2017 Policy Report on Gender Barriers in Science and Engineering in the Asia andPacific Nations

Jung Sun Kim (Division of Health Sciences, Dongseo University)
Hye Young Park (Research Institute of Women Studies, Pusan National University)

Edited by Kong-Ju-Bock Lee (Department of Physics, Ewha Womans University)

Foreword
We are happy to circulate the APNN (Asia and Pacific Nation Network) survey results
again this year. This annual study that began in 2014 is the joint international survey
among 13 member countries conducted by The Association of Korean Woman Scientists
and Engineers (KWSE) as part of the international cooperation policy project. The reportis published in both Korean and English and distributed to all members of theInternational Network of Women Engineers and Scientists (INWES) as well as tointernational organizations like UNESCO to be utilized as reference for policy
development in each member country. KWSE has held policy forums with APNN
members to discuss results of the joint studies for policy development unique to eachcountry. In 2016, KWSE visited VAFIW in Hanoi, Vietnam to discuss with VAFIW
members the significance of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 joint studies, withrecommendations for policy development for women in STEM in Vietnam. A similar
endeavor proceeded in 2017 in Yokohama with JNWES members in Japan.
Following the first survey on the status of gender equality in science and engineering in2014 and that of the glass ceiling experienced by woman scientists and engineers in
2015, we initiated a study on gender barrier in science and engineering perceived
among women in STEM in 2016. Considering that gender barriers and gender inequality
were not issues for women alone, the committee decided to conduct the 2017 project on
how men in STEM perceived gender barriers. Thus the 2016 survey questions weremodified for male respondents comprising of questions on "the perception of genderbarrier," "experience of gender barrier," "perception on supporting law or policy toovercome gender barrier," and the "concept of gender equality" in the 2017questionnaires.
As in previous years, this year's report shows the comparative results among theparticipating countries after which it outlines the survey results by country in order tobe utilized as needed in each member country. However, the analysis of the quantitative
human development index (HDI) and gender related indices by UNDP and/or WEF were
not included as they are analyzed every other year. The next report of these indiceswill be included in the 2018 report.
For more than 20 years, there have been repeated concerns raised that low economic
participation of highly educated women will be a big obstacle to Korea's national
competitiveness. Yet, the problem of gender gap has still not been resolved. There is,therefore, a continuous need for this type of survey and studies as it provides referencedata that can contribute to promoting and maximizing the use of professional women inscience and engineering.
It is encouraging and significant that the study is conducted annually by the joint
efforts of APNN member countries. We hope for the continuation of the international
joint survey so that it will build on and develop into the Asian version of "She figures"(the statistical sourcebook published by the EU every three years for gender equality inresearch and development), which has been the initial goal upon the founding of APNN
in 2011. We also hope that it will be of value for the Asia and Pacific nations
including Korea in establishing and implementing national policies for human resource
development and gender equality in science and engineering.
With best wishes,
November 20, 2017
Jung Sun Kim & Hye Young ParkACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the completion of thisreport. The following people helped us with data collection, advice, statistical analysis ofsurvey result, and financial support. We deeply appreciate the participation of the
respondents who sincerely answered the survey questionnaire and are thankful for thecooperation of the International Joint Survey Team that conducted the survey.

Advice and data collection :Byung-Joo Min (Member of the 19th National Assembly of the Republic of Korea)
Kong-Joo Lee (President, INWES)
Haryoung Poo (President, KWSE)
Yanghee Kim (CEO, Gender & Leadership)
Financial support :National Research Foundation (NRF)
Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)
Survey and statistical analysis :Hyun-Kyung Oh (Researcher, Korean Women's Development Institute)Yuijoung Min, Hyon Jung Jang and Hanna Choi (Secretariat, KWSE)
International Joint Survey Team :Organization
Engineers-Australia
IEM
IPENZ
JNWES
KWSE
TWiST
VAFIW
WESTIP
WISE-Bangladesh
WISE-India
WISE-Nepal
WISE-Sri Lanka
WSTEM

APNN Person in Charge1)
Marlene Kanga
Ir. Leong Wai Yie
Bridgit Sisson
Kayoko Sugahara
Jung Sun Kim
Shun-Lien Sung
Nguyen Thi Mai Lan
Durdana Habib
Siddika Sultana
Dillip Pattanaik
Jun Hada
Nethra Tantrigoda
Ariunbolor PurveeCountry
Australia
Malaysia
New Zealand
Japan
Korea
TaiwanVietnam
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Mongolia

1) APNN representative or person who conducted this survey.
APNN is the Asia Pacific regional network of INWES and was established in 2011. Its members
include organizations from 13 countries including Australia, New Zealand and Asian countries which
are members of INWES. The APNN Meeting is held once a year; meetings were held in Australia
in 2011, Malaysia in 2012, Taiwan in 2013, Korea in 2014, Mongolia in 2015, New Zealand in
2016, and Japan in 2017. The first chair organization was KWSE in Korea, the second chairorganization was JNWES in Japan, and TWiST was selected as the third chair organization in 2017.
Vietnam will hold the APNN Meeting in 2018.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction

1

2. Survey on Gender Barriers in STEM:
Responses of Male Scientists and Engineers from APNN

3

2.1 Background
2.2 The Survey
2.2.1 Targets, Method, and Period
2.2.2 The Questionnaire
2.2.3 Analysis of Survey Result

3. Results of Survey of APNN Members on Gender Barrier
3.1 General Respondent Profiles
3.2 Cross-country Comparison of Gender Barriers in 12 APNN Member
Countries
3.2.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis
3.2.2 Respondent Profile by Country
3.2.3 Comparison of Responses by Country
3.2.4 Comparison of Responses by Items
3.2.5 Comprehensive Results

4. Analysis of Survey Results by Participating Nations
4.1 Nepal
4.2 New Zealand
4.3 Malaysia
4.4 Mongolia
4.5 Bangladesh
4.6 Vietnam
4.7 Sri Lanka
4.8 India
4.9 Japan
4.10 Taiwan
4.11 Pakistan
4.12 South Korean

3
3
3
4
4
7
7
10
10
17
22
27
61

70
70
84
98
112
126
140
154
166
182
196
210
224

5. For Conclusion and Suggestions: 2017 MAPWiST

241

6. Appendix

249

6.1 2017 MAPWiST: Contents of Keynote Lectures
6.2 2017 MAPWiST: Discussion of Status by Country
6.3 2017 Questionnaire for Gender Barriers in Scienceand Engineering in Asia and the Pacific
6.4 Email Requesting for Survey Participation

249
281
295
299

List of Tables
Table 2. 1. Organization of Survey ··································································································· 5
Table 3. 1 Respondents Status ········································································································· 8
Table 3. 2 Average for Each Question: Total Respondents ·················································· 10
Table 3. 3 Respondent Profile in Each Country ······································································· 18
Table 3. 4 Comparison of Average by Country ········································································· 23
Table 3. 5 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in College ································ 28
Table 3. 6 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in Graduate School ·············· 30
Table 3. 7 Ratio of Male and Female Employees in the Field of Major at Current Job ····· 31
Table 3. 8 Ratio of Male and Female Managers or Higher Position in the Field ofMajor at Current Work ································································································· 33
Table 3.9 “The female students are encouraged to select the career in STEM during
the education period as the male students are.” ·············································· 34
Table 3.10 “It is more difficult for a female to find a job in STEM than a male even
if the female is equally capable as the male.” ··················································· 36
Table 3.11 “For the same capability and position, the job is fairly distributed andevaluated regardless of gender.” ············································································· 37
Table 3.12 “It is more difficult for a female scientist to become a research leader ortenured professor than a male scientist.” ···························································· 39
Table 3.13 “In general, a female receives a smaller wage than an equally qualified
male colleague in STEM.” ··························································································· 40
Table 3.14 Females Being Disadvantaged in Research Fund or Scholarship Becauseof Gender ·························································································································· 42
Table 3.15 Females being disadvantaged in participating in or becoming a project
manager because of gender ······················································································ 44
Table 3.16 Females being sexually harassed or treated unfairly at school or work ·· 45
Table 3.17 Females having difficulties or resigning from work due to marriage,
pregnancy, childbirth, or childbearing ····································································· 47
Table 3.18 “I believe that the careers of females will be bright in my field of major.” ······ 49
Table 3.19 “The support policy is crucial to overcoming the gender barrier against
women in STEM.” ··········································································································· 50

Table 3.20 “The measures such as quota are necessary to resolve the gender barrier
against women in STEM.” ··························································································· 52
Table 3.21 Men and women should perform appropriate role for each since men are
rational and women are emotional. ········································································ 54
Table 3.22 Men should be the bread earner of household. ················································ 55
Table 3.23 Women have the innate ability that men do not to care for the children. ····· 57
Table 3.24 “The husband should have greater power and authority than the wife forthe order and peace of the family.” ······································································· 59
Table 3.25 “If women are given equal opportunities as men, the consequences will
also be equal.” ················································································································ 60
Table 3.26 Result of Correlation Analysis ··················································································· 63
Table 3.27 Predictor Variables of Need of Support Policy: Result of Multiple
Regression Analysis ······································································································· 64
Table 3.28 Predictor Variables of Gender Equality: Result of Multiple Stepwise
Regression Analysis ····································································································· 65
Table 3.29 Predictor Variables of Awareness of Discrimination : Result of Multiple
Stepwise Regression Analysis ···················································································· 66

List of Table by Country<Nepal>Table 4.1. 1 General Status Profile of Respondents in Nepal ············································· 70
Table 4.1. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Mae/Female Ratio ················· 72
Table 4.1. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······ 73
Table 4.1. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ··············· 74
Table 4.1. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ·············································································································· 75
Table 4.1. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ····· 76
Table 4.1. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ················· 77
Table 4.1. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable78
Table 4.1. 9 Indirect Experience: Difference according to Personal Variable ················ 80
Table 4.1.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 81
Table 4.1.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ······· 82<New Zealand>
Table 4.2. 1 General Profile of Respondents in New Zealand ············································· 84
Table 4.2. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Mae/Female Ratio ················· 86
Table 4.2. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ········· 87
Table 4.2. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ··············· 88
Table 4.2. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ·············································································································· 89
Table 4.2. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ······ 90
Table 4.2. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ················· 91
Table 4.2. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ·········· 92
Table 4.2. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ·············· 94
Table 4.2.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 95
Table 4.2.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ······· 97<Malaysia>
Table 4.3. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Malaysia ······················································ 98
Table 4.3. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Mae/Female Ratio ··············· 100
Table 4.3. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 101
Table 4.3. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 102
Table 4.3. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 102
Table 4.3. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 103

Table 4.3. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 105
Table 4.3. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 106
Table 4.3. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 107
Table 4.3.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ······ 109
Table 4.3.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ···· 110<Mongolia>
Table 4.4. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Mongolia ·················································· 112
Table 4.4. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Mae/Female Ratio ··············· 114
Table 4.4. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 115
Table 4.4. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 116
Table 4.4. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 117
Table 4.4. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 118
Table 4.4. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 119
Table 4.4. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 120
Table 4.4. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 121
Table 4.4.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ······ 123
Table 4.4.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ··· 124<Bangladesh>
Table 4.5. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Bangladesh ·············································· 126
Table 4.5. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ·············· 128
Table 4.5. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 129
Table 4.5. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 130
Table 4.5. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 131
Table 4.5. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 132
Table 4.5. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 133
Table 4.5. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 134
Table 4.5. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 135
Table 4.5.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ······ 137
Table 4.5.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 138<Vietnam>
Table 4.6. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Vietnam ···················································· 140
Table 4.6. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ·············· 142
Table 4.6. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 143

Table 4.6. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 144
Table 4.6. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 145
Table 4.6. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 146
Table 4.6. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 147
Table 4.6. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 148
Table 4.6. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 150
Table 4.6.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ······ 151
Table 4.6.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 153<Sri Lanka>
Table 4.7. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Sri Lanka ················································· 154
Table 4.7. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ·············· 156
Table 4.7. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 157
Table 4.7. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 158
Table 4.7. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 159
Table 4.7. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 160
Table 4.7. 7 Male/Female Ratio Difference according to Personal Variable ················ 161
Table 4.7. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 162
Table 4.7. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 164
Table 4.7.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ······ 165
Table 4.7.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 167<India>Table 4.8. 1 General Profile of Respondents in India ·························································· 168
Table 4.8. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ·············· 170
Table 4.8. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 171
Table 4.8. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 172
Table 4.8. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 173
Table 4.8. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender
Equality ························································································································· 174
Table 4.8. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 175
Table 4.8. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 176
Table 4.8. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 177
Table 4.8.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ················· 179

Table 4.8.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 180<Japan>Table 4.9. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Japan ························································ 182
Table 4.9. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ·············· 184
Table 4.9. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ······· 185
Table 4.9. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ············· 186
Table 4.9. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ············································································································ 187
Table 4.9. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ···· 188
Table 4.9. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ··············· 189
Table 4.9. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ········ 190
Table 4.9. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ············ 191
Table 4.9.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ················· 193
Table 4.9.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 194<Taiwan>Table 4.10. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Taiwan ···················································· 196
Table 4.10. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ············ 198
Table 4.10. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ···· 199
Table 4.10. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ··········· 200
Table 4.10. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ·········································································································· 201
Table 4.10. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ·· 202
Table 4.10. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ············· 203
Table 4.10. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 204
Table 4.10. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ·········· 205
Table 4.10.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ·············· 207
Table 4.10.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ·· 208<Pakistan>
Table 4.11. 1 General Profile of Respondents in Pakistan ················································· 210
Table 4.11. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Male/Female Ratio ············ 212
Table 4.11. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ···· 213
Table 4.11. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ··········· 214
Table 4.11. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ·········································································································· 215

Table 4.11. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ·· 216
Table 4.11. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ············· 217
Table 4.11. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 218
Table 4.11. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ·········· 220
Table 4.11.10 Need of Support Policy : Difference according to Personal Variable ············· 221
Table 4.11.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ·· 223<South Korea>
Table 4.12. 1 General Profile of Respondents in South Korea ········································· 224
Table 4.12. 2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: male/female ratio ············· 226
Table 4.12. 3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination ···· 227
Table 4.12. 4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience ··········· 228
Table 4.12. 5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need ofSupport Policy ·········································································································· 229
Table 4.12. 6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality ·· 230
Table 4.12. 7 Male/Female Ratio: Difference according to Personal Variable ············· 231
Table 4.12. 8 Perception of Discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable ····· 232
Table 4.12. 9 Indirect Experience: Differences according to Personal Variable ·········· 233
Table 4.12.10 Need of Support Policy: Difference according to Personal Variable ·············· 235
Table 4.12.11 Perception of Gender Equality: Difference according to Personal Variable ·· 236

List of Figures
Figure 3. 1 Response to Question on Male/Female ratio in Respondent’s Field ofMajor ······························································································································· 13
Figure 3. 2 Response to Question on Perception of Discrimination ······························· 14
Figure 3. 3 Response to Question on Indirect Experience of Discrimination ·············· 15
Figure 3. 4 Need of Support Policy for Resolution of Gender Barrier ·························· 16
Figure 3. 5 Response to Question on Perception of Gender Equality ···························· 17
Figure 3. 6 Comparison of Answers to Male/Female Ratio in Respondent’s Field ofMajor by Country ·········································································································· 24
Figure 3. 7 Comparison of Answers to Perception of Discrimination by Country ······· 24
Figure 3. 8 Comparison of Answers to Indirect Experience of Discrimination byCountry ····························································································································· 25
Figure 3. 9 Comparison of Answer to need of support policy to Resolve Gender
Barrier by Country ······································································································· 26
Figure 3.10 Comparison of Answers to Perception of Gender Equality by Country ······· 27
Figure 3.11 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in College: Country Average ······ 28
Figure 3.12 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in Graduate School Country
Average ·························································································································· 30
Figure 3.13 Ratio of Male/Female Employees in the Field of Major at Current WorkCountry Average ········································································································· 32
Figure 3.14 Ratio of Male/Female Managers or Higher Position in the Field of Major
at Current Work Country Average ·········································································· 33
Figure 3.15 “The female students are encouraged to select the career in STEM during
the education period as the male students are.” Country Average ··············· 35
Figure 3.16 “It is more difficult for a female to find a job in STEM than a male even
if the female is equally capable as the male.” Country Average ··············· 36
Figure 3.17 “For the same capability and position, the job is fairly distributed andevaluated regardless of gender.” Country Average ········································ 38
Figure 3.18 “It is more difficult for a female scientist to become a research leader
or tenured professor than a male scientist.” Country Average ················ 39
Figure 3.19 “A female receives a smaller wage than an equally qualified malecolleague in STEM,” Country Average ································································· 41
Figure 3.20 Females Being Disadvantaged in Research Fund or Scholarship Becauseof Gender Country Average ······················································································ 43
Figure 3.21 Females being disadvantaged in participating in or becoming a project
manager because of gender Country Average ················································ 44
Figure 3.22 Females being sexually harassed or treated unfairly at school or work
Country Average ··········································································································· 46
Figure 3.23 Females having difficulties or resigning from work due to marriage,
pregnancy, childbirth, or childbearing Country Average ······························· 47
Figure 3.24 “I believe that the careers of females will be bright in my field ofmajor.” Country Average ··························································································· 49
Figure 3.25 “The support policy is crucial to overcoming the gender barrier against
women in STEM.” Country Average ····································································· 51
Figure 3.26 “The active measures and quota are necessary to resolve the genderbarrier against women in STEM.” Country Average ······································ 52
Figure 3.27 Men and women should perform appropriate role for each since men are
rational and women are emotional. Country Average ·································· 54
Figure 3.28 Men should be the bread earner of household. Country Average ··········· 56
Figure 3.29 Women have the innate ability that men do not to care for the children.
Country Average ··········································································································· 57
Figure 3.30 “The husband should have greater power and authority than the wife forthe order and peace of the family.” Country Average ································· 59
Figure 3.31 “If women are given equal opportunities as men, the consequences will
also be equal.” Country Average ··································································· 61

List of Figures by Country<Nepal>Figure 4.1.1 Comparisons of Answer between Nepal and Other Countries ·················· 71
Figure 4.1.2 Averages in Male/Female Ratio ··········································································· 78
Figure 4.1.3 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Gender Barrier ······················· 79
Figure 4.1.4 Averages in Indirect Experience of Discrimination ······································· 80
Figure 4.1.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ·································································· 82
Figure 4.1.6 Averages in Gender Equality ················································································· 83<New Zealand>

Figure 4.2.1 Comparisons of Answer between New Zealand and Other Countries ··· 85
Figure 4.2.2 Average in male/female ratio ··············································································· 92
Figure 4.2.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ························································ 93
Figure 4.2.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ·········································································· 94
Figure 4.2.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ·································································· 96
Figure 4.2.6 Averages the Perception of Gender Equality ··················································· 97<Malaysia>

Figure 4.3.1 Comparisons of Answer between Malaysia and Other Countries ············ 99
Figure 4.3.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 105
Figure 4.3.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 106
Figure 4.3.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 108
Figure 4.3.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 109
Figure 4.3.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 111<Mongolia>

Figure 4.4.1 Comparisons of Answer between Mongolia and Other Countries ········· 113
Figure 4.4.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 119
Figure 4.4.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 121
Figure 4.4.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 122
Figure 4.4.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 123
Figure 4.4.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 125<Bangladesh>

Figure 4.5.1 Comparisons of Answer between Bangladesh and Other Countries ···· 127
Figure 4.5.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 133

Figure 4.5.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 135
Figure 4.5.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 136
Figure 4.5.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 137
Figure 4.5.6 Averages the Perception of Gender Equality ················································ 139<Vietnam>Figure 4.6.1 Comparisons of Answer between Vietnam and Other Countries ··········· 141
Figure 4.6.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 147
Figure 4.6.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 149
Figure 4.6.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 150
Figure 4.6.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 152
Figure 4.6.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 153<Sri Lanka>

Figure 4.7.1 Comparisons of Answer between Sri Lanka and Other Countries ······· 155
Figure 4.7.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 161
Figure 4.7.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 163
Figure 4.7.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 164
Figure 4.7.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 166
Figure 4.7.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 167<India>Figure 4.8.1 Comparisons of Answer between India and Other Countries ················· 169
Figure 4.8.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 175
Figure 4.8.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 177
Figure 4.8.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 178
Figure 4.8.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 179
Figure 4.8.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 181<Japan>Figure 4.9.1 Comparisons of Answer between Japan and Other Countries ··············· 183
Figure 4.9.2 Average in male/female ratio ············································································· 189
Figure 4.9.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ······················································ 190
Figure 4.9.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ········································································ 192
Figure 4.9.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ································································ 193
Figure 4.9.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ··········································· 195

<Taiwan>

Figure 4.10.1 Comparisons of Answer between Taiwan and Other Countries ··········· 197
Figure 4.10.2 Average in male/female ratio ··········································································· 203
Figure 4.10.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ···················································· 204
Figure 4.10.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ······································································ 206
Figure 4.10.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ······························································ 207
Figure 4.10.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ········································· 209<Pakistan>

Figure 4.11.1 Comparisons of Answer between Pakistan and Other Countries ········ 211
Figure 4.11.2 Average in male/female ratio ··········································································· 217
Figure 4.11.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ···················································· 219
Figure 4.11.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ······································································ 220
Figure 4.11.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ······························································ 222
Figure 4.11.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ········································· 223<South Korea>

Figure 4.12.1 Comparisons of Answer between South Korea and Other Countries

225

Figure 4.12.2 Average in male/female ratio ··········································································· 231
Figure 4.12.3 Averages in Perception of Discrimination ···················································· 233
Figure 4.12.4 Averages in Indirect Experience ······································································ 234
Figure 4.12.5 Averages in Need of Support Policy ······························································ 235
Figure 4.12.6 Averages in the Perception of Gender Equality ········································· 237

1. Introduction

1. Introduction
KWSE has been conducting research for policy development related to women scientists
and engineers. In 2014, the first international joint survey was initiated on
gender-balanced human resource development with the aim to find solutions to resolve
gender gap in science and engineering in Asia and the Pacific Nations. Since then,annual reports based on joint surveys have been published and this year’s study is acontinuation of this endeavor. In 2014, the survey was on gender equality in scienceand engineering, after which a study on glass ceiling proceeded in 2015. In 2016, a
more specified and detailed survey on gender barrier was run among 13 APNN member
countries.
The reports of the past three years (2014~2016) showed a rather unusual finding wherea large gender economic activity gap was shown among the higher educated in Japanand Korea. Korea has recorded the lowest economic activity rate among the highly
educated women of OECD member countries for the past several years, revealing very
inefficient utilization of human resources. The survey of APNN members in 12 countries
on Perception of Discrimination in 2016 showed a relatively low level of direct
experience of discrimination compared to the perception of discrimination. The
experiences of being discriminated in participating in a project or becoming a researchleader or receiving a research fund or scholarship just because of gender or theexperiences of sexual harassment or unfair treatment were somewhat lower than medianlevels. Each individual’s view on gender roles may function as internal gender barriers.
The women scientists and engineers who participated in the survey for 2016 appeared tobe relatively progressive. However, they also showed conservative aspects by answeringthat men and women should perform his/her appropriate roles since men were morerational and women were more emotional. The respondents generally had a positive
outlook on their careers, and there was strong demand for support policy. The demand
was higher as the respondents had higher perception of the importance of equal
opportunity, had more positive career expectations, experienced more discriminations, andhad a more progressive view on gender role.
The impact of science and technology over "knowledge" in general has accelerated with
the issue of the coming of “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” in 2017. The inequality
phenomenon of “sexual difference” leading to "sexual discrimination" has gone beyond
the existing boundaries of biological difference as well as social and cultural difference.
The boundaries of "sex" and "gender" is thus changing. In other words, the "gender"
issue that is now firmly ingrained in public understanding has shown to be diverse as
well as more complex and compound along with the accelerating social changes led by1

science and technology.
The limited opportunities for education worldwide and even more limited opportunities
for social roles have hindered and delayed the chances of bringing out the issues on theexistence of "gender barrier" against women in science and engineering. The traditional
images related to science such as reason, rationality, social authority and objectivity
could have been a barrier in introducing the "gender" issues into science andengineering. Unlike other intellectual societies, scientists and engineers are characterized
by factors such as communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.1
They are even perceived as a tradition of collective intelligence that transcends time andspace to write the new world history built on nature and facts that are independent of"human understanding."2
Women scientists and engineers in Asia and the Pacific nations will be able to findways to overcome the “gender barriers” in STEM within the norms and attributes ofscience itself. Ever since the first recording of human history, scientists and engineers
have continuously expanded their fields over time and space. Thus, they have been able
to or even lead the efforts to cope with the relatively late revelation of the issues ofgender equality. Through collective efforts, it is possible that women in science andengineering will be able to correct and overcome the barriers.
"Sexual discrimination," "gender barrier," and "glass ceiling" will no longer remain as
issues relevant to women alone. The "feminism" movement that is recently spreading allover the world is considered to be a process of highlighting the inconvenience andunfairness implied in the reality of inequality. The spreading of perception on genderequality is no longer limited to women, spreading throughout science and engineering.
This study, therefore, focuses on examining the perception of male scientists andengineers in the APNN member countries on gender barrier and the awareness of malescientists and engineers on gender equality. The study is initiated with the basic
recognition that resolving gender barrier in STEM will lead to betterment of science andengineering overall. Gender barrier is thus something both male and female scientists
and engineers should be working together to resolve. We hope that this study will serveas another starting point for the development of science and engineering in Asia andthe Pacific nations.
1

Four sets of institutional imperatives that define the ethos of modern science as introduced by thesociologist Robert Merton. They are often abbreviated as CUDOS (Robert K. Merton, 1988. "TheSociology of Science," Translated by Hyeon-ho Seok et al. Mineumsa)
2 R. Edelstein argued that the ancient scientists (was supposed to have) pursued divinity and immortality tocreate "the Second History" by seeking the truth of nature from "the Second City" pursuing collectivity,
continuity, sincerity, and public interest beyond time and space (Young-shik Kim, 2013, "Science inHistory", Changbi Publishers)

22. Survey on Gender Barriers in STEM
: Responses of Male Scientists and Engineers from APNN

2. Survey on Gender Barriers in STEM
: Responses of Male Scientists and Engineers from APNN
2.1. Background
Since 2014, a joint international survey has been conducted annually among membersof the APNN (Asia and Pacific Nations Network). This study is in continuation of that
conducted in 2014 on gender equality in science and engineering, in 2015 on glassceiling experienced by woman scientists and engineers, and the recent survey on genderbarrier perceived by women scientists and engineers in the 13 APNN member countries.
This year’s survey used the same format as that in 2016 with modifications in thequestionnaire to suit the male respondents. This is the first attempt to conduct a study
on male respondents to find out about their perception on gender barrier in STEM as
scientists and engineers.

