Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Spanish

French

In Germany, equality between men and women in mathematics, particularly in scientific leadership positions, is far from being achieved. This is despite to different equality measures implemented over the last few decades. Grounded in sociology of knowledge, interaction theory, and field theory, this article analyzes possible causes and mechanisms that maintain gender differences in a mathematical cluster of excellence in which gender equality is formulated as a goal and implemented in various measures. Based on 65 semi-structured interviews, the focus is on the self-perceptions of female early career researchers as mathematicians, as well as the (gendered) attributions they have to deal with by (male and female) scientists in leadership positions against the background of the specific culture in a mathematical cluster of excellence. We highlight the tensions that female early career researchers identify in being regarded as women when they want to be perceived and recognized first as mathematicians. We shed light on how this tension is connected to the discipline and (re)produced by scientists in leadership positions in their patterns of interpretation about equality (measures).

Keywords

Equality gender mathematical discipline mathematical self-image science

Introduction

Despite the implementation of various equality measures addressing gender disparities in career paths, gender equality in mathematics in Germany have not yet been achieved. The well-known leaky-pipeline phenomenon can still be observed (Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt), 2022; GWK, 2023). The question remains: (although so much is done), what are still existing barriers that hinder women to pursue a career in mathematics?

In the following discussion, selected findings of a research project are presented that analyzes these barriers and the possibilities to overcome them within a mathematical cluster of excellence. The idea for this article evolved from an empirical finding considering the perceptions of equality (measures) in the cluster, which seems contradictory at first. On one hand, we found a high level of acceptance and advocacy (at least on the surface) of equality (measures) by professors and other scientists involved in the implementation because of their responsibilities in the recruitment and supervision of early career researchers (ECRs)¹. On the other hand, among female mathematicians (especially ECRs) as beneficiaries, we found a critical attitude toward measures which promote gender equality.

This empirical finding led us to question the reasons for such a contradiction and investigate this phenomenon that Carey et al. (2020) had already been described for diversity in greater depth. We found that the perceptions of equality (measures) shared in the mathematical cluster of excellence constitute problematic positions for female scientists who have yet to prove themselves (again ECRs) in a discipline that historically understands itself and its knowledge production as independent of the influence of subjects, social processes, and (potentially) embedded inequalities.

Gender relations in science: state of research

Within the wide field of research on gender disparities in science, our results connect to those studies which center on science/discipline culture, the role of gatekeeping, gender/science stereotypes, the self-perceptions and women’s experience in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), and the perception of equality in science.

Studies about gender and science culture show that the scientific culture is already gendered not just because of male domination by numbers but also by the requirements that are considered necessary to be successful. Expectations of constant availability and self-sacrifice require scientists not only to do science but to be scientists wholeheartedly. These demands are seen as especially incompatible with the wish for care responsibilities which is still ascribed to women (Beaufaÿs and Krais, 2005; Paulitz et al., 2015). The requirements also have proven impossible to fulfill for women because the image of the ideal scientist exclude them per se (see also Parson et al., 2021). Moreover, the meritocratic principle itself has already been criticized as reinforcing the persistence of gender disparities (e.g. Bagilhole and Goode, 2001; Merton, 1968).

Within this (gendered) scientific culture gatekeepers – in our study scientists in leadership position (SLPs) – play an important role in promoting careers. They evaluate scientific output, asses the competencies of ECRs, estimate their chances (Kahlert, 2013), and do or do not motivate ECRs to pursue a scientific career. Gatekeepers define whether one is ‘a scientist’ in a system where performance is not only evaluated by scientific output but also, for example, by attributed commitment (Beaufaÿs and Krais, 2005). Because of their powerful position as leading scientists in a hierarchical system based on the principle of cooptation, their perceptions can create barriers for women (Kahlert, 2013). This can occur because they are being discouraged, but also because they are not recruited or adequately supported by the gatekeepers (Mischau and Ransiek, 2024). These possible interrelations make it important to analyze the perceptions of the gatekeepers.

Various studies show that perceptions by scientists regarding performance, competence, motivation, or character traits are gendered. For example, it was found that contributions by women are given less value and recognition regardless of the quality of their work (e.g. Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 for mathematics Mischau et al., 2010; Popejoy and Leboy, 2012). Moreover, women are ascribed as less interested to pursue a scientific career, less willing to take risks and less self-confident than men (Kahlert, 2013; Klammer, 2019). Characteristics that are considered central for advancement and success in science and that are strongly connected to the scientific way of life and the image of an ideal scientist (for mathematics see Mischau and Ransiek, 2024).

Also, images of scientists in STEM have proven to be gendered (e.g. Faulkner, 2000). Especially mathematicians, are seen as unsocial, isolated, obsessed, exceptionally talented geniuses who lack the ability to manage everyday life, live for science alone, and whose thoughts cannot be understood by others. Moreover, they are perceived as rationalists and logical thinkers who provide an incontestable truth. All these attributes are connected to men (Damarin, 2000; Hottinger, 2016). In her study about stereotypes related to mathematicians, Piatek-Jimenez (2008) found that the female students she interviewed also reject fitting the image of being exceptionally talented, obsessed with mathematics, and socially isolated.

