Ed Frauenheim writes in CNET that "Study finds too few women and minorities in tech". Over at the Associated Press, Rachel Konrad makes the same lament: "Study: Too Few Women, Minorities in IT." (The two staff writers are merely copycatting their headlines from a press release: "ITAA Diversity Study: Numbers of Women, Minorities in Tech Too Low.")
Both staff writers are reporting on a study by the Information Technology Association of America trade group. The percentage of women declined from a high of 41% in 1996 to 32.4% in 2004. (Other statistics are included for racial groups.) ITAA blames the greater reduction in administrative jobs for the decline, but does not consider other factors. Overall, the report coplains that tech employment by sex and skin color does not match the overall working population.
Consider these points:
- The study compares the the current % with the all-time high % in 1996, rather than the overall trend. Emphasising the extreme statistics makes for better shock value, and greater likelihood of media attention.
- Percentages are used, rather than numbers. It could be that female employment is up, level, or down, but we aren't told.
- Percentage comparisons are made with the working population, rather than the overall population. That could make the %s seem better or worse, depending on the ITAA's need.
Further reading shows CNET's, AP's, and ITAA's "too few minorities" headline to be misleading:
- Asians make up 12.1% of tech workers, but only 4% of the working population.
- Blacks are almost at par.
- White are somewhat underrepresented in the tech sector (77.7% in tech vs 82.8% overall).
- Only Hispanics are significantly under-represented (6.4% vs 12.9 overall), but their percentage is up since 1996.
The staff writers use scare phrases, like these:
* "despite the discouraging statistics"
* "preventing male bias in the way future technology is developed"
...but fail to include ITAA's reasons for the under-represntation:
- stereotypes that women and certain minorities are not skilled in math and sciences (it all goes back to highs school, and the courses students choose to not take)
- lack of mentoring and role models in leadership positions (that can help)
- negative perceptions of IT work (created by the stories of overwork, underpay, and job losses)
- reduction in flexible work arrangements following the dot.com boom (elimination of fussball tables and free pop machines)
...AND the two staff writters fail to include the ITAA's suggestions for changing the situation:
* stronger commitment from corporate leadership (to what?)
* increased corporate outreach and mentoring (I can agree with this one)
* stronger partnerships between companies and colleges and universities (not sure about that)
* IT employers to provide more flexible work arrangements (aimed at women, but useful also for men)
* Congress to double the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and math (what?)
From reading the ITAA Web site, I would guess that the organization worries over absolute growth for its industry members: "fewer people are available overall to work in high-tech" and blames that on under-representation. It admits that tech industry employment fell last year, blaming the decrease on the reduction of tech work visas. It also worries that the tech industry in India and China will eclipse the USA. Making a WWII-like effort to get more women onto the path to tech is the ITAA's plan to keep its member company's employment rolls high.
The root of the problem is high school, where students take the courses that determine their future employment. Problem is, high school kids are generally clueless. Fortunately, our society makes it possible to switch careers. And it is possible that workers are switching out of high tech.
Comments