2.2. The Survey
2.2.1. Targets, Method, and Period
Male respondents from 12 countries except for Australia among the 13 APNN
member countries(Nepal, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Sri
Lanka, India, Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan, Korea, and Australia) participated in the survey
for 2017. The member organization in each country(Nepal: WISE-Nepal, New Zealand:
IPENZ, Malaysia: IEM, Mongolia: WSTEM, Bangladesh: WISE-Bangladesh, Vietnam:
VAFIW, Sri Lanka: WISE-Sri Lanka, India: WISE-India, Japan: JNWES, Taiwan:
TWiST, Pakistan: WESTIP, Korea: KWSE) organized and conducted the online andoffline survey. The questionnaire was available in Korean, English. Japanese andMongolian, depending on the country at which the study took place. The originalquestionnaire was prepared in Korean and English while representatives of the member
countries chose to translate the English version into their native language as needed.
The survey lasted for about 8 weeks starting from May 31, 2017 when the
introductory email was sent and ended on July 31, 2017. In the case of offline survey,
the member organizations collected the answers through email (image file) or postal
service(original copy). Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Taiwan, Nepal, Mongolia, andIndia conducted the offline survey only while Korea conducted both offline and online
surveys. Malaysia, New Zealand, and Pakistan participated only in the online survey.
We then collected and compiled the online and offline survey results and analyzed themstatistically.

32.2.2. The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was aimed for male scientists and engineers in APNN member
countries. Questions were asked in categories which include those on the general statusof respondents, the male/female ratio in their major field, the perception of genderbarriers in STEM, the indirect experience of discriminations in STEM, the need forpolicies to resolve gender barriers in STEM, and how gender equality was perceived.
The following table shows the specific questions for each category (Table 2.1).

2.2.3. Analysis of Survey Result
The retrieved questionnaires were subject to data cleaning, and the answers to theopen questions were pre-coded with reference to the response distribution and input.
After the input, 20 questionnaires were randomly extracted to check for coding errors.
The coding results were analyzed using SPSS Statistics version 23.0.
① Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive analysis of responses to all questions including the general status was
conducted.
② Cross-country and relative analysis
The analysis of general status of respondents and the difference according to country
were done using the t-test and one-way ANOVA. The difference was analyzed for the
category level as well as for each question, and the Scheffe test was performed tocompare the groups.
The Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to determine the correlation between
the variables.
③ General analysis
The multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the variables that affectthe key dependent variables and the relative contribution of each those variables.

4

Table 2.1. Organization of Survey
Category

Question① Year of birth② Year of College Entrance③ Major Field④ Final degree (BS, MS or Ph.D.)⑤ Occupation
General Status of
Respondent⑥ Position/Title⑦ Marital status⑧ Working couple (Y/N)⑨ Number of children⑩ Nationality⑪ Is there National policy to resolve gender barrier (Y/N)

Male/Female
Ratio① The male/female ratio of my department during my university(college) education is (was)(If having taken graduate course)② The male/female ratio of my department while at graduate school is (was)③ The male/female ratio of my current workplace is④ The male/female ratio at management level at my current workplace is① Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during
their education period.
② It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a manwith the same qualifications.

Perception ofDiscrimination③ Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared tomen of the same qualifications and level.
④ Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator ismore difficult for female scientists than for male scientists.

GenderBarrier⑤ Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with theirequally-qualified male colleagues.
① Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships
because she is female.
Indirect② Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project
Experience of
because she is female.
Discrimination③ Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly④ Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy or childcare
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
PolicyPerception of
GenderEquality① I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for women in STEM
① It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.
② It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.
① In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus, theyought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves.
② Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial obligations) of households shouldbe men.
③ Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are not capable ofin the same way.
④ In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should havegreater power and authority than the wife.
⑤ I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women are given equal
opportunities as men.

53. Result of Survey of APNN Members on Gender Barrier3. Results of the Survey on Gender Barrier among APNN Member Countries
3.1. General Respondent Profiles
As of July 31, 2017, a total of 1,294 responses were collected from 12 APNN
member countries. About 100 male scientists and engineers participated in the survey inall countries except New Zealand and Malaysia. Details of the e respondents’nationality, age, marital status, number of children, occupation, double income status,and field of major are described below.

∘ Nationality
Out of the 1,294 respondents, 224 (17.3%) were from Japan, 133 (10.3%) were from
Korea, and 114 (8.8%) were from Taiwan. Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Vietnam, India, Nepal,
and Pakistan recorded 107, 106, 104, 103, 98 and 96 respectively. The number of
respondents from New Zealand and Malaysia were 54 and 55, respectively.
∘ Age
Regarding age groups, 443 respondents (34.2%) were in their 30's (aged 30 - 39),432 respondents (33.4%) were 29 years or younger, 252 respondents (19.5%) were in
their 40's (aged 40 - 49), and 167 respondents (12.9%) were 50 years or older. The
average age of the respondents was 36.03.
∘ Marital status
The result of the 2017 survey on female scientists and engineers showed that themarital status was an important factor that affected gender barrier in terms of career
management and promotion This questionnaire therefore also included questions on themarital status to check if a similar correlation would be found in men. Altogether, 811
respondents (63.3%) were married while 452 respondents (35.3%) were single, and 19
respondents (1.5%) were divorced or "other".
∘ Number of children
681 respondents (52.6%) answered that they had children. Among them, 326
respondents (47.9%) were with 2, 233 respondents (34.2%) 1, and 122 respondents(17.9%) 3 or more. The average number of children was 1.88.
∘ Occupation
The largest percentage among respondents were engineers at 461 (35.6%) followed byresearchers at 262 (20.3%) others at 259 (20.0%), professors or teacher at 256
respondents (19.8%), and healthcare professionals at 56 (4.3%).

7

∘ Double income status
One of the questions added this year was whether the respondents who had a spouseor partner were working couples. 803 or 62.0% of total respondents answered thequestion. Among them, 503 respondents (62.6%) indicated that they were double-income
couples while 293 (36.5%) as single-income couples, and 7 respondents (0.9%) asothers.
∘ Major field of study
Regarding the major of respondents, engineering accounted for 56.3% at 720,
followed by natural science at 365 (28.5%), medicine and pharmacy at 124 (9.7%), andsocial science at 55 (4.3%). Other occupations included education at 10 respondents(0.8%) and humanities at 5 respondents (0.4%).
Table 3.1 Respondents Status(Unit: Person, %)Classification

Number of Respondents%

Nationality

1,294

Nepal

98

7.6

New Zealand

54

4.2

Malaysia

55

4.3

Mongolia

1068.2

Bangladesh

100

7.7

Vietnam104

8.0

Sri Lanka

107

8.3

India

103

8.0

Japan

224

17.3

Taiwan114

8.8

Pakistan

96

7.4

Korea
Age
29 years or younger

133

10.3

432

33.4

30 - 39443

34.2

40 - 49252

19.5

Over 50

167

12.9

Average age
Marital status
Single452

35.3

Married811

63.3

Others (including divorced)
Number of children*
1

19

1.5

233

34.2

2

326

47.9

3 or more

122

17.9

Average number of children

36.03 (sd=11.152)

1.88 (sd=0.815)

8

Classification

Number of Respondents%

Professor/Teacher

256

19.8

Researcher

256

20.3

Occupation

Healthcare professional

55

4.3

Engineer

461

35.6

Others259

20.0

Double income

503

62.6

Single income

293

36.5

Others7

0.9

Double income status (married)

Major field of study
Humanities

5

0.4

Social sciences

55

4.3

Natural sciences

365

28.5

Medicine

124

9.7

Education

10

0.8

Engineering

720

56.3

9

3.2. Cross-country comparison of Gender Barriers in 12 APNN member countries
3.2.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Table 3.2 Average for Each Question: Total Respondents(Unit: Point)

Classifications②
Male/Female
Ratio③
Perception ofDiscrimination④
Indirect
Experience ofDiscrimination* Career
Outlook⑤
Need ofSupport Policy

Question

Average

MedianStandard
Deviation

1

The male/female ratio of my department during myuniversity(college) education is (was)

1.89

1.0

1.125

2

(If having taken graduate course) The male/female ratio of mydepartment while at graduate school is (was)

1.99

2.0

1.069

3

The male/female ratio of my current workplace is

2.05

2.0

1.128

4

The male/female ratio at management level at my current
workplace is

1.89

2.0

1.107

Average

1.96

1.8

0.857

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors
in STEM during their education period.

2.07

2.0

1.077

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field
than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.98

3.0

1.169

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work
appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.

2.40

2.0

1.102

4

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal
investigator is more difficult for female scientists than for malescientists.

2.90

3.0

1.134

5

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work,
compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues.

2.29

2.0

1.141

Average

2.53

2.6

0.703

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds or
scholarships because she is female.

1.68

1.0

0.868

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a
research project because she is female.

1.67

1.0

0.833

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

2.03

2.0

0.906

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy
or childcare

2.89

3.0

1.041

Average

2.07

2.0

0.629

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.18

4.0

0.863

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.88

4.0

1.015

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.14

3.0

1.257

3.51

3.50

0.934

Average10

Question

Average

MedianStandard
Deviation

1

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional
and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what
is appropriate for themselves.

2.62

2.0

1.231

2

Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men.

3.27

3.0

1.281

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way.

2.96

3.0

1.299

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.60

4.0

1.278

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

2.15

2.0

1.122

Average

2.92

3.0

0.785

Classifications➅
Perception of
GenderEquality· The questions ②, ③, ⑤, and ⑥ are evaluated on a Likert-type scale (5 points).
· ② 1. Mostly men, 2. Slightly more men, 3. Similar ratio of men and women, 4. Slightly more women,
5. Mostly women· ② Male/Female Ratio: The lower score indicates more men.
· ③, ⑤, ⑥ 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Not agreeable, 5. Not agreeable at all· ③ Perception of Discrimination: The higher score, the higher Perception of Discrimination.
· ④ Indirect Experience of Discrimination: Higher the score, the more experience of indirect discrimination.
· ④ 1. I have seen it. 2. I have heard of it. 3. I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.
4. I have not seen it or heard of it.
* Career outlook: A higher score means that the respondent thinks the career of women is bright in his
field of major.
· ⑤ need of support policy: The higher score indicates more needs.
· ⑥ Perception of Gender Equality: The higher score the score, the higher the Perception of Gender Equality.
· The results of ③, ④, and ⑤ were reversely coded, but the first and third questions of ③ Perception ofDiscrimination are excluded from reverse coding because of the nature of the questions.

11

The questionnaire consisted of 6 sections. The responses to the first section werepersonal information which have been summarized in section 3.1; this is considered as➀. The following five of them were asked in Likert-type scale as shown in the"classifications" column in Table 3.2. and starts with ②.
How to interpret the responses to these five sections ② to ➅ are summarized asfollows:② Male/Female Ratio
The median value of 3 indicates that the respondents perceive a balance inmale/female ratio. Values lower than 3 means there are more men while higher than 3refers to more women.
③ Perception of Discrimination
The questions in this category asked to what level respondents perceived genderbarrier against women in STEM. Out of the 5-point scale, higher values indicate better
perception of gender barrier.
④ Indirect Experience of Discrimination
The questions in this category asked whether the respondents were aware of
discrimination against women in STEM indirectly. Unlike other sections, a 4-point
Likert-type scale was used. The higher score means the respondents were more aware of
discrimination against women in STEM.

⑤ Policy needs
Out of the 5-point Likert-type scale, a higher score means that the respondents see
the need for policy to resolve gender barriers.

⑥ Perception of Gender Equality
Out of the 5 point Likert-type scale, higher value indicates stronger awareness of thegender equality concept.
Answers to some questions were reversely coded according to the nature of thecategory and question to assure the consistent analysis. The reverse-coded questions werequestions 1 and 3 of ③, all of ④ and all of ⑤.
The analysis of results to responses from the 1,294 respondents from 12 counties toeach category is described below.

12∘ Male/Female Ratio: There are more men
The ratio of male to female in the respondents' fields of major was 1.96 meaningthat respondents felt there were somewhat more males than females. The answer to theratio of male to female in the Field of major at college → Field of major at graduate
school → Field of major at current work → Manager or higher position at current
work was 1.89 → 1.99 → 2.05 → 1.89. There were more men than women regardlessof their education period and/or work period. While the ratio slightly increased by 0.1p
and 0.6 points at the graduate school level and the current work level, the ratio at the
management or higher position dropped back to the college level.

Figure 3.1 Response to Question on Male/Female ratio in Respondent’s Field of Major (Unit: Point)∘ Male/Female ratio 1. Ratio of male and female students in your major when you were in college∘ Male/Female ratio 2. Ratio of male and female students in your major when you were in college∘ Male/Female ratio 3. Ratio of male and female employees in your major field at your work
∘ Male/Female ratio 4. Ratio of male and female managers or higher in your major field at your work

∘ Perception of Discrimination : The overall response was below “Neutral.”
The average perception level of 1,294 male scientists and engineers from 12 countries
on discrimination was below neutral at 2.53 points. The awareness of "It is moredifficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man with the same
qualifications," was the highest at 2.98 points. It was followed by "Women in STEM
receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.," at 2.90 points, "Women in STEM receive equal work
distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level."
at 2.40 points, and "Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work,
compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues.," at 2.29 points. "Girls and boys
were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period,"
received the lowest score at 2.07 points.
The ascending order of the score is the encouragement to enter the career in STEM

13

→ Wage gap → Job allocation and evaluation → To become a leader or tenured
professor → To find a job.

Figure 3.2 Response to Question on Perception of Discrimination (Unit: Point)∘ Gender barrier 1. Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during
their education period.
∘ Gender barrier 2. It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a manwith the same qualifications.
∘ Gender barrier 3. Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared tomen of the same qualifications and level.
∘ Gender barrier 4. Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared tomen of the same qualifications and level.
∘ Gender barrier 5. Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with theirequally-qualified male colleagues.

∘ Indirect experience : Level of recognition of possible discrimination
The average level of male scientists and engineers from 12 countries having indirectly
experienced discrimination against female scientists and engineers was 2.07 or neutral(The questions were in a 4.0 Likert-type scale). In average, the male scientist andengineers were aware that there was discrimination against women in STEM even if
they had not directly seen or heard of it.
"Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy or childcare,"received the highest score of 2.89 points on indirect experience followed by "Woman in
STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly," at 2.03 points. "Woman in STEM isdisadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships because she is female.," and"Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project
because she is female" received the below average score of 1.68 points and 1.67 points,
respectively.
The descending order of the score on indirect experience of discrimination by
respondents is Marriage, childbirth, or child rearing → Sexual harassment or unfair

14treatment → To receive research fund or scholarship → To participate or lead projects.

Figure 3.3 Response to Question on Indirect Experience of Discrimination (Unit: Point)∘ Indirect experience 1. Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships
because she is female.
∘ Indirect experience 2. Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research
project because she is female.
∘ Indirect experience 3. Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly∘ Indirect experience 4. Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy or childcare∘ Career outlook and Policy need : The Career outlook for women in the
respondents’ fields of major is positive. The need of support policy is also
above "neutral"
1,294 male scientists and engineers in 12 APNN countries had higher than "Neutral"view at 4.18 out of 5 points on Career outlook of females in their fields of major.
They responded positively to the need for policy to support women in STEM.
However, the response to the need for active measures and quota to resolve genderbarrier was close to neutral at 3.14.

∘ Gender equality : Lower gender equality in society perceived compared togender equality in family
The average score of answer to the last question on perception of gender equality
was close to "Neutral" at 2.92 points (out of 5.0). The awareness of respondents ongender equality varied according to the question, and the respondents had a higher
awareness of gender role or economic role within the family, which were commonly
recognized as a private domain, than the awareness of social role. It is also noteworthy
that the respondents showed high scores for "equal opportunity leads to genderequality." There is as was in the case of the 2016 report a possibility that the15

respondents were not fully aware of the difference among equal opportunity, equal
condition and equal outcome.
The question that showed the highest awareness level was “In order to maintain theorder and peace of a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than
the wife.” (3.6 points), followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men.” (3.27 points), “Women are born to have a
way of caring children that men are not capable of in the same way.” (2.96 points),
and “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus, theyought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves.” (2.62
points). The question that received the lowest point was “I believe gender equality will
be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men.” (2.15 points).
In summary, the respondents had a higher awareness in the order of Family hierarchy→ Family financial responsibility → Childcare → Division of general roles → Equalityof opportunity leading to equality of result.

Figure 3.4 Need of Support Policy for Resolution of Gender Barrier (Unit: Point)∘ Career Outlook: I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for women in STEM
∘ Policy Need 1. It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the STEM
field.
∘ Policy Need 2. It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

16

Figure 3.5 Response to Question on Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)∘ Gender equality 1. In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus,
they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate forthemselves.
∘ Gender equality 2. Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial obligations) of households
should be men.
∘ Gender equality 3. Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are not capable ofin the same way.
∘ Gender equality 4. In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should havegreater power and authority than the wife.
∘ Gender equality 5. I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women are given equal
opportunities as men.

A special note is necessary on the last question of “I believe gender equality will befully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men.” which asks on theunderstanding of the difference between equality and equity. The implication of thisquestion is whether there is a limit to the argument that 'equal opportunities' can leadto equal outcomes. It asked whether the respondents understood or accepted that it wasdifficult to resolve the gender difference from historical, biological and social differenceby simply “providing equal opportunity.”
Although it has already been 22 years since the adaptation of gender mainstreaming
strategy at the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, it is possible that some of
the male respondents may not have adequate understanding of this question on genderequality, due to their national and/or cultural background3.2.2. Respondent Profile by Country
The following table shows the general profiles of male scientists and engineers who
answered the survey in each country.

17

Table 3.3 Respondent Profile in Each Country
Country

Average
Age

Average
Marital status Number ofChildren3SingleNepal

New
Zealand

Malaysia

35.70

43.35

37.16

Married

34.7

65.3

Others-Single13.0

Married

79.6

Others7.4

Single45.5

Married

54.5

Others

-

0.85

1.43

1.42

Field of Major
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine

1.0
12.4
-

Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering

86.6-

Humanities-

SocialStudiesNaturalSciences

1.9
1.9
96.3

1.8
5.5

Medicine

SingleMongolia

Bangladesh

32.29

27.15

Married

65.1

Others

6.6

Single64.0

Married

35.0

Others1.0SingleVietnam

34.06

28.3

1.30

0.43

13.0

Married

87.0

Others-1.63

Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering(Married)
Double Income

Occupation

92.7
13.9

7.9
78.2
9.0
30.0
2.0
59.0
1.9
9.6
5.8

82.7

Professor/Teacher

2.0

Researcher

5.1

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others

1.0

12.2
3.7

Researcher-

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
OthersProfessor/Teacher

92.6

Researcher

-

-

3.7
21.8

-

21.8

Professor/Teacher

17.0

Researcher

1.9
0.9

7.5
13.1

Researcher

28.3
2.0
45.5

Others

4.7

Doubleincome58.1

Singleincome39.5

Others

2.3

Doubleincome70.0Singleincome30.0

Others-Doubleincome72.5

Singleincome27.5

Others-Doubleincome44.1

Singleincome55.9

Others11.1

Professor/Teacher

52.9

Researcher-

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others37.5

72.6

Professor/Teacher

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
OthersSingleincome56.4

OthersHealthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others

57.8

79.6

Professor/Teacher

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)

Doubleincome32.7

Doubleincome100.0Singleincome-Others

-14.4

3 Including no response18

Country

Average
Age

Average
Marital status Number ofChildren3Single

Sri
Lanka

38.42

Married

OthersSingle
India

Japan

TaiwanPakistan

Korea

41.76

33.58

41.32

34.06

38.62

Married

32.1

Humanities

64.2

SocialStudiesNaturalSciences

13.6

86.4

-

Single52.3

47.2

Others0.5

Single38.6

Married60.5

Others0.9Single41.1

Married

57.9

Others1.1

Single25.6

Married

Others

1.16

3.8

OthersMarriedField of Major

74.4

-

1.21

0.29

1.23

1.00

1.08

5.7
32.1

Medicine

10.4

Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine

0.9
50.9

Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering

53.4
5.8
40.8
0.5
44.7
22.1
0.5
32.3
2.7
6.2
59.3
16.8
15.0
5.2
4.2
26.0
64.6

42.1
9.8
48.1

(Married)
Double Income

Occupation
Professor/Teacher

12.1

Researcher

11.2

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)

8.4

40.2

Professor/Teacher

33.3

Researcher

25.5
4.9

10.8
27.6

Researcher

20.8

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others44.3

Professor/Teacher

19.3

Researcher

18.4

3.2

14.0

Others-Doubleincome36.0Singleincome64.0

Others-Doubleincome62.1

Singleincome36.9

Others1.0

Doubleincome76.8

Singleincome23.2

Others-Doubleincome47.3

Singleincome52.7

Others-Doubleincome51.0

Singleincome46.9

Others

2.0

21.9
26.3
18.8

Researcher

10.4
14.6
52.1
4.2

Professor/Teacher

3.8

Researcher

84.2

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others30.6

4.1

Professor/Teacher

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
OthersSingleincome25.5

Professor/Teacher

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others

69.4

28.0

OthersHealthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
OthersDoubleincome

3.0
9.0

19

Country

Average
Age

Average
Marital status Number ofChildren3Single

Total

36.03

Married

Others

35.3

63.3

1.5

0.99

Field of Major
Humanities
SocialStudiesNaturalSciences
Medicine
Education
Engineering

0.4
4.3
28.5
9.7
0.8
56.3

(Married)
Double Income

Occupation
Professor/Teacher

19.8

Researcher

20.3

Healthcare
professional
Engineer (company,
R&D center, etc.)
Others

4.3

Doubleincome62.6

Singleincome36.5

Others

0.9

35.6
20.0

∘ Average age : 43.45 in New Zealand, 27.15 in Bangladesh, and 30’s inmost other countries
The average age of respondents from New Zealand was the highest at 43.35 whilethat from Bangladesh was the lowest at 27.15. In addition to New Zealand, the averageages of respondents from India and Taiwan were 41.76 and 41.32, respectively. The
countries from which the average age of respondents was 30’s were Korea at 38.62, Sri
Lanka at 38.42, Malaysia at 37.16, Nepal at 35.70, Vietnam and Pakistan at 34.06,
Japan at 33.58, and Mongolia at 32.29.

∘ Marital status : The portion of married people was the highest in Vietnam
and India with more than 80% and the lowest in Bangladesh with 35.0%.
The portion of married people was high in average among the respondents from 12
countries. It was highest in Vietnam (87.0%) and India (86.4%) and the lowest in
Bangladesh (35.0%) where the average age of the respondents was 20’s.
The countries where the portion of married respondents was more than 50% wereVietnam (87.0%), Indonesia (86.4%), New Zealand (79.6%), Korea (74.4%), Nepal(65.3%), Mongolia (65.1%), Sri Lanka (64.2%), Taiwan (60.5%), Pakistan (57.9%), andMalaysia (54.5%). The countries where the married respondents were less than 50%
were Japan (47.2%) and Bangladesh (35.0%). New Zealand had the highest portion of
respondents who answered other (including divorced) with 7.4%.

∘ Average number of children : Vietnam had the highest number of children
with 1.63 while Japan had the smallest with 0.29.
The average number of children of respondents was 1.63 in Vietnam, 1.43 in New
Zealand, 1.42 in Malaysia, 1.30 in Mongolia, 1.23 in Taiwan, 1.16 in Sri Lanka, 1.08
in Korea, and 1.00 in Pakistan. The countries where the average number of children of
respondents was fewer than 1 were Nepal (0.85), Bangladesh (0.43) and Japan (0.29).4

4 The average number of children includes the respondents who did not answer the question.

20

∘ Field of major : More than 90% of the respondents in New Zealand andMalaysia were in engineering while more than 50% of the respondents in
Taiwan and India were in natural sciences. There was a relatively highnumber of respondents in medicine and pharmacy in Pakistan and Japanand social science in Mongolia and Vietnam.
The major fields of the respondents were engineering (56.3%), followed by science(28.5%), medical science (9.7%) and social science (4.3%). The distribution of
respondents’ fields of major varied from country to country. The countries in whichmore than 50% of respondents were in engineering were New Zealand (96.3%),
Malaysia (92.7%), Nepal (86.6%), Vietnam (82.7%), Mongolia (78.2%), Pakistan(64.6%), Bangladesh (59.9%), and Sri Lanka (50.9%). The countries in which less than
50% of respondents were in engineering were Korea (48.1%), India (40.8%), Japan(32.3%), and Taiwan (15.0%). The countries which had most respondents in naturalscience were Taiwan (59.3%), India (53.4%), Japan (44.7%), Korea (42.1%), andBangladesh (30.0%). The countries which had relatively more respondents in medicine
and pharmacy were Pakistan (26.0%) and Japan (22.1%) while Mongolia (13.9%) and
Vietnam (9.6%) had more respondents in social science than in other countries.

∘ Occupation of the respondents : 92.6% of respondents in New Zealandwere engineers while 84.2% of respondents in Korea were researchers.
There were relatively many teachers/professors in Vietnam, healthcare
professionals in Pakistan, and other professions in Japan.
Among the respondents in the 12 countries, engineers (35.6%) were the most
followed by researchers (20.3%), other professions (20.0%), teachers/professors (19.8%),
and healthcare professionals (4.3%).
The distribution of respondents’ occupations also varied from country to country. The
number of engineers was relatively high in the countries where there were manyengineering majors, and there were relatively many researchers where there were many
people in natural science.
The countries with relatively many respondents who worked as engineers included
New Zealand (92.6%), Nepal (79.6%), Mongolia (72.6%), and Pakistan (52.1%). Korea
had exceptionally high number of respondents who answered researcher as occupation at
84.2%. There were a relatively high number of researchers in India (25.5%) and Japan(20.8%) while there were a relatively high number of teachers/professors in Vietnam(52.9%), India (33.3%), Japan (27.6%), Taiwan (19.3%), and Pakistan (18.8%). There
were a relatively high number of healthcare professionals in Pakistan (14.6%), Taiwan(14.0%), and Sri Lanka (8.2%). There were a relatively high number of otherprofessionals in Japan (44.3%), Sri Lanka (40.2%), and Taiwan (26.3%).

21

∘ Double-income status5 : The number was the highest in Vietnam with
100% and the lowest in India with 36.0%
62.6% of respondents from 12 countries were classified as “double income” meaningthat both the husband and wife earn incomes. In Vietnam, 100% of married or coupled
respondents said they had double incomes. Other countries that showed a high rate of
double incomes were Taiwan (76.8%), Mongolia (72.5%), Malaysia (70.0%), Sri Lanka(69.4%), Japan (62.1%), New Zealand (58.1%), Nepal (57.8%), and Korea (51.0%). The
countries that showed a high rate of single income were India (64.0%), Bangladesh(55.9%), and Pakistan (52.7%).

3.2.3. Comparison of Responses by Country
The following table shows the responses by each of the 12 APNN member countries.
While respondents answered that there are more males than females in STEM, thecountries that indicated that there were relatively more females than other countries were
Mongolia (2.72) and India (2.68). The countries that showed relatively more women in
STEM than in other countries were Pakistan (1.45) and New Zealand (1.49).
While the overall perception of discrimination was slightly lower than neutral, thecountries that showed relatively high awareness were Vietnam (2.98) andMongolia/Bangladesh (2.75 each) while, the country that showed relatively low
awareness was India (1.74).
The indirect experience of discrimination against women in STEM by male scientists andengineers is “being aware of it without seeing or hearing of it.” The countries showing
relatively high level of indirect experience were India (2.60) and Bangladesh (2.51) while
the countries showing relatively low level were Korea (1.81) and Mongolia (1.82).
On the need for policy, the respondents agreed at the level of higher than neutral.
The countries that showed relatively high level of agreement were Vietnam (4.34) andIndia (4.00) while the country that showed the lowest level of agreement was New
Zealand (2.84).
While the level of Perception of Gender Equality was neutral, the countries thatshowed the relatively high awareness were New Zealand (3.67) and Sri Lanka (3.37),
and the countries that showed the relatively low awareness were India (2.31), Pakistan(2.36), and Bangladesh (2.38).