Studies on perceptions and motives of potentially future scientists found gender differences in the development of a math-related self-confidence or self-concept especially in the assessment of one’s own competences or/and a preference for mathematics. In this context, mathematics was often seen as a precondition for the development of STEM-preferences (for an overview see Kim et al., 2018). The importance of identifying as a mathematician or developing a sense of belonging to the subject has previously been emphasized for mathematics (e.g. Good et al., 2012; Herzig, 2010; Lahdenperä and Nieminen, 2020; Solomon, 2012).

Moreover, the exposure to the existence of gender biases (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018) and experiences of discrimination in the working environment are assumed to influence the motivation to become scientists (for mathematics see Langfeldt and Mischau, 2018).

Women cope with their experiences in a male-dominated and sometimes dismissive environment by using different strategies, for example, trying to fit in and follow the (male-connotated) rules (Rhoton, 2011), distance themselves from other women, reject and devalue their gender (Powell et al., 2009), and/or deny that they are disadvantaged (Bird and Rhoton, 2021) not to be marked as outsiders (Britton, 2017).

Equality (policies) were often seen as solution to overcome gender disparities in science but did not bring the expected changes. Some studies found reservations against equality that are particularly directed at an assumed contradiction between performance based on merit and preferential treatment through equality measures (e.g. van den Brink and Benschop, 2011 and for excellent environments see Wolffram, 2018).

Desiderata and research focus

This article will extend previous findings by addressing three desiderata. First, numerous studies analyze gender relations in science or more specifically in STEM-fields. It is assumed that the disciplinary specifics can make a difference to the factors that contribute to the persistence of gender disparities (e.g. Langfeldt and Mischau, 2018) and to the necessary equality measures that need to be taken to overcome them (van den Brink and Benschop, 2011). Nevertheless, up to now mathematics is often either subsumed as part of STEM or analyzed as a precondition for the assessment of other STEM-disciplines. Mathematics as an independent discipline is rarely in the focus of research.

Second, studies which address the perspectives of (future) mathematicians, for example, their career aspirations or their identification with the discipline often focus on non-graduate or graduate students in the process of becoming and proving themselves as mathematicians (e.g. Mischau et al., 2010; Skultety and George, 2019). Female ECRs in mathematics, that means those scientists who have chosen to start and/or further pursue a scientific career, are rarely examined. The focus on this group and moreover their involvement in an excellent environment can broaden the results of former studies: We assume that these scientists bring a solidified self-perception as mathematicians, because they have already proven themselves as competent in their career paths and have experienced the acknowledgment of their competencies by working in an excellent research environment.

Third, patterns of interpretation about equality (measures) have rarely been analyzed as part of the process that shapes gender relations and influences the abovementioned factors.

To address these desiderata, this article focuses on the following interrelationships:

the discipline’s culture and self-perception as free from social influences and (gender) neutral and a gendered image of a mathematician;

the self-perception of and external perceptions about female mathematicians; and

the relationship of these aspects to the perception of equality (measures) in an excellent research environment.

We approach the topic from a social constructivist/sociology of knowledge perspective (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and take into account an interactional view on gender, as established by West and Zimmermann (1987). Moreover, we include field-theoretical considerations following Bourdieu (1992, 1996). We refer to this theoretical framework to establish that individuals are not just ‘confronted’ with social realities. Instead, we assume that individuals interpret their environment and bring their perceptions to the interactions in the field, thereby contributing to the constitution of social realities in this case, gender relations in a mathematical cluster of excellence. These negotiations take place in a hierarchical field, where scientists struggle for recognition according to the accepted rules within their disciplines from different power positions (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1996).

That means: ECRs negotiate their self-image as mathematicians through interactions with other actors and their perceptions (e.g. SLPs) to establish themselves as scientists/mathematicians.² They depend on access and opportunities given by SLPs we understand as gatekeepers. They must deal with the (gendered) perceptions of these gatekeepers when they situate themselves in the scientific field, struggle for recognition, and develop and actualize their self-image as scientists/mathematicians.

Based on semi-structured interviews with SLPs and female ECRs, we contrast the ECRs’ perceptions on themselves, mathematics, and equality (measures) with the perceptions of their environment about them and about equality (measures). Thereby, we aim to shed light on the constitution of gendered power relations and mechanisms maintaining disparities in mathematics in general, and in a mathematical cluster of excellence that has set and institutionalized equality as a top priority. Moreover, we consider the specifics of the discipline and its underlying logic.

Mathematical discipline and field of research

To provide insight into the tension between assumed neutrality and gendered reality in the discipline of mathematics, we elaborate on the image of the discipline and the (historical) relationship between mathematics and gender (studies). Moreover, we describe the field of research: A mathematical cluster of excellence that specifically focuses on a self-image and goals regarding a claim for and implementation of equality.

Image of the discipline and its relation to gender

Although mathematics shares characteristics with other STEM-disciplines, for example, its male domination, it differs in its’ self-perception. Mathematics provides the basis for understanding in other STEM-fields and is sometimes described as the most difficult science and/or the purest form of thinking (Faulkner, 2000). Historically the axiomatic, western mathematics developed into a discipline that makes truths clearly definable. The process of producing mathematical knowledge follows an understanding of rationalism and objectivity, that views mathematics and mathematicians as independent of social influences. In this perception of mathematics, there is neither a subject intended nor one can assume its unequal treatment or discrimination (Heintz, 2000; Hottinger, 2016; Shulman, 1996).

