Abstract
Studies of representative bureaucracy emphasize that minorities’ representation in public organizations helps promote their interests. Some areas, however, suffer from a distinct lack of minority representation. Although studies in the field focus on the actions of minority public servants in representing citizens like them, we examine the behavior of majority group street-level bureaucrats toward minorities. Using interviews with female STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students from five Israeli academic institutions, we investigate whether male faculty members’ interactions with female students reflect their perceptions of the latter's lack of representation. We find that one direct outcome is that male faculty members’ unequal and discriminatory behavior offends female students. Through this behavior, these faculty members also signal to the majority group students that this behavior toward women is legitimate, which is an indirect outcome. Finally, female students behave insecurely in this environment. Public managers should be aware that not only is passive representation required in public organizations, but also that in areas with distinct male representation, majority group street-level bureaucrats play an important role in creating an environment that is fair and equitable for minorities.
Keywords
Introduction
The theory of representative bureaucracy focuses on the connection between the social and demographic representation of public servants, whether they are senior bureaucrats or those who work on the street level, and how they use their discretion when delivering public services (e.g., Atkins et al., 2014; Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Meier, 2019; Sowa & Selden, 2003). For example, the passive representation of various demographic and social groups in the composition of public servants improves the services provided to members of the public who belong to these groups (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Keiser et al., 2002). Indeed, a representative bureaucracy is necessary to speak for the variety of interests and needs of different social audiences. Therefore, in democracies, when citizens see that their identity is represented, they tend to legitimize public service actions, regard them as trustworthy and fair, and trust state institutions (Gade & Wilkins, 2012; Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017; Selden, 1997).
There might be even stronger effects when it comes to street-level bureaucrats. These frontline workers are the government's face to the public (Lipsky, 1980, 2010). The interactions they have with people might be the only direct points of contact between these citizens and the government. In addition, they might be the only indicator citizens have of how the government is functioning (Brodkin, 2012). Given the extensive discretion at their disposal, street-level bureaucrats could enhance or harm minority citizens’ sense of representation (Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2019). We know that bureaucrats’ discretion plays a role in the translation of passive representation into active representation (Andrews et al., 2014; Sowa & Selden, 2003). Many studies have demonstrated empirically how minority street-level bureaucrats use their discretion to actively promote clients who are like them (Davidovitz & Shwartz-Ziv, 2024; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Nouman & Cohen, 2023). On the other hand, minority bureaucrats do not necessarily actively represent clients like themselves. For example, Xu and Meier (2022) revealed how women mathematics teachers in China do not go the “extra mile” for women students.
This situation can be particularly problematic in government agencies that fail to adequately represent disadvantaged populations (Davidovitz, 2023, 2024; Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Portillo et al., 2022). Lack of representation impairs the public's perceptions of the legitimacy and trustworthiness of public institutions (Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017). This lack of representation is specifically relevant to street-level organizations, such as police agencies (Silvestri, 2017), fire departments (Andrews et al., 2014), or certain fields of study in universities (Casad et al., 2021). These areas have been recognized as distinctly masculine arenas and suffer from an almost complete lack of female representation among the frontline workers who work in them. Furthermore, men and women frontline workers in fields considered “masculine” may have sexist attitudes toward women rooted in gender biases about women in these fields (Xu & Meier, 2022).
However, recent criticism maintains that studies of representative bureaucracy almost always focus on the minority bureaucrats’ actions to understand the effects of representation on outcomes (Portillo et al., 2022). We know very little about how the actions of members of the majority shape the perceptions and behavior of minority clients. If behavior reflects values that originate in identities or lived experiences, then understanding the initial biases of bureaucracies should be the first step. Majority group street-level bureaucrats can influence the minority's feeling about not being represented. Their actions may increase the feeling of hostility and lack of belonging of minorities or alternatively, create an environment that reduces the impact of their lack of representation.
To fill these gaps in the literature, we use the empirical case of female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students in academia in Israel. Does the behavior of male faculty members in their interactions with female students reflect their perceptions about gender representation in the university? To investigate our questions, we conducted semistructured interviews with female Israeli STEM students from five different research universities in Israel. We focused on their perceptions about male faculty members as street-level bureaucrats who have extensive discretion in their decisions about providing educational services (Lovell, 2023; Thomann et al., 2023).
Our study contributes to the public administration research field and the implementation literature in four ways. First, we provide an in-depth and subjective look at the experiences of female STEM students in academia regarding the lack of gender representation in their programs. Second, we reveal that most female students feel that their male teachers’ behavior toward them has direct and indirect consequences for the students’ experiences of lack of representation. Third, we identify the behaviors female students adopt when faced with gender underrepresentation in their academic programs. Fourth, our empirical unit of analysis is underrepresented female students. Using this unit of analysis enables us to advance a microfoundation theory of representative bureaucracy by analyzing the interaction between bureaucrats and citizens, which has been overlooked in the literature on representative bureaucracy (Park, 2022).
