About the Topic: Despite massive research and public policy efforts aimed at diversification, gender segregation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics remains extreme in affluent democracies. More surprising is evidence that women’s representation in many “STEM” fields is weaker in advanced industrial societies than in poorer, reputably gender traditional ones. The most obvious explanation is that broad-based existential security frees more women to realize aspirations for (less lucrative) non-STEM pursuits. I will discuss another piece of the puzzle by focusing on the aspirations themselves and how these vary with societal affluence. Over-time data on eighth-grade boys and girls in 32 countries provide strong evidence that the gender gap in aspirations for mathematically-related jobs increases with societal affluence, controlling for traits of individual students (parental education, affinity for school, mathematics test scores). This affluence effect is not attributable to cross-national differences in the gender-labeling of science, Internet access, or women’s educational or economic integration. Results are consistent with arguments suggesting that gender beliefs more strongly influence career aspirations in affluent, “postmaterialist” societies.

About the Speaker:  Maria Charles is Professor and Chair of Sociology, Area Director for Sex and Gender Research, and an Affiliate Professor of Feminist Studies at U.S. Santa Barbara. She specializes in the international comparative study of social inequalities, particularly cross-national differences in women's economic, educational, and family roles. She has published extensively on gender segregation, most recently on the ideological and organizational factors that contribute to woman's underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ("STEM") fields around the world. She has a Ph.D. in Sociology from Stanford University, and Bachelor’s degrees from UCSB in Environmental Studies and Political Science.

Abstract:

The recent rise in mass popular protests – many with regional spillover effects and some with far-reaching consequences for international peace and security –  has raised the question of how the international community should respond to these events, and to what end. For the United Nations, the question becomes acute in protest situations in which there is a tangible risk of large-scale violence and human rights violations. Yet mounting a rapid and effective response is a particular challenge in these contexts.  Drawing on case studies, practitioner interviews, and the author’s UN experience, this presentation will examine five variables that are critical to success: timing, access, leverage, the ability to propose solutions for non-violent change, and finding the right mix of principle and pragmatism. It will argue that these variables are not static, but dynamic and inter-independent. Getting them ‘right’ in an unfolding crisis is difficult, but it is possible to draw some preliminary lessons from the cases reviewed.

Speaker Bio:

Image

Debate surrounding democratization in Muslim-majority countries has centered on the potential for the political process to strengthen or constrain radical Islamist forces. Virtually absent from this discourse is empirical evidence linking the passage of Islamist policies to subsequent electoral outcomes at the local level. Aiming to fill this gap, Dr. Buehler will present and analyze an original dataset of shari’a regulations passed by local governments across Indonesia. He will examine the content and timing of newly-passed shari’a regulations in relation to geopolitical history, the electoral cycle, and electoral outcomes. Such regulations are strongly concentrated in areas with a history of political Islam. They map on to the electoral cycle in ways that suggest that those passing them are motivated less by religious doctrine than by the quest for electoral advantage. However, those passing shari’a regulations do not excel in subsequent elections. In Indonesia, profane political agendas appear to trump Islamist agendas.

Image

Michael’s scholarly career has included teaching positions and research fellowships at Columbia University, Northern Illinois University, Northwestern University, and the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies. His doctorate is from The London School of Economics and Political Science.