Although mathematics has a self-image of being neutral and subject-independent, it has been strongly gendered and male-dominated. Studies on the history of mathematics point to the lack of visibility of (former) practicing female mathematicians and regard continued marginalization as a reason for male dominance in external perceptions. Female mathematicians were denied recognition of their achievements in the past and in the transmission processes (Kaufholz-Soldat and Oswald, 2020; Rossiter, 1993). They were considered to lack competencies, that is, the ability to think mathematically, for example, by the attribution of missing logical or rational competences (Nye, 1990). Thus, the image of a mathematician is historically connected to men and remains powerful (Moreau et al., 2010). Women continue to operate at the margins of an allegedly neutral discipline, struggling to be acknowledged as mathematicians.

Some studies argue that mathematics itself must be seen as socially constructed and that the interrelations between the social construction of gender and the social construction of mathematics promote and reproduce gender inequalities in mathematics (e.g. Hottinger, 2016; McCormack, 2014; Shulman, 1996). These studies started to focus on the ways in which mathematics is practiced by the actors, made visible the discipline’s inherent inequalities and disenchant its objective nature. ‘Doing gender’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987) by ‘doing mathematics’ became a research object (e.g. Burton, 1995). This epistemological approach to mathematics made it possible to relate mathematics to power relations and social conditions (Koreuber and Mischau, 2019). Something which challenges the image of mathematics and requires negotiation by mathematicians themselves.

The mathematical cluster of excellence

The German Research Foundation has funded the cluster of excellence of our research since 2019 as part of the German Excellence Strategy for an initial 7-year period. It includes the mathematical institutes of three universities, two non-university research institutes, and a graduate school. Mathematical emphasis is placed on applications and inter- and transdisciplinary research. Besides mathematics as the initiating discipline, other disciplines (from STEM-fields and the social sciences) are part of the project-oriented research in the cluster. The research projects offer 2-year postdoctoral positions and 3-year PhD positions. The scientific status groups include professors, postdocs, PhD students, and (senior) researchers.

Important cornerstones are research and career development, with the goal of establishing the cluster as an excellent environment and recruiting and supporting excellent international and national students and scientists at all career stages.

The cluster is also dedicated to promote gender equality and explicitly sets the goal of increasing the proportion of female mathematicians. To achieve its goal, different measures were implemented, including our research project, gender and diversity management, unconscious bias training for gatekeepers, especially in connection with the selection process for graduate schools or funding for women. In addition, female mathematicians are explicitly addressed when it comes to the distribution of official committee positions or external representation of the cluster on topics related to gender. Thus, we examine a discipline that claims neutrality and independence from social processes and its involved subjects as the core of its self-perception but is already gendered in its access and practices. In our research field which has set equality as a priority this (alleged) neutrality of mathematics is questioned.

Study design

This article is based on results of a qualitative study with two phases of data collection. In the first phase, we conducted semi-structured interviews (Hopf, 2007) with 44 male and female SLPs on research projects in the cluster (from January to June 2020). In the second phase, we conducted 21 interviews with male and female ECRs³ (from May to October 2022).

Sample description

In consultation with and advertised by the cluster board, we contacted all main SLPs of the cluster projects (34 persons) via email. Thirty scientists were interviewed. This sample was expanded by 14 scientists involved in the management of research projects. We selected the latter via theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) based on gender and current status (professors and senior researchers). One female SLP was mistakenly interviewed in the second phase and was subsequently assigned to the first group. In the second phase, we contacted 225 ECRs associated with the cluster via email, a total of 14 people (3 women, 1 of whom is the abovementioned SLP) responded.⁴ Because of the low response rate, we contacted potential candidates directly (e.g. on official cluster events). These attempts resulted in seven interviews (four with women). Thus, 45 SLPs (16 women and 29 men) and 20 ECRs (7 women and 13 men)⁵ were interviewed.

The response rate was interesting considering the topic of this article. While almost all requested SLPs agreed to be interviewed in the context of our (known and advertised) accompanying research project on gender relations in the cluster, the response among ECRs was very low (despite advertisement). Four women agreed to be interviewed, mainly because of our personal requests. The low response rate of female ECRs and the high response rate of SLPs can be interpreted as symptomatic of a field in which gender equality is presented outwardly as common ground by leading scientists, while the targeted female ECRs are skeptical about equality measures.

Table 1 shows the career level of the female ECRs in our study.

Table 1.

Description of female ECRs by career level.

n = 7	Career Level
	Phd student	Postdoc
	2	5

The 45 SLPs were situated according to their career level and gender, shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Description of SLPs by career level and gender.

n = 45		Career Level
Gender		Professorship	Senior Researcher
Men	29	24	5
Women	16	9	7
Diverse	0	0	0
Total	45	33	12

Interview topics and analysis

In all interviews, we addressed (own) career biography, notions of excellence (especially what one needs to be or become a successful scientist/mathematician), disciplinary specifics, and (personal and general) barriers to a scientific career. In the case of SLPs, the focus was primarily on their perspectives of ECRs. In the case of ECRs, we additionally focused on their own experiences in the cluster, such as with supervision or their working environment. For all topics, we defined subtopics for which we asked open questions. Based on qualitative research logic, the interviewees were free to choose their focus within these thematic guidelines and established important aspects according to their relevance. We asked about gender-specific aspects, such as the relevance of equality or assumed differences between men and women in all thematic blocks.