Literature Review
The Theory of Representative Bureaucracy
Representative bureaucracy is one of the most well-established theories in public administration regarding how the public sector can provide fair opportunities and equitable services to a wide range of population groups (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Kingsley, 1944; Mosher, 1968). Studies of representative bureaucracy examine how the social and demographic characteristics of public sector workers influence their tendency to favor citizens with whom they share the same identity. Kingsley (1944) conducted the initial research in the representative bureaucracy scholarship on issues of gender and class representation in British public administration. His work was followed by a normative argument according to which bureaucratic organizations with diverse memberships will naturally represent those groups’ interests (Krislov, 1974). Later, Mosher (1968) elaborated on the existing theoretical framework and distinguished between passive and active representation. According to the general assumption, when bureaucrats share similar identity characteristics as the citizens they serve, their feeling of identification and familiarity with the citizens’ values, attitudes, and interests will encourage them to favor these citizens (Gade & Wilkins, 2012; Meier, 2019).
The study of representative bureaucracy focuses mainly on understanding the causes, barriers, and outcomes of the transition from passive representation, meaning the reflection of a variety of groups in the population by the public service, to active representation in the form of the implementation of policies that benefit these groups in practice (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020). While most of these studies deal with racial representation, fewer studies have examined how gender representation impacts one-to-one relationships (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Bishu & Osei-Kojo, 2023). Prior empirical studies have demonstrated, for example, that a gender match between clients and public servants may lead to women benefiting from decisions made by bureaucracies (Keiser et al., 2002). Similarly, Guul (2018) reported that in a program where young training seekers met with job counselors one-on-one, the match between the counselors and the trainees in gender had a positive effect on the outcomes, in part due to the increased effort of the trainees. Finally, Meier and Nicholson-Crotty (2006) found that more female representation in police agencies was associated with a higher rate of reporting sexual assaults and arresting sexual assaulters.
Researchers have also studied symbolic representation, or the way matching characteristics influence actions or behaviors due to the public's feelings of commonality with civil servants (Headley et al., 2021). Even though passive representation does not guarantee improved outcomes for represented populations, it does have symbolic meaning (Headley et al., 2021). Passive representation conveys that the agency is pluralistic and encourages social equality, which legitimizes its actions and increases its support from the public (Holt & Gershenson, 2019). Prior studies have linked such representation with citizens’ trust in the public administration, the legitimacy of public service actions, and their cooperation, compliance, and willingness to coproduce policy outcomes (Park & Liang, 2021; Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017). Finally, empirical studies demonstrate that clients prefer public servants with identities similar to their own, and tend to regard their actions more favorably (Meier, 2019; Van Ryzin et al., 2017).
These insights are particularly relevant when it comes to the encounters between street-level bureaucrats and minority citizens. Street-level workers are the focus of a substantial body of research on representative bureaucracy (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020). These frontline workers are more likely to become active representatives of citizens than top-level bureaucrats who require a critical mass of representation to influence policy outcomes (Andrews et al., 2014). Compared to other public servants, street-level bureaucrats have particularly broad discretion in implementing policy (Lipsky, 1980, 2010). Numerous studies have demonstrated that their discretion is important in producing policy outcomes that benefit minority citizens (Sowa & Selden, 2003). However, we focus on how street-level bureaucrats from the majority group use their discretion in their interactions with minorities and how doing so shapes the latter's feelings in an environment in which they are not passively represented.
Recent research has focused on how the behavior of bureaucrats from majority groups changes when interacting with bureaucrats from underserved populations. For example, Li (2021) reported that the representation of minorities in police organizations changes the behavior of administrators belonging to the majority group, which improves the equitable treatment for minority clients. Meier and McCrea (2022) empirically analyzed the gender match between doctors and patients in emergency departments. They demonstrated that male doctors were more successful in detecting heart attack symptoms in female patients when they worked alongside a larger number of female doctors in their units. Thus, the presence of more minority public employees might shape the actions of other existing employees. Similarly, Gershenson and colleagues (2023) found that having Black colleagues reduced the suspension rates of Black students by White teachers dramatically. Thus, Black teachers not only benefit Black students through direct interactions with them, but also through the indirect effect they have on White teachers in their interactions with Black students. These findings accord with Selden's (1997) contention that having a representative role is more important than the demographic or social affiliation of the administrator, because it enables active representation by nonrepresentative bureaucrats.
Majority Group Street-Level Bureaucrats for Underrepresented Minorities
Frontline workers such as teachers, social workers, nurses, and university faculty members often maintain long-term relationships with their clients (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2022). This dynamic creates fertile ground for mutual commitment, trust, and common expectations between the parties (De Boer, 2020). Research demonstrates that street-level bureaucrats actively seek to influence citizens in the way they implement policy when they share a common identity with them (Andrews et al., 2014). Essentially, these actions are possible because street-level bureaucrats have extensive discretion, so they can make decisions that will benefit and prioritize clients like them (Sowa & Selden, 2003). For example, Meier (1993) found that teachers, as street-level bureaucrats, are more likely to represent minorities than administrators.
