under-valued. Where specific character traits are highlighted, female students may come to understand themselves as having these traits or perceive the possession or acquisition of having different traits as unnatural or difficult for them to attain. Secondly, if clumsy interventions provoke feelings from other students that they are being unfairly disadvantaged, then this can lead to resentment. With female students it may foster the perception that they do not ‘deserve’ their grades or the encourage/praise they receive. These feelings can thus have the counterproductive effect of further promoting feelings of “not belonging” in the subject.

For these reasons, most of the suggestions we make below of ways to inclusively structure courses, conduct summative assessments and organise teaching and learning activities are structural changes rather than changes which single-out women as a group ‘in-need’ of help. The changes are intended to counteract negative aspects of the culture in general (e.g. its combative nature) or to limit the extent to which implicit biases can have a negative impact by providing new structures to the learning environment and classroom activities. Where the structure of courses and in-class activities is absent, studies suggest that underrepresented groups perform less well and feel less included (Haak, Hill Ris Lambers, Pitre, Freeman 2011). One explanation for this is that in less structured course trends in the culture and forms of implicit bias have more room to make an impact, whereas the introduction of clear structure counteracts this. Further, courses with greater explicit structure (and where the expectations of the students are made explicit) can help underrepresented students (like women) understand their role within the classroom and course better (ibid.). This is particularly the case, of course, if the structure given to the course counteracts the dominant exclusionary culture trends.

We group our recommendations under four headings: ‘Class Preparation’, ‘In-Class Environment’, ‘Specific Teaching Activities’, ‘Out of Class Activities’.

 

Class Preparation:

1.     Adopt Anonymous Procedures for Summative Assessment. To counteract any implicit or unconscious bias in grading (SWIP report 2011, Vedantam 2005).

2.     Adopt and make available criteria for assessing written work, as well as seminar participation or group work. The benefit here is twofold: firstly, these criteria provide the teacher with an explicit framework for assigning grades. This reduces the risk that unconscious bias against female students influence the provision of grades. Relying on a ‘gut-feeling’ or general impression may involve, in part, relying on some form of bias. All grades should be explained or explainable relative to the criteria. Secondly, having the criteria made explicit can help female students (and all underrepresented groups) be clear about what is expected of them and reduce feelings that they are imposters or do not belong (Testimonials #1 and #8).

3.     Ensure gender diversity on reading lists (to the extent that this is possible). This can help counteract stereotype threat as it reminds students that there are field-leading female philosophers. It can also provide female students with role-models and play a part in encouraging aspiration to take studies further. For Philosophy, there following resource is exceptionally useful: https://diversityreadinglist.org/ (Testimonials #1, #1 and #8).

4.     Encourage female student participation by adding codified activities which make it clear to students how they can contribute to class. For example, a teacher could explicitly ask all students to email the teacher and suggest discussion topics for the seminar. When the teacher uses the discussion topic in class, the topic can be linked to the student’s name. When the student is female, this will provide them with a reinforcement that they are a valued member of the class whose questions and contribution is legitimate. (Testimonials #1 and #8).

 

In-Class Environment:

 

1.     Expectations & implicit bias may mean that attention is directed to male over female students. So, make a conscious effort to notice female students’ attempt to participate (whether they have their hand up, are being ignored, interrupted, etc.). Also, make an explicit effort to note the value of their contribution when they do participate in the class in a valuable way. (Testimonials #1, #4, #5, #6, #7).

2.     It can be helpful to set down rules for participating in seminars. This can help ease anxieties about participating of various ‘out-groups’, including women. These rules can be specified to students as conducive to the best form of philosophy, i.e., not as designed to help certain groups of students at the expense of doing good philosophy. These rules may involve bans on interrupting, they may also ensure that objections formed are carefully directed to the arguments of peers, rather than to them as persons or to any assumptions about their capacities or other views they may hold. These rules provide teachers with a principled and fair way of policing discussion, limiting the contributions of overbearing students and intervening to ensure all voices are heard. (Testimonials #1, #2, #5, #8)

 

Specific Teaching Activities:

1. Teachers can use pictures of women in powerpoints (where relevant). This, like using a diverse reading list, helps combat stereotype threat and foster an inclusive atmosphere (Testimonial 2).
2. Providing opportunities for group work (with clear instructions about how this work is to be carried out). This is conducive to good philosophy in general but may also benefit female underrepresentation in the following ways. Firstly, as group work is collaborative, it undercuts the vision of philosophy as an individual pursuit and as necessarily combative. Secondly, female students may feel more comfortable (especially towards the beginning of their studies) to contribute in a large group setting. (Testimonials #1, #5, #8).
3. Integrate opportunities for all students to participate in class into the course place. E.g., individual student presentations (formative or summative) and seminar introductions. This ensures that all students (including female students) participate and are observed to participate in the course. (Testimonials #1, #5, #8).
4. Include formative assessments. Formative assessments enable female students to receive feedback, which may be particularly helpful if they feel alienated from traditional conceptions of what philosophy is or how to do philosophy. Formative assessment provides an opportunity for feedback clarifying what is expected of them which is more effective for being tied to a particular piece of work. They also provide opportunities for teachers to emphasise the good points in female students work and encourage them to continue doing Philosophy. Teachers can also stress that ‘intelligence’ or performance in philosophy is incremental and flexible and provide them with specific things to improve whilst declaring that they are confident that the student can indeed improve. (Testimonials #1, #5, #8).