The interviews were conducted in German or English. They were audiotaped and transcribed. The material was coded in two steps using qualitative content analysis in MAXQDA. In the first deductive step, the interview passages were assigned to matching topics (e.g. perceptions of equality (measures)). In the second step, the passages assigned to the topics were categorized inductively; that is, the central patterns of interpretation and interrelated themes were derived from the passages and abstracted afterwards (Mayring, 2021).

Picture a mathematician in an (allegedly) neutral discipline⁶

To show that the understanding of and access to mathematics in the cluster is gendered, we introduce the image of (potentially) successful scientists/mathematicians as valid among the interviewed gatekeepers. We will demonstrate that the image is oriented toward male attributes, by contrasting it with the gatekeepers’ gendered perceptions about male and female ECRs in general.

Figure 1 shows that SLPs characterize a potentially successful scientist/mathematician as intrinsically motivated; provided with a risk-taking, self-promoting, and self-confident personality; life circumstances that are free from barriers (childcare is seen as the main barrier); and mathematical ways of thinking and acting.

Figure 1.

The (potentially) successful scientist⁷

Independ of the SLPs own gender, we found gender-differentiating attributions about ECRs.

Figure 2 shows that gatekeepers perceive differences between men and women in terms of career motivation, care responsibility, and personality traits. Female ECRs are considered less risk tolerant or are assumed to need more conviction to pursue a scientific career. The gatekeepers explained both the assumed lower risk-taking and the assumed need for convincing with the priority of private life. Within this pattern, women have (and want to have) the main care responsibility: the motivation of female mathematicians and their self-sacrifice for a scientific career is questioned. Female ECRs are perceived as reserved, silent, and insecure, whereas male ECRs are seen as competitive, self-confident, eager, and self-motivated. Regardless of the SLPs’ gender, they attributed a willingness to take risks solely to men. By contrasting these findings with the image of a (potentially) successful scientist, it can be seen that gendered (male) attributions are implicitly linked to that image, while women are implicitly assumed to have neither the motivation nor the personality or life circumstances needed to be a successful scientist/mathematician.

Figure 2.

Gendered perceptions of female and male SLPs about ECRs.⁸

We discuss the implications of these results for the (re)production of gender disparities elsewhere (Mischau and Ransiek, 2024). For this article, it is important to highlight that the image of a scientist/mathematician is still gendered and valid in the cluster, despite the assumed neutrality of mathematics. Following this result, female ECRs are situated in a field in which their position as successful scientists/mathematicians is implicitly in question.

We found no evidence in the interviews that the mathematical abilities of women were doubted. If we interpret this finding considering that women were (historically) denied mathematical abilities, a shift can be detected in the perceptions: Instead of questioning the ability to be a mathematician, the motivation, and thus, the individual desire to be a mathematician, is challenged.

Perspectives of gatekeepers on equality (measures)

To provide deeper insight into the role of equality (measures) in shaping gender relations in the cluster and the way it affects female ECRs in the development and/or actualization of their self-image, we outline the perspectives of the gatekeepers on equality and the ways they negotiate its implementation against the background of the (allegedly) neutral discipline of mathematics.

Across the interviews, gatekeepers claimed that equality, in general, is a relevant goal.⁹ We also found both critical voices about measures and demands and scientists who present themselves as highly committed to the implementation of equality. Some had already taken action in their work groups or institutes. Analysis revealed five typical and sometimes interrelated patterns of interpretation about equality (measures), each shared by male and female SLPs. Figure 3 shows these perspectives.

1. Equality measures contradict the merit principle: A contradiction is assumed between the women’s advancement and their qualifications and fit. This pattern appears, for example, in explanations of recruitment decisions. Within this pattern, women promoted through equality measures are positioned opposite to a person selected based on merit, questioning the competence of the female scientists.

2. Equality is a really important goal that needs to be implemented: Interviewees who followed this pattern of interpretation consistently stated that gender equality was a relevant topic. Some of these scientists have implemented their own support measures for women in their working environment. In case of these scientists, the support is partly accompanied by an overemphasis on gender. The scientific qualifications of female mathematicians are pushed into the background, and the focus is primarily on their need for general support because they are women.

3. Gender was not a problem before equality policies: Mathematics is claimed to be a neutral discipline in which all persons have equal chances and gender does not play a role. Pre-existing inequalities are neglected and the problem is initially seen as being created by equality policies in the first place. Interrelated with this pattern is the following assumption:

4. Equality (measures) favors women: Equality policies are assumed to give female scientists higher chances of success in the scientific system than male scientists. Within this pattern, gatekeepers argue that male scientists are treated unequally through the implementation of equality when it comes to the selection of scientists in application processes. Again, the pre-existing inequalities that disadvantage female scientists are neglected.

5. Equality (measures) as disadvantage: To increase the proportion of women in decision-making positions within the cluster, the cluster’s policy is to ask female scientists to attend boards and commissions. Moreover, they are considered responsible for gender-related topics. Given the low proportion of women, they must serve as female representatives on several occasions. Thus, the additional work that these mathematicians must perform solely because of their gender has been criticized. Moreover, there is a negative connotation when these mathematicians are asked to represent gender-related topics instead of representing their scientific achievements.

Figure 3.