Nevertheless, frontline workers’ extensive discretion can also be used as a tool to discriminate against minorities, or to create an alienating, inequitable, and unsupportive work environment for them (e.g., Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2012; Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2019). As previous empirical studies reveal, street-level bureaucrats may discriminate against clients based on religious beliefs or racial differences (Pfaff et al., 2021). When frontline workers decide how to deliver services to citizens, they are limited in their ability to provide optimal service to all clients (Lipsky, 1980, 2010). Increasing pressures, vague policies, and demands from different interest groups compel them to create a distinction between citizens in the way public resources are allocated (Brodkin, 2012; Lipsky, 1980, 2010). By profiling their clients, categorizing them into stereotypical categories, and making subjective assessments, they decide which clients to prioritize and to whom to allocate public resources and services (Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2019).
Minorities from diverse backgrounds suffer from a lack of representation in various policy areas (Portillo et al., 2022; Wilkins & Williams, 2008). Law enforcement agencies and higher education are often described as “cults of masculinity” (Casad et al., 2021; Silvestri, 2017). In institutions of higher education where there is a distinct lack of female representation in STEM fields (Casad et al., 2021), this issue is particularly relevant. Majority group street-level bureaucrats’ behavior is crucial in these arenas, because it is their attitude toward minorities that determines the latter's sense of inclusion or exclusion. Disadvantaged groups of clients may fall prey to discrimination and hostility in an environment with a lack of representation of a variety of social groups among frontline public servants (Einstein & Glick, 2017). In this situation, as role models in their attitude toward minorities (Davidovitz, 2023), street-level bureaucrats from the majority group can create a welcoming atmosphere for minority citizens and convey a message to other members of the majority group regarding what is expected of them toward minorities. Consequently, the representative role of street-level bureaucrats from the majority group in this environment is crucial, both in terms of how minorities are treated, as well as signaling to the majority clients about the normative behavior expected toward minorities. However, there is very little research about how female students experience their lack of gender representation in their academic programs’ faculty members. We know little about how they subjectively see their street-level bureaucrats’ role in rectifying their lack of representation and how they respond to their teachers’ behavior. One exception is Xu and Meier's (2022) study reporting that female mathematics teachers in China do not actively represent female students by assisting them, but rather treat all students equally, even after female teachers and administrators have experienced previous gender bias. Indeed, school principals of both genders have very sexist views regarding gender and mathematics. Our study goes a step further and looks at the perceptions of female students regarding the behavior of male lecturers. Our goal is to explore the importance of symbolic representation in STEM studies in academic institutions.
Our Case Study: Female STEM Students in Academic Institutions in Israel
Women students make up barely 32% of graduate students in STEM studies across OECD countries (OECD, 2022). In Israel, 32% of new entrants in academic STEM programs are women, whereas they are 84% of new entrants into the field of education. They are less likely than young men to be employed, and, as in other OECD countries, earn less than their male peers (OECD, 2021).
At the same time, STEM industries suffer from the scarcity of skilled, educated workers (Kaczmarczyk & Dopplick, 2014; Smith et al., 2014). Women in these occupations usually earn less than their male colleagues and are less likely to hold senior positions (Fassinger, 2008). The failure to integrate women into STEM can impair the quality of STEM scientific research and the STEM industry's productivity, as well as the strength of the society and its values.
Most research on women and STEM has focused on factors associated with the early choice of STEM majors in high school, choices in college, and the experiences of studying and working in STEM faculties or companies (Fouad & Santana, 2017; Leung & Cinamon, 2020). The critical period of the transition from STEM studies to work among female graduates has received considerably less empirical attention.
Israeli women generally parallel their counterparts in other Western countries, especially the United States. Israeli women have entered the labor market in increasing numbers and changed their working patterns. Occupational segregation has declined, and women have gained access to highly skilled professional and managerial positions. Nevertheless, as in other Western countries, the narrowing of the gaps in Israel has slowed in the last decade (Mandel & Birgier, 2016). Given the similarities between the experiences of Israeli women and those in other OECD countries, we maintain that our results can have implications globally.
Method
Participants
This qualitative study is part of a larger project supported by the Israel Science Foundation (research N609/21). Our focus is on women in STEM faculties in Israeli universities. Therefore, we asked women in their last year of STEM studies to participate and accepted all who responded. The participants were 28 Israeli female STEM students between 23 and 27 who we interviewed six months before graduation. All of the participants were single, 26 of them were in a romantic relationship, and all of them combined work and academic studies. All of them were raised in middle-class families, and four were the first generation in their families to pursue higher education. Four of the participants were students in colleges with STEM programs, and the rest were enrolled in STEM programs in five different research universities in Israel.