5

A total of 830 respondents answered “Married” or “Others” as marital status, and 803 (96.7%) of themanswered “Double incomes.” The figure is based on the answer of the 803 respondents.

22

Table 3.4 Comparison of Average by Country

Subject

Male/Female
Ratio

Gender Barrier

Indirect
Experience

Support Policy

Gender Equality

AverageSD

AverageSD

AverageSD

AverageSD

Average

SD

Nepal

1.60

0.596

2.22

0.642

1.95

0.514

3.73

0.754

3.28

0.566

New Zealand

1.49

0.516

2.60

0.880

2.09

0.519

2.84

1.063

3.67

0.648

Malaysia

1.95

0.887

2.44

0.633

1.93

0.594

3.36

0.945

2.79

0.797

Mongolia

2.72

0.771

2.75

0.461

1.82

0.578

3.26

0.791

2.93

0.588

Bangladesh

1.52

0.731

2.75

0.648

2.51

0.632

3.31

1.010

2.38

0.653

Vietnam

2.08

1.096

2.98

0.374

2.11

0.769

4.34

0.709

2.60

0.781

Sri Lanka

2.58

0.988

2.40

0.676

2.26

0.612

3.48

0.953

3.37

0.688

India

2.68

0.385

1.74

0.441

2.60

0.261

4.00

0.847

2.31

0.715

Japan

1.74

0.611

2.61

0.604

1.87

0.522

3.46

0.788

3.16

0.582

Taiwan

1.94

0.863

2.62

0.730

2.14

0.669

3.71

0.841

2.88

0.882

Pakistan

1.45

0.595

2.43

0.793

2.01

0.640

3.10

0.827

2.36

0.733

Korea

1.72

0.665

2.63

0.762

1.81

0.546

3.21

0.972

3.20

0.637

Overall Average

1.96

0.858

2.53

0.703

2.07

0.629

3.51

0.934

2.92

0.785

F

38.59624.50821.57020.55538.106P*** (p<.001)

***

***

***

***

***

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05∘ Male/Female ratio: A lower score means relatively more males, and a higher score means
relatively more females (5-point scale). 3 points mean that there is agender balance.
The male/female ratio in the respondents’ fields of major was 1.96 meaning that there
were relatively more men than women. The countries that showed a relatively high ratioof women in STEM were Mongolia (2.72), India (2.68), and Sri Lanka (2.58). The
countries that showed the lowest ratio of women among the 12 countries were Pakistan(1.47) and New Zealand (1.49).
A statistically significant level (F=38.598, p<.000) of difference was observed among
countries. The post-verification showed that the differences between countries werelargest in the order of Mongolia, India, and Sri Lanka > Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan,
Japan, Korea, and Nepal > Bangladesh and New Zealand > Pakistan6.
6Although the differences between countries varied widely, the details are omitted here. The average levelof the countries classified by post-verification was ranked in the descending order of score, and thecountries included in two groups were included in the high score group. The responses were compared bycountry in the same way for all response categories.

23

Figure 3.6 Comparison of Answers to Male/Female Ratio in Respondent’s Field of Major by Country (Aggregated)∘ Perception of Discrimination: The higher score, the higher Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale).
The average score of the respondents’ perception of discrimination was 2.53 points
which was below the neutral level. The countries that showed high level of awarenessof discrimination were Vietnam (2.98), Mongolia/Bangladesh (2.75 each), Korea (2.63),
Taiwan (2.62), Japan (2.61), and New Zealand (2.6).
The response to the question on gender barrier by country indicated a statisticallysignificant level (F=24.508, p<.000) of difference. The post-verification showed that thedifferences between countries were largest in the order of Vietnam, Mongolia,
Bangladesh, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and New Zealand > Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
and Nepal > India.

Figure 3.7 Comparison of Answers to Perception of Discrimination by Country (Aggregated)24∘ Indirect Experience of Discrimination: The higher score, the more experience of indirect discrimination (4-point scale)
The respondents were asked of (indirect) experience of discrimination against womenin STEM in a 4-point scale. The average score of the answers was 2.07 points which
was close to “I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The countries thatshowed the relatively high score on indirect experience were India (2.60), Bangladesh(2.51), Sri Lanka (2.26), Taiwan (2.14), New Zealand (2.09), and Pakistan (2.01). The
countries that showed the relatively low score on indirect experience were Korea (1.81),
Mongolia (1.82), Japan (1.87), Nepal (1.95), and Malaysia (1.93).
The response to the question on Indirect Experience of Discrimination by country
indicated a statistically significant level (F=21.570, p<.000) of difference. The
post-verification showed that the differences among countries were largest in the orderof India > Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan > Vietnam, New Zealand, Pakistan, and
Nepal, Malaysia > Japan, Mongolia, and Korea.

Figure 3.8 Comparison of Answers to Indirect Experience of Discrimination by Country (Aggregated)∘ Need of policy: A higher score means the respondents agreed more on the need
(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average score of the answer to the question of the need of policy to overcome
gender barrier against female scientists and engineers in STEM was 3.51 meaning thatthe respondents agreed to the need.
The average score was the highest in the order of Vietnam (4.34), India (4.00), Nepal(3.73), Taiwan (3.71), Sri Lanka (3.48), Japan (3.46), Malaysia (3.36), Bangladesh(3.31), Mongolia (3.26), Korea (3.21), Pakistan (3.10), and New Zealand (2.84).
The response to the question on the need of support policy by country indicated thestatistically significant level (F=20.555, p<.000) of difference. The post-verification

25

showed that the differences between countries were largest in the order of Vietnam andIndia > Nepal, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, and Japan > Malaysia, Bangladesh, Mongolia, andKorea > Pakistan > New Zealand.

Figure 3.9 Comparison of Answer to need of support policy to Resolve Gender Barrier by Country (Aggregated)∘ Perception of gender equality: The higher score, the higher Perception of Gender Equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average score of the answer to the question of the Perception of Gender Equality
was 2.92 points meaning that the respondents’ awareness was close to the neutral level.
The countries that showed a relatively high awareness of “gender equality” were New
Zealand (3.67), Sri Lanka (3.37), Nepal (3.28), Korea (3.20), and Japan (3.16). The
countries that showed the relatively low awareness were India (2.31), Pakistan (2.36),
Bangladesh (2.38), Vietnam (2.60), Malaysia (2.79), and Taiwan (2.88).
The response to the question on the Perception of Gender Equality by country
indicated a statistically significant level (F=38.106, p<.000) of difference. The
post-verification showed that the difference among countries was largest in the order of
New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Nepal > Korea, Japan, Mongolia, and Taiwan > Malaysia
and Vietnam > Bangladesh and Pakistan > India.

26

Figure 3.10 Comparison of Answers to Perception of Gender Equality by Country (Aggregated)

3.2.4. Comparison of Responses by Items
This section discusses the result of the analysis of answers to age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double-income status according to the characteristics
of 1,294 respondents in 12 APNN member countries. ANOVA was used for the
analysis of answers. The post-verification was performed to check the details of thedifference if there was a significant difference.

3.2.4.1. Answer to Question on Male/Female Ratio in Respondents’ Fields
of Major by Period∘ Male/Female ratio 1 : during my university (college) education is (was)A lower score means relatively more males, and a higher score means
relatively more females (5-point scale). 3 points mean that the males andfemales were in the balance.
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on the ratio of maleand female students in their major when they were in college. The results are shown in
Table 3.5. The overall average was 1.89 meaning that there were relatively more malestudents. The response results showed the statistically significant differences according to
the respondents' occupations (F = 21.792, p <.000) and the number of children (F =3.184, p <.05). The male/female ratio of healthcare professionals was closed to balance(2.82) while the ratio of males was the highest (1.58) among the engineers. There wereslightly higher ratio of males among the researchers (2.02), teachers/professors (2.02),
and other professionals (2.00).

27

Table 3.5 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in College(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

1.89

1.125

1.84
1.92
1.92
1.90

F

p

1.109
1.162
1.040
1.199

0.448

0.719

1.86
1.90
2.32

1.100
1.104
1.565

1.618

0.199

2.03
1.90
1.71

1.157
1.120
1.102

3.184*

0.042

2.02
2.02
2.82

1.226
1.070
1.156

21.792***

0.000

1.58

0.960

2.00

1.176

1.88
1.93
1.71

1.121
1.085
0.951

0.267

0.766

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The post-verification of the significance of the number of children showed that the
average score of the respondents with three or more children (1.71) was significantly
lower than the average score of the respondents with one child (2.03) and had arelatively high ratio of males in the field of major.

Figure 3.11 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in College: Country Average (Unit: Point)

28

The country average (see above figure) was the highest in India (2.82), followed by
Sri Lanka (2.44), Mongolia (2.35), and Vietnam (1.91) showing higher than the APNN
average (1.89). The countries that showed lower scores than the APNN average were
New Zealand (1.22), Nepal (1.34), Bangladesh (1.57), Pakistan (1.69), Malaysia (1.73),
Taiwan (1.73), Japan (1.78), and Korea (1.83).

∘ Male/Female Ratio 2 : while at graduate school is (was)A lower score means relatively more men, and a higher score means
relatively more women (5-point scale). 3 points mean that the males andfemales were in the balance.
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on the ratio of maleand female students in their major when they were in graduate school. Table 3.6 shows
the results. The overall average was 1.99 points meaning that there was relatively moremale students. The response results showed the statistically significant differences for the
respondents' occupations (F = 13.181, p <.000), the number of children (F = 3.667, p<.05), and age (F=3.645, p<.05).
Similar to the ratio indicated in college, the male/female ratio of healthcare
professionals during graduate school was closed to balance (2.88) while that of males
was high (1.81) among the engineers. There was a slightly higher ratio of males among
the teachers/professors (2.09), other professionals (2.08), and researchers (1.94). The
statistics were confirmed by the post-verification. In the case of healthcare professionals,
the average score was higher than other occupations at the statistically significant level.
In the case of engineers, the ratio of males was high in statistically significant level tohealthcare professionals, teachers/professors, and other professionals.
The post-verification of the significance of the number of children showed that the
average score of the respondents with three or more children (1.77) was significantly
lower than the average score of the respondents with one child (2.08) and had arelatively high ratio of men. In the case of age groups, there was the statisticallysignificant difference between the respondents in their 30’s and those in their 50’s. The
average score of the respondents in their 50’s (1.80) was lower than that of the
respondents in their 30’s (2.1) and had a relatively higher ratio of men.

29

Table 3.6 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in Graduate School(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

1.99

1.069

1.98
2.10
1.94
1.80

F

p

1.095
1.121
0.971
0.985

3.645*

0.012

2.00
1.96
2.32

1.103
1.018
1.416

1.219

0.296

2.08
1.97
1.77

1.061
1.035
0.960

3.667*

0.026

2.09
1.94
2.88

1.076
0.979
1.100

13.181***

0.000

1.81

1.046

2.08

1.100

1.97
1.93
2.00

0.999
1.050
1.000

0.150

0.861

Note: ***p<.0901, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.12 Ratio of Male and Female Students in Major in Graduate School Country Average (Unit: Point)

The country average of male/female ratio in graduate school (see above figure) was
the highest in Mongolia (2.83), followed by Sri Lanka (2.65), India (2.46), and Vietnam(2.18) showing higher than the APNN average (1.99). The countries that showed thelower score than the APNN average were Nepal (1.48), Pakistan (1.59), New Zealand(1.61), Korea (1.66), Bangladesh (1.68), Taiwan (1.88), and Japan (1.90).

30

∘ Male/Female ratio 3 : of my current workplace is
A lower score means relatively more men, and a higher score means
relatively more women (5-point scale). 3 points mean that the males andfemales were in the balance.
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on the ratio of maleand female students in their fields of major at their current job. Table 3.7 shows theresults. The overall average was 2.05 meaning that there were relatively more men. The
difference within the respondent group was statistically significant according to thenumber of children (F=6.418, p<.01) and occupation (F=4.385, p<.01).
Table 3.7 Ratio of Male and Female Employees in the Field of Major at Current Job(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

2.05

1.128

2.02
2.02
2.14
2.02

F

p

1.163
1.114
1.090
1.115

0.749

0.523

2.03
2.04
2.42

1.123
1.105
1.539

1.134

0.322

2.28
2.06
1.83

1.192
1.068
1.150

6.418**

0.002

2.05
2.04
2.44

1.163
1.089
1.229

4.385**

0.002

1.92

1.066

2.21

1.194

2.00
2.11
2.00

1.100
1.117
1.291

1.034

0.356

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

31

The post-verification showed that the respondents with three or more children (2.42)
answered that there were higher ratio of men, compared to the respondents with one
child (2.28) at a statistically significant level. In the case of occupation, there was astatistically significant difference of the response by the healthcare professions (2.44) andother professionals (2.21) and the response by the engineers (1.92), indicating that theratio of women was lower among the engineers than the healthcare professionals andother professionals.

Figure 3.13 Ratio of Male/Female Employees in the Field of Major at Current Work Country Average (Unit: Point)

The country average of male/female ratio in the field of major at their current work(see above figure) was highest in India (2.85), followed by Sri Lanka (2.79), Mongolia(2.69), Taiwan (2.21), Malaysia (2.20), and Vietnam (2.09) showing higher than the
APNN average (2.05). The countries that showed the lower score than the APNN
average were Pakistan (1.39), Bangladesh (1.44), New Zealand (1.63), Nepal and Japan(1.77 each), and Korea (1.84).

∘ Male/Female ratio 4 : at management level at my current workplace is
A lower score means relatively more men, and a higher score means
relatively more women (5-point scale). 3 points mean that the men andwomen were in balance
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on the ratio of maleand female managers or higher positions in their fields of major at the current job. See
Table 3.8 for the results. The overall average was 1.89 meaning that there wererelatively more male students. The response results showed the statistically significant
differences according to the respondents' ages (F = 3.331, p <.05) and the number ofchildren (F = 3.331, p <.05). The post-verification showed that the average score of the
respondents in their 50’s or older (1.64) was lower than other age groups at thestatistically significant level, meaning that there was a higher ratio of males. In the caseof the number of children, the average score of the respondents with three or morechildren (1.75) was statistically significantly lower than the respondents with one child(2.28) and had the higher ratio of males.

32

Table 3.8 Ratio of Male and Female Managers or Higher Position in the Field of Major at Current Work
(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

1.89

1.107

1.92
1.93
1.92
1.64

F

p

1.116
1.162
1.092
0.925

3.331*

0.019

1.92
1.85
2.11

1.129
1.068
1.449

0.972

0.379

2.09
1.88
1.75

1.203
1.038
1.067

4.236*

0.015

1.94
1.81
1.98

1.182
1.030
1.090

1.249

0.288

1.85

1.094

1.99

1.138

1.82
1.91
2.29

1.027
1.131
1.380

1.209

0.299

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.14 Ratio of Male/Female Managers or Higher Position in the Field of Major at Current Work Country Average

The country average of male/female ratio of manager or higher position in the field ofmajor at current work (see above figure) was the highest in Mongolia (3.00), meaning abalanced male/female ratio. It was followed by India (2.61), Sri Lanka (2.53), Vietnam(2.09), Malaysia (2.04), and Taiwan (1.95) showing higher than APNN average (1.89).
The countries that showed the lower score than the APNN average were Pakistan (1.18),
Bangladesh (1.40), Japan (1.42), New Zealand (1.50), Korea (1.55), and Nepal (1.77).

33

3.2.4.2. Response to Question on Perception of Discrimination
This section discusses the result of the analysis of answers to five questions related
to perception of discrimination by male scientists and engineers in 12 APNN member
countries.

∘ Perception of discrimination 1. “Girls and boys were equally encouraged tochoose their majors in STEM during their education period”
The higher score, the higher awareness of discrimination (5-point scale)
3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on how they agreed tothe question of “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in
STEM during their education period.” See Table 3.9 for the results. The average scoreof respondents was 2.07 points7, meaning it was close to “Somewhat agreeable.”
Table 3.9 “The female students are encouraged to select the career in STEM
during the education period as the male students are.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.07

1.08

2.09
2.12
1.95
2.10

F

p

1.075
1.047
1.072
1.166

1.486

0.217

2.13
2.01
2.68

1.047
1.080
1.336

4.954**

0.007

1.84
2.05
2.09

1.053
1.086
1.121

3.157*

0.043

2.21
2.10
1.69
1.96
2.20

1.133
1.025
0.979
1.091
1.038

5.009**

0.001

2.03
1.99
2.43

1.058
1.113
1.397

0.660

0.517

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

7 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

34

The response results showed the statistically significant differences according to the
respondents' occupations (F = 5.009, p <.001), the marital status (F = 4.954, p <.01),
and the number of children (F=3.157, p<.05).
The post-verification showed the statistically significant difference between the averagescores of the healthcare professionals (1.69) and the teachers/professors (2.21). The
teachers/professors showed the higher score than the healthcare professionals on thequestion. On the other hand, the respondents who answered “Others (including
divorced)” as the marital status showed the lower agreement level, indicating therelatively higher perception of discrimination.

Figure 3.15 “The female students are encouraged to select the career in STEM during the education period
as the male students are.” Country Average (unit : point)

The perception of discrimination as indicated by the response to the question “Girls andboys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education
period.” was the highest in New Zealand (2.69), followed by Vietnam (2.43), Korea (2.39),
Mongolia (2.32), and Japan (2.32) being higher than APNN average (2.07). The countries
that showed the score below the APNN average were India (1.20), Malaysia (1.73), Nepal(1.78), Taiwan (1.80), Pakistan (1.98), Bangladesh (1.99), and Sri Lanka (2.00).

∘ Perception of Discrimination 2. “It is more difficult for a woman to get a
job in the STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.”
A higher score means higher awareness of discrimination (more agreeable)(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on how they agreed tothe question of “It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field thanfor a man with the same qualifications.” Table 3.10 shows the results8. The averagescore of all answers was neutral. The response results showed a statistically significant
8

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)35difference in the number of students (F=5.839, p<.01) and double-income status(F=3.319, p<.05) of the respondents.
The post-verification showed that the respondents who had more children and the
double-income respondents answered it was more difficult for the female to get a job in
STEM.
Table 3.10 “It is more difficult for a female to find a job in STEM than a maleeven if the female is equally capable as the male.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.98

1,169

2.99
3.00
2.84
3.08

F

p

1.218
1.207
1.144
0.943

1.765

0.152

2.95
2.99
3.11

1.193
1.162
1.049

0.265

0.768

2.80
3.11
3.16

1.143
1.228
1.083

5.839**

0.003

2.94
2.96
2.98
3.00
2.96

1.086
1.132
1.446
1.227
1.124

0.148

0.964

3.06
2.85
3.14

1.179
1.129
0.900

3.319*

0.037

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.16 “It is more difficult for a female to find a job in STEM than a male even if the female is equallycapable as the male.” Country Average (Unit : Point)

36

The country average of perception on discrimination against women even if they havethe same capability in STEM (see above figure) was the highest in Mongolia (3.56),
followed by Vietnam (3.36), Bangladesh (3.27), Taiwan (3.15), and Korea (3.11) being
higher than the APNN. The countries that showed the score below the APNN average
were New Zealand (2.20), Nepal (2.54), India (2.60), Malaysia (2.71), Sri Lanka (2.73),
Japan (2.96), and Pakistan (2.97).

∘ Perception of Discrimination 3. “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution
and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.”
A higher score means higher awareness of discrimination (more agreeable)(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on how they agreed tothe question of “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal
compared to men of the same qualifications and level.” Table 3.11 shows the results.
Table 3.11 “For the same capability and position, the job is fairly distributed and evaluatedregardless of gender.”(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

2.40

1.102

2.43
2.50
2.22
2.30

F

p

1.076
1.143
1.059
1.094

3.918**

0.008

2.39
2.39
2.79

1.035
1.134
1.228

1.256

0.285

2.15
2.54
2.46

1.140
1.164
0.972

8.376***

0.000

2.42
2.35
2.00

1.097
1.103
1.054

2.189

0.068

2.44

1.098

2.44

1.117

2.53
2.13
2.71

1.119
1.120
1.380

11.792***0.000

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

37

The average score of respondents was 2.40 points9, meaning it was below “Neutral” andclose to “Somewhat agreeable.”
The response results showed statistically significant differences according to the
double-income status (F = 11.792, p <.0.000), the number of children (F = 8.376, p<.000), and the age (F=3.918, p<.01). The post-verification showed the respondents intheir 30’s, having more children, and in double-income status had the higher awarenessof discrimination than the respondents in their 40’s, having fewer children, and insingle-income status.

Figure 3.17 “For the same capability and position, the job is fairly distributed and evaluated regardless ofgender.” Country Average (Unit : Point)

The awareness of discrimination related to fairness in distribution and evaluation ofwork for the same capability and position in STEM was the highest in Vietnam (3.20),
followed by Bangladesh (2.68), Mongolia (2.67), Sri Lanka (2.62), New Zealand (2.52),
and Korea (2.50) being higher than the APNN average (2.40). The countries thatshowed the score below the APNN average were India (1.25), Nepal (2.15), Japan(2.27), Pakistan (2.33), Taiwan (2.35), and Malaysia (2.36).

∘ Perception of Discrimination 4. “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution
and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.”
A higher score means higher awareness of discrimination (more agreeable)(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on how they agreed tothe question of “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal
compared to men of the same qualifications and level.” See Table 3.12 for the results.
The average score of respondents was 2.90 points10, meaning it was close to “Neutral.”
9 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.
10

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)

38

The difference between the response groups was statistically significant according to the
double-income status of respondents (F=6.445 p<.01). The post-verification showed thatthe double-income respondents (3.01) had the higher awareness of discrimination than
the single-income respondents (2.71) in a statistically significant level. Although it was
not statistically significant, the respondents having more children showed higher awareness.
Table 3.12 “It is more difficult for a female scientist to become a research leader
or tenured professor than a male scientist.”(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

2.90

1.134

2.87
2.98
2.84
2.87

F

p

1.119
1.154
1.153
1.076

1.060

0.365

2.92
2.90
3.00

1.103
1.152
1.202

0.093

0.911

2.79
2.93
3.06

1.201
1.139
1.063

2.326

0.098

2.94
2.79
2.91
2.97
2.86

1.092
1.151
1.391
1.135
1.088

1.296

0.269

3.01
2.71
2.86

1.145
1.150
0.900

6.445**

0.002

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.18 “It is more difficult for a female scientist to become a research leader or tenured professor than amale scientist.” Country Average (Unit : Point)

39

The Perception of Discrimination that “Women in STEM receive equal work
distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.”(see above figure) was the highest in Vietnam (3.34), followed by Bangladesh (3.10),
Taiwan (3.00), Pakistan (2.98), and Mongolia (2.92). The countries that showed thescore below the APNN average were India (2.26), Sri Lanka (2.66), Nepal (2.76),
Malaysia (2.80), Korea (2.83), and New Zealand (2.89).

∘ Perception of Discrimination 5. “Women in STEM generally receive less pay
for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues”
A higher score means higher awareness of discrimination (more agreeable)(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on how they agreed tothe question of “Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, comparedwith their equally-qualified male colleagues.” See Table 3.13 for the results The averagescore of respondents was 2.29 points11, meaning that they tend to disagree with thequestion.
Table 3.13 “In general, a female receives a smaller wage than an equally qualified male colleague in STEM.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.29

1.141

2.34
2.29
2.18
2.34

F

p

1.157
1.112
1.153
1.158

1.166

0.321

2.37
2.25
2.37

1.137
1.143
1.257

1.634

0.196

2.07
2.33
2.45

1.174
1.152
1.114

5.321**

0.005

2.25
2.16
1.65
2.40
2.43

1.024
1.113
1.022
1.245
1.057

7.328***

0.000

2.32
2.13
2.29

1.131
1.169
0.756

2.483

0.084

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
11

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)

40

The response results showed a statistically significant difference according to the
respondents' occupations (F = 7.328, p <.001) and the number of children (F=5.321,
p<.01). The post-verification showed that the healthcare professionals (1.65) tended toshow the statistically significantly lower score than all other occupations except the
researchers (2.16). The respondents with two or more children showed the higher scorethan the respondents with one child. In other words, the healthcare professionals showed
the lower perception of discrimination than other occupations while the respondents with
one child had the higher awareness than the respondents with more children. Although
it was not statistically significant, the respondents who were 29 years or younger andthe respondents who were over 50 showed the highest average score (2.34 each). The
respondents in their 40’s (2.18) showed the relatively low score, meaning they had the
low awareness of discrimination.

Figure 3.19 “A female receives a smaller wage than an equally qualified male colleague in STEM,”Country Average (Unit : Point)

The Perception of Discrimination that “Women in STEM generally receive less pay
for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues.,” (see above
figure) was the highest in Taiwan (2.78), followed by Bangladesh (2.70), New Zealand(2.69), Malaysia (2.62), Japan (2.42), Korea (2.35), and Mongolia (2.30) being higher
than APNN average (2.29). The countries that showed the score below the APNN
average were India (1.40), Nepal (1.89), and Pakistan (1.90).

3.2.4.3. Indirect Experience of Discrimination in STEM
This section discusses the results of the analysis of answers to four questions related toindirect experience of discrimination in STEM as viewed by male scientists and engineers
in 12 APNN member countries. The male scientists and engineer showed higher
awareness of indirect experience of discrimination on the overall lifecycle of womencompared to that of women in school or work. Table 3.14 shows the responses by eachof the 12 APNN member countries.

41∘ Indirect Experience of Discrimination 1.
disadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships
A higher score means more indirect experience of discrimination (4-point scale)
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on indirect experienceof “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships
because she is female.” As shown in Table 3.14, the average score was lower than
mid-level at 1.68 points12. The respondents mostly answered “I have not seen or heardof it” or “I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The response results showed a statistically significant difference according to the
respondent's occupation (F = 4.845, p <.001). The average score of the healthcare
professionals (1.96) was the highest, followed by the teachers/professors (1.83), otherprofessionals (1.69), and engineers (1.63). The average score of the researchers (1.56)
was the lowest. The post-verification showed that the indirect experience of researcher
was lower than that of the teachers/professors and healthcare professionals at a
statistically significant level.
Table 3.14 Females Being Disadvantaged in Research Fund or Scholarship Because of Gender(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

1.68

0.868

1.61
1.72
1.73
1.65

F

p

0.836
0.899
0.913
0.786

1.584

0.191

1.63
1.71
1.58

0.868
0.861
0.607

1.362

0.257

1.84
1.70
1.72

0.910
0.836
0.865

1.905

0.150

1.83
1.56
1.96
1.63
1.69

0.946
0.823
0.902
0.857
0.817

4.845**

0.001

1.73
1.70
1.00

0.857
0.865
0.000

2.522

0.081

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

12 1. I have not seen it or heard of it, 2. I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it, 3. I have heard of it,

4. I have seen it (reversely coded).

42

Although it was not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents who
were in their 40’s (1.73) and 30’s (1.72) were higher than those over 50 (1.65) or
below 29 (1.61), and the average scores of the married respondents (1.71) andsingle-income couples (1.73) were higher than that of the singles (1.63) and thesingle-income couples (1.73), respectively.