Perspectives of female and male SLPs on equality (measures)¹⁰.

Inherent in all these perceptions (except the last one) is that female mathematicians are seen in a special position. They were not viewed as mathematicians; instead, their gender was emphasized. The latter can be interpreted as a critique of this exposure.

Female mathematicians’ perspectives on themselves, mathematics, and equality (measures)

To show how female mathematicians develop and actualize their self-image in the described field, we address the perspectives and positions of female ECRs with respect to the discipline. Moreover, we highlight the consequences that these mathematicians see for themselves related to existing perceptions of equality (measures) in the cluster.

Self-perception as mathematicians in an (allegedly) neutral discipline

In the interviews, we asked the ECRs what brought them to math and what they value about the discipline to gain insight into their understanding of mathematics and the position they see for themselves within the discipline. We found that the ECRs were enthusiastic about mathematics from an early age ( ‘I always liked math (. . .) I just enjoyed it’, NW23:14, postdoc) and/or perceive themselves as competent ( ‘I was always good at it. (. . .) it was kind of clear that I could do it’, NW22:6, postdoc). Parents and/or teachers recognize their talent (‘There were always people in my environment who said: “nah, do math. You can do it”’, NW09:46, PhD student). They were supported and encouraged by institutionalized support programs (e.g. Math Olympics).

The female mathematicians we interviewed already experienced being considered talented in school. It is likely that these self and external perceptions of talent and competence are further confirmed by working in an environment which is labeled as excellent. Confirming this interpretation, they did not appear insecure or show any doubt regarding their ability to do math in the interviews.

Regarding the question what mathematics means for them or what they personally value/love about mathematics ECRs refer to such attributions as distance from reality (‘detached from reality’, NW17:60, postdoc), logic (‘playing with ideas in a logical way’, NW21:66, PhD student), a claim for truth (‘things are either true 100 percent or they’re not true’, NW17:58, postdoc), and abstraction (‘it’s all somehow the product of the human mind’, NW22:74, postdoc). These premises are evaluated as positive (‘this gives you such peace’, NW17:58, postdoc).

In response to questions about general barriers and whether the fact that they are women has played a role in their careers, ECRs show an awareness that female mathematicians (including those they know) can have negative experiences in the discipline (but not in the cluster). This is exemplified by the following two quotes:

I haven’t had this bad experience, as other female colleagues have. I know it could happen. I can say that I’ve always been lucky that I never had this kind of problems. (NW21:41, PhD student)

I: Do you think that your gender had an impact on your path?

B: Not that I see. So, I don’t know if there was unconscious bias somewhere. But I didn’t feel anything like that, to be honest. (NW23:51-52, postdoc)

They claimed that they were not discriminated against and/or that their gender did not play a role in their mathematical environments. It can be interpreted that by stating that discrimination may occur for others but not for them, the female scientists can connect to the neutral image of the discipline and therefore maintain their position as neutral mathematicians.

Challenging self-perceptions through equality (measures)

The previously described patterns of interpretation of male and female SLPs regarding equality (measures) are shared by female ECRs including the interpretation that gender inequalities do not represent a problem (at least for them), as mentioned in the subsection above. Therefore, we do not explicitly consider these patterns again but introduce two consequences that these mathematicians see for themselves as a result of equality (measures).

First, the introduction of equality measures is evaluated as a challenge to one’s own achievements. Scientists refer to the juxtaposition between being seen as women while they want to be seen based on their skills. Within this pattern, the emphasis on gender is interpreted as negative, because it puts competencies into question:

I want to believe that mostly it’s because of my abilities I am where I am [. . .]. I also have friends who were told [. . .] that you are here because you are female [sic!], and you have to do some kind of quota. (NW21:41-48, PhD student)

This PhD student feels disadvantaged, because she is made visible based on her gender. She concretizes the assumed origin of disadvantage and introduces equality (measures) and the implied betterment of women as the core of the problem. The pattern of interpretation shared by the SLPs, that womanhood and qualification are contradictions, and the implied perception that women are advantaged, create feelings of insecurity for these women, as one postdoc states:

[. . .] and then there’s always the question of why you get supported: because you’re good, or because you’re a woman? (NW07:35, postdoc)

Another female mathematician anticipates an external claim for action that comes with these perceptions of equality (measures) they must deal with:

But even if you know that you took the job because you are good you might face criticism from other colleagues. Like somehow you have to prove more that you actually deserved it. (NW23:96, postdoc)

The anticipated external claim may lead to the feeling that they had to prove themselves more than their male colleagues.

Second, patterns of interpretation about equality (measures) does not only bring these mathematicians in a situation where they see their competences in question, but the emphasis of their position as (marginalized) women essentially contradicts with their self-perceptions as mathematicians, as shown in the following statement by a postdoc:

I never felt discriminated against or treated differently because I was a woman in STEM. So, I always felt that I was taking my exams, and I was being evaluated for what I was. [. . .] Before this [equality measures] when I was studying math, I wasn’t thinking ‘I’m a woman’. It was just that math is a very neutral thing [. . .] that’s also very detached from reality. You just study these abstract ideas and it doesn’t matter what gender you are. [. . .] And I asked myself, then, what will people think? Will they think that I got this position only because I’m a woman and that I need this type of position, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do the same job that a man can do? (NW17:32-34, postdoc)

This scientist positions herself as an accepted mathematician in a discipline that she perceives as neutral, in which gender does not play a role. By the ‘imposition’ of equality (measures), she sees her position as a mathematician essentially called into question. She highlights the tension between becoming a (discriminated against) subject (woman) through the establishment of equality (measures) and becoming a mathematician in an (allegedly) neutral discipline (mathematics). She claims that making her visible as a woman by the thematization of equality restricts her possibilities of being a mathematician because of the external perceptions she is confronted with.