Data Collection
After receiving the required approval from the university's Ethics Committee, we sent a letter to the deans of the STEM faculties requesting access to students’ email addresses. Email invitations explaining the goals of the study, its longitudinal nature, and the anonymity of their responses were sent to all of the female students in their final year of the STEM programs. We asked to interview the potential participants twice for approximately 90 min for each interview.
All of the interviews were conducted using ZOOM software at the interviewees’ convenience. The interviews were based on a fixed question protocol, but, as is usual in semistructured in-depth interviews, the interview developed dynamically according to the interviewees’ answers. We recorded and transcribed the interviews. The Appendix provides a selected list of the questions we asked. As is customary in qualitative studies, we ended the interviewing procedure when we reached saturation, meaning that no new information emerged from conducting additional interviews.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was inductive and iterative. We adopted a thematic analysis method (Braun & Clarke, 2019; Clarke & Braun, 2017) to identify, analyze, and interpret the patterns of subjective meaning that the interviewees attributed to their views, behaviors, and perspectives (Clarke & Braun, 2017). Typical of thematic analyses (Guest et al., 2011), the analysis in this exploratory study was based on the interpretation the researchers attributed to the data. Our first objective was to identify and describe implicit and explicit ideas within the data, and then develop codes to represent the issues, which we used as summary markers in a later analysis. As the analysis progressed, we compared the frequencies of the codes and created graphic relationships between them.
In accordance with Braun and Clarke (2006), we conducted the analysis in several steps. First, we read the material to become acquainted with the data. Then, we created initial codes while identifying central repeating patterns. For example, we noted female participants who indicated that the school environment lacked female gender representation and the impact that this lack had on them. At this point, we created some preliminary codes such as: “holds the opinion that the study environment is male,” “holds the opinion that there is no female representation among the faculty members,” or “holds the opinion that a male environment is negative.”
Second, we created codes with which to identify relevant items and labeled them using several words to signify the meaning of the data for us. We made every effort to carry out the coding in an open and inclusive manner to include all relevant data for the phenomenon under consideration. At this stage, we checked that the themes we created (for example: “perceptions regarding the lack of gender representation among faculty members” or “behavior used by the student in an environment lacking gender representation”) worked in harmony with the database to create a thematic analysis map.
Third, we created names for the themes we identified and defined each one. Examples include: “female students’ experiences regarding the lack of gender representation,” “female students’ feelings in relation to the lack of gender representation,” “female students’ behavior in relation to the lack of gender representation,” and “female students’ perceptions regarding the behavior of male lecturers in relation to the feeling of lack of representation.” Similarly, we noted themes that referred to the direct and indirect impact of the lack of representation on the female students’ behavior. In the last step, we produced a coherent, logical, nonrepetitive story that unfolded from our database. Thus, we created consistency between the findings we identified and the story we wanted to tell through the data, ensuring that the data were consistent with the narrative we created.
We took several steps to address the challenges of validity and reliability associated with qualitative analysis. In order to ensure reflexivity in the analytic process, we carried out a “reads for herself” (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003) procedure. We read the text ourselves in order to place ourselves in relation to the data that emerged from the respondents. We also noted ideas that emerged during the analysis to ensure that we avoided subjective perceptions during the analysis.
Findings
Three main findings emerged with regard to the female STEM students’ subjective experiences. First, they recognize the lack of gender representation among the faculty in their study programs. Second, the street-level bureaucrats play a role in increasing their sense of gender underrepresentation in their study programs. Third, the female students respond to their experiences related to the lack of gender representation in their programs in various ways. Together, our findings demonstrate how street-level bureaucrats shape female students’ attitudes toward their experiences of not being represented in their study environment, which, in turn, affects their behavior.
Female STEM Students’ Experiences of Lack of Representation
According to our participants, their study environment is distinctly masculine. Most of the students and the lecturers are men. Indeed, most of the women expected this situation. As one of the participants who is a computer science student described it: … I had almost only [male] lecturers. [Female] lecturers are something very difficult to find in computer science. There are no [female] lecturers. Also [regarding] teaching assistants, by the way, there are many more [male] teaching assistants than [female] teaching assistants. Like, when there is suddenly a [female] teaching assistant or [female] lecturer I get excited… it's much less common…
While our participants recognized that STEM programs have few women, they were bewildered by the lack of gender representation among the faculty members. They also expected to see more women teachers who could serve as role models. As a chemistry student said: … I would be happy if there were more [female] professors; it was a bit of a shame for me to see that there aren’t many [female] professors here … chemistry [studies] is divided into several departments so in [the Department of Materials] there are two [female] professors out of about ten, in organic chemistry there are no female [professors] at all. There is physical chemistry - I think there is one [female professor] there. Like, it's really few.
