Wanita dan persekitaran kerja dalam bidang STEM (Women and work environment in STEM field)

Nurhamizah Rashid, Yashawini Abaquin Singaravelu, Norain Mod Asri, Norshamliza Chamhuri, Azrina Abdullah Al-Hadi, Hazrul Izuan Shahiri

Abstract


Kemajuan dalam bidang teknologi pada masa kini telah menggalakkan ramai individu untuk melibatkan diri dalam STEM iaitu sains, teknologi, kejuruteraan dan matematik walaupun pada hakikatnya penglibatan wanita dalam STEM adalah rendah. Oleh itu, objektif kajian ini dijalankan adalah bagi mengenalpasti faktor yang mampu menggalak wanita untuk menyertai dan terus berada serta mengetuai STEM. Justeru, analisis penjelajahan faktor (EFA) diaplikasi terhadap 200 responden wanita yang bekerja dalam STEM di Malaysia dalam pelbagai bidang sama ada dalam sektor swasta atau sektor awam. Kaedah EFA ini dapat merumuskan data agar hubungan dan corak kajian boleh ditafsir dan difahami dengan mudah. Hasil kajian mendapati bahawa sifat maskulin dalam diri wanita merupakan faktor yang mempengaruhi keputusan dan penglibatan wanita dalam STEM manakala faktor kemudahan institusi mendorong wanita untuk menyertai dan berada lama dalam STEM. Oleh yang demikian, kedua - dua faktor ini perlu diambil kira oleh majikan dalam menyediakan persekitaran kerja yang lebih kondusif untuk memastikan wanita terus kekal dan menjadi peneraju dalam bidang STEM baik di sektor awam mahupun di sektor swasta.

 

Kata kunci: Analisis faktor, diskriminasi, kepimpinan, kerajaan, sektor swasta, STEM, wanita

Despite the fact that women are underrepresented in STEM, advances in technology have motivated many people to pursue careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). As a result, the goal of this study is to discover elements that can promote women to join, continue to participate, and lead in STEM. As a result, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on 200 female respondents who worked in STEM in Malaysia, either in the private or public sectors. This EFA method can summarise the data such that the study's linkages and patterns can be easily evaluated and understood. According to the study's findings, masculinity in women is a factor that influences women's decision and involvement in STEM, whereas institutional convenience encourages women to participate and remain long in STEM. As a result, organisations must consider these two elements when creating a more welcoming work environment for women in STEM, both in the public and private sectors.

 

Keywords: Factor analysis, discrimination, leadership, government, private sector, STEM, women

 


Keywords


Analisis faktor, diskriminasi, kepimpinan, kerajaan, sektor swasta, STEM, wanita (Factor analysis, discrimination, leadership, government, private sector, STEM, women)

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alfred, M. V., Ray, S. M., & Johnson, M. A. (2019). Advancing women of color in STEM: an imperative for US global competitiveness. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(1), 114-132.

Allen, S., Kastelein, K., Mokros, J., Atkinson, J., & Byrd, S. (2020). STEM Guides: professional brokers in rural STEM ecosystems. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10(1), 17-35.

Amon, M. J. (2017). Looking through the glass ceiling: A qualitative study of STEM women’s career narratives. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 236.

Aycock, L. M., Hazari, Z., Brewe, E., Clancy, K. B., Hodapp, T., & Goertzen, R. M. (2019). Sexual harassment reported by undergraduate female physicists. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010121.

Baird, C. L. (2018). Male-dominated stem disciplines: How do we make them more attractive to women?. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, 21(3), 4-14.

Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, (04-11).

Bohns, V. K., & DeVincent, L. A. (2019). Rejecting unwanted romantic advances is more difficult than suitors realize. Social psychological and personality science, 10(8), 1102-1110.

Botella, C., Rueda, S., López-Iñesta, E., & Marzal, P. (2019). Gender diversity in STEM disciplines: A multiple factor problem. Entropy, 21(1), 30.

Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia., (2016). Sharing Malaysian Experience in Participation of Girls in STEM Education. Geneva, Switzerland, UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE).

Department of Statistic Malaysia. (2020). Current Population Estimates, Malaysia

EU-Malaysia Chamber of Commerce and Industry (EUMCCI). (2019). Empowering Women In The Malaysian Corporate Sector.

Fountain, L. T. (2018). Mentoring elements that influence employee engagement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Walden University.

Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2014). Pearson new international edition. Multivariate data analysis, Seventh Edition. Pearson Education Limited Harlow, Essex.

He, L., Zhou, G., Salinitri, G., & Xu, L. (2020). Female Underrepresentation in STEM Subjects: An Exploratory Study of Female High School Students in China. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), erm1802.

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of

University Women. 1111 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Huang, L., Krasikova, D. V., & Liu, D. (2016). I can do it, so can you: The role of leader creative self-efficacy in facilitating follower creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 49-62.

McKinnon, M., & O’Connell, C. (2020). Perceptions of stereotypes applied to women who publicly communicate their STEM work. Humanities and social sciences communications, 7(1), 1-8.

McWhirter, E. H., & Cinamon, R. G. (2021). Old problem, new perspectives: Applying Anzalduán concepts to underrepresentation in STEM. Journal of Career Development, 48(6), 877-892.

Miner, K. N., Walker, J. M., Bergman, M. E., Jean, V. A., Carter-Sowell, A., January, S. C., & Kaunas, C. (2018). From “her” problem to “our” problem: Using an individual lens versus a social-structural lens to understand gender inequity in STEM. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 267-290.

Myers, K., Gallaher, C., & McCarragher, S. (2019). STEMinism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(6), 648-660.

National Science Board. (2000). Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Arlington, VA: Author.

Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2016). Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior, 20(2), 238-248.

Rashid, N., Mazlan, M., Asri, N. M., Chamhuri, N., Al-Hadi, A. A., & Shahiri, H. I. (2021). Wanita Dan Persekitaran Kerja Dalam Bidang Stem: Analisis NVIVO. Jurnal Pengurusan, 62, 1-15.

Rodríguez-Rivero, R., Yáñez, S., Fernández-Aller, C., & Carrasco-Gallego, R. (2020). Is it time for a revolution in work‒life balance? Reflections from Spain. Sustainability, 12(22), 9563.

Ruiz, J. P., Gurel, P., Olds, W. H., Bankston, A., & McDowell, G. S. (2019). Inspiring and ethical mentorship in STEM: A meeting highlighting need for engagement, incentives, and accountability (No. e27474v1). PeerJ Preprints.

Tucker, E. (2017). Engaging employees: Three critical roles for managers. Strategic HR Review.

Verniers, C., & Vala, J. (2018). Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PloS one, 13(1), e0190657.

Ward, J., Johnson, R. N., & Wilson-Wilde, L. (2019). Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(sup1), S263-S267.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research. Cengage learning.

Xu, Y. (2015). Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based earning gap of college graduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 489-523.

Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 9(2), 79-94.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.