Discussion and conclusion

The first thing that can be concluded is that hardly anything has changed regarding gender relations in science also in the setting we have investigated a mathematical cluster of excellence in Germany, which made equality a priority. Women are marginalized based on stereotypical requirements and personality traits that are assumed to be needed to be a successful scientist. Our results therefore confirm the results of studies about gendered science culture and its (re)production by gatekeepers in the German science system (Beaufaÿs and Krais, 2005; Kahlert, 2013; Klammer, 2019).

Moreover, we have shown that besides its self-understanding as neutral, mathematics is not free from social processes that reproduce inequalities. The inequalities are deeply embedded in the image of the (potentially) successful mathematician and reproduced by scientists in the cluster. Female scientists are implicitly positioned as deficient. Our results therefore confirm the essential works of Damarin (2008), Hottinger (2016), and Shulman (1996).

By including equality demands as an overarching political goal in this supposedly neutral and subject-independent discipline, inequalities that do not exist in this self-image become visible and require negotiation. These negotiation processes are summarized as follows. Among the gatekeepers, we found an emphasis on female mathematicians in their difference because of their gender. The gatekeepers’ perceptions of equality (measures) and the position attributed to female mathematicians in that context further emphasize their marginalization and distinction. Instead of reflecting the gendered image of (potentially) successful scientists/mathematicians, equality, which challenges the supposed neutrality of mathematics as a discipline and the mathematician as a non-gendered person, is criticized. Thereby, they follow a previously described pattern:

[. . .] male [sic!] mathematical lives are considered totally outside the social construction of sex-gender roles and relations, while lives of females [sic!] accomplished in mathematics are presented as totally within them. (Damarin, 2008: 113)

In doing so, the gatekeepers uphold both the image of being gender-neutral and the impossibility of women being perceived as mathematicians. We found, that this happens regardless of whether equality (measures) is perceived positively or negatively. Even SLPs who are convinced of the necessity of equality (measures) contribute to the maintenance of the marginalization of women by reinforcing a further distinction between women and mathematicians whenever they see female mathematicians not only in terms of their mathematical competence or scientific achievement but mainly support them as women (a type of ‘marginalizing interaction’ Hatmaker, 2013).

However, it is striking that, we haven’t found gendered stereotypes related to the ability to do mathematics. This finding may be due to the following: In a context with a claim to recruit and support excellent scientists, SLPs would delegitimize their own recruitment and support decisions by questioning the mathematical ability of those who already made it inside. Instead, they relate the reasons of why women do not do science to their lack of individual motivation and circumstances within the science system in general, thus upholding the image of gender neutrality of mathematics.

A key finding for female ECRs is: The problem they identify for themselves is not a lack of self-identification as mathematicians, as former studies have suggested (e.g. Piatek-Jimenez, 2008) but rather a lack of external acknowledgment of their self-identification. They identify with mathematics and positively relate to the image of mathematics as being detached from social processes and the subjects involved. By making them visible as marginalized women, they see their self-image as mathematicians questioned. They perceive equality (measures) as disadvantageous for themselves (not in general), in their mathematical environment in which they do not feel discriminated against or treated differently. Instead, they claim that the thematization of equality is the reason their abilities are questioned. They reinforced their identification with mathematics by rejecting their position as women and the possible discrimination associated with it. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies on other STEM-disciplines (e.g. Bird and Rhoton, 2021; Powell et al., 2009; Rhoton, 2011) and studies indicating the impossibility of identifying as both a mathematician and a woman (Nosek et al., 2002).

While the impossibility of being a female mathematician remains concealed, equality policies are presented as the cause of inequalities rather than the solution to overcoming them. However, none of the ECRs inquired about the norm of the mathematician itself or about the gatekeepers’ marginalizing perceptions of equality (measures). Thus, the assumed gender neutrality is maintained (see also Britton, 2017). The female mathematicians we interviewed do not doubt their mathematical ability. However, we may have interviewed a very specific group of scientists. They already identify with mathematics at school and bring biographical experiences of being perceived as able or talented. They probably had a stronger positive relationship or identification with mathematics than those who had already been discouraged from it at an early age (Bian et al., 2017). Moreover, they have proven themselves competent during their career path and ended up in an environment acknowledged as excellent, achievements, which might have further fostered their identification with mathematics.

To interpret the findings, also the field-specific positions of the involved scientists need to be considered. SLPs in the cluster act as gatekeepers in a hierarchical scientific field. That their perspectives on equality (measures) create real disadvantages whenever mathematical performance is relegated to the background can be seen in the interviews, for example, when the female mathematicians indicated that the refusal to acknowledge their self-identification leads to the feeling that they must prove themselves more or that they are not being taken seriously as scientists.