 

Out of Class Activities:

1. Role-models & mentoring. Of junior female philosophy students by senior female philosophy students (or staff in exceptional circumstances). Such schemes have numerous benefits. They can inspire, increase a sense of belonging, provide a safe-environment in which to ask ‘silly’ questions that the student might not to raise in-class or with members of staff. They can also increase the visibility of female students in the department and often lead to the expansion of networks and e.g. female-friendly social activities. (Testimonial #8. Blair 2002, Steele 2010)
2. Encourage female students to participate in department activities (e.g. open days, societies, reading groups). This counteracts stereotype threat for female students as female students are made more visible. It also increases female students’ sense of belonging and ‘ownership’ of a place within the department. (Blair 2002, Steele 2010.)
3. Encourage promising students to continue at post-graduate level (where this is appropriate). Female students (or underrepresented students in general) may be predisposed not to see themselves as viable candidates because of the culture of philosophy and relative lack of role models.
4. Let female students know that you have high expectations of them and that you think they can achieve them. Taking on difficult learning targets requires confidence and courage. Female students may lack these things, so encouragement can help here.

 

4. Concluding Remarks

 

This study has sought to set out the general problem with declining participation rates in Philosophy. It has also sought to identify aspects of the teaching and learning environment in Philosophy contribute to this problem. It has then set out suggestions that teachers may use to combat exclusionary aspects of the teaching and learning environment. We have intended to provide suggestions which help make Philosophy more inclusive for students. We have also tried to make suggestions which are fairly easily actionable and which could thus be taken up on a large scale. Further, we have sought to ensure that the suggested measures do not, generally, single out female students but rather implement structural changes which are also of the benefit of the teaching environment in general. This means that most of the changes suggested should benefit students in general and particularly students from a variety of underrepresented backgrounds.

 

A limitation in the study of declining participation rates of women as they progress through undergraduate to postgraduate education is that no robust or wide-scale empirical studies of the particular aspects of philosophy’s culture which are the cause of exclusion and discouragement have been conducted. For this reason, we have used testimonial reports from a popular and influential blog to help identify which aspects may be responsible. These testimonials are carefully selected, however, for research to advance most sophisticated and wide-ranging empirical research will be needed.

 

 References

 

Blair IV. The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2002;6(3):242-261.

 

Haak, D. C., Hill Res Lambers, J., Pitre, E., and Freeman, S. (2011) ‘Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology’, Science 332, 1213-1216.

 

Haslanger, S. (2008), Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy: Not by Reason (Alone). Hypatia, 23: 210-223.

 

Kang, J. and Banaji, M. R. (2006). Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of "affirmative action." California Law Review, 94, 1063-1118.

 

 Makarova E., Aeschlimann B., Herzog W. The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact of the Gender Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students' Career Aspirations. Frontiers in Education VOL. 4, 2019.    

           

Paxton, Molly, Carrie Figdor, and Valerie Tiberius (2012). Quantifying the Gender Gap: An Empirical Study of the Underrepresentation of Women in Philosophy. Hypatia, 27(4), 949–957.

 

Piovarchy, A. Philosophy’s Undergraduate Gender Gaps and Early Interventions. Ergo. Volume 6, No. 26, 2019–2020

 

Thompson, M. Explanations of the Gender Gap in Philosophy. Philosophy Compass. 2017; Vol. 12.

 

Vedantam , S. 2005 . “See No Bias” , Washington Post , 21 January, accessed at < http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html > on 29 July 2010.

 

Online Materials:

“What is it like to be a Woman in Philosophy” [blog]. Available at: https://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com/. Accessed on 2020-10-06.

 

American Philosophical Association (2020), “Good Practices Guide”. Available at https://www.apaonline.org/page/goodpracticesguide. Accessed on 2020-10-06.

 

Beebee, H. and Saul, J. (2011). Women in Philosophy in the UK: A report by the British Philosophical Association and the Society for Women in Philosophy. Available at: http://www.swipuk.org/notices/2011-09-08/Women%20in%20Philosophy%20in%20the%20UK%20%28BPA-SWIPUK%20Report%29.pdf.