Figure 3.20 Females Being Disadvantaged in Research Fund or Scholarship Because of Gender Country Average

The gender barrier that the females face in research fund or scholarship indirectly
experienced by males (see above figure) was the highest in India (2.73), followed by
Bangladesh (2.33), Vietnam (2.05), Taiwan (1.87), and Mongolia (1.68) being above the
APNN average (1.68), The countries that showed the score below the APNN average
were Korea (1.17), Nepal (1.13), Japan (1.32), New Zealand (1.37), Pakistan (1.48),
Malaysia (1.58), and Sri Lanka (1.65).

∘ Indirect Experience of Discrimination 2.
disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project
A higher score means more indirect experience of discrimination(4-point scale)
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on indirect experienceof “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project
because she is female.” Table 3.15 shows the results. The average score of all
respondents was lower than mid-level (1.67 points)13. The respondents mostly answered“I have not seen or heard of it” or “I have not seen or heard of it but am aware ofit.”
The response results showed a statistically significant difference according to the
double-income status (F = 6.971, p <.001), the occupation (F = 4.472, p <.001), theage (F=3.806, p<.01), and the number of children (F=3.546, p<.05).

13 1. I have not seen it or heard of it, 2. I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it, 3. I have heard of it,

4. I have seen it (reversely coded).

43

Table 3.15 Females being disadvantaged in participating in or becoming a project manager because of gender(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

1.67

0.833

1.67
1.75
1.60
1.52

F

p

0.814
0.899
0.829
0.659

3.806*

0.010

1.69
1.65
1.68

0.851
0.810
0.885

0.413

0.662

1.56
1.72
1.77

0.834
0.820
0.841

3.546*

0.029

1.79
1.50
1.76
1.69
1.68

0.920
0.767
0.942
0.837
0.755

4.472**

0.001

1.73
1.52
1.43

0.824
0.762
0.787

6.971**

0.001

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The post-verification showed that the respondents in their 30’, those who had three ormore children, the teachers/professors, and the double-income couples had more indirect
experiences than those who are 50 years or older, those who had one child, theresearchers, and the single-income couples, respectively.

Figure 3.21 Females being disadvantaged in participating in or becoming a project manager because of genderCountry Average (Unit : Point)

44

The discrimination that the females face in participating in or becoming a project
manager because of gender (see above figure) was the highest in Vietnam (2.44),
followed by Bangladesh (2.11), Mongolia (1.79), and Sri Lanka being above the APNN
average (1.67). The countries that showed the score below the APNN average wereIndia (1.23), Korea (1.36), Nepal (1.47), New Zealand and Japan (1.48 each), Pakistan(1.59), and Malaysia (1.64).

∘ Indirect Experience of Discrimination 3.
Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly
A higher score means more indirect experience of discrimination (4-point scale).
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on indirect experienceof “Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly” See Table 3.16 forthe results. The average score of all respondents was lower than mid-level (12.03
points)14. The respondents mostly answered, “I have not seen or heard of it but amaware of it.”
Table 3.16 Females being sexually harassed or treated unfairly at school or work
(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

2.03

0.906

1.97
2.02
2.12
2.11

F

p

0.907
0.921
0.927
0.817

1.775

0.150

2.01
2.04
2.37

0.903
0.896
1.212

1.455

0.234

2.11
1.94
2.06

0.903
0.896
0.865

2.686

0.069

2.04
2.11
1.80

0.897
0.926
0.755

2.228

0.064

2.07

0.947

1.94

0.834

2.00
2.11
1.86

0.895
0.906
0.378

1.433

0.239

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
14 1. I have not seen it or heard of it, 2. I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it, 3. I have heard of it,

4. I have seen it (reversely coded).

45

There were no statistically significant differences among the respondent groups.
Although it was not statistically significant, the respondents who were 29 years or
younger (1.97) and the healthcare professionals (1.80) showed slightly lower indirect
experience than the overall average.

Figure 3.22 Females being sexually harassed or treated unfairly at school or work Country Average

Responses indicating of the indirect experience of females being sexually harassed ortreated unfairly at school or work by males (see above figure) was the highest in India(2.54), followed by Bangladesh (2.46), Sri Lanka (2.36), and Nepal, New Zealand andTaiwan (2.11 each) being higher than the APNN average (2.03). The countries thatshowed the score below the APNN average were Mongolia (1.70), Pakistan (1.72),
Malaysia (1.78), Vietnam (1.80), and Japan and Korea (1.91 each). It should be notedthat the results are not of the actual mistreatment but of the awareness or perception ofmale scientists and engineers.

∘ Indirect Experience of Discrimination 4.
Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy or child care
A higher score means more indirect experience of discrimination (4-point scale).
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked on indirect experienceof “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy or childcare” See
Table 3.17 for the results. The overall average of the response (2.89 points)15 washigher than the middle level that was close to “I have heard of it.”
The response results showed the statistically significant differences according to all
respondent characteristics such as the age (F = 12.852, p <.000), the number of children(F=11.799, p<.000), double-income status (F=6.865, p<.001), occupation (F=5.783
p<.000), and marital status (F=5.510, p<.01).
The post-verification showed that the older respondents, the married respondents, the15 1. I have not seen it or heard of it, 2. I have not seen or heard of it but am aware of it, 3. I have heard of it,

4. I have seen it (reversely coded).

46

respondents with one child, the healthcare professionals, and the single-income couple
had more indirect experience than the younger respondents, the single respondents, therespondents with three or more children, the engineers and other professionals, and the
double-income couples.
Table 3.17 Females having difficulties or resigning from work
due to marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, or childbearing(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.89

1.041

2.70
2.86
3.10
3.17

F

p

1.020
1.082
0.981
0.948

12.852***

0.000

2.77
2.96
3.16

0.978
1.066
0.958

5.510**

0.004

3.19
2.79
2.75

0.979
1.074
1.180

11.799***

0.000

2.95
3.02
3.35
2.81
2.74

1.020
1.002
0.844
1.108
0.974

5.783***

0.000

2.86
3.12
3.57

1.088
1.018
0.535

6.865**

0.001

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.23 Females having difficulties or resigning from work due to marriage, pregnancy, childbirth,or childbearing Country Average (Unit : Point)47

The indirect experience of respondents on women having difficulties or resigning fromwork due to marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, or childbearing (see above figure) was
highest in India (3.89), followed by New Zealand (3.41), Sri Lanka (3.31), Pakistan(3.25), Bangladesh (3.15), and Nepal (2.90) being higher than the APNN average (2.89).
The countries that showed the score below the APNN average were Mongolia (2.12),
Vietnam (2.13), Taiwan (2.68), Malaysia (2.71), Japan (2.76), and Korea (2.80).

3.2.4.4. Career Outlook and Need of Policy to Overcome Gender Barrier in STEM
The male scientists and engineering in the APNN member countries responded to thecareer outlook of women in STEM to be positive as indicated by the average values
being higher than “neutral.”
For the four questions related to the need of policy to overcome the gender barrier in
STEM, respondents agreed that the support policy was crucial to overcoming “genderbarrier” against women. However, the level of agreement on the need for “active
measures and quota” to resolve the gender barrier against women was relatively low.
Details of the results are as follows.

∘ Response on career outlook of women in their field
A higher score means that the respondent thinks the career outlook ofwomen is positive (5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers from 12 APNN countries’ response to “I believe
things will turn out fine in the future career for women in STEM” was higher than
“Neutral” (4.18 points)16.
Although the results were statistically significant according to the respondents’occupations (F=5.783, p<.01), the post-verification showed that the difference among thegroups was not clearly revealed. The healthcare professionals (4.40), engineers (4.22),
other professionals (4.20), teachers/professors (4.16), and researchers (4.05) were morepositive on the career outlook of women. Regarding the ages, positive views were in
the order of the respondents who are 50 years or older (4.22), those in their 40’s
(4.22), 29 years or younger (4.19), and those in their 30’s (4.12) The respondents withfewer children had more positive view. Regarding the double-income status, responses
were in the order of others (3.57), single-income (3.12), and double income (2.86).

16

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)

48

Table 3.18 “I believe that the careers of females will be bright in my field of major.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

4.18

0.863

4.19
4.12
4.21
4.22

F

p

0.823
0.914
0.853
0.846

0.887

0.447

4.15
4.20
4.11

0.830
0.882
0.937

0.467

0.627

4.29
4.21
4.19

0.909
0.903
0.836

0.652

0.521

4.16
4.05
4.40
4.22
4.20

0.869
0.919
0.735
0.813
0.899

2.798*

0.025

4.20
4.19
4.00

0.863
0.921
0.816

0.175

0.840

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.24 “I believe that the careers of females will be bright in my field of major.” Country Average

The cross-country evaluation showed the positive view of the career outlook ofwomen in the order of India (4.88), followed by Nepal (4.63), Bangladesh and Vietnam(4.38 each), and Taiwan (4.21), which were countries showing values above the APNN
average (4.18). The countries that showed the score below the APNN average were
Mongolia (3.74), Korea (3.75), New Zealand (3.94), Japan (4.02), Pakistan (4.13), andMalaysia and Sri Lanka (4.15 each).

49∘ Support policy 1. The support policy is crucial to overcoming the genderbarrier against women in STEM.
A higher score means the respondents agreed more on the need of support
policy (5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed onwhether “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” The results are summarized in Table 3.19. The average score was higher
than the mid-level (3.88 points)17, indicating that the respondents were positive on theneed for policy to overcome the gender barrier.
The response results show the statistically significant difference to the respondents’occupations (F=6.151 p<.001), and the researchers (3.65) showed lower agreement level
than the healthcare professionals (4.20) and teachers/professors (4.01).
Although it was not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents who
were 50 years or older (4.08) and the respondents in other marital status anddouble-income status were high.
Table 3.19 “The support policy is crucial to overcoming the gender barrier against women in STEM.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

3.88

1.015

3.83
3.84
3.87
4.08

F

p

0.992
1.022
1.037
1.006

2.599

0.051

3.80
3.91
4.16

0.981
1.034
0.958

2.485

0.084

4.01
3.95
3.95

1.112
0.975
0.935

0.284

0.753

4.01
3.65
4.20
3.91
3.85

0.992
1.111
0.951
0.973
0.981

6.151***

0.000

3.92
3.90
4.14

1.000
1.106
0.690

0.206

0.814

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

17

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)50

Figure 3.25 “The support policy is crucial to overcoming the gender barrier against women in STEM.”Country Average (Unit : Point)

The need of support policy for women in STEM (see above figure) was the highest in
India (4.85), followed by Nepal (4.29), Vietnam (4.27), Pakistan (4.01), and Sri Lanka(3.94) being higher than the APNN average (3.88). The countries that showed the scorebelow the APNN average were Korea (3.41), Mongolia (3.44), Japan (3.55), New
Zealand (3.74), Malaysia (3.78), Bangladesh (3.82), and Taiwan (3.86).

∘ Support policy 2. The active measures and quota are necessary to resolve
the gender barrier against women in STEM.
A higher score means the respondents agreed more on the need for active
measures and quota (5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed onwhether “ It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” See Table 3.20 for the results. The average scoreof respondents was 3.14 points18, meaning it was close to “Neutral.”
The response results showed a statistically significant difference among the
respondents' occupations (F = 4.704, p <.001), the age (F = 3.827, p <.01), and thenumber of children (F=3.438, p<.05). The post-verification showed that theteachers/professors agreed more than the researchers.

18

1. Not agreeable at all, 2. Somewhat disagreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat agreeable, and 5. Very agreeable(reversely coded)51

Table 3.20 “The measures such as quota are necessary to resolve the gender barrier against women in STEM.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

3.14

1.257

3.15
3.27
3.00
2.95

F

p

1.253
1.284
1.177
1.278

3.827*

0.010

3.15
3.12
3.11

1.220
1.278
1.243

0.123

0.885

3.12
3.25
2.89

1.262
1.326
1.284

3.438*

0.033

3.33
2.97
2.87
3.07
3.29

1.164
1.201
1.306
1.373
1.147

4.704**

0.001

3.19
2.98
3.43

1.298
1.236
1.272

2.710

0.067

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.26 “The active measures and quota are necessary to resolve the gender barrier against women in
STEM.” Country Average (Unit : Point)

The agreement level on the need for active measures and quota to overcome thegender barrier against women in STEM (see above figure) was the highest in Vietnam(4.40), followed by Taiwan (3.57), Japan (3.36), Nepal (3.17), and India (3.14) being
above the APNN average (3.14). The countries that showed the score below the APNN
average were New Zealand (1.94), Pakistan (2.19), Bangladesh (2.79), Malaysia (2.95),
Sri Lanka (3.01), Korea (3.02), and Mongolia (3.08).

52

3.2.4.5. Perception of Gender Equality
This section discusses the result of the analysis of answers to five questions related
to perception of gender equality by male scientists and engineers in 12 APNN member
countries. The survey result showed that the respondents had the neutral or higher viewof gender equality in average regarding the authority of male in family, the male as thebreadwinner, and the role of women in childcare and parenting.
On the other hand, the respondents showed lower than neutral values regarding theseparation of role according to gender. The fact that the respondents showed the lowest
score on the agreement to the statement “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men.” implies that they had
weaker Perception of Gender Equality in the social environment than the family
environment.
The younger respondents showed a higher awareness on the questions on genderequality related to the child caring and the equality of opportunity leading to theequality of result. On the other hand, the respondents in their 40’s showed the highest
score followed in the order of the 50’s, 30’s, and 29 years or younger on the questions
related to the gender role, the breadwinner in the family, and the family hierarchy. It
indicated that the older respondents tended to have the higher awareness. Regarding the
respondents’ occupation, the answers of the teachers/professors showed relatively lowscores in all questions except the one related to the equality of opportunity leading to
the equality of result while the ranks of the other occupations varied. Details of theresults are shown as follows.

∘ Gender equality 1. Men and women are different and have different roles.
The higher the score, the higher the Perception of Gender Equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed on thestatement, “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus,
they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves.”
The overall average was lower than the mid-level (2.62 points)19, meaning low
perception on gender equality.
The respondents in their 30’s or younger showed relatively lower score than those in
their 40’s or older. The single respondents (2.59) and single-income couples (2.51)
showed lower scores than the married respondents (2.62) and the double-income couples(2.68), respectively. Regarding the occupation, the teacher/professors and healthcare
professionals (2.49 each) showed low scores. The response results to this question did
19 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

53

not show statistically significant differences according to the age, marital status, numberof children, occupation, and/or double-income status of respondents. The male scientists
and engineers who answered the survey overall showed low scores on perception ofgender equality on gender roles.
Table 3.21 Men and women should perform appropriate role for eachsince men are rational and women are emotional.
(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
OthersAverageStandard
Deviation

2.62

1.231

2.55
2.57
2.74
2.72

F

p

1.204
1.149
1.357
1.307

1.808

0.144

2.59
2.62
3.16

1.227
1.226
1.385

1.933

0.145

2.47
2.66
2.48

1.293
1.196
1.214

1.947

0.144

2.49
2.77
2.49

1.232
1.289
1.359

2.026

0.089

2.63

1.192

2.58

1.186

2.68
2.51
3.00

1.207
1.251
1.291

2.115

0.121

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.27 Men and women should perform appropriate role for each since men are rational
and women are emotional. Country Average (Unit : Point)

54

The Perception of Gender Equality in regards to the statement “In a relative sense,
men are rational while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves.” (see above figure) was the highest
in New Zealand (3.89), followed by Korea (3.25), Sri Lanka (3.11), Japan (2.81),
Mongolia (2.68), and Taiwan (2.67) being higher than the APNN average (2.62). The
countries that showed the score below the APNN average were India (1.19), Vietnam(2.21), Bangladesh (2.29), Pakistan (2.30), and Nepal (2.56).

∘ Gender equality 2. Men should be the bread earner of household.
The higher the score, the higher the perception of gender equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed on“Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of households should bemen.” Results are summarized in Table 3.22 The average score was slightly higher thanthe middle level (3.27 points)20 and close to “neutral.”Table 3.22 Men should be the bread earner of household.
(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

3.27

1.281

3.13
3.24
3.49
3.36

F

p

1.265
1.302
1.232
1.295

4.486**

0.004

3.22
3.31
3.37

1.307
1.256
1.422

0.801

0.449

3.36
3.26
3.01

1.279
1.213
1.345

3.077*

0.047

3.04
3.47
2.98
3.30
3.29

1.290
1.218
1.581
1.306
1.178

4.473**

0.001

3.36
3.19
4.00

1.237
1.286
0.816

2.880

0.057

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

20 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

55

The response results showed statistically significant differences among the respondent’sage (F = 4.486, p <.01), occupation (F = 4.473, p <.01), and the number of children(F=3.077, p<.05).
The post-verification showed that the respondents in their 40’s (3.49), those with one
child (3.36), and the researchers (3.47) had the statistically significantly higher scorethan the respondents who were 29 years or younger (3.13), those with three or morechildren (3.36), and the teachers/professors (3.04) and healthcare professionals (2.98),
respectively.
On the other hand, although it was not statistically significant, the average scores ofthe married respondents (3.31) and the double-income couples (3.36) were higher than
the average scores of the single respondents (3.22) and the single-income couples (3.19),
respectively

Figure 3.28 Men should be the bread earner of household. Country Average (Unit : Point)

The awareness on gender equality related to males being the breadwinner of family(see above figure) was the highest in New Zealand (4.48), followed by Nepal (4.17),
Sri Lanka (3.85), Korea (3.79), and Japan (3.69) being higher than the APNN average(3.27). The countries that showed the score below the APNN average were Pakistan(2.22), Bangladesh (2.35), India (2.75), Vietnam (2.81), Mongolia (2.96), and Taiwan(3.02).

∘ Gender equality 3. Women have the innate ability to care for children.
The higher score, the higher Perception of Gender Equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed on“Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are not capable of in thesame way.” Table 3.23 shows the results. The overall average score was at the
mid-level (2.96)21 close to “neutral.”
21 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

56

The response results showed statistically significant differences among the respondent's
occupation (F = 5.069, p .0000). The post-verification showed that the teachers/professors(2.76) had lower Perception of Gender Equality than the healthcare professionals (3.31).
On the other hand, although it was not statistically significant, the younger respondents
and those with fewer children showed higher Perception of Gender Equality related tochild caring and parenting.
Table 3.23 Women have the innate ability that men do not to care for the children.
(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.96

1.299

3.05
3.00
2.86
2.79

F

p

1.268
1.283
1.321
1.357

2.289

0.077

2.99
2.95
3.11

1.288
1.304
1.197

0.265

0.767

3.10
2.98
2.78

1.286
1.312
1.295

2.504

0.083

2.76
2.88
3.31
3.13
2.87

1.259
1.213
1.359
1.354
1.263

5.069***

0.000

3.01
2.84
3.43

1.304
1.304
1.272

1.954

0.142

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.29 Women have the innate ability that men do not to care for the children. Country Average

57

The awareness on gender equality related to women having the innate ability to carefor the children (see above figure) was the highest in Nepal (3.84), followed by New
Zealand (3.44), Mongolia (3.21), Taiwan (3.12), Vietnam (3.08), and Malaysia (2.96)
being higher than the APNN average (2.96). The countries that showed the score below
the APNN average were Pakistan (2.44), Japan (2.64), Bangladesh (2.71), Korea (2.81),
and India (2.95).

∘ Gender equality 4. The husband should have greater authority than thewife within the family.
The higher score, the higher Perception of Gender Equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed on “Inorder to maintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should have greater
power and authority than the wife.” Table 3.24 summarizes the results. The averagescore was higher than the mid-level (3.60)22, meaning that the Perception of Gender
Equality related to the authority of male in family was higher than “neutral.”
The response results showed statistically significant differences among the occupation(F = 8.680, p <.001), the number of children (F = 7.188, p <.001), and the age(F=4.520, p<.01) of the respondent. The post-verification showed that the respondents intheir 40’s (3.84), those with one child (3.77), and the healthcare professionals (5.35)
revealed statistically significantly higher average scores than the respondents who were
29 years or younger (3.49), those with three or more children (3.22), and otherprofessionals (4.35), respectively. The respondents in their 40’s showed the highest scoreon this question, followed by those in their 50’s, 30’s, and 29 years or younger,
indicating that the older respondents tended to have the higher perception of genderequality.

22 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

58

Table 3.24 “The husband should have greater power and authority
than the wife for the order and peace of the family.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

3.60

1.278

3.49
3.54
3.84
3.69

F

p

1.230
1.260
1.257
1.418

4.520**

0.004

3.54
3.63
4.00

1.239
1.301
1.155

1.618

0.199

3.77
3.62
3.22

1.309
1.236
1.463

7.118**

0.001

3.36
3.77
4.35
3.53
3.62

1.317
1.226
1.022
1.338
1.146

8.680***

0.000

3.66
3.56
4.00

1.217
1.446
0.816

0.839

0.433

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 3.30 “The husband should have greater power and authority than the wife for the orderand peace of the family.” Country Average (Unit : Point)

The awareness on gender equality related to males having greater power and authority
in the family (see above figure) was the highest in New Zealand (4.63), followed by
Nepal (4.40), Korea (4.10), Sri Lanka (4.08), and Japan (3.98) being higher than the
APNN average (3.60). The countries that showed the score below the APNN average
were Bangladesh (2.50), Pakistan (2.81), Mongolia (3.08), Vietnam (3.15), Malaysia(3.18), and Taiwan (3.41).

59

∘ Gender equality 5. Gender equality will be achieved by equal opportunities ?
The higher score, the higher Perception of Gender Equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers in 12 countries were asked how they agreed on “I
believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women are given equal
opportunities as men.” Table 3.25 shows the results. This question asked whether
respondents believed that equal opportunity would lead to the equal outcome. However,resolving gender inequality is more complex than simply giving equal opportunity. The
overall average was below the mid-level (2.15 points)23, indicating that the perception
on gender equality related to equality of result was lower than “neutral.”
The response results showed statistically significant differences among the occupation(F = 7.619, p <.000) and the marital status (F=4.687, p<.01). The post-verification
showed that the average scores of healthcare professionals (1.93) and engineers (2.00)
were lower than the other occupations.
Although not statistically significant, the single respondents (2.28) showed higher scorethan the married respondents (2.09)and, the younger respondents tended to show higherscores.
Table 3.25 “If women are given equal opportunities as men, the consequences will also be equal.”(Unit: Point)

Type

AverageStandard
Deviation

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
OthersNumber of children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Others

2.15

1.122

2.20
2.21
2.11
1.95

F

p

1.109
1.117
1.182
1.052

2.519

0.057

2.28
2.09
2.42

1.096
1.128
1.071

4.687**

0.009

2.03
2.02
2.13

1.214
1.034
1.113

0.455

0.634

2.18
2.16
1.93
2.00
2.46

1.108
1.091
1.215
1.087
1.148

7.619***

0.000

2.10
2.06
1.71

1.115
1.158
1.113

0.450

0.638

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

23 1. Very agreeable, 2. Somewhat agreeable, 3. Neutral, 4. Somewhat disagreeable, and 5. Not agreeable at all.

60

Figure 3.31 “If women are given equal opportunities as men, the consequences will also be equal.”Country Average (Unit : Point)

The awareness on gender equality related to equal opportunity leading to the equal
outcome (see above figure) was the highest in Sri Lanka (2.85), followed by Mongolia(2.75), Japan 2.65), Malaysia (2.33), and Taiwan (2.18). The countries that showed thescore below the APNN average (2.15) were India (1.13), Nepal (1.41), Vietnam (1.76),
New Zealand (1.93), Pakistan (2.04), Bangladesh (2.05), and Korea (2.08).

3.2.5. Comprehensive Results
This section discusses the analysis of the answers to each question according to thegeneral profile (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double-income
status) of the respondents in 12 APNN member countries. We also compared theaverage scores of the responses for each question by countries.
Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the correlation of the
respondents' answers for each category along with the general profiles of the
respondents.

3.2.5.1. Correlation Analysis
The Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to check the correlation between the
respondents’ characteristics and the category of question. The following table 3.26 shows
the result24. The age and marital status showed the positive (+) correlation, meaning thatthe older respondents were likely to be non-single25. The number of children and theperception of discrimination showed positive (+) correlation (r=.164, p.000), meaning that24

The correlation coefficients were mostly below 3 points, indicating the weak level. For the discussion here, we
assumed that the coefficients larger than 0.1 point were correlated if it was statistically significant considering
the offset of response results according to the diversity of 12 countries.
25 Although the correlation between the age and occupation was statistically significant, we did not analyze it
specifically since the occupation was in nominal scale (not the isometric or ratio scale). It was the same forthe correlation between the marital status and the occupation.

61

the respondents with more children tended to have higher awareness of discrimination.
The number of children and the male/female ratio showed negative (-) correlation(r=-.138, p.000), meaning that the respondents with more children tended to answer that
there was higher ratio of men in their schools or works.
The categories that showed the positive (+) correlation included discrimination
perception and indirect experience (r=.211, p.000), indirect experience and support policy(r=.187, p.000), discrimination and support policy (r=.168, p.000), and male/female ratio
and indirect experience (r=.128, p.000).
In other words, the awareness of discrimination is directly proportional to the degreeof indirect experience, meaning the higher the perception, the higher the indirect
experience, or the higher the indirect experience level, the higher the perception of
discrimination. Moreover, it indicates that the respondents with stronger indirect
experience tended to agree more to the need of support policy and that the respondents
with higher awareness of discrimination tended to agree more to the need for policy.
On the other hand, the categories that showed the negative (-) correlation included
indirect experience and gender equality (r=-.289, p.000), gender equality and support
policy (r=-.216, p.000), and male/female ratio and discrimination(r=-.124, p.000).
In other words, the respondents with a higher Perception of Gender Equality tended
to have a lower level of indirect experience and tended to agree less to the need ofsupport policy.
The results indicate that the countries that showed higher Perception of Gender
Equality are less likely to implement the support policy. Likewise, the countries thatshowed a high score on male/female ratio may feel the less need for policy support.

62

Table 3.26 Result of Correlation Analysis
Subject
PearsonCorrelation
Age

MaritalStatusNumber ofchildrenOccupation

Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation

Male/Female
Ratio

GenderBarrier

Indirect
Experience

PolicySupportSignificance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N
PearsonCorrelation

GenderEquality

Significance
Probability(Two-Sided)
N

Age

NumberMaritalofOccupation Gender
Status children
Ratio

GenderIndirect Support Gender
Barrier Experience Policy Equality

1

1292.592**
0.000
1280

1282

.155**-0.070

0.000

0.067

681

681

681

-.267**-.212**

.086*

0.000

0.000

0.026

1287

1277

679

1289

-0.0220.012-.138**-0.032

0.449

0.675

0.000

0.258

1233

1226

669

1231

1235

-0.043-0.014.164**

0.033-.124**

0.126

0.615

0.000

0.232

0.000

1285

1275

677

1282

1230

1287

.076**

0.054-.077*-.063*.128**.211**

0.006

0.052

0.044

0.025

0.000

0.000

1287

1277

679

1285

1232

1284

1289

-0.0140.024-0.041-0.0050.022.168**.187**

0.614

0.388

0.281

0.872

0.439

0.000

0.000

1289

1279

680

1286

1233

1285

1287

1291

0.043

0.012

-.083*

0.052-0.030-.088**-.289**-.216**

0.124

0.677

0.030

0.062

0.286

0.002

0.000

0.000

1285

1279

681

1282

1230

1281

1283

1285

63

3.2.5.2. Multiple Regression Analysis
We performed the multiple regression analysis to identify the independent variables
that affected the response of male scientists and engineers to the questions related to theneed of support policy, Perception of Gender Equality, and awareness of discrimination
to overcome the gender barrier against women.