In the few situations in which the participants did have female teachers, they regarded them as a beacon of hope that the impossible is possible. A chemistry student described how having female faculty members indicated to her that she would be able to pursue a career in her field, and how this possibility motivated her: I see that there are a lot of women in [work] places in the field. There are women professors and [this shows me that] I have reason to aspire to such … I also see as if, it's not that they sacrifice something from their lives. I see professors on maternity leave. I see that they are allowed [to do] all the things that life offers.
How STEM Students Experience the Actions of Majority Group Street-Level Bureaucrats in an Environment Where They Lack Representation
Our findings revealed that the behavior of majority group street-level bureaucrats could intensify the feelings of female students that they were not represented. When the faculty members engage in discriminatory and sexist behavior toward the female students, their actions have direct and indirect outcomes. With regard to the first outcome, the female students regard such behavior as offensive. With regard to the second, such behavior reinforces the notion that discriminatory and unequal behavior is legitimate, reflected in the male students’ behavior toward female students.
Direct Outcomes
According to our participants’ subjective experiences, faculty members adopt behavior that increases the feeling of our female participants that they are not represented in their study programs. Most female participants reported that they or their friends experienced offensive behavior from some male faculty members toward them. It is important to emphasize that almost all our female participants indicated that this behavior is not common among most male faculty members. However, almost all our female participants reported experiencing it. In turn, these behaviors contribute to a feeling of underrepresentation among the female students. As an example of these behaviors, they described how male faculty members may act in a sexist manner and express disdain for female students. We heard from many participants that a sexist mindset exists in the school environment. The participants described being subjected to comments that disparaged their ability, belittled their capabilities, and implied that they were less likely to succeed than the male students. As a result of such expressions, the female students were made to feel inferior. As a mechanical engineering student described: … We had a lecturer who… for example, if he wanted to demonstrate something, he would always take one of the women and say: “Here, for example, is a beautiful girl on whom you can demonstrate the example.” For example, there was another lecturer, not the same lecturer, who, for example, would ask at the end of each lesson if all the women understood… even though it's a complex issue, he wants to ask if the women really understood. [He asked us]—“Did the women understand?” That's how he asked. “Did they all [the women] understand?” …
One of the participants reported: I have a friend who studied mechanical engineering, and her professor told her that he was sure she wouldn’t succeed because she's a woman. Really. She just told [that] me and cried. She said - I invest and I do everything [properly] and how dare he even say something like that to my face… Let's say, when he gave an exercise [in class] he always made some comment to her like: “Well, well, I don’t expect too much from you …” … one lecturer who is religious… He quite underestimates what we [women] can do… there was some exercise that one of the [female] students submitted to him, and he went over [the exercise] during the lesson and then asked in amazement: “Did you do it [the exercise]? Did you do it by yourself? Or… how did you do it? How did you deal with it? You must have copied [from someone else]…”
Participants also described the cynical attitude that some faculty members had toward women. These teachers would use offensive humor about gender, intensifying their sense of inferiority. As a mechanical engineering student described it: I had a lecturer in engineering who I really, really disliked because he would make very chauvinistic comments to us, as I call it. He didn’t do it on purpose. I think he did it rather from a place of making fun of it, but the fact that there were [only] 20 [students] in the class because it was a class in the morning and almost no one came, and he asked [us], “Who knows how to use a drill?” And I raised my hand because I have used a drill in my life. So, he said to me “How does that make sense? You’re a woman.” I was very offended by that, and he didn’t do it on purpose but throughout the semester [he made] little statements like that about women that really hurt me. Yes, I know how to use a drill and not because my father taught me [to do it] but because one day I was interested, so I started to use a drill [on my own initiative].
A mechanical engineering student reported how one of the lecturers treated the female students in the class: “During class [the lecturer tells] all kinds of jokes about beautiful women.” An electrical engineering student who is the only woman in an all-male class said: There are teaching surveys that [students are required] to fill out anonymously. Then one of the lecturers said, jokingly of course, that if someone wants to incriminate me, [then they can] draft a letter to one of the lecturers [to be written] in the female form and then it will be clear that I am the one who wrote it.
Some participants mentioned how they found themselves drawn into a defensive discourse with faculty members who make sexist comments. As a biomedical engineering student said: “I had a teaching assistant who said, ‘From the age of 25 you [women] can no longer have children.’ I answered him, ‘I think you are wrong. I don’t know many mothers who are 25; usually they are a bit older but yes, I can understand that there is a decrease [in capacity].’”