To answer the question of why a career in mathematics is still more challenging for women, even though the actors are dedicated promoting gender equality: Besides already known persisting barriers for women which are also still powerful in the cluster, the perceptions of the mechanism that ought to contribute to change (equality (measures)) provide a barrier. The relationship between mathematics as a discipline that sees itself as independent of social processes and (marginalized) subjects and equality, only allows female mathematicians to define themselves either as a subject (woman) or as an allegedly neutral entity (mathematician). The mechanisms of change are interpreted in such a way that they uphold the actual core of the problem: the image of mathematics as neutral and the male-connotated image of a mathematician embedded within.

We see limitations of our study. First, a mathematical cluster of excellence in Germany provides a specific environment compared to other mathematical contexts (e.g. mathematical institutes at universities in Germany or in other countries). The centralized organizational structure in combination with the cluster’s claim to equality offers formalization that may lead to more social control regarding the need for implementation and the perceptions of equality (measures). This would explain the overall acceptance we have found among SLPs, that is, those scientists who are permanently working in and therefore depending on the organization. Here comparative research of different mathematical contexts (institutional but also international) might be useful to deepen our results. Second, characteristics related to science in general and characteristics related to mathematics were often used interchangeable by the interviewees and made it difficult to divide the specific aspects of discipline culture. Further research on that matter might need a different methodological approach providing a more differentiated perspective.

Contributing to the sociological discussion about gender relations in science, our results highlight the importance of a multidimensional perspective that means analyzing the development of these relations in interdependency to the (historical and present) specifics of the discipline, the context, the past and present experiences of the involved scientists as well as the power relations within which the gender relations are negotiated.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – The Berlin Mathematics Research Center MATH + (EXC-2046/1, project ID: 390685689).

ORCID iD

Anna Ransiek

Notes

Author biographies

Anna Ransiek is a sociologist and postdoc researcher at the working group ‘Gender Studies in Mathematics’ at the Institute of Mathematics at Freie Universität Berlin. Her research topics included experiences of racism in Germany, gender-related socialization in childhood and qualitative methods in social sciences especially biographical research and discourse analysis. Her current research focuses on gender dynamics in mathematics.

Anina Mischau is a sociologist and head of the working group ‘Gender Studies in Mathematics’ at the Institute of Mathematics at Freie Universität Berlin. Her research areas are gender disparities and equal opportunities in higher education and academic or scientific career paths, especially in different STEM subjects. Her main teaching areas are gender studies in mathematics with a special focus on women in the history of mathematics, gender competence in teacher training and gender sensitive mathematics education.

References

Bagilhole

Goode

(2001) The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers. European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(2): 161–180.

Beaufaÿs

Krais

(2005) Doing Science – Doing Gender. Die Produktion von Wissenschaftlerinnen und die Reproduktion von Machtverhältnissen im wissenschaftlichen Feld. Feministische Studien 23(1): 82–99.

Berger

Luckmann

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

Bian

Leslie

S-J

Cimpian

(2017) Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science 355(6323): 389–391.

Bird

Rhoton

(2021) Seeing isn’t always believing: Gender, academic STEM, and women scientists’ perceptions of career opportunities. Gender & Society 35(3): 422–448.

Bourdieu

(1992) Homo Academicus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

LJD

(1996) Reflexive Anthropologie, 1st edn. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Britton

(2017) Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society 31(1): 5–27.

Burton

(1995) Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 28(3): 275–291.

10.

Carey

Carman

Clayton

, et al. (2020) Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Politics, Groups, and Identities 8(3): 535–553.

11.

Damarin

(2000) The mathematically able as a marked category. Gender and Education 12(1): 69–85.

12.

Damarin

(2008) Toward thinking feminism and mathematics together. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34(1): 101–123.

13.

Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt) (2022) Personal an Hochschulen 2021. Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.4. Wiesbaden.

14.

Faulkner

(2000) Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science 30(5): 759–792.

15.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brundswick, London: Aldine.

16.

Good

Rattan

Dweck

(2012) Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(4): 700–717.

17.

GWK (2023) Chancengleichheit in Wissenschaft und Forschung. 27. Fortschreibung des Datenmaterials (2021/2022) zu Frauen in Hochschulen und außerhochschulischen Forschungseinrichtungen. Heft 85, Bonn. Available at: https://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Dokumente/Papers/Heft-85-CHAG_Sammelmappe1.pdf

18.

Hatmaker

(2013) Engineering identity: Gender and professional identity negotiation among women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization 20(4): 382–396.

19.

Heintz

(2000) Die Innenwelt der Mathematik. Zur Kultur Und Praxis Einer Beweisenden Disziplin. Wien/New York: Springer.

20.

Herzig

(2010) Women belonging in the social worlds of graduate mathematics. The Mathematics Enthusiast 7(2): 177–208.

21.

Hopf

(2007) Qualitative Interviews – ein Überblick. In: Flick

Kardorff

Steinke

(eds) Qualitative Forschung, 10th edn. Reinbek: Rowohlt, pp. 349–360.

22.

Hottinger

(2016) Inventing the Mathematician: Gender, Race, and Our Cultural Understanding of Mathematics. New York: SUNY Press.

23.

Kahlert

(2013) Geschlechterkonstruktionen von Hochschullehrenden: Gatekeeping für Chancengleichheit in der Wissenschaft? In: Pascher

Stein

(eds) Akademische Karrieren Von Naturwissenschaftlerinnen Gestern Und Heute. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.193–220.