3.2.5.2.1. Predictor of Support Policy
We performed the multiple regression analysis to identify the independent variables
that affect the view on support policy. The independent variables were the age, marital
status, number of children, male/female ratio, discrimination, indirect experience, andgender equality while the dependent variable was the (level of agreeing to the need for)support policy.
The analysis showed that the independent variable that had the largest effect on the
support policy was the (awareness of) gender equality (β=-0.213, p.000). Moreover, the(level of agreeing to the need for) support policy (β=0.123, p.001), age (β=-0.105,
p.000), and indirect experience (β=0.102, p.000) showed some effect on the level ofagreeing to the need of support policy.
In other words, the respondents with higher Perception of Gender Equality tended toagree less to the need of support policy. It can be concluded that the characteristics ofthe countries or environments of the respondents with higher Perception of Gender
Equality may have affected the level of agreeing to the need of support policy.
Moreover, the respondents with a higher score on discrimination and indirect experienceand the younger respondents agreed more to the need of support policy. These four
independent variables were significant in explaining the levels of respondents’ agreeing
to the need of support policy, and the total describing variation was 10.0% (R2=.100,
F=18.200, p.000). The effects of other independent variables such as the marital status,
number of children, and male/female ratio were not statistically significant.
Table 3.27 Predictor Variables of Need of Support Policy: Result of Multiple Regression Analysis
Subject

Dependent Variable: Support Policy
B(Constant)

3.935

Gender Equality-0.255B-0.213tp14.752***0.000-5.548***0.000

Discrimination

0.162

0.123

3.294**

0.001

Age

-0.010-0.105-2.829**0.005

Indirect Experience

0.158

0.102

2.614**

0.009

2

R

0.100

F

18.200

p

0.000

64

3.2.5.2.2. Predictor of Gender Equality
The multiple regression analysis was performed on seven independent variables suchas the age, marital status, number of children, male/female ratio, discrimination, indirect
experience, and support policy that affected the Perception of Gender Equality. The
analysis showed that indirect experience (β=-0.238, p.000) had the largest effect on thePerception of Gender Equality and the support policy (β=-0.212, p.000). The number ofchildren (β=-0.097, p.01) also had some effect on the Perception of Gender Equality.
In other words, the respondents who had less indirect experience of gender barrier
and who agreed less to the need of support policy tended to have the higher Perceptionof Gender Equality. Moreover, the respondents who had fewer children showed thehigher Perception of Gender Equality.
These three independent variables were significant in explaining the levels of
respondents’ agreeing to the need of support policy, and the total describing variation
was 11.9% (R2=.119, F=30.736, p.000).
The effects of other independent variables such as the age, marital status, male/female
ratio, and discrimination were not statistically significant.
Table 3.28 Predictor Variables of Gender Equality: Result of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis
Dependent Variable: Gender Equality
Subject
BBtp

27.267***0.000(Constant)

4.332

Indirect Experience-0.310-0.238-6.415***0.000

Support Policy-0.177-0.212-5.724***0.000

Number of Children-0.094-0.097-2.652**

0.008

R2

0.119

F

30.736***

p

0.000

3.2.5.2.3. Predictor of Perception of Discrimination
We performed the multiple regression analysis to identify the independent variables
that affected the perception of discrimination. The independent variables were the age,marital status, number of children, male/female ratio, indirect experience, and genderequality while the dependent variable was the (level of agreeing to the existence of)discrimination.
The analysis showed that the independent variable that had the largest effect on the
support policy was the male/female ratio (β=-0.189, p.000). It was followed by the
number of children (β=-0.161, p.000), the indirect experience (β=-0.145, p.000), the65

support policy (β=-0.121, p.01), and the age (β=-0.082, p.05) with statisticalsignificance.
In other words, the respondents who answered higher male/female ratio at school orwork, those who had a higher degree of indirect experience of discrimination, and those
who agreed more to the need for policy showed stronger awareness of discrimination.
Moreover, the respondents with more children and the younger respondents tended tobe more aware of discrimination.
These five independent variables were significant in explaining the respondents’awareness levels of discrimination and the total describing variation was 10.1% (R2=.101,
F=14.841, p.000).
The effects of other independent variables such as the marital status and genderequality were not statistically significant.
Table 3.29 Predictor Variables of Awareness of Discrimination: Result of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis
Subject

Dependent Variable: Gender Barriertp

10.951***0.000-0.189-5.038***

0.000

0.172

0.145

3.818***

0.000

0.142

0.161

4.263***

0.000

B(Constant)

2.120

Male/Female Ratio-0.160Indirect Experience
Number of Children

B

Support Policy

0.092

0.121

3.194**

0.001

Age

-0.006-0.082-2.148*

0.032

2

0.101

F

14.841

p

0.000

R

66

4. Analysis of Survey Results by Participating Nations

4. Analysis of Survey Results by Participating Nations
4.1. Nepal
4.1.1. General Profiles of Male Scientist and Engineer Respondents in Nepal
A total of 98 male scientists and engineers (7.6% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.1.1 shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupation of
the male scientist and engineer respondents in Nepal.
Regarding the age, 44.3% were in their 30’s, 29.9% were 29 years or younger,
14.4% were in their 40’s, and 11.3% were 50 years or older. There were more married
respondents at 65.3% than the single respondents at 34.7%. Of the respondents that had
the children, 42.6% had one child, 40.4 had two children, and 17.0% had three or morechildren.
In the case of couples, 60.7% were double-income couples while 39.3% were
single-income couples. Regarding the occupation, 79.6% were engineers, followed by
12.2% for other professions, 5.1% for researchers, 2.0% for teachers/professors and 1.0%
for healthcare professionals.
Table 4.1.1 General Status Profile of Respondents in Nepal(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

29
44
14
11

29.9
44.3
14.4
11.3

34
64
-

34.7
65.3
-

20
19
8

42.6
40.4
17.0

2
5
1
78
12

2.0
5.1
1.0
79.6
12.2

37
24

60.7
39.3

70

4.1.2 Comparison of Answers by Male Scientists and Engineers in Nepal with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Nepal were compared with the average scoresof the respondents from the other 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.60,
and it was statistically significantly (t=-5.670, p.000) lower, meaning more there weremore men than the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was
1.98. The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.22 which was lower
than the average score (2.55) from the other 11 countries at statistically significant level(t=-4.471, p.000). The average score for the indirect experience of discrimination was
1.95 which was also lower than the average score (2.08) of the other 11 countries atstatistically significant level (t=-2.407, p.0018).
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from Nepal
agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was
3.73 which was higher than “Neutral” and also higher than the average score of theother countries (3.49) at
statistically significant level (t=2.458, p.05). Lastly, theaverage score for the Perception of Gender Equality was 3.28 which was higher than
the average score of the other countries (2.89) at statistically significant level (t=6.219,
p.000).
In summary, Nepal had more men, showed lower awareness and indirect experienceof discrimination, agreed more to the need of support policy, and revealed higher
perception of gender equality than the other 11 countries.

Figure 4.1.1 Comparison of Answer between Nepal and Other Countries: Aggregated (Unit: Point)714.1.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Nepal andOther APNN Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio: A lower score means relatively more men, and a higher score means
relatively more women (5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.60, meaning there
were relatively more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.34
in college and 1.77 at current work and manager or higher position, meaning that theratio of women was slightly higher at work than when they were in college.
The figure was statistically significantly (t=-5.670, p.000) lower than 1.98 which was
the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries. Nepal showed more men
when the respondents were in college (t=-6.747, p.000), in graduate school (t=-5.4768,
p.000), and in current work (t=-3.284, p.001) than other countries at the statisticallysignificant level.
Table 4.1.2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Mae/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Type

Male/Female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

Question

Nepal
Average(n=98)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,196)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ratio of my department during myuniversity(college) education is (was)

1.34

1.94

-6.747***

0.000

2

(If having taken graduate course) The male/female ratioof my department while at graduate school is (was)

1.48

2.03

-5.476***

0.000

3

The male/female ratio of my current workplace is

1.77

2.07

-3.284**0.001

4The male/female ratio at management level at mycurrent workplace is

1.77

1.90

-1.088

0.277

1.60

1.98

-5.670***0.000

Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination: The higher the score, the higher the perception of discrimination(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.22, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the Perception of Discrimination,“Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to menof the same qualifications and level.” received the highest average score (2.76). “Girlsand boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during theireducation period.” received the lowest average score (1.78).
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of72

discrimination was 2.22 and lower than the overall average of 11 other APNN countries(2.55) at a statistically significant level (t=-4.471, p.000). The average scores of
responses to all questions were relatively low.
A significant difference was observed between the responses, in the order of “It is
more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man with thesame qualifications.” (t=-3.846, p.000), followed by “Women in STEM generally receive
less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues.”(t=-3.680, p.000), “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in
STEM during their education period.” (t=-2.849, p.01), and “Women in STEM receive
equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications
and level.” (t=-2.344, p.05).” Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female scientists than for male scientists.”
scored relatively low although not statistically significant.
In other words, the discrimination as perceived by the male scientist and engineer
respondents in Nepal was lower than the respondents from other countries.
Table 4.1.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Question

Nepal
Average(n=98)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,196)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose
their majors in STEM during their education period.

1.78

2.10

-2.849**0.004

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same
qualifications.

2.54

3.01

-3.846***

0.000

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.15

2.42

-2.344*0.021

4Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.76

2.92

-1.3470.178

5Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues.

1.89

2.33

-3.680***0.000

Sub Scale

2.22

2.55

-4.471***0.000∘ Indirect experience of discrimination: The higher score, the more experience of indirect discrimination (4-point scale)
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Nepal on
the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.95 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The highest level of indirect experience was
the discrimination related to “marriage, pregnancy, and childbirth” (2.90) while the73lowest level of indirect experience was that related to “research fund and scholarship.”The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience was lower than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.08), at a
statistically significant level (t=-2.407, p.0018). More specifically, the average scores of
the responses to the questions of discrimination related to “research fund andscholarship” (t=-6.513, p.000) and that to “project participation and leader” (t=-2.880,
p.005) were lower than the average scores of other countries.
Table 4.1.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

Nepal
Average(n=98)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,196)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female.

1.31

1.71

-6.513***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.47

1.69

-2.880**0.005

3Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly

2.11

2.03

0.881

0.379

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or childcare

2.90

2.89

0.046

0.963

Sub Scale

1.95

2.08

-2.407*

0.018

Type

Indirect
Experience ofDiscrimination(4-Point Scale)t(p)∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy: A higher score means that the respondents agreed more on the need
(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.63. The score was higher than the
average 4.14 of 11 other countries at a statistically significant level (t=7.169, p.000),
indicating that the respondents in Nepal had a more positive view than other 11 APNN
member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal answering to the question“It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the STEM
field.” was 4.29, meaning that they generally agreed to it. It was higher than the
average of other 11 countries (3.84) at the statistically significant level (t=5.295, p.000).
In other words, the male scientists and engineers in Nepal agreed that there is need ofpolicy to overcome the gender barrier, more than those in other countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal answering to the question“It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.” was 3.17, meaning that they agreed to it in the neutrallevel. The score was no different than the average of other 11 countries (3.13) at a
statistically significant level.

74

Table 4.1.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Need of Support Policy(Unit: Point)

Question

Nepal
Average(n=98)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,196)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.63

4.14

7.169***

0.000

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

4.29

3.84

5.294***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system oraffirmative plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.17

3.13

0.310

0.756

Sub Scale

3.73

3.49

2.458*

0.014

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)t(p)∘ Perception of gender equality: The higher the score, the higher the perception of gender equality(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Nepal on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 3.28 points, being slightly higher than the mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (4.40).
It was followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (4.17) and “Women are born to have a way of caring
children that men are not capable of in the same way” (3.84). The scores indicate thatthe respondents had more Perception of Gender Equality regarding the gender role infamily.
On the other hand, the average scores on “In a relative sense, men are rational while
women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (2.56) and “I believe gender equality will be fully achieved
only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (1.44) were low. The scoresindicate that the respondents had strong perception of conventional division of genderrole and that equal opportunity would lead to equal outcome, meaning that thePerception of Gender Equality related to these questions was relatively low.
The overall average score of 3.28 was higher than the average score of 2.89 of other11 countries at the statistically significant level (t=6.219, p.000). More specifically, theaverage scores on “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (t=8.958, p.000), “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife”(t=8.760, p.000), and “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (t=7.055, p.000) were higher than other 11 countries75

at the statistically significant levels. The average scores indicate that the male scientists
and engineers in Nepal had a higher Perception of Gender Equality related to genderrole in family than those in other countries.
On the other hand, the average score on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” was lower than the
average score of 11 other countries at the statistically significant level (t=-9.043, p.000).
It indicates that the male scientists and engineers in Nepal had lower Perception of
Gender Equality related to equity than those in other countries.
Table 4.1.6Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Type

Question

Nepal
Average(n=98)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,196)

t

(p)

1

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves.

2.56

2.62

-0.579

0.564

2

4.17

3.20

8.958***

0.000

Perception of
GenderEquality

Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men.

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way.

3.84

2.89

7.055***

0.000(5-Point Scale)4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than
the wife.

4.40

3.53

8.760***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

1.41

2.22

-9.043***

0.000

3.28

2.89

6.219***

0.000

Sub Scale

4.1.4. Comparison of Responses in Nepal with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio: A lower score means relatively more men, and a higher score means
relatively more women (5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.60,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the characteristics(age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (ifmarried)) of the respondents in Nepal were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table
4.1.7 shows the results.

76

Table 4.1.7 Male/Female Ratio in Nepal: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.76
1.56
1.36
1.64

0.623
0.595
0.478
0.595

1.477

0.227

1.77
1.52
-

0.634
0.565
-

1.861

0.066

1.36
1.42
1.28

0.422
0.590
0.281

0.243

0.786

2.25
1.95
1.25
1.53
1.83

0.622
0.585
0.597

1.545

0.196

1.54
1.39

0.543
0.549

1.052

0.297

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.60

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The differences in the responses to the male/female ratios in the fields of respondents
in Nepal according to the characteristics of the respondents were not statisticallysignificant. Although the differences were not statistically significant, the average scoresof the respondents in their 40’s (1.36), the married respondents (1.52), and thehealthcare professionals (1.25) were the lowest in each category of characteristics. On
the other hand, the average scores of the respondents who were 29 years or younger(1.76) and the single respondents (1.77) were the lowest. These indicate that the
younger and single respondent groups had the higher ratio of female scientists andengineers than other respondent groups26.

26

Teacher/professor and healthcare professional were excluded from the analysis since there was only one
respondent in each group.

77Figure 4.1.2 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Male/Female Ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Nepal was lower than the average of all countries (1.96), being the fourth
lowest after Pakistan, New Zealand, and Bangladesh, meaning the ratio of men was
fourth highest.

∘ Perception of discrimination: The higher the score, the higher the awareness of discrimination(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”Table 4.1.8 Perception of discrimination: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.24
2.26
2.13
2.15

0.599
0.699
0.640
0.607

0.188

0.904

2.35
2.16

0.604
0.656

1.426

0.157

2.02
2.01
2.38

0.463
0.568
0.618

1.507

0.233

1.20
2.72
2.00
2.23
2.15

0.283
1.016
0.622
0.483

2.193

0.076

2.24
1.93

0.680
0.540

1.898

0.063

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarriedNumber of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.22

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

78

The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal to the perception of
discrimination in STEM was lower than the mid-level. The differences according to the
profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status(if married)) of the respondents in Nepal were evaluated by d ANOVA (or t) analysis.
Results are summarized in Table 4.1.8.

Figure 4.1.3 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Gender Barrier (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the comparative average scores of by country. The awarenessof male scientists and engineers in Nepal on discrimination was lower than the averageof all countries (2.53), being the second lowest after India.

∘ Indirect experience of discrimination: The higher the score, the more indirect experience of discrimination(4-point scale).
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 1.95 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married)) in Nepal were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.1.9.
The difference of responses according to the double-income status of the respondents
in Nepal was statistically significant (t=2.861, p.006), and the double-income respondents(2.03) had higher indirect experience than the single-income respondents (1.70).
Although it was not statistically significant, the respondents over 50, married
respondents, single-income respondents, and engineers had relatively low indirect
experience of discrimination.

79

Table 4.1.9 Indirect Experience in Nepal: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.931

0.429

0.958

0.341

1.898

0.063

1.95

Age
29 years or younger

1.93

0.513

30 - 39

2.01

0.483

40 - 49

1.89

0.626

Over 50

1.73

0.395

Single

2.01

0.540

Married

1.91

0.501

-

-

2

1.79

0.482

3 or more

1.84

0.528

1.84

0.516

Researcher

2.25

0.000

Healthcare professional

2.05

0.716

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

2.00

-

Other

1.92

0.527

2.00

0.413

2.03

0.541

Marital status

Number of Children
1

Occupation
Professor/Teacher

Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.1.4 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Indirect Experience of Discrimination (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Nepal was lower than the average of all countries (2.07),
being the fifth lowest after Korea, Mongolia, Japan, and Malaysia.

80∘ Need of support policy: A higher score means the respondents agreed more on the need
(5-point scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.73, being higher than the neutrallevel. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children,
occupation, and double income status (if married)) of the respondents in Nepal were
evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The differences were not statistically significant.
Results are summarized in Table 4.1,10.
Although it was not statistically significant, the respondents over 50 (3.95) showed
relatively high agreement to the need of support policy.
Table 4.1.10 Need of Support Policy in Nepal: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.72
3.70
3.61
3.95

0.714
0.741
0.881
0.789

0.465

0.707

3.76
3.71
-

0.699
0.786
-

0.335

0.739

3.58
3.82
3.56

0.674
0.901
0.729

0.552

0.580

4.75
3.90
3.50
3.65
4.04

0.354
1.084
0.703
0.865

1.809

0.134

3.69
3.67

0.794
0.803

0.108

0.915

Average
3.73

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The figure below shows the cross country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Nepal agreeing to the need ofsupport policy was higher than the average of all countries (3.51), being the third
highest after Vietnam and India.

81

Figure 4.1.5 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)∘ Perception of gender equality: The higher the score, the higher the perception of gender equality (5-point
scale). 3 points mean “Neutral.”Table 4.1.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Nepal: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.741

0.530

0.236

0.814

0.045

0.956

0.854

0.495

-0.642

0.524

3.28

Age
29 years or younger

3.16

0.538

30 - 39

3.33

0.663

40 - 49

3.39

0.346

Over 50

3.25

0.448

Single

3.29

0.684

Married

3.27

0.498

-

-

1

3.33

0.417

2

3.35

0.345

3 or more

3.30

0.321

Professor/Teacher

3.40

0.849

Researcher

3.44

0.767

Healthcare professional

2.40

-

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

3.26

0.558

Others

3.38

0.515

3.26
3.33

0.594
0.299

Marital status

Others (including divorced)
Number of Children

Occupation

Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

82

The average score of male scientists and engineers in Nepal on the perception ofgender equality was 3.28 which was slightly higher than the neutral level. The
differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation,and double income status (if married)) of the respondents in Nepal were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis. The differences were not statistically significant.

Figure 4.1.6 Averages of Nepal and Other Countries in Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The level of the male scientists and engineers in Nepal agreeing to the needof support policy was higher than the average of all countries (2.92), being the third
highest after New Zealand and Sri Lanka.

83

4.2. New Zealand4.2.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in New Zealand
A total of 54 male scientists and engineers (4.2% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.2.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in New Zealand.
Regarding the age, 37.0% were in their 50’s, 28.8% were in their 30’s, 24.1% were
29 years or younger and 11.1% were in their 40’s. There were more married
respondents at 79.6% than the single respondents at 13.0%. 7.4% were in others marriedstatus including divorced.
Of the respondents that had the children (66% of total New Zealand respondents),
44.4% had two children, 30.6% had three or more children and 20.5% had twochildren. In the case of couples, 78.1% were double-income couples while 21.9% were
single-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 92.6% were engineers, followed by 3.7% wereteachers/professors and other professions for each. There are not either researchers or
healthcare professionals respondents who participate in this survey in New Zealand.
Table 4.2.1 General Profile of Respondents in New Zealand(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
OthersDouble income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

13
15
6
20

24.1
27.8
11.1
37.0

7
43
4

13.0
79.6
7.0

9
16
11

25.0
44.0
30.6

2
0
0
50
2

3.7
92.6
3.7

25
7

78.1
21.9

84

4.2.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in New Zealand with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from New Zealand were compared with that fromthe other 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.49,
and it was statistically significantly (t=-6.531, p.000) lower, meaning there were more
men than the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was 1.98.
The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.60 which was similarly
higher than the average score (2.52) from the other 11 countries. The average score forthe indirect experience of discrimination was 2.09 which was also similarly higher than
the average score (2.52) of the other 11 countries.
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from New
Zealand agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in
STEM was 2.84 which was lower than “Neutral” and also lower than the average scoreof the other countries (3.54) at statistically significant level (t=-5.395, p.000). Lastly,
the average score for the Perception of Gender Equality was 3.67 which was higher
than the average score of the other countries (2.89) at statistically significant level(t=7.342, p000).

Figure 4.2.1 Comparisons of Answer between New Zealand and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, New Zealand had more men, showed higher perception of genderequality, revealed a similar indirect experience of discrimination, and agreed less to theneed of support policy than other 11 APNN Member countries.

854.2.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in New
Zealand and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.49, meaning there
were relatively more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.22
in college and 1.63 at current work, meaning that the ratio of women was slightly
higher at work than when they were in college.
The figure was statistically significantly (t=-6.531, p.000) lower than 1.98 which
was the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries. New Zealand showed
more men when the respondents were in college (t=-8.332, p.000), manager or higher
position in current work (t=-3.522, p.001), in current work (t=-3.381, p.001) and in
graduate school (t=-2.654, p.01) than other countries at statistically significant level.
Table 4.2.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries: Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

QuestionNew
Zealand
Average(n=54)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,240)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ratio of my department during myuniversity(college) education is (was)

1.22

1.92

-8.332***

0.000

2

(If having taken graduate course) The male/female ratioof my department while at graduate school is (was)

1.61

2.01

-2.654**0.008

3The male/female ratio of my current workplace is

1.63

2.07

-3.381**0.001

4The male/female ratio at management level at mycurrent workplace is

1.50

1.91

-3.522**

0.001

1.49

1.98

-6.531***0.000

Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.60, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator is moredifficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” received the highest averagescore (2.89). “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal
compared to men of the same qualifications and level.” received the lowest average86score (2.20).
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.60 and similarly higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.52). A significant difference was observed between the responses, in theorder of “It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a
man with the same qualifications.” (t=-4.999, p.000), followed by “Women in STEM
generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues.” (t=2.582, p.01). The discrimination as perceived by the male scientists
and engineer respondents in New Zealand was lower than the respondents from othercountries for a job opportunity and work recompense at statistically significant.
However, “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM
during their education period.” scored relatively high at statistically significant level(t=4.297 p.000).

Table 4.2.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

QuestionNew
Zealand
Average(n=54)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,240)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

2.69

2.05

4.297***

0.000

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.20

3.01

-4.999***0.000

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and
3 work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.52

2.39

0.829

0.407

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.89

2.90

-0.096

0.924

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
5 work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues.

2.69

2.28

2.582*

0.010

2.60

2.52

0.592

0.556

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scale∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in New
Zealand on the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.09 points which was lower
than the median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I havenot seen or heard of it but am aware of it.”87

The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (3.41) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “research fund and scholarship.” (1.37)
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect experience(2.09) was similarly higher than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.07).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions on
discrimination related to “research fund and scholarship” (t=-4.295, p.000) and that to“project participation and leader” (t=-2.022, p.048) were lower than the average scoresof other countries. However, the question related to “marriage, pregnancy, andchildbirth” (3.41) was higher than the average score of other countries at a statisticallysignificant level (t=3.727, p.000).
Table 4.2.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

QuestionNew
Zealand
Average(n=54)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,240)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

1.37

1.70

-4.295**
*

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.48

1.68

-2.022*0.048

3Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

2.11

2.03

0.545

0.588

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

3.41

2.87

3.727***

0.000

2.09

2.07

0.281

0.779

Sub Scale∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 3.94. The score was lower than the
average 4.19 of 11 other countries at a statistically significant level (t=-2.032, p.042),
indicating that the respondents in New Zealand had a less positive view than other 11
APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.74, meaning that they slightly agreed to it. It was similarly lower
than the average of other 11 countries (3.88). In other words, the male scientists andengineers in New Zealand agreed that there is need of policy to overcome the genderbarrier, similarly less than those in other countries.
On the other side, the average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealandanswering to the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative

88

plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 1.94, meaning that theyslightly disagreed and the score was lower than the average of other 11 countries (3.19)
at statistically significant level (t=-7.253, p.000).
Table 4.2.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

QuestionNew
Zealand
Average(n=54)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,240)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

3.94

4.19

-2.032*0.042

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.74

3.88

-0.7980.428

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system oraffirmative plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

1.94

3.19

-7.253***0.000

Sub Scale

2.84

3.54

-5.3950.000

TypeCareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 3.28 points, being slightly higher than the mid-level.
The highest score was on the statement “In order to maintain the order and peace ofa family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (4.63).
It was followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (4.48), “In a relative sense, men are rational while womenare emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (3.89), and “Women are born to have a way of caring
children that men are not capable of in the same way” (3.44). The scores indicate thatthe respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding the gender role in a
family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (1.44) was the lowest.
The scores indicate that the respondents had strong perception of conventional divisionof that equal opportunity would lead to an equal outcome, meaning that the perceptionof gender equality related to this question was relatively low.
The overall average score of New Zealand (3.67) was higher than the average scoreof other 11 countries (2.89) at a statistically significant level (t=6.219, p.000). Morespecifically, the average scores on “In a relative sense, men are rational while womenare emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (t=9.261, p.000), “Primary breadwinners (who take care of89

financial obligations) of households should be men” (t=8.936, p.000), “In order tomaintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should have greater power andauthority than the wife” (t=8.452, p.000), and “Women are born to have a way ofcaring children that men are not capable of in the same way” (t=2.788, p.005) werehigher than other 11 countries at statistically significant levels. The average scoresindicate that the male scientists and engineers in New Zealand had a higher perceptionof gender equality related to gender role in a family than those in other countries.
On the other hand, the average score on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (1.93) was lower than
the average score of 11 other countries (2.16), which is not statistically significant. It
indicates that the male scientists and engineers in New Zealand had slightly lower
perception of gender equality related to equity.
Table 4.2.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

QuestionNew
Zealand
Average(n=54)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,240)t(p)

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional
1 and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what
is appropriate for themselves

3.89

2.56

9.261***

0.000

2

Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men

4.48

3.22

8.936***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way

3.44

2.94

2.788**

0.005

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

4.63

3.55

8.452***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

1.93

2.16

-1.2820.205

Sub Scale

3.67

2.89

7.342***

0.000

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

4.2.4. Comparison of Responses in New Zealand with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.49,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in New Zealand were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.2.7
shows the results.