Some interviewees expressed how certain faculty members were gentler and more empathetic with women, as if they were more delicate than men and needed a more protection. The participants regarded such behavior as offensive. A mechanical engineering student described it in her words: “… [with] the older lecturers, in the classes I did attend, they would treat women as if they were so cute [overly nice] [and act as if they] were ashamed to tell them [the women] that they are wrong…” A chemistry student said: “It seems to me that maybe sometimes [the lecturers] are nicer to women, in [their style of] speaking… I will get a much nicer answer if I approach [the lecturer] I think than [if men approach the lecturer].”
Indirect Outcomes
Street-level bureaucrats’ offensive behavior toward female students also has indirect consequences. By demonstrating sexist and unequal behavior in front of male and female students, they convey a message to male students that such behavior is acceptable. Thus, the consequences of their behavior are also sometimes reflected in the behavior of the male students toward the female students. A female electrical engineering student recounted a time when she experienced a dismissive attitude from the lecturer in class regarding a question she asked in class, and the male students praised his behavior. Such responses increased the alienation she experienced. She felt as if the male students were blind to her experience: Throughout the semester I got [from the lecturer I talked about earlier] this feeling, I’ll call it a bit … I made sure not to ask him questions, let's put it that way. When I asked questions, [I preferred to do it] in the presence of the whole class because then I felt that I was less likely to receive such strange answers. In most cases I simply went to the corresponding lecturer and asked him [my questions instead]. When asked if her male classmates felt the same feeling, she replied: “No. They approached him [to ask questions] in a completely normal way [unlike me]. On the contrary, [they] praised him, said he was a great lecturer. And I didn’t get that feeling at all.” … [It's] like if there is one Ethiopian in the class, they will notice him, then [in the same way] there is one girl in the class who is noticed. Sometimes it's not in my favor [and] sometimes it is. Sometimes if I don’t come, then the lecturers notice [that I don’t attend the class] so [it] sucks for me. It's like when I’m the one who does things, they pay more attention … the advisor in the project, he knows me with all [my] anxiety attacks and with all the pressures and [my] crying. There's no test that I don’t cry. A lot of [students] also look and say, well, she's a woman [so that's why] she's crying. It might be true, and it might not be only that. So, he treats me and keeps telling me, you’re like my daughter. I treat you like my daughter. I care about you like my daughter… and there are many lecturers who [teach us] that many students would tell me to go and check with the lecturer what is needed… because you are a woman… [implying that I would get more from him]. … one of the… he's not a lecturer, he's a teaching assistant in the course… in the lab… Let's just say, he kept an eye on me [interested in me] throughout the semester… I saw him once even outside the college at a wedding. He remembered me because I was the only woman in the class. The men in my class would say, no, that he was interested in me… I would tell [them] that they were just exaggerating. [I told them] what the hell…
The Behavior of Female STEM Students in an Environment Where They Lack Representation
Many of our participants indicated that their behavior is shaped by the predominance of men in their programs and the lack of female representation among the faculty members. They engaged in two patterns of behavior as a result: hesitant and insecure behavior and behaviors designed to conform to the majority group.
Our participants described how they adopt a hesitant, cautious attitude with their male instructors. They feel uncomfortable asking questions and insecure about expressing themselves. Their descriptions suggest they act in this way out of fear that they will be regarded as unintelligent or that their questions will be seen as irrelevant, rhetorical, or not intelligent enough. As a computer science student said: “… with [male] lecturers and teaching assistants, I am less likely to ask questions in lectures and exercises…”
In some cases, this behavior is not the direct result of the faculty members’ behavior toward the female students, but rather to the general attitude that female students feel inferior based on their gender. This is how a computer science student described it: I see in computer science [and] also in biology, almost everyone who asks questions [in classes] are men. Almost everyone who speaks is male. If a woman wants to ask a question, she will probably raise her hand, apologize, be so gentle, [try to] not annoy … even the way I see how we turn to the heads of the department. It's like that, if I don’t beg … then I feel it looks weird to be looked at as if I’m aggressive. I don’t know, many times in a group of students, if there is an answer that we don’t know is correct or not, they will rely on [what] the men [say] …” I want to say that even from the point of view of participation in the classes, sometimes you feel that the men, the students, are sometimes very dominant and sometimes I felt that my question might be out of place. It's true that I don’t understand, but I don’t feel comfortable asking, so they don’t think I’m stupid. Yes, I happened to feel not so safe in this [classroom] forum. [I felt that] they might laugh, they might think something of me. [I thought that] maybe it would be better if I ask a friend later or if I come individually and ask [my question]. And I noticed that sometimes the male students don’t care. Whatever comes out of their mouths, they ask even if it sounds very stupid, even if in retrospect it was a casual [question]. They don’t have a problem with it. They don’t think twice, and I’ve noticed that it's not just typical of them. I do it, my [female] friends do it. [They] don’t feel comfortable asking [questions]… There were lecturers who I stopped sitting in the front [in their classes] and participating. Because they really… there was one [lecturer] who really… I don’t know how to explain it, but he just had… there was something about him… he's terribly perverted, really. I mean, that [he] would always [choose] to [perform] demonstrations through women. You know, he didn’t say anything that was wrong but his whole behavior was terribly unpleasant.