24.

Kaufholz-Soldat

Oswald

NMR

(2020) Against all Odds. Women’s ways to mathematical research since 1800. Cham: Springer.

25.

Kim

Sinatra

Seyranian

(2018) Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research 88(4): 589–625.

26.

Klammer

Altenstädter

Petrova-Stoyanov

, et al. (2019) Gleichstellung an Hochschulen: Was wissen und wie handeln Professoren und Professorinnen als „Gatekeeper“ wissenschaftlicher Karrieren? Journal Netzwerk Frauen- Und Geschlechterforschung NRW Nr 44: 36–44.

27.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Glynn

Huge

(2013) The Matilda Effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication 35(5): 603–625.

28.

Koreuber

Mischau

(2019) Mathematik: Geschlechterforschung in disziplinären Zwischenräumen. In: Kortendiek

Riegraf

Sabisch

(eds) Handbuch Interdisziplinäre Geschlechterforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.719–728.

29.

Lahdenperä

Nieminen

(2020) How does a mathematician fit in? A mixed-methods analysis of university students’ sense of belonging in mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education 6(3): 475–494.

30.

Langfeldt

Mischau

(2018) Change and persistence of gender disparities in academic careers of mathematicians and physicists in Germany. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 10(1): 147–170.

31.

McCormack

(2014) Mathematics and gender. In: Leslie

Mendick

(eds) Debates in Mathematics Education. London: Routledge, pp.49–57.

32.

Mayring

(2021) Qualitative Content Analysis. A Step-by-step Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Merton

(1968) The Matthew Effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159(3810): 56–63.

34.

Mischau

Ransiek

(2024) Gendered gatekeeping in the recruitment and support of (Prospective) PhDs and postdocs in a mathematical cluster of excellence. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 16(1): 71–99.

35.

Mischau

Neuß

Lehmann

(2010) Die Promotion als erste Etappe einer akademischen Laufbahn. MathematikerInnen und InformatikerInnen im Vergleich. In: Koreuber

(eds) Geschlechterforschung in Mathematik Und Informatik. Eine (Inter)disziplinäre Herausforderung. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp.63–86.

36.

Moreau

M-P

Mendick

Epstein

(2010) Constructions of mathematicians in popular culture and learners’ narratives: A study of mathematical and non-mathematical subjectivities. Cambridge Journal of Education 40(1): 25–38.

37.

Moss-Racusin

Dovidio

Brescoll

, et al. (2012) Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(41): 16474–16479.

38.

Moss-Racusin

Sanzari

Caluori

, et al. (2018) Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 79(11–12): 651–670.

39.

Nosek

Banaji

Greenwald

(2002) Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(1): 44–59.

40.

Nye

(1990) Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic. New York: Routledge.

41.

Parson

Steele

Wilkins

(2021) A gendered ‘ideal?’ Discourses that characterize the ideal scientist. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 13(1): 64–85.

42.

Paulitz

Goisauf

Zapusek

(2015) Work-Life-Balance + Wissenschaft = unvereinbar? Zur exkludierenden Vergeschlechtlichung einer entgrenzten Lebensform. GENDER – Zeitschrift Für Geschlecht, Kultur Und Gesellschaft 7(2): 130–144.

43.

Piatek-Jimenez

(2008) Images of mathematicians: A new perspective on the shortage of women in mathematical careers. ZDM Mathematics Education 40: 633–646.

44.

Popejoy

Leboy

(2012) Is math still just a man’s world? Journal of Mathematics and System Science 2(5): 292–298.

45.

Powell

Bagilhole

Dainty

(2009) How women engineers do and undo gender: Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work and Organization 16(4): 411–428.

46.

Rhoton

(2011) Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding women scientists’ gender practices. Gender & Society 25(6): 696–716.

47.

Rossiter

(1993) The Matthew Matilda Effect in science. Social Studies of Science 23(2): 325–341.

48.

Shulman

(1996) What if we change our Axioms? A feminist inquiry into the foundations of mathematics. Configurations 4(3): 427–451.

49.

Skultety

George

(2019) ‘I’m in the mathematical sciences because. . .’ Examining underrepresented students’ motivations for pursuing math. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 25(1): 25–52.

50.

Solomon

(2012) Finding a voice? Narrating the female self in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 80(1–2): 171–183.

51.

Van den Brink

Benschop

(2011) Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization 19(1): 71–92.

52.

West

Zimmerman

(1987) Doing gender. Gender & Society 1(2): 125–151.

53.

Wolffram

(2018) Excellence as a gender-biased concept and effects of the linking of excellence with gender equality. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 10(1): 88–107.

Being a woman or being a mathematician: Self and external perceptions of female early career researchers in a mathematical cluster of excellence

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Gender relations in science: state of research

Desiderata and research focus

Mathematical discipline and field of research

Image of the discipline and its relation to gender

The mathematical cluster of excellence

Study design

Sample description

Interview topics and analysis

Picture a mathematician in an (allegedly) neutral discipline 6

Perspectives of gatekeepers on equality (measures)

Female mathematicians’ perspectives on themselves, mathematics, and equality (measures)

Self-perception as mathematicians in an (allegedly) neutral discipline

Challenging self-perceptions through equality (measures)

Discussion and conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References

Picture a mathematician in an (allegedly) neutral discipline⁶