90

Table 4.2.7 male/female ratio in New Zealand: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.065

0.372

1.49
1.44
1.65
1.63

0.341
0.596
0.685

1.36

0.490

1.50
1.52
1.49

0.382
0.545
0.516

1.095

0.342

2.00
1.58
1.11

0.559
0.590
0.172

8.089**

0.001

1.13
1.50

0.177
0.519

0.749

0.478

1.75

0.707

1.49
1.60

0.430
0.691

-0.6000.554

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The difference of responses according to the respondents’ number of children in New
Zealand was statistically significant (F=-8.089, p.001), and revealed the more children
have the respondents, the male ratio had been relatively higher in their (academic orworkplace) fields. The differences in the male/female ratios in New Zealand according
to the other profiles of the respondents, however, were not statistically significant.
Although the differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in their 30’s (1.65) and 40’s (1.63), the married respondents (1.52), and thesingle income respondents (1.60) were the highest in each category27.
As shown in the figure below, the male/female ratio in the fields of the malescientists and engineers in New Zealand was lower than the average of all countries(1.96), being the second lowest after Pakistan, meaning the ratio of men was the second
highest.

27

The comparison on the respondents occupation excluded from the analysis since most respondents(92.6%) were engineers (50 people out of 54).

91

Figure 4.2.2 Average of New Zealand and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand to the perceptionof discrimination in STEM (2.60) was slightly lower than the mid-level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in New Zealand were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.2.8.
Table 4.2.8 Perception of Discrimination in New Zealand: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.62
2.41
2.00
2.90

1.069
0.765
0.748
0.791

2.043

0.120

2.57
2.48
3.85

0.927
0.817
0.597

5.091*

0.010

2.20
2.38
2.71

0.959
0.665
0.756

1.157

0.327

3.10
2.58
2.50

0.141
0.904
0.707

0.339

0.714

2.50
2.53

0.733
0.933

-0.130

0.897

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.60

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

92

The difference of responses according to the respondents marital status was
statistically significant (F=-5.091, p.01), and showed the average scores of the
respondents in others (including divorced) marital status is relatively high.
The differences in the responses to the perception of discrimination of respondents in
New Zealand, however, according to the other personal variable of the respondents were
not statistically significant. Although the differences were not statistically significant, theaverage scores of the respondents in their age over 50 (2.90), respondents with 3 ormore children (2.71) and professor/teacher respondents (3.10) were the highest in eachcategory.

Figure 4.2.3 Averages of New Zealand and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on discrimination (2.60)
was slightly higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being medium among 12
countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.09 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in New Zealand were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis.
The results are summarized in Table 4.2.9.
The difference of responses according to the respondents marital status was
statistically significant (F=3.729, p.05), and showed single respondents relatively havemore indirect experiences of discrimination than other respondents in the category.

93

Table 4.2.9 Indirect Experience in New Zealand: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.27
2.05
1.67
2.14

0.330
0.635
0.258
0.535

2.045

0.119

2.43
2.00
2.05

0.374
0.515
0.408

3.729*

0.031

1.94
1.86
1.95

0.481
0.516
0.416

0.160

0.853

2.00
2.10
2.13

0.354
0.537
0.177

0.035

0.966

2.11
1.84

0.540
0.459

1.697

0.097

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.09

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The differences in the responses to the indirect experience of respondents in New
Zealand, however, according to the other profiles of the respondents were notstatistically significant. Although it was not statistically significant, the respondents inthe age of 29 years or younger (2.27), and double-income respondents (2.11) had
relatively high indirect experience of discrimination.

Figure 4.2.4 Averages of New Zealand and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

94

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in New Zealand (2.09) was similarly higher than the average of
all countries (2.07), being medium among 12 countries.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 2.84, being lower than theneutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in New
Zealand were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table
4.2.10.
Table 4.2.10 Need of Support Policy in New Zealand: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.08
2.70
2.50
2.90

1.205
0.922
1.449
0.981

0.513

0.675

3.21
2.67
4.00

0.393
1.046
1.354

3.672*

0.032

2.00
2.94
2.64

1.090
0.892
0.710

3.160

0.055

3.75
2.81
2.75

1.061
1.078
0.354

0.752

0.476

2.74
2.59

1.165
0.905

0.452

0.654

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.84

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The difference of responses according to the respondents marital status was
statistically significant (F=3.672, p.05), and showed the respondents in ‘the Others(including divorced)’ marital status relatively strongly agree than other respondents inthe category. The differences in the responses to the need of support policy to resolve95the gender barrier in New Zealand, however, according to the other profiles of the
respondents were not statistically significant. Although the differences were notstatistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in their age 29 years or
younger (3.08), and the respondents with 2 or more children (2.74) showed relatively
high agreement to the need of support policy.

Figure 4.2.5 Averages of New Zealand and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in New Zealand agreeing to theneed of support policy was lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being thelowest among 12 countries.

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on the perceptionof gender equality was 3.67 which was slightly higher than the neutral level. The
differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation,and double income status (if married) of the respondents in New Zealand were
evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The differences were not statistically significant.
Although the differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in their 40’s (4.33), single respondents (3.89), and double-income
respondents (3.69) showed a relatively high perception of gender equality.

96

Table 4.2.11 Perception of Gender Equality in New Zealand: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.71
3.55
4.33
3.55

0.494
0.715
0.484
0.642

2.771

0.051

3.89
3.62
3.85

0.460
0.686
0.473

0.644

0.529

3.29
3.73
3.71

1.082
0.505
0.561

1.259

0.297

4.60
3.64
3.60

0.283
0.634
0.849

2.221

0.119

3.69
3.52

0.638
0.778

0.777

0.442

Average
3.67

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.2.6 Averages of New Zealand and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in New Zealand on genderequality (3.67) was higher than the average of all countries (2.92), being the highest
among 12 APNN member countries.

974.3. Malaysia
4.3.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Malaysia
A total of 55 male scientists and engineers (4.3% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.3.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Malaysia.
Regarding the age, 34.5% were in their 40’s, 32.7% were in their 30’s, 23.6% were
29 years or younger and 9.1% were in their 50 years or older. There were moremarried respondents at 54.5% than the single respondents at 45.5%. Of the respondents
that had children (56.4% of total Malaysia respondents), 51.6% had 3 or more children,
35.56% had 2 children and 12.9% had 1 child. In the case of couples, 70.0% weredouble-income couples while 30.5% were single-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 56.4% were engineers, followed by 21.8% wereteachers/professors and other professions for each. There are not either researchers or
healthcare professionals respondents who participate in this survey in Malaysia.
Table 4.3.1 General Profile of Respondents in Malaysia(Unit: Person, %)Composition

Frequency%

29 years or younger

13

23.6

30 - 3918

32.7

40 - 4919

34.5

Over 505

9.1

Single25

45.5

Married30

54.5

Others (including divorced)

-

-

1

4

12.9

2

11

35.5

3 or more

16

51.6

Professor/Teacher

12

21.8

Researcher--

Healthcare professional--

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

31

56.4

Other

12

21.8

Double income

21

70.0

Single income

9

30.0

Age

Marital status

Number of Children

Occupation

Double income status (married)98

4.3.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Malaysia with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Malaysia were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.95,
and it was similar to that of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was 1.96.
The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.44 which was similarly
lower than the average score (2.53) from the other 11 countries. The average score forthe indirect experience of discrimination was 1.93 which was also slightly lower than
the average score (2.08) of the other 11 countries.
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from Malaysia
agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was
3.36 which was slightly higher than “Neutral” but somewhat lower than the averagescore of the other countries (3.51) without statistical significance. Lastly, the averagescore for the awareness of gender equality was 2.79 which was slightly lower than the
average score of the other countries (2.93).

Figure 4.3.1 Comparisons of Answer between Malaysia and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, the averages scores form Malaysia were in the similar level to thosefrom other 11 countries within a slightly lower point for all 5 categories.

994.3.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Malaysia
and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.95, meaning there
were relatively more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.73
in college and 2.20 at current work, meaning that the ratio of women was slightly
higher at work than when they were in college.
The figure (1.95) was similar to that of 11 countries (1.96). Malaysia showed moremen during all questioned period (from college to current work). The average scores of
Malaysia for college and in graduate school were slightly lower (0.1 ~ 0.2 score point)
than other APNN 11 countries, whereas slightly higher for current work and manager orhigher position in current work at the same scale.
Table 4.3.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries: Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point Scale)

Question

Malaysia
Average(n=55)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,239)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

1.73

1.90

-1.1280.259

2The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

1.82

2.00

-1.204

0.229

2.20

2.04

1.028

0.304

2.04

1.88

0.997

0.319

1.95

1.96

-0.0990.921

3 The male/female ratio of my current workplace
4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace
Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.44, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator is moredifficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” received the highest averagescore (2.80). “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM
during their education period.” received the lowest average score (1.73).

100

The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.44 and similarly lower than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.53). A significant difference was observed from the responses “Girls andboys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education
period.” (t=-3.201, p.01) get a relatively lower score, while “Women in STEM receive
equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications
and level.” (t=2.159, p.05) received a higher score than those from other 11 countries.
The discrimination as perceived by the male scientists and engineer respondents in
Malaysia was generally little lower than the respondents from other countries. The figure
shows the perception of discrimination in STEM is significantly lower during
educational period but higher for equal work distribution and work appraisal in
Malaysia.
Table 4.3.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

Question

Malaysia
Average(n=55)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,239)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

1.73

2.09

-3.201**

0.002

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.71

2.99

-1.726

0.085

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and
3 work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.36

2.40

-0.2920.771

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.80

2.91

-0.691

0.490

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
5 work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

2.62

2.28

2.159*

0.031

2.44

2.53

-0.903

0.367

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scale∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Malaysia
on the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.93 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (2.71) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that101

related to “research fund and scholarship.”(1.58)
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (1.93) was similarly higher than the overall average of other 11 countries(2.08). More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of
discrimination related to “Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly”(t=-2.120, p.034) was lower than the average scores of other countries.
Table 4.3.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Type

QuestionIndirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Malaysia
Average(n=55)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,239)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

1.58

1.69

-0.871

0.384

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leadinga research project because she is female.

1.64

1.67

-0.3060.760

3 Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

1.78

2.05

-2.120*

0.034

2.71

2.90

-1.342

0.180

1.93

2.08

-1.7100.087

4Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care
Sub Scale∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.15. The score was similar to theaverage 4.18 of 11 other countries indicating that the respondents in Malaysia equally
had a positive view as other 11 APNN member countries.
Table 4.3.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type

CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

Malaysia
Average(n=55)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,239)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.15

4.18

-0.2850.776

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.78

3.88

-0.7100.478

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

2.95

3.14

-1.146

0.252

3.36

3.51

-1.1630.245

Sub Scale102

The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.78, meaning that they slightly agreed to it. It was similarly lower
than the average of other 11 countries (3.88). In other words, the male scientists andengineers in Malaysia agreed that there is need of policy to overcome the genderbarrier, similarly less than other 11 countries. on average.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia answering to thequestion “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 2.95 meaning that they neither disagree nor
agree. And the score was also slightly lower than the average of other 11 countries(3.14).

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.79 points, being lower than mid-level.
Table 4.3.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Question

Malaysia
Average(n=55)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,239)t(p)

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional
1 and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what
is appropriate for themselves

2.58

2.62

-0.2670.791

2Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men

2.89

3.29

-2.254*

0.024

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way

2.96

2.96

0.001

0.999

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.18

3.62

-2.479*0.013

5I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

2.33

2.15

1.172

0.242

Sub Scale

2.79

2.93

-1.277

0.202

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.18).
It was followed by “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (2.96), “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” (2.89), and “In a relative sense,
men are rational while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves” (2.58). The scores indicate that the103respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding the gender role in family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.33) was the lowest.
The scores indicate that the respondents had strong perception of conventional divisionof that equal opportunity would lead to an equal outcome, meaning that the perceptionof gender equality related to this question was relatively low.
The overall average score of Malaysia (2.79) was slightly lower than the averagescore of other 11 countries (2.93). More specifically, the average scores on “In order tomaintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should have greater power andauthority than the wife” (t=-2.479, p.05), and “Primary breadwinners (who take careof financial obligations) of households should be men” (t=-2.254, p.05) were lower
than other 11 countries at statistically significant levels. The average scores indicate thatthe male scientists and engineers in Malaysia had a somewhat lower perception ofgender equality related to gender role in family than those in other countries.

4.3.4. Comparison of Responses in Malaysia with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.95,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Malaysia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.3.7
shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the occupation in Malaysia was statisticallysignificant (F=4.280, p.019), and revealed there are more men in
the field ofengineers than that of other occupations. Although other differences were not statisticallysignificant, the average scores of the respondents in their 30’s (2.19) and the
respondents with 3 or more children (2.08), and the single income respondents (2.11)
were the highest in each category.

104

Table 4.3.7 male/female ratio in Malaysia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.10
2.19
1.63
1.85

1.134
0.949
0.669
0.285

1.446

0.240

1.92
1.97
-

0.901
0.890
-

-0.193

0.848

1.50
1.98
2.08

0.540
0.938
0.815

0.763

0.476

2.15
1.67
2.46

0.950
0.669
1.091

4.280*

0.019

1.90
2.11

0.910
0.876

-0.575

0.570

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.95

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.3.2 Average of Malaysia and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Malaysia (1.95) was similar to the average of all countries (1.96), being
the mid-level.

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination

105

The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.44) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Malaysia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.3.8.
Although other differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in theirage over 50 (2.88) was relatively higher in the category.
Table 4.3.8 Perception of Discrimination in Malaysia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.48
2.38
2.37
2.88

0.710
0.682
0.586
0.303

0.955

0.421

2.40
2.48
-

0.653
0.625
-

-0.463

0.645

2.20
2.55
2.44

0.432
0.839
0.646

0.355

0.704

2.50
2.43
2.42

0.663
0.693
0.463

0.061

0.941

2.45
2.56

0.547
0.811

-0.427

0.672

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.44

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.3.3 Averages of Malaysia and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)

106

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on discrimination (2.44)
was lower than the average of all countries (2.53), being medium among 12 countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 1.93 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in Malaysia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.3.9.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in their
40’s (2.16), married, those who have 3 or more children and double-income respondents
were relatively high in each category.
Table 4.3.9 Indirect Experience in Malaysia: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.79
1.72
2.16
2.15

0.660
0.392
0.693
0.285

2.290

0.089

1.81
2.03
-

0.527
0.638
-

-1.369

0.177

1.88
1.70
2.11

0.661
0.688
0.508

1.533

0.234

1.96
-

0.673
-

0.056

0.946

1.90

0.543

1.96

0.689

2.06
1.94

0.642
0.659

0.447

0.659

Type

Average

Total

1.93

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.0107Figure 4.3.4 Averages of Malaysia and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Malaysia (1.93) was lower than the average of all countries(2.07), being the fourth lowest after South Korea, Mongolia and Japan.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.36, being slightly higher
than the neutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the
respondents in Malaysia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are
summarized in Table 4.3.10.
Although the differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in their age 29 years or younger (3.65), the respondents with 1 child (3.75),
and single income respondent (3.56)s showed relatively high agreement to the need ofsupport policy.

108

Table 4.3.10 Need of Support Policy in Malaysia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.65
3.11
3.37
3.50

0.718
1.106
0.910
1.000

0.865

0.465

3.38
3.35
-

0.950
0.957
-

0.116

0.908

3.75
3.23
3.50

0.866
0.984
1.000

0.488

0.619

3.25
3.29
3.67

0.866
1.071
0.615

0.791

0.459

3.26
3.56

0.889
1.130

-0.764

0.451

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.36

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The below figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Malaysia agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.36) was similarly lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being
the mid-level among 12 countries.

Figure 4.3.5 Averages of Malaysia and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)109∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on the perception ofgender equality was 2.79 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Malaysia were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in their
30’s (2.96), single (2.90), and respondents in other occupation (3.02) were showed
relatively higher in each category.
Table 4.3.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Malaysia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.78
2.96
2.78
2.24

0.781
0.701
0.808
1.099

1.058

0.375

2.90
2.69
-

0.744
0.838
-

0.976

0.333

2.85
3.09
2.49

0.661
0.756
0.826

1.964

0.159

2.57

0.906

2.79
3.02

0.737
0.838

0.956

0.391

2.70
2.67

0.852
0.854

0.112

0.912

Average
2.79

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

110Figure 4.3.6 Averages of Malaysia and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Malaysia on gender equality(2.79) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the fifth lowest afterIndia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Vietnam.

111

4.4. Mongolia
4.4.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Mongolia
A total of 106 male scientists and engineers (8.2% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.4.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Mongolia.
Regarding the age, 47.2% were 29 years or younger, 34.9% were in their 30’s,
12.3% were in their 40’s, and 5.7% were in their 50 years or older. There were moremarried respondents at 65.1% than the single respondents at 28.3%. Of the respondents
that had the children(63.2% of total Mongolia respondents), 41.8% had 2 children,
31.3% had 1 child, and 26.9% had 3 or more children. In the case of couples, 72.5%
were double-income couples while 27.5% were single-income couples. Regarding theoccupation, 72.6% were engineers, followed by 17.0% were teachers/professors, 7.5%
were in other professions, 1.9% were researchers, and 1.9% were healthcare
professionals respondents who participate in this survey in Mongolia.
Table 4.4.1 General Profile of Respondents in Mongolia(Unit: Person, %)Composition

Frequency%

29 years or younger

50

47.2

30 - 3937

34.9

40 - 4913

12.3

Over 506

5.7

Single30

28.3

Married69

65.1

Others (including divorced)

7

6.6

1

21

31.3

2

28

41.8

3 or more

18

26.9

Professor/Teacher

18

17.0

Researcher

2

1.9

Healthcare professional

1

0.9

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

77

72.6

Other

8

7.5

Double income

50

72.5

Single income

19

27.5

Age

Marital status

Number of Children

Occupation

Double income status (married)112

4.4.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Mongolia with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Mongolia were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 2.72,
and it was higher than that of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was 1.89.
The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.75 which was higher
than the average score (2.51) from the other 11 countries. The average score for theindirect experience of discrimination was 1.82 which was also slightly lower than the
average score (2.09) of the other 11 countries.
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from Mongolia
agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was
3.26 which was slightly higher than “Neutral” but somewhat lower than the averagescore of the other countries (3.53) without statistical significance. Lastly, the averagescore for the Perception of Gender Equality was 2.93 which was similar to the averagescore of the other countries (2.92).

Figure 4.4.1 Comparisons of Answer between Mongolia and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

Male/Female Ratio, Perception of Discrimination, Indirect Experience of Discrimination,
Need of Support Policy, Perception of Gender Equality, Mongolia, Other countries.
In summary, Mongolia had more men but relatively fewer men than other 11
countries, showed similar perception of gender equality, revealed lower indirect
experience of discrimination, and agreed less to the need of support policy than other11 APNN Member countries.

113

4.4.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Mongolia
and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 2.72, meaning there
were relatively more men but the ratio was close to balance. The male/female ratio in
STEM was the lowest scoring 2.35 in college and highest (2.83) in graduate school.
This figure was lowered at current work (2.69) but was arrived at balanced level inmanagement level at current work.
The figure was statistically significantly (t=9.9917, p.000) higher than 1.89 which
was the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries. Mongolia showed more
women in the management level of respondents current work (t=9.898, p.000),
followed by in graduate school (t=8.733, p.000), in current work (t=5.327, p.000),
and in college (t=3.736, p.000) than other countries at statistically significant level.
Table 4.4.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)

Type

Question1male/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

2
3
4

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education
The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school
The male/female ratio of my current workplace
The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace
Sub Scale

Mongolia
Average(n=106)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,188)

t

(p)

2.35

1.85

3.736***

0.000

2.83

1.91

8.733***

0.000

2.69

1.99

5.327***

0.000

3.00

1.79

9.898***

0.000

2.72

1.89

9.917***

0.000∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.75, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” received the highest average score (3.56). “Women in STEM
generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues.” (2.30) and “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors
in STEM during their education period.” (2.32) received the lowest average score.

114

The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.75 and higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.51) at a statistically significant(t=5.011, p.000). Specifically, significant
differences were observed for the responses “It is more difficult for a woman to get a
job in the STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.”(t=6.996, p.000),“Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to menof the same qualifications and level.” (t=3.287, p.001), “Girls and boys were equallyencouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period.” (t=3.105, p.01) get a relatively higher score, than those from other 11 countries.
The figures show the perception of discrimination in STEM is significantly higher
from entering the professional life to equal work distribution and work appraisal in
Mongolia than in other 11 countries on average.
Table 4.4.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

Question

Mongolia
Average(n=106)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,188)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

2.32

2.05

3.105

0.002

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

3.56

2.92

6.996***

0.000

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and
3 work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.67

2.37

3.287**

0.001

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.92

2.90

0.246

0.806

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
5 work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

2.30

2.29

0.100

0.920

2.75

2.51

5.011***

0.000

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scale∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Mongoliaon the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.82 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (2.12) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “research fund and scholarship.”(1.68)

115

The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (1.82) was lower than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.09) at
statistically significant (t=-4.231, p.000). More specifically, the average scores of the
responses to the questions of discrimination related to “Woman in STEM leaving work
due to her marriage, pregnancy or child care” (t=-8.156, p.000), “Woman in STEM
being sexually harassed or treated unfairly” (t=-4.019, p.000) were lower than the
average scores of other countries at statistically significant.
Table 4.4.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

Mongolia
Average(n=106)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,188)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

1.68

1.68

-0.0300.976

2Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.79

1.66

1.580

0.114

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

1.70

2.06

-4.019***

0.000

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

2.12

2.96

-8.156***

0.000

1.82

2.09

-4.231***

0.000

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Sub Scalet(p)∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a somewhat positive view on the career
outlook of women in their fields as the average score was 3.74. But this score waslower than the average of other 11 countries (4.44) at statistically significant (t=-5.565,
p.000) indication that the respondents in Mongolia had less positive view than other11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.44, meaning that their opinion is close to ‘neutral’ It was lower
than the average of other 11 countries (3.92) at a statistically significant (t=-4.627, p
.000). In other words, the male scientists and engineers in Mongolia agreed that thereis need of policy to overcome the gender barrier, less than other 11 countries on
average.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia answering to thequestion “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.08 meaning that they neither disagree nor
agree. And the score was slightly lower than the average of other 11 countries (3.14).

116

Table 4.4.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type

CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

Mongolia
Average(n=106)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,188)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

3.74

4.22

-5.565***

0.000

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.44

3.92

-4.627***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.08

3.14

-0.6680.505

Sub Scale

3.26

3.53

-3.3080.001∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.93 points, being close to the mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “Women are born to have a way ofcaring children that men are not capable of in the same way” (3.21).
It was followed by “In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.08), “Primary
breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of households should be men”
(2.96), “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus, theyought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves” (2.68).
The scores indicate that the respondents had more perception of gender equality
regarding the gender role in family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.75) was the slightly
lower than other scores in the category.
The overall average score of Mongolia (2.93) was similar to the average score ofother 11 countries (2.92). More specifically, the average scores on “I believe genderequality will be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities asmen.”(t=6.938, p.000), and “Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way” (t=2.501, p.014) were higher than other 11
countries at statistically significant levels.
However, the average score on “In order to maintain the order and peace of afamily, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (t=-5.709, p
.000), and “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (t=-3.300, p.001) were lower at statistically significant.

117

Table 4.4.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Type

Question

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement each otherby doing what is appropriate for themselves

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

Mongolia
Average(n=106)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,188)

t

(p)

2.68

2.61

0.640

0.523

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

2.96

3.30

-3.300**0.001

3Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

3.21

2.94

2.501*

0.014

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.08

3.65

-5.709***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

2.75

2.10

6.938***

0.000

2.93

2.92

0.223

0.824

Sub Scale

4.4.4. Comparison of Responses in Mongolia with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.95,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Mongolia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.4.7
shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the child number (F=3.970, p.05) andincome status (t=-2.613, p.05) in Mongolia was statistically significant and revealed
there are more men in the field of respondents having 3 or more children (3.02) thanof respondents having 1 child (2.69). Although other differences were not statisticallysignificant, the average scores of the respondents in their 30’s (2.19), married andresearcher respondents were the highest in each category.

118

Table 4.4.7 male/female ratio in Mongolia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.72
2.80
2.58
2.50

0.714
0.872
0.793
0.592

0.429

0.733

3.01
2.92
2.69

0.606
0.586
0.527

0.904

0.408

3.02
2.82
2.38

0.778
0.707
0.708

3.970*

0.024

2.92
3.88
2.00
2.63
2.88

0.659
1.591
2.036

0.095

2.62
3.14

0.801
0.567

-2.613*

0.011

Type

Average

Total

2.72

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

0.751
0.845

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.4.2 Average of Mongolia and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Mongolia (2.72) was similar to the average of all countries (1.96), being
the highest level among APNN 12 countries and was closed to the balanced.

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination

119

The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.75) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Mongolia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.4.8.
The difference of response according to the respondents’ income status (t=2.100, p.05) in Mongolia was statistically significant, and revealed the perception of
discrimination of double income respondents is relatively higher than that of single
income respondents.
Although other differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in 30’s
(2.82), single (as marital status, 3.01), and respondents in other occupation wererelatively high in each category.
Table 4.4.8 Perception of Discrimination in Mongolia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.75
2.83
2.65
2.57

0.365
0.526
0.524
0.625

0.924

0.432

3.01
2.92
2.69

0.606
0.586
0.527

0.904

0.408

2.69
2.76
2.72

0.403
0.533
0.583

0.144

0.866

2.63
2.70
2.40
2.77
2.90

0.481
0.141
0.468
0.400

0.690

0.600

2.82
2.56

0.479
0.445

2.100*

0.040

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.75

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The figure below shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on discrimination (2.75)
was higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being the second highest after
Vietnam among 12 countries.

120

Figure 4.4.3 Averages of Mongolia and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 1.82 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
Table 4.4.9 Indirect Experience in Mongolia: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.80
1.87
1.85
1.71

0.564
0.634
0.573
0.431

0.207

0.891

1.84
1.79
1.80

0.606
0.586
0.527

0.904

0.408

1.88
1.83
1.93

0.610
0.628
0.468

0.164

0.849

2.01
2.00
1.25
1.78
1.88

0.639
0.354
0.923

0.454

1.89
1.86

0.617
0.614

0.179

0.858

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.82

0.569
0.567

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

121

The differences according to the respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) in Mongolia were evaluatedby ANOVA (or t) analysis. The results are summarized in Table 4.4.9.
The standard deviation of the average scores of the respondents by the personalvariable was in similar level.

Figure 4.4.4 Averages of Mongolia and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Mongolia (1.82) was lower than the average of all countries(2.07), being the second lowest after South Korea∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.26, being slightly higher
than the neutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the
respondents in Mongolia were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are
summarized in Table 4.4.10.
Although the differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in their age 29 years or younger (3.36), single respondents (as marital
status, 3.01), engineers (3.34) and double income respondents (3.37) showed relatively
high agreement to the need of support policy.