Some of the participants reiterated the constant need they felt to prove themselves. Some ascribed their lack of confidence to ask questions and behave naturally as rooted in this need to prove themselves. As a computer science student described it: … I think maybe it's in my head. I don’t know. I don’t think I speak for all women here, but it's as if I constantly feel like I need to prove [myself]… as if to justify my place… I don’t know if it's more because I'm a woman or more because I’m [studying] computer science, like, and not medicine. That I feel like I need to justify my worth more…
Many of the female STEM students also engaged in behavior that would help them fit in with the majority group. For example, they consciously tried to tone down external feminine elements of their appearance and behavior to assimilate into the social group in which there was a clear lack of female representation. They did so because they felt that their female characteristics caused the majority group to regard them as inferior. As a computer science student explained: “… I feel that sometimes, maybe, my opinion was taken into account less. When we would consult on some question [in class], I feel that if I were a man, or if I wore less make-up, or was less feminine in my appearance, maybe I would be perceived more [positively]”.
Discussion
This exploratory study's main goal was to examine how minority clients experience the actions of majority group street-level bureaucrats in an environment in which their minority is not represented. Specifically, we sought to understand how male academic faculty members’ behavior might shape female students’ perceptions regarding the lack of gender representation in their study programs, through the interactions between the parties. Using the theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy and street-level bureaucracy, we focused empirically on the experiences of female STEM students in Israeli academic institutions in the context of their interactions with faculty members, as street-level bureaucrats, in their studies.
Our research makes five theoretical contributions to the representative bureaucracy and street-level bureaucracy literature. First, our study reveals the experiences of female students regarding the lack of gender representation among faculty members. These findings reinforce previous research results documenting the complex experiences women have in male-dominated fields in public agencies (e.g., Andrews et al., 2014; Silvestri, 2017; Xu & Meier, 2022).
Second, in line with the representative bureaucracy literature that emphasizes the benefits that the passive representation of minorities have for promoting their interests in the implementation of policy (see e.g., Andrews et al., 2014; Gade & Wilkins, 2012; Keiser et al., 2002; Meier, 1993), we demonstrate that a lack of representation has negative consequences for female students. Specifically, we describe how in this environment, women experience unequal and discriminatory treatment. We reveal how the actions of majority group street-level bureaucrats may increase the female students’ perceptions of injustice. Thus, our findings accord with previous studies showing that street-level bureaucrats can use their broad discretionary powers to discriminate against minority or disadvantaged groups (Oberfield & Incantalupo, 2021; Pfaff et al., 2021). Nevertheless, we also show that negative behavior on the part of the male lecturers is not uniform. This finding emphasizes the importance of symbolic representation. As Headley et al. (2021) imply with their real or virtual contact argument, egregious behavior can have a dramatic impact even on those not involved in it.
Third, we reveal the direct and indirect results of the behavior of the majority group street-level bureaucrats toward the minority clients. Our findings accord with those of Xu and Meier (2022), who maintained that the sexist views of male lecturers about female students in field of education are considered “masculine.” However, our study also documents the voice of the female students in response to the treatment they receive from the male lecturers. We demonstrate how the sexist and discriminatory behavior of male faculty members toward female students makes them feel unequal to the male students and that they do not belong in the academic program. The indirect result of such behavior is the teachers’ signaling to the male students that this behavior is legitimate and acceptable. These messages, in turn, permeate the interactions between male and female students in study programs where women are underrepresented. Our findings underscore previous studies claiming that representation shapes the attitudes of majority clients toward minorities (Davidovitz, 2023). However, our findings focus on the role played by majority bureaucrats in this context.
Fourth, recent research has examined how the behavior of majority administrators is reflected in their interactions with underrepresented bureaucrats (Gershenson et al., 2023; Li, 2021; Meier & McCrea, 2022). In contrast, we investigated the effects of majority officials’ behavior on underrepresented clients. This is fertile ground for a theoretical examination of Selden's (1997) concept of the “role of representation” to better understand the impact of active representation as expressed by nonrepresentative bureaucrats.
Fifth, we reveal the behavior that female students adopt in an underrepresented environment where they are exposed to discriminatory and alienating behavior from street-level bureaucrats. We demonstrate that in this environment, female students engage in insecure and hesitant behavior, which impairs their ability to behave naturally in the study environment. Thus, we maintain that differences in symbolic representation are generated by behavior by majority bureaucrats. This conclusion differs from previous studies noting the consequences of symbolic representation while focusing on minority bureaucrats (Park, 2022; Van Ryzin et al., 2017).