122

Table 4.4.10 Need of Support Policy in Mongolia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.36
3.14
3.19
3.33

0.700
0.925
0.751
0.753

0.617

0.606

3.01
2.92
2.69

0.606
0.586
0.527

0.904

0.408

3.21
3.32
3.25

0.751
0.884
0.752

0.111

0.895

3.14
2.50
3.00

0.589
2.121
-

1.152

0.336

3.34

0.816

2.94

0.496

3.37
2.95

0.813
0.780

1.950

0.055

Type

Average

Total

3.26

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.4.5 Averages of Mongolia and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Mongolia agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.26) was lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being thefourth lowest after New Zealand, Pakistan, and South Korea.

123∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on the perception ofgender equality was 2.93 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Mongolia were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in their
30’s (3.04), single (3.01), and single income respondents (3.03) were shown a relatively
high perception of gender equality in each category.
Table 4.4.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Mongolia: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.95
3.04
2.72
2.60

0.604
0.521
0.597
0.727

1.670

0.178

3.01
2.92
2.69

0.606
0.586
0.527

0.904

0.408

2.95
2.94
2.90

0.596
0.596
0.537

0.041

0.960

2.74
2.90
2.60
2.98
2.95

0.393
0.141
0.670

0.614

2.88
3.03

0.595
0.563

-0.933

0.354

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.93

0.648
0.334

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

124

Figure 4.4.6 Averages of Mongolia and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Mongolia on gender equality(2.93) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the mid-level among 12
countries.

1254.5. Bangladesh
4.5.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Bangladesh
A total of 100 male scientists and engineers (7.7% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.5.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Bangladesh.
Regarding the age, 77.0% were 29 years or younger, 20.0% were in their 30’s, 2.0%
were in their 40’s, and 1.0% were in their 50 years or older. Bangladesh respondents
are relatively young than other countries. There were more single respondents at 64.0%
than married respondents at 35.5%. Of the respondents that had the children (21% of
total Bangladesh respondents), 42.9% had 2 children and 28.6% had 1 child or 3 ormore children each. In case of couples, 55.1% were single-income couples while 44.1%
were double-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 46.0% were engineers, followed by 28.0% were researchers,
13.0% were teachers/professors, 11.0% were in other professions, and 2.0% were
healthcare professionals respondents.
Table 4.5.1 General Profile of Respondents in Bangladesh(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

77
20
2
1

77.0
20.0
2.0
1.0

64
35
1

64.0
35.0
1.0

6
9
6

28.6
42.9
28.6

13
28
2
46
11

13.0
28.0
2.0
46.0
11.0

15
19

44.1
55.9

126

4.5.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Bangladesh with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.” Average scoresof the respondents from Bangladesh were compared with that from the other 11 APNN
countries in each category as follows.
The average score of male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers
was 1.52, and it was lower than that from other 11 countries (1.96) at a statisticallysignificant. (t=-6.067, p.000), indicating more male ratio than other countries. The
average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.75 which was slightly higher
than the average score (2.51) from the other 11 countries. The average score for theindirect experience of discrimination was 2.51 which was also higher than the averagescore (2.03) of the other 11 countries at a statistically significant (t=7.414, p.000).
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from
Bangladesh agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in
STEM was 3.31 which was slightly higher than “Neutral” but somewhat lower than the
average score of the other countries (3.52) without statistical significance. Lastly, theaverage score for the awareness of gender equality was 2.38 which was lower than the
average score of the other countries (2.97) at statistical significance (t=-7.246, p.000).

Figure 4.5.1 Comparisons of Answer between Bangladesh and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, the averages scores from Bangladesh showed more men in STEM, lessagreement to support policy, slightly lower perception of discrimination and of genderequality than other countries.

1274.5.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Bangladesh
and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.52, meaning there
were more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.40 for
management level at the current workplace but highest in graduate school, meaning thatthe ratio of women was lower at work than that during their education period.
The figure (1.52) was lower than that of 11 countries (1.99) at a statisticallysignificant (t=-6.067, p.000). Bangladesh showed more men during all questioned
period (from college to current work and after). The average scores of Bangladesh atcurrent work (t=-6.713, p.000), at management level at current work (t=-5.956, p
.000), at college (t=-3.448, p.001), and at graduate school (t=-3.013, p.01) wereslightly lower (0.1 ~ 0.2 score point) than other APNN 11 countries, whereas slightly
higher for current work and manager or higher position in current work at the same
scale. In summary, there were more men in STEM in Bangladesh than other 11
countries for all period from college to the management level at current work.
Table 4.5.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)

Question

Bangladesh
Average(n=100)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,194)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during
my university(college) education

1.57

1.92

-3.448**0.001

2The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

1.68

2.01

-3.013**0.003

3The male/female ratio of my current workplace

1.44

2.10

-6.713***

0.000

4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace

1.40

1.93

-5.956***0.000

Sub Scale

1.52

1.99

-6.067***

0.000

Type

male/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.75, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” received the highest average score (3.27). “Girls and boys were128

equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period.”(1.99) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.75 and higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.51) at a statistically significant (t=3.278, p.001). Specifically, significant
differences were observed for the responses “Women in STEM generally receive lesspay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues” (t=2.988, p.01), “It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a
man with the same qualifications.” (t=2.630, p.001), and “Women in STEM receive
equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications
and level.” (t=2.682, p.001) get relatively higher score, than those from other 11
countries.
The figures show the perception of discrimination of male scientists and engineers in
STEM of Bangladesh is significantly higher from entering the professional life to equal
work distribution, payment and work appraisal in Bangladesh than in other 11 countries
on average.
Table 4.5.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

Question

Bangladesh
Average(n=100)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,194)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

1.99

2.08

-0.7130.477

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

3.27

2.95

2.630**

0.009

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and
3 work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.68

2.37

2.682**

0.007

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

3.10

2.89

1.649

0.102

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
5 work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

2.70

2.26

2.988**

0.003

2.75

2.51

3.278***

0.001

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scale∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Bangladeshon the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.51 points which was close to themedian value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale, meaning “I have not seen or heard of it

129

but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (3.15) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “participating or leading a research project” (2.11).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (2.51) was higher than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.03) at
statistically significant (t=7.414, p.000).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of indirect
experience related to “Woman in STEM are disadvantaged in receiving research funds
or scholarships because she is female” (t=6.523, p.000), “Woman in STEM isdisadvantaged in participating or leading a research project because she is female.”(t=4.716, p.000), “Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly”(t=4.345, p.000), and “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy
or child care” (t=2.953, p.000) were higher in order than the average scores of othercountries at statistically significant.
Table 4.5.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

Bangladesh
Average(n=100)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,194)1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving
research funds or scholarships because she is female

2.33

1.63

6.523***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

2.11

1.63

4.716***

0.000

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly

2.46

2.00

4.345***

0.000

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

3.15

2.87

2.953**

0.004

Sub Scale

2.51

2.03

7.414***

0.000

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)t(p)∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.38. The score was significantly higher(t=2.442, p.000) than the average of 11 other countries (4.16) indicating that the
respondents in Bangladesh had more positive view to other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.82, meaning that they slightly agreed to it. It was similar to theaverage of other 11 countries (3.88). In other words, the male scientists and engineers130

in Bangladesh agreed that there is need of policy to overcome the gender barrier on asimilar level with other 11 countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh answering to thequestion “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 2.75 meaning that they neither disagree nor
agree. And the score was lower than the average (3.16) of other 11 countries at a
statistically significant (t=-2.626, p.05).
Table 4.5.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

Bangladesh
Average(n=100)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,194)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.38

4.16

2.442*

0.015

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.82

3.88

-0.5840.559

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

2.79

3.16

-2.626*0.010

Sub Scale

3.31

3.52

-2.2540.024∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.38 points, being lower than the mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “Women are born to have a way ofcaring children that men are not capable of in the same way” (2.71).
It was followed by “In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (2.50), “Primary
breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of households should be men”
(2.35), and “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus,
they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves”(2.29). The scores indicate that the respondents had more perception of gender equality
regarding the gender role in family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.05) were the lowest.
The scores indicate that the respondents had strong perception of conventional divisionof that equal opportunity would lead to equal outcome, meaning that the perception ofgender equality related to this question was relatively low.
The overall average score of Bangladesh (2.38) was lower than the average score of131other 11 countries (2.97) at a statistically significant level (t=-7.246, p.000). Morespecifically, the average scores on “In order to maintain the order and peace of afamily, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (t=-9.135, p
.000), “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of households
should be men” (t=-8.396, p.000), ‘In a relative sense, men are rational while womenare emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves’ (t=-2.779, p.01) and ‘Women are born to have a way ofcaring children that men are not capable of in the same way’ (t=-1.978, p.05) werelower than other 11 countries at statistically significant levels. The average scoresindicate that the male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh had a lower perception ofgender equality related to gender role in family than those in other countries.
Table 4.5.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Bangladesh
Average(n=100)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,194)t(p)

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves

2.29

2.65

-2.779**0.006

2Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

2.35

3.35

-8.396***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

2.71

2.98

-1.978*0.048

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family,
4 the husband should have greater power and authority
than the wife.

2.50

3.69

-9.135***0.000

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

2.05

2.16

-0.9440.346

Sub Scale

2.38

2.97

-7.246***

0.000

Type

Perception of
GenderEquality(5-pointscale)

Question5

4.5.4. Comparison of Responses in Bangladesh with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.52,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Bangladesh were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.5.7
shows the results.
Although the differences due to the personal variables were not statistically significant,132

the average scores of the respondents in their 40’s (1.00), having 1 children (1.21),
engineers (1.32) and single income (1.37) were the lowest in each category meaning
more male scientists and engineers in their fields.
Table 4.5.7 male/female ratio in Bangladesh: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.52Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.683

0.564

1.352

0.264

1.56
1.38
1.00
1.50

0.776
0.553
0.000

1.47
1.25
1.50

0.615
0.714

1.21
1.36
1.33

0.292
0.453
0.585

0.212

0.811

1.58
1.62
2.38
1.32
1.91

0.724
0.644
0.884
0.685
0.903

2.638*

0.039

1.63
1.37

0.706
0.814

0.998

0.326

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.5.2 Average of Bangladesh and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Bangladesh (1.52) was lower than the average of all countries (1.96), being
the third lowest level after Pakistan, and New Zealand among APNN 12 countries.

133∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.75) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Bangladesh were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.5.8.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in 30’s
(2.97), engineers (2.94), and single income respondents (2.91) were relatively high ineach category
Table 4.5.8 Perception of Discrimination in Bangladesh: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/Tp

2.738*

0.048

2.75
2.69
2.97
3.50
1.80

0.685
0.396
0.141

2.44
2.25
3.00

0.615
0.714
-

1.352

0.264

2.93
2.71
2.97

0.501
0.701
0.625

0.374

0.693

2.66
2.60
2.10
2.94
2.53

0.574
0.697
0.990
0.597
0.628

2.312+

0.063

2.53
2.91

0.640
0.590

-1.758+0.088

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The figure below shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on discrimination (2.75)
was higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being the second highest with
Mongolia after Vietnam among 12 countries.

134

Figure 4.5.3 Averages of Bangladesh and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.51 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
Table 4.5.9 Indirect Experience in Bangladesh: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.51

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.261

0.853

1.352

0.264

2.49
2.59
2.75
2.25

0.621
0.650
1.414

2.44
2.25
3.00

0.615
0.714

2.50
2.72
2.46

1.037
0.605
0.749

0.250

0.781

2.56
2.54
2.75
2.52
2.30

0.410
0.593
1.061
0.708
0.611

0.420

0.794

2.42
2.54

0.724
0.689

-0.5050.617

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

135

The differences according to the respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) in Bangladesh were
evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The results are summarized in Table 4.5.9.
The standard deviation of the average scores of the respondents by the personalvariable was in similar level.

Figure 4.5.4 Averages of Bangladesh and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Bangladesh (2.51) was lower than the average of all
countries (2.07), being the second highest after India.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.31, being slightly higher
than the neutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the
respondents in Bangladesh were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are
summarized in Table 4.5.10.
The standard deviation of the average scores of the respondents by the personalvariable was in similar level.

136

Table 4.5.10 Need of Support Policy in Bangladesh: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.31Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.488

0.691

3.27
3.50
3.00
4.00

1.053
0.811
1.414

2.44
2.25
3.00

0.615
0.714
-

1.352

0.264

3.08
3.83
3.67

1.021
0.750
0.606

1.638

0.222

3.31
3.23
2.25
3.56
2.68

1.032
0.967
1.768
0.990
0.845

2.436+

0.053

3.00
3.76

1.086
0.933

-2.203*0.035

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.5.5 Averages of Bangladesh and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Bangladesh agreeing to the needof support policy (3.31) was lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being thefifth lowest after New Zealand, Pakistan, South Korea and Mongolia.

137∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on the perceptionof gender equality was 2.38 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Bangladesh were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in theage of less than 29 years (2.46), having more than 3 children (2.23), and double
income respondents (2.33) were relatively high, meaning more perception of genderequality in each category.
Table 4.5.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Bangladesh: Difference according to Personal
Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.821

0.149

1.352

0.264

2.38
2.46
2.11
2.40
1.80

0.660
0.560
1.131

2.44
2.25
3.00

0.615
0.714

2.17
2.07
2.23

0.942
0.574
0.742

0.096

0.909

2.57
2.49
2.70
2.18
2.68

0.626
0.467
0.424
0.761
0.454

2.289

0.066

2.33
2.19

0.670
0.759

0.577

0.568

138

Figure 4.5.6 Averages of Bangladesh and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Bangladesh on genderequality (2.38) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the third lowest
level after India, and Pakistan among 12 countries.

1394.6. Vietnam
4.6.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Vietnam
A total of 104 male scientists and engineers (8.0% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.6.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Vietnam.
Regarding the age, 76.9% were in their 30’s, 11.5% were in their 40’s and 29 years
or less for each, and there was no respondent in the age of 50 or older. There weremore married respondents at 87.0% than the single respondents at 13.0%. Of the
respondents that had the children (83.0% of total Vietnam respondents), 73.9% had 2children, 17.0% had 1 child, and 9.1% had 3 or more children. In the case of couples,
all the respondents Vietnam were double-income couples (100%). Regarding occupation,
52.9% were teachers/professors, followed by 32.7% were engineers, 14.4% were in otherprofessions in Vietnam.
Table 4.6.1 General Profile of Respondents in Vietnam(Unit: Person, %)Composition

Frequency%

29 years or younger

12

11.5

30 - 3980

76.9

40 - 4912

11.5

Over 50--

Single1313.0

Married87

87.0

Others (including divorced)

-

-

1

15

17.0

2

65

73.9

3 or more

8

9.1

Professor/Teacher

55

52.9

Researcher--

Healthcare professional--

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

34

32.7

Other

15

14.4

Double income

87

100.0

Single income

-

-

Age

Marital status

Number of Children

Occupation

Double income status (married)140

4.6.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Vietnam with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Vietnam were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows. The average male/female ratio in
the fields of male scientists and engineers was 2.08, and it was higher than that of the
respondents from the other 11 countries which was 1.95. The average score for theperception of discrimination was 2.98 which was higher than the average score (2.49)
from the other 11 countries at statistically significant (t=11.700, p.000). The averagescore for the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.11 which was similarly higher
than the average score (2.07) of the other 11 countries. The average score of malescientists and engineers from Vietnam agreeing to the need of support policy toovercome the gender barrier in STEM was 4.34 which was not only higher than
“Neutral” but also than the average score of the other countries (3.43) at statisticalsignificance (t=12.126, p.000). On the other hand, the average score for the perceptionof gender equality was 2.60 which was lower than the average score of the othercountries (2.95) at a statistically significant (t=-4.357, p.000).

Figure 4.6.1 Comparisons of Answer between Vietnam and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, Vietnam had more men but slightly fewer men than other 11 countries,
showed higher perception of gender equality, revealed higher indirect experience of
discrimination, and agreed more to the need of support policy than other 11 APNN
member countries.

1414.6.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Vietnam andOther APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 2.08, meaning there
were relatively more men than women in STEM. The male/female ratio at STEM was
the lowest scoring 1.91 in college and highest scoring 2.18 in graduate school. The
average male/female ratio at current work and at management level in workplace (2.09
for each) are slightly higher than that at college but slightly lower than that in graduate
school.
The figure (2.08) was similar to that of 11 countries (1.95). Vietnam showed moremen during all questioned period but slightly more women than other 11 countries on
average (from college to current work).
Table 4.6.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries: Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

Question

VietnamAverage(n=104)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,190)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

1.91

1.89

0.177

0.860

2

The male/female ratio of my department while at graduate
school

2.18

1.97

1.861

0.063

2.09

2.04

0.372

0.710

2.09

1.87

1.883

0.060

2.08

1.95

1.169

0.245

3 The male/female ratio of my current workplace
4

The male/female ration at management level at my current
workplace
Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.98, which wasslightly below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of genderbarrier, “Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator ismore difficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” received the highest averagescore (3.34). “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM
during their education period.” (2.43) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.98 and higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN

142

countries (2.49) at a statistically significant (t=11.700, p.000).
All detail responses from Vietnam have statistically significant differences to thosefrom other 11 countries on average. The highest difference score was “Women in
STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.” (t=7.807, p.000), followed by “Being promoted or becoming
a tenured professor or a principal investigator is more difficult for female scientists thanfor male scientists.” (t=5.225, p.000), “Women in STEM generally receive less pay
for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues” (t=3.846, p
.000), “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM
during their education period.” (t=3.570, p.000), and “It is more difficult for a woman
to get a job in the STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.” (t=3.476,
p.001).
The figures show the perception of discrimination of Vietnam men engineers andscientists in STEM is significantly higher from than that of other 11 countries on
average.
Table 4.6.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)
Type

1

2

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

3

4

5

Question

VietnamAverage(n=104)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,190)t(p)

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose
their majors in STEM during their education period.

2.43

2.04

3.570***

0.000

3.36

2.94

3.476**

0.001

3.20

2.33

7.807***

0.000

3.34

2.87

5.225***

0.000

2.62

2.27

3.846***

0.000

2.98

2.49

11.7000.000

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same
qualifications.
Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.
Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor ora principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.
Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues
Sub Scale∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Vietnamon the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.11 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”143

The indirect experience was the discrimination related to ‘participating or leading a
research project’ got the highest average score(2.44), while the discrimination related to‘sexually harassed or treated unfairly’ got the lowest score (1.80).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (2.11) was slightly higher than the overall average of other 11 countries(2.07) but the scores for each response in the category tend to be different from that ofother countries on average.
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of
discrimination related to “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leadinga research project because she is female.” (t=10.248, p.000), “Woman in STEM isdisadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships because she is female.”(t=4.523, p.000) were higher, while “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her
marriage, pregnancy or child care.” (t=-7.936, p.000), and “Woman in STEM being
sexually harassed or treated unfairly”(t=-2.787, p.01) were lower than that of other 11
countries at statistically significant level.
Table 4.6.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

VietnamAverage(n=104)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,190)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

2.05

1.65

4.523***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

2.44

1.60

10.248***0.000

3 Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

1.80

2.06

-2.787**0.005

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

2.13

2.96

-7.936***

0.000

2.11

2.07

0.516

0.607

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)4

Sub Scale∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a somewhat positive view on the career
outlook of women in their fields as the average score was 4.38, significantly higher(t=2.433, p.05) than the average of other 11 countries (4.16) meaning the respondents
in Vietnam had more positive view than other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 4.27, meaning that their opinion is positive to the support policy toovercome the discrimination It was higher than the average of other 11 countries (3.84)

144

at a statistically significant (t=5.003, p.000).
Moreover, the average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam answering to
the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 4.40, meaning that their opinion is positive
to the affirmative support policy to overcome the discrimination. This average score is
the highest among 11 countries (3.43) having statistical significance (t=15.340, p.05)
on average.
Table 4.6.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Question

VietnamAverage(n=104)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,190)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.38

4.16

2.433*

0.015

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

4.27

3.84

5.003***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system oraffirmative plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

4.40

3.02

15.340***0.000

Sub Scale

4.34

3.43

12.126***

0.000

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)t(p)∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.60 points, lower than mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.15).
It was followed by “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (3.08), “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” (2.81). The scores indicate that the
respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding the gender role in family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “In a relative sense, men are rational while
women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (2.21), and on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (1.76) were lower thanother scores in the category.
The overall average score of Vietnam (2.60) was lower than the average score ofother 11 countries (2.95) at statistically significant level (t=-4.357, p.000), meaning
lower perception of gender equality than other countries on average.

145

Table 4.6.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Type

Question

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement each otherby doing what is appropriate for themselves

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

VietnamAverage(n=104)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,190)

t

(p)

2.21

2.65

-3.905***

0.000

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

2.81

3.31

-4.424***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

3.08

2.95

0.929

0.353

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.15

3.64

-4.290***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

1.76

2.19

-4.341***

0.000

2.60

2.95

-4.357***0.000

Sub ScaleMore specifically, the average scores on “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” (t=-4.424, p.000), “I believe
gender equality will be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities asmen.” (t=-4.341, p.000), “In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (t=-4.290, p.000),and “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus, theyought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves” (t=-3.905,
p.000) were lower at statistically significant levels in order. The average scoresindicate that the male scientists and engineers in Vietnam had a lower perception ofgender equality related to gender role in family than those in other countries.
However, The average score on “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men” was slightly higher than other countries.

4.6.4. Comparison of Responses in Vietnam with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 2.08,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Vietnam were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.6.7

146

shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the marital status (t=5.874, p.006) in
Vietnam was statistically significant, and revealed there are more men in the field ofsingle respondents (3.21) than of married respondents (1.77).
Table 4.6.7 male/female ratio in Vietnam: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.13
2.16
1.50
-

0.199
1.225
0.238
-

1.918

0.152

3.21
1.77

1.513
0.670

5.874***

0.000

1.70
1.84
1.38

0.569
0.700
0.401

1.850

0.164

2.06
2.13
2.00

1.269
1.010
0.340

0.074

0.929

1.77
-

0.670
-

-

-

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.08

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Although other differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in the age less than 39 is lower more 0.5p than in the age over 40. These
differences make us know the male/female ratio is changing along with the generation.

Figure 4.6.2 Average of Vietnam and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)147

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Vietnam (2.08) was similar to the average of all countries (1.96).

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.98) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Vietnam were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.6.8.
The standard deviations of the average scores by the personal variable of the
respondents did not show statistical significances.
Table 4.6.8 Perception of Discrimination in Vietnam: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.98Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.757

0.178

3.12
2.95
3.10

0.199
0.409
0.181

3.12
2.96
-

0.252
0.393
-

1.469

0.145

2.92
2.96
3.03

0.376
0.412
0.151

0.182

0.834

2.94
3.01
3.09

0.234
0.373
0.676

1.073

0.346

85
-

2.96
-

-

-

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

148

Figure 4.6.3 Averages of Vietnam and Other Countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on discrimination (2.98) was
higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being the highest among 12 APNN
member countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.11 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in Vietnam were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.6.9.
The difference of responses according to the marital status (t=4.070, p.001) in
Vietnam was statistically significant, and revealed the single respondents (2.90) had
more indirect experiences of discrimination than married (1.91).
Although other differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents having fewer children, teacher/professor respondents were higher than othersin each category, indicate having more indirect experience of gender discrimination in
STEM.

149

Table 4.6.9 Indirect Experience in Vietnam: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.50
2.20
2.10
-

0.489
0.776
0.711
-

4.589*

0.012

2.90
1.91
-

0.857
0.567
-

4.070**

0.001

2.07
1.93
1.53

0.486
0.599
0.388

2.395

0.097

2.21
1.95
2.08

0.798
0.823
0.440

1.220

0.299

1.91
-

0.567
-

-

-

Type

Average

Total

2.11

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.6.4 Averages of Vietnam and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Vietnam (2.11) was similarly higher than the average of all
countries (2.07), being the mid-level among 12 countries.

150∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 4.34, being higher than theneutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in
Vietnam were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table
4.6.10.
The differences of responses according to the age (t=4.425, p.05), and occupation(t=4.543, p.05) in Vietnam were statistically significant, and revealed the respondents
in the age of less than 29 years (4.75) agree more to support policy than the
respondents in their 40’s (3.92). Due to the occupation, the teacher/professor (4.15)
respondents agree less than the engineer (4.56).
Although differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents having more children and single respondents were higher than others ineach category, indicate agree more to the support policy to overcome gender inequality
in STEM.
Table 4.6.10 Need of Support Policy in Vietnam: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

AverageStandard
Deviation

F/Tp

4.425*

0.014

4.34
4.75
4.34
3.92

0.261
0.741
0.557

4.62
4.26
-

0.650
0.711
-

1.678+

0.097

3.97
4.32
4.44

0.611
0.710
0.776

1.770

0.177

4.15

0.815

4.56
4.53

0.473
0.550

4.543*

0.013

4.26
-

0.711
-

-

-

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

151

Figure 4.6.5 Averages of Vietnam and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Vietnam agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (4.34) was higher than the average of all countries (3.51), being thehighest among 12 APNN member countries.

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on the perception ofgender equality was 2.60 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Vietnam were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
The differences of responses according to the children number (t=6.087, p.01), theage (t=6.073, p.01), the marital status (t=-4.771, p.000) and the occupation (t=4.322,
p.05) in Vietnam were statistically significant. It revealed the respondents having
fewer children, married and engineers showed stronger perception of gender equality
while the respondents in their 30’s, single and teacher/professor did less.

152

Table 4.6.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Vietnam: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.05
2.46
3.08
-

0.258
0.661
1.376
-

6.073**

0.003

1.82
2.78
-

0.580
0.692
-

-4.771***

0.000

3.12
2.78
2.13

0.770
0.651
0.301

6.087**

0.003

2.41
2.90
2.61

0.875
0.602
0.573

4.322*

0.016

2.78
-

0.692
-

-

-

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.60

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.6.6 Averages of Vietnam and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Vietnam on gender equality(2.60) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the fourth lowest level
after India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

153

4.7. Sri Lanka
4.7.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Sri Lanka
A total of 107 male scientists and engineers (8.3% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.3.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Sri Lanka.
Regarding the age, 30.8% were in their 30’s, 32.7% 28.0% were 29 years or
younger, 23.4% were in their 40’s, and 17.8% were in their 50 years or older. There
were more married respondents at 64.2% than the single respondents at 32.1%. Of the
respondents that had the children (64.5% of total Sri Lanka respondents), 46.4% had 2children, 37.7% had 1 child and 15.9% had 3 or more children. In the case of couples,
69.4% were double-income couples while 30.6% were single-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 40.2% were other professions, followed by 28.0% wereengineers, 12.1% were teachers/professors, 11.2% were researchers and 8.4% were
healthcare professionals in Sri Lanka.
Table 4.7.1 General Profile of Respondents in Sri Lanka(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

30

28.0
30.8
23.4
17.8

33
25
19
34

68
4
26

32
11

32.1
64.2
3.8
37.7
46.4
15.9

12
9

12.1
11.2
8.4

30

28.0

43

40.2

43

69.4
30.6

13

19

154

4.7.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Sri Lanka
with Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Sri Lanka were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 2.58,
and it was higher than that of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was
1.91 at a statistically significant level (t=6.258, p.000).
The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.40 which was similarly
lower than the average score (2.54) from the other 11 countries. The average score forthe indirect experience of discrimination was 2.26 which was higher than the averagescore (2.05) of the other 11 countries at a statistically significant level (t=3.282, p
.001).
On the other hand, the average score of male scientists and engineers from Sri Lanka
agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was
3.48 which was slightly higher than “Neutral” but similarly lower than the averagescore of the other countries (3.51) without statistical significance. Lastly, the averagescore for the Perception of Gender Equality was 3.37 which was significantly higher
than (t=6.264, p.000) the average score of the other countries (2.88).