Empirically, our unit of analysis presents a unique indication of female students and their perspectives about the microdynamics they encounter with majority street-level bureaucrats. Using this unit of analysis, we can add to the microfoundation theory of representative bureaucracy by highlighting that the individual-level mechanism between bureaucrats and citizens must be clarified in various contexts (Park, 2022). We might be able to extend our results, with due caution, to other areas in which there is a lack of minority representation. For example, future studies can examine our issue in other educational environments such as middle school and high school in subjects characterized by a lack of female representation. Researchers can also investigate it in areas that are traditionally male dominated such as policing, firefighting, or various medical fields. Finally, we need studies about the interactions between professionals from the majority group and those from other underrepresented groups such as nonmajority racial groups and members of the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning) community to understand the consequences of their lack of symbolic representation. Finally, using a qualitative method, which is rare in studies of representative bureaucracy (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020), provides us with an in-depth look at the meanings these students ascribe to their experiences and dynamics with male faculty members in an environment where they lack representation. Together, our research emphasizes the theoretical importance of looking at the feelings of minority clients about the behavior of majority officials toward them in various social, geographic, and cultural contexts and in different policy areas. Our findings underscore the strong influence of the expressed and implicit attitudes of majority street-level bureaucrats in understanding the importance of symbolic representation for minorities.
Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Practical Recommendations
Our findings suggest several practical recommendations for decision-makers and practitioners. First, our research highlights that in order to ensure social equity, the public sector must increase the representation of diverse populations in the public service, particularly in areas that are essentially masculine in nature. Thus, policy-makers should provide proper training to street-level bureaucrats from the majority group so that minority clients are treated fairly and equally. Training workshops for street-level bureaucrats can include dialogue sessions with minority clients to increase their awareness of the difficulties these clients face. In addition, street-level bureaucrats in various fields, such as teachers or faculty members in higher education, must recognize the public role they play. Workshops would help raise awareness of their social and civic roles as setting an example for others. Workshops can also be held for minority clients who are in an environment where they are underrepresented. These workshops can allow minorities to express their difficulties and learn how to deal with their insecurity and fear in an environment where they are numerically inferior. Furthermore, academic institutions must recognize that female STEM students feel excluded and develop programs to support them (Cinamon, 2015; McWhirter & Cinamon, 2021). Examples include providing scholarships to female students encouraging them to enter STEM programs and budgeting for mentoring programs between female students in advanced stages of their studies and beginning students to help provide the latter with tools for dealing with gender issues on campus. Inviting female lecturers from other institutions can also provide women students with additional role models. Finally, there is a strong need for the mentoring of female faculty members in STEM subjects to overcome their lack of representation.
Our study also has several limitations and recommendations for further research. First, our study is exploratory. Our findings provide a preliminary observation of the role played by majority group street-level bureaucrats in influencing how women react to being in an environment where they suffer from lack of representation. Second, our findings are based on qualitative inquiry. Follow-up studies are required to examine our research questions using various research methods that combine capturing individual experiences and statistical rigor in order to increase the generalizability of the research. For example, these studies should investigate whether the actions of majority street-level bureaucrats affect the behavior of students from the majority group toward minority students. Through experiments, it is possible to examine whether the insecurity and hesitation in the behavior of the minorities is caused directly by the behavior of the male faculty members, or perhaps there are other variables that might explain the phenomenon.
Furthermore, our findings relate specifically to the relationships between university faculty members and female students. These two groups usually interact over a long period of time, limiting our ability to generalize the findings to other types of street-level bureaucrats such as judges, tax officials, police officers, and firefighters who have short-term interactions with citizens. In such situations, the consequences of discriminatory and unfair behavior may have less effect on the behavior of minorities. Follow-up studies should examine this possibility. We also need comparative studies involving different countries or institutions to provide a more international understanding of gender disparities in STEM. It would also be interesting to investigate how minority citizens experience the damage of continuous discrimination versus the short-term discrimination in one-time encounters in various policy areas. In addition, future studies should examine the current issue in the context of general education as well. In higher education there is more distance between faculty members and students than in K-12 schools where teachers may fulfill several roles for students beyond the transmission of educational content. The nature of the relationships between the parties in each context may produce interesting differences in the feelings and behavior of the minorities in response to the behavior of the street-level bureaucrats.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, (grant number N609/21).
Author Biographies
Appendix. Selected questions that guided us as part of the interviews
What field of study did you choose to study and why?
How was your experience as a student?
What were the percentages of male and female students in your class?
Was your department considered a male or female profession?
How did you feel about these gender proportions in school?
Did you feel supported by the university, the faculty, and/or your department during your studies?
What support did you expect to receive?
Did you experience any difficulties or harassment during your studies due to being a woman?
Was the attitude of the lecturers toward male and female students the same?
Was there any difference?
What advice would you give to someone studying a curriculum like yours?
If you had to give a title to your experience as a student, what would it be?
How do you see your future?
When you think about yourself a few years from now, what do you see?