Figure 4.7.1 Comparisons of Answer between Sri Lanka and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, in Sri Lanka, there were more female scientists and engineers comparedto other 11 APNN member countries on average. The average score of the perceptionof gender discrimination is slightly lower while the need of support policy, indirect155

experience of gender discrimination and perception of gender equality were higher thanother countries on average.

4.7.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Sri Lanka
and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 2.58, meaning there
were relatively more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 2.44
in college and 2.79 at current work, meaning that the ratio of women was slightly
higher at work than when they were in college.
The figure (2.58) was significantly higher (t=6.598, p.000) than that of 11 countries(1.91). The differences are followed by “at current work” (t=6.598, p.000), “manager
of higher position in current work” (t=5.539, p.000), at graduate school (t=4.886, p
.000), and at college (t=4.613, p.000) in order.
Table 4.7.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)
Question

Sri
Lanka
Average(n=107)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,187)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

2.44

1.85

4.613***

0.000

2

The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

2.65

1.93

4.886***

0.000

3

The male/female ratio of my current workplace

2.79

1.98

6.598***

0.000

4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace

2.53

1.83

5.539***

0.000

2.58

1.91

6.258***

0.000

Type

male/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.40, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” (2.73) received the highest average score. “Women in STEM
generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male156

colleagues” (1.98) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.40 and similarly lower than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.54) at a statistically significant level (t=-1.960, p.05). A significant
difference was observed for the responses “Women in STEM receive equal work
distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.”(t=2.252, p.05) get a relatively higher score, while other 4 average scores wererelatively lower. The differences of average scores were followed by “Women in STEM
generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues” (t=-3.577, p.000), “It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.” (t=-2.1806, p.05), and“Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator is moredifficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” (t=-2.042, p.05) in order.
Table 4.7.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)
Question

Sri
Lanka
Average(n=107)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,187)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

2.00

2.08

-0.7290.466

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.73

3.00

-2.180*

0.031

2.63

2.38

2.252*

0.025

2.66

2.92

-2.042*

0.043

1.98

2.32

-3.577***

0.000

2.40

2.54

-1.960*

0.050

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and
3 work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.
Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.
Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
5 work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues
Sub Scale

The discrimination as perceived by the male scientists and engineer respondents in Sri
Lanka was generally lower than the respondents from other countries. The figure shows
the perception of discrimination in STEM is significantly lower during the educational
period but higher for equal work distribution and work appraisal in Sri Lanka.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Sri Lanka

157

on the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.26 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (3.31), while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “research fund and scholarship.” (1.65).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (2.26) was similarly higher than the overall average of other 11 countries(2.05). More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of
discrimination related to “marriage, pregnancy, and childbirth” (t=5.550, p.000),“Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly” (t=3.954, p.000) was
higher than the average scores of other countries at statistically significant level.
Table 4.7.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

Sri
Lanka
Average(n=107)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,187)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds
or scholarships because she is female

1.65

1.68

-0.3410.733

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a
research project because she is female.

1.71

1.67

0.522

0.602

2.36

2.01

3.954***

0.000

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy
or child care

3.31

2.86

5.550***

0.000

Sub Scale

2.26

2.05

3.282**

0.001

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

3 Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly
4∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.15. The score was similar to theaverage 4.18 of 11 other countries indicating that the respondents in Sri Lanka equally
had a positive view to other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.94, meaning that they slightly agreed to it. It was similarly higher
than the average of other 11 countries (3.87). In other words, the male scientists andengineers in Sri Lanka agreed similarly that there is need of policy to overcome thegender barrier to other 11 countries on average.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka answering to thequestion “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve158gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.01 meaning that they neither disagree nor
agree. And the score was also slightly lower than the average of other 11 countries(3.15).
Table 4.7.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Question

Sri
Lanka
Average(n=107)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,187)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.15

4.18

-0.3550.723

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.94

3.87

0.713

0.476

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system oraffirmative plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.01

3.15

-1.0840.278

Sub Scale

3.48

3.51

-0.3510.726

TypeCareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 3.37 points, being higher than mid-level. And this difference hadstatistical significance (t=6.264, p.000).
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (4.08),“Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of households should bemen” (3.85), “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus,
they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves (3.11).
Except, the average score of “Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way” which was slightly lower than othercountries, all other average scores for perception of gender equality were significantly
higher than other 11 countries.
Compare to the other 11 countries, the average scores on “believe gender equality
will be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men.” (t=6.824, p
.000) have the highest difference, followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take careof financial obligations) of households should be men” (t=5.580, p.000), “In order tomaintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should have greater power andauthority than the wife” (t=4.759, p.000), and “In a relative sense, men are rational
while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing
what is appropriate for themselves” (t=4.366, p.000) were higher than other 11
countries at statistically significant levels. The average scores indicate that the male159

scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka had higher perception of gender equality related togender role in family and gender equity than those in other countries on average.
Table 4.7.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Type

Question
In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by
doing what is appropriate for themselves

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)Sri
Lanka
Average(n=107)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,187)

t

(p)

3.11

2.57

4.366***

0.000

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men

3.85

3.22

5.580***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that men
are not capable of in the same way

2.95

2.96

-0.0850.932

4In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

4.08

3.56

4.759***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

2.85

2.09

6.824***

0.000

Sub Scale

3.37

2.88

6.264***

0.000

4.7.4. Comparison of Responses in Sri Lanka with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 2.58,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Sri Lanka were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.7.7
shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the occupation in Sri Lanka was statisticallysignificant (t=8.818, p.000), and revealed there are more men in the field ofteacher/professor (1.80) than that of other occupations. Although other differences were
not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in their 50’s (2.16),
married, having more children, and the double income respondents were lower in eachcategory meaning more male scientists and engineers in their field.

160

Table 4.7.7 male/female ratio in Sri Lanka: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.91
2.48
2.75
2.16

0.906
1.075
0.944
0.870

2.111

0.105

2.77
2.45
3.38

0.950
0.983
1.090

2.342

0.102

2.72
2.49
2.30

1.103
0.932
1.123

0.628

0.537

1.80
3.07
3.06
2.03
3.03

0.926
0.956
0.427
0.724
0.910

8.818***

0.000

2.38
2.84

1.043
0.851

-1.587

0.119

Type

Average

Total

2.58

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.7.2 Average of Sri Lanka and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Sri Lanka (2.58) was higher than the total average, being the third highest
among 12 APNN member countries.

161

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.40) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Sri Lanka were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.7.8.
The difference of responses according to the occupation in Sri Lanka was statisticallysignificant level (t=3.934, p.01), and revealed weaker perception for health care
professional and researcher than other occupations. Although differences were notstatistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in the age 29 years or
younger (2.22) having fewer children, and single income respondents were relatively
lower in each category.
Table 4.7.8 Perception of Discrimination in Sri Lanka: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.22
2.48
2.45
2.48

0.725
0.583
0.762
0.627

0.998

0.397

2.35
2.45
2.15

0.773
0.622
0.854

0.532

0.589

2.36
2.48
2.60

0.733
0.611
0.693

0.531

0.590

2.72
2.08
1.78
2.51
2.45

0.641
0.549
0.595
0.545
0.729

3.934**

0.005

2.47
2.41

0.571
0.753

0.368

0.714

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.40

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

162

Figure 4.7.3 Averages of Sri Lanka and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on discrimination (2.40)
was lower than the average of all countries (2.53), being the third lowest after India,
and Nepal among 12 countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.26 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in Sri Lanka were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.7.9.
Although differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents in the age 30’s (2.42), single (2.38), and engineer (2.49) were relatively
higher in each category.

163

Table 4.7.9 Indirect Experience in Sri Lanka: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.18
2.42
2.27
2.08

0.605
0.601
0.732
0.409

1.527

0.212

2.38
2.20
2.31

0.705
0.561
0.688

1.028

0.361

2.27
2.13
2.36

0.682
0.516
0.626

0.802

0.453

2.13
2.06
2.06

0.428
0.339
0.481

1.852

0.125

2.49

0.786

2.23

0.573

2.16
2.26

0.517
0.537

-0.696

0.489

Average
2.26

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.7.4 Averages of Sri Lanka and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Sri Lanka (2.26) was higher than the average of all countries(2.07), being the third highest after India and Bangladesh.

164

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.48, being slightly higher
than the neutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the
respondents in Sri Lanka were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are
summarized in Table 4.7.10.
The difference of responses according to the age in Sri Lanka was statisticallysignificant level (t=3.656, p.05), and revealed more agreement at the age of 29 years
or younger. Although differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of
the respondents not married and at healthcare professional and researcher, and single
income were relatively higher in each category.
Table 4.7.10 Need of Support Policy in Sri Lanka: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.93
3.24
3.26
3.45

0.828
0.953
1.012
0.864

3.656*

0.015

3.66
3.35
3.88

0.885
0.989
0.750

1.570

0.213

3.69
3.23
2.86

1.021
0.833
1.120

3.338*

0.042

3.42
3.75
4.00

0.572
1.055
0.661

1.612

0.177

3.20

0.934

3.50

1.041

3.21
3.66

0.959
1.028

-1.661

0.102

Average
3.48

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

165

Figure 4.7.5 Averages of Sri Lanka and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Sri Lanka agreeing to the needof support policy (3.48) was similarly higher than the average of all countries (3.51),
being mid-level among 12 countries.

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on the perception ofgender equality was 3.37 which was higher than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Sri Lanka were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
The difference of responses according to children number in Sri Lanka wasstatistically significant (t=4.604, p.05), and revealed stronger perception of genderequality for the respondent having fewer children.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents younger,
not married and single income were showed relatively higher in each category.

166

Table 4.7.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Sri Lanka: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.50
3.49
3.26
3.09

0.729
0.543
0.668
0.812

1.961

0.124

3.49
3.29
3.80

0.702
0.675
0.673

1.800

0.170

3.65
3.16
3.11

0.694
0.692
0.450

4.604*

0.013

3.12
3.68
3.76
3.22
3.38

0.507
0.755
0.467
0.788
0.637

2.204

0.074

3.19

0.687
0.647

-1.465

0.148

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.37

3.46

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.7.6 Averages of Sri Lanka and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Sri Lanka on genderequality (3.37) was higher than the average of all countries (2.92), being the second
highest after New Zealand.

167

4.8. India
4.8.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in India
A total of 103 male scientists and engineers (8.0% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.8.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in India.
Regarding the age, 39.8% were in their 40’s, 22.3% were in their 30’s and 50 years
or older each, and 15.5%were 29 years or younger. There were more married
respondents at 86.4% than single respondents at 13.6%. Of the respondents that had
children (80.6% of total India respondents), 60.2% had 1 child, 28.9% had 2 children,and 10.8% had 3 or more children. In case of couples, 64.0% were single-income
couples while 36.0% were double-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 33.3% were teachers/professors, 25.5% were engineers andresearchers each, 10.8% were in other professions and 4.9% were healthcare
professional.
Table 4.8.1 General Profile of Respondents in India(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

16

15.5
22.3
39.8
22.3

23
41
23
14

89

50

24
9
34

26
5
27
11
32

57

13.6
86.4

60.2
28.9
10.8
33.3
25.5
4.9
25.5
10.8
36.0
64.0

168

4.8.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in India with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.” Average scoresof the respondents from India were compared with that from the other 11 APNN
countries in each category as follows.
The average score of male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers
was 2.68, and it was higher than that from other 11 countries (1.89) at a statisticallysignificant (t=17.369, p.000), indicating more female ratio than other countries. The
average score for the perception of discrimination was 1.74 which was significantly
lower (t=-17.832, p.000) than the average score from the other 11 countries (2.60).
On the other hand the average score for the indirect experience of discrimination was
2.60 was significantly higher (t=18.129, p.000) than the average score (2.02) of theother 11 countries. The average score of male scientists and engineers from India
agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was
4.00 which was significantly higher (t=5.591, p.000) than the average score of theother countries (3.46).
Lastly, the average score for the Perception of Gender Equality was 2.31 which was
lower than the average score of the other countries (2.97) at a statistically significant(t=-8.422, p.000).

Figure 4.8.1 Comparisons of Answer between India and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, the averages scores form India showed more men in STEM but
relatively more women than from other 11 countries, less perception of gender
discrimination and of gender equality but more indirect experiences of discriminationand more agreement to the support policy to overcome the gender discriminations thanother countries.

1694.8.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in India andOther APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 2.68, meaning there
were relatively more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 2.46
in graduate school and highest scoring 2.46 at current work.
The figure was statistically significantly (t=17.369, p.000) higher than 1.89 which
was the average of the respondents from the other 11 countries. India showed more
women during university(college) (t=10.560, p.000), followed by at current work
(t=7.753, p.000), in the management level of respondents current work (t=7.021, p
.000), and during graduate school (t=5.992, p.000) than other countries atstatistically significant levels.
Table 4.8.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)

Question

India
Average(n=103)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,191)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

2.82

1.81

10.560***

0.000

2

The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

2.46

1.95

5.992***

0.000

3

The male/female ratio of my current workplace

2.85

1.98

7.753***

0.000

4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace

2.61

1.83

7.021***

0.000

2.68

1.89

17.369***

0.000

Type

male/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 1.74, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” received the highest average score (2.60). “Girls and boys wereequally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period.”(1.20) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 1.74 lower than the overall average of 11 other APNN countries170

(2.60) at a statistically significant level. “Girls and boys were equally encouraged tochoose their majors in STEM during their education period."(t=-17.832, p.000).
Specifically, significant differences were observed for the responses “Girls and boys
were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period.”(t=-12.612, p.000), “Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work,
compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues” (t=-11.591, p.000), “It is moredifficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man with the same
qualifications.” (t=-6.897, p.05), and “Women in STEM receive equal work
distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.”(t=-3.322, p.001) get relatively higher score, than those from other 11 countries.
The figures show the perception of discrimination of male scientists and engineers in
STEM of India is significantly lower from entering the professional life to equal work
distribution, payment and work appraisal in India than in other 11 countries on average.
Table 4.8.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Question

India
Average(n=103)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,191)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose
their majors in STEM during their education period.

1.20

2.15

-12.612***

0.000

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same
qualifications.

2.60

3.01

-3.322**0.001

3Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

1.25

2.50

-19.714***

0.000

4

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.26

2.96

-6.897***

0.000

5

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

1.40

2.37

-11.591***

0.000

Sub Scale

1.74

2.60

-17.832***

0.000∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in India on
the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.60 points which was close to the medianvalue of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale, meaning “I have not seen or heard of it but amaware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,

171

pregnancy, and childbirth” (3.89) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “participating or leading a research project”(1.23).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience was higher than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.02) at
statistically significant (t=18.129, p.000).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of indirect
experience related to “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy
or child care”(t=22.155, p.000), “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving
research funds or scholarships because she is female” (t=17.487, p.000), and “Woman
in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly” (t=8.649, p.000) were higher inorder than the average scores of other countries at statistically significant. But the
average response of “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a
research project because she is female.” got lower score at a statistically significant
level (t=-8.169, p.000) than other 11 countries.
Table 4.8.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

India
Average(n=103)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,191)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

2.73

1.59

17.487***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.23

1.71

-8.169***

0.000

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly

2.54

1.99

8.649***

0.000

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

3.89

2.81

22.155***

0.000

2.60

2.02

18.129***

0.000

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Sub Scale∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.88. The score was significantly higher(t=13.259, p.000) than the average of 11 other countries (4.12) indicating that the
respondents in India had a more positive view to other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in India answering to the question“It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the STEM
field.” was 4.85, meaning that they strongly agreed to it. It was higher than the averagescore of other 11 countries (3.79) at a statistically significant level (t=16.478, p.000).
In other words, the male scientists and engineers in India strongly agreed to the policy172to overcome the gender barrier
However, the average score of male scientists and engineers in India answering to thequestion “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.14 meaning that they neither disagree nor
agree. The score was similar to the average (3.14) of other 11 countries.
Table 4.8.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type

CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

India
Average(n=103)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,191)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.88

4.12

13.259***

0.000

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

4.85

3.79

16.478***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.14

3.14

0.003

0.998

Sub Scale

4.00

3.46

5.591***

0.000∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in India on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.31 points, being lower than the mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.54).
It was followed by “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (2.95), and “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” (2.75). The scores indicate that the
respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding the gender role in family.
On the other hand, the average scores on “In a relative sense, men are rational while
women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (1.19), and “I believe gender equality will be fully achieved
only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (1.13) were much lower thanother average score, indicating that the respondents had strong perception of
conventional division of gender role. And strongly believe that the equal opportunity
would lead to equal outcome.
The overall average score of India (2.31) was lower than the average score of other 11
countries (2.97) at a statistically significant level (t=-8.422 p.000). More specifically, the173average scores on “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional andthus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate forthemselves”(t=-21.064, p.000), “I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men” (t=-18.969, p.000), “Primary breadwinners(who take care of financial obligations) of households should be men” (t=-4.355, p.000)
were lower than other 11 countries at statistically significant levels. And the averagescores of the rest two statements were also lower than other 11 countries.
Table 4.8.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

India
Average(n=103)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,191)t(p)

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by
doing what is appropriate for themselves

1.19

2.74

-21.064***

0.000

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations)of households should be men

2.75

3.32

-4.355***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that men
are not capable of in the same way

2.95

2.96

-0.0980.922

4In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.54

3.60

-0.3830.702

5believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

1.13

2.24

-18.969***0.000

Sub Scale

2.31

2.97

-8.422***

0.000

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

Question

4.8.4. Comparison of Responses in India with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.52,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in India were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.8.7 shows
the results.
The difference of responses according to the age (t=4.880, p.000) and occupation(t=8.818, p.000) of the respondents in India were statistically significant. It showed
there were more men in the field of respondents in their 40’s than in their 30’s, andmore men in the field of healthcare professional respondents.

174

Table 4.8.7 male/female ratio in India: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.53
2.50
2.82
2.74

0.407
0.477
0.291
0.324

4.880**

0.003

4.29
4.29
-

0.521
0.639
-

-0.036

0.972

2.69
2.86
2.75

0.364
0.276
0.395

2.210

0.116

2.74
2.83
2.25
2.54
2.73

0.420
0.243
0.468
0.422
0.175

4.054**

0.004

2.74
2.70

0.424
0.345

0.488

0.627

Type

Average

Total

2.68

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.8.2 Average of India and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in India (2.68) was higher than the average of all countries (1.96), being thesecond highest level after Mongolia.

175∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in India to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (1.74) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in India were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.8.8.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the younger respondents
than that of older, of single respondent than that of married were relatively high ineach category.
Table 4.8.8 Perception of Discrimination in India: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.91
1.80
1.67
1.70

0.598
0.594
0.359
0.189

1.380

0.253

4.18
3.97
-

0.775
0.859
-

0.870

0.386

1.75
1.69
1.64

0.453
0.396
0.194

0.315

0.731

1.72
1.73
1.64
1.91
1.51

0.400
0.466
0.167
0.528
0.259

1.807

0.134

1.70
1.69

0.366
0.414

0.045

0.833

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.74

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The figure below shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in India on discrimination (1.74) was
higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being the lowest among 12 countries.

176

Figure 4.8.3 Averages of India and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in India on the indirect experienceof discrimination against women in STEM was 2.60 which was close to “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
Table 4.8.9 Indirect Experience in India: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.41
2.61
2.63
2.67

0.315
0.344
0.195
0.162

3.948*

0.011

2.67
2.36
-

0.521
0.639
-

-0.036

0.972

2.66
2.58
2.69

0.252
0.217
0.208

1.011

0.368

2.57
2.59
2.70
2.58
2.70

0.225
0.244
0.209
0.344
0.218

0.804

0.526

2.56
2.67

0.229
0.224

-2.140*

0.035

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.60

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

177

The differences according the respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) in India were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis. The results are summarized in Table 4.8.9.
The difference of responses according to the age (t=3.948, p.05) and income status(t=-2.140, p.05) of the respondents in India were statistically significant. The averagescores was higher for the older than for the younger, as well as for single-income
respondents than for double-income respondents. Although the difference of the averagescore was not statistically significant, the score for healthcare professional and for otherprofession were relatively high in each category.

Figure 4.8.4 Averages of India and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in India (2.60) was lower than the average of all countries(2.07), being the highest among 12 APNN member countries.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in India on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 4.00, being higher than the neutrallevel more 1 point score. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status,
number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the
respondents in India were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarizedin Table 4.8.10.
The standard deviation of the average scores of the respondents by the personalvariable was in similar level.

178

Table 4.8.10 Need of Support Policy in India: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

4.16
4.26
3.82
3.93

0.851
0.767
0.879
0.830

1.618

0.190

4.18
3.97
-

0.775
0.859
-

0.870

0.386

4.00
3.85
4.11

0.875
0.814
0.858

0.373

0.690

4.10
3.71
4.60
4.10
3.82

0.796
0.940
0.548
0.800
0.902

1.748

0.146

4.05
3.92

0.865
0.860

0.661

0.510

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

4.00

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.8.5 Averages of India and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in India agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (4.00) was higher than the average of all countries (3.51), being thesecond highest after Vietnam.

179

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in India on the perception ofgender equality was 2.31 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in India were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the respondents in theage of less than 29 years (2.46), researcher respondents (2.47) were relatively high,meaning more perception of gender equality in each category.
Table 4.8.11 Perception of Gender Equality in India: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.46
2.23
2.35
2.22

0.822
0.723
0.694
0.690

0.494

0.687

2.47

2.23
-

0.521
0.639
-

-0.036

0.972

2.26
2.31
2.07

0.693
0.659
0.714

0.413

0.663

2.21
2.47
2.20
2.30
2.31

0.634
0.800
0.490
0.772
0.766

0.499

0.736

2.25

0.581
0.720

-0.269

0.789

Average
2.31

2.29

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

180

Figure 4.8.6 Averages of India and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in India on gender equality(2.31) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the lowest level among
12 countries.

1814.9. Japan
4.9.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Japan
A total of 224 male scientists and engineers (17.3% of total respondents) answered
and Japan is the most participated country in this survey. Table 4.9.1. shows the age,marital status, number of children, and occupation of the male scientist and engineer
respondents in Japan.
Regarding the age, 46.0% were in the age of 29 or less, 2.1% were in their 30’s,
16.1% were in their 40’s and 13.8% were in the age of 50 or older. There were more
single respondents at 50.9% than the married respondents at 46.0%. Of the respondents
that had the children (21.5% of total Japan respondents), 70.8% had 1 child, 25.0% had
2 children, and 4.2% had 3 or more children. In the case of couples, 62.7% work
together (double income), 37.3% work alone (single income). Regarding occupation,
44.2% were in other professions, followed by 27.7% were teachers/professors, 20.5%
were researchers, 4.0% were engineers, and 3.6% were in healthcare profession.
Table 4.9.1 General Profile of Respondents in Japan(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

103

46.0
24.1
16.1
13.8

54
36
31
114

103
1
34

12
2
62

46
8
9
99
64

38

50.9
46.0
0.4
70.8
25.0
4.2
27.7
20.5
3.6
4.0
44.2
62.7
37.3

182

4.9.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Japan with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Japan were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows. The average male/female ratio in
the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.74, and it was lower than that of the
respondents from the other 11 countries which was 2.00 at a statistically significant
level (t=-5.086, p.000).
The average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.61 and for the need ofsupport policy, 3.46 were somewhat lower than the average score from the other 11
countries. While the average score for the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.87
which was significantly lower (t=-6.112, p.000) than the average score (2.87) of theother 11 countries. On the other hand, the average score for the Perception of Gender
Equality was 3.16 which was higher than the average score of the other countries (2.87)
at a statistically significant (t=6.172, p.000).

Figure 4.9.1 Comparisons of Answer between Japan and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, Japan had more men in STEM and higher male ratio than other 11
countries. The average scores showed slightly lower perception of gender discrimination,
lower indirect experience of discrimination, and lower agreement to the need of support
policy. However, they showed higher perception of gender equality than other 11 APNN
Member countries on average.

1834.9.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Japan andOther APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.74, meaning there
were more men than women in STEM. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest
scoring 1.42 at management level at current workplace and the highest scoring 1.90 at
graduate school.
The figure (1.74) was lower than that of 11 countries (2.00) at a statisticallysignificant level (t=-5.086, p.000). Japan showed more men during all questioned
period than other 11 countries on average (from college to current work).
Table 4.9.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

QuestionJapan
Average(n=224)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,070)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

1.78

1.92

-1.9220.055

2The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

1.90

2.01

-1.5730.117

3The male/female ratio of my current workplace

1.77

2.10

-4.652***

0.000

4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace

1.42

1.98

-8.714***

0.000

1.74

2.00

-5.086***0.000

Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.61, which was
below the mid-level and slightly higher than other 11 countries. Of the five questions
related to the perception of gender barrier, “Being promoted or becoming a tenured
professor or a principal investigator is more difficult for female scientists than for malescientists.” received the highest average score (3.07). “Women in STEM receive equal
work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications andlevel.” (2.27) received the lowest average score.
Almost detail responses from Japan have statistically significant differences to thosefrom other 11 countries on average. The highest difference score was “Girls and boys

184

were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education period.”(t=3.763, p.000), “Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal
investigator is more difficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” (t=2.684, p.01), “Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with
their equally-qualified male colleagues” (t=1.980, p.05) were higher, while “Women in
STEM receive equal work distribution and work appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.” (t=-2.112, p.05) was lower at a statistically significant level.
Table 4.9.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

QuestionJapan
Average(n=224)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,070)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

2.32

2.02

3.763***

0.000

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.96

2.98

-0.2600.795

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.27

2.42

-2.112*0.035

4Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

3.07

2.87

2.684**

0.008

5

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

2.42

2.27

1.980*

0.049

2.61

2.51

2.036

0.042

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scalet(p)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Japan on
the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.87 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The indirect experience was the discrimination related to ‘marriage, pregnancy or childcare’ (2.76) got the highest average score, while the discrimination related to ‘receiving
research funds or scholarships’ got the lowest score (1.32).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (1.87) was lower than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.11) at a
statistically significant level (t=-6.112, p.000).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of
discrimination related to “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds

185or scholarships because she is female.” (t=-9.552, p.000), followed by “Woman in
STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project because she isfemale.” (t=-4.559, p.000), “Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly” (t=-2.528, p.05) and “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care.” (t=-2.068, p.05) were lower. All the average scores fromJapan related to indirect discrimination were lower than that from other countries atstatistically significant levels.
Table 4.9.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

QuestionJapan
Average(n=224)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,070)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving researchfunds or scholarships because she is female

1.32

1.76

-9.552***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.48

1.71

-4.559***

0.000

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

1.91

2.06

-2.528*0.012

4Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

2.76

2.92

-2.068*

0.039

1.87

2.11

-6.112***

0.000

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Sub Scalet(p)∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a somewhat positive view on the career
outlook of women in their fields as the average score was 4.02, but significantly lower(t=-3.162, p.05) than the average of other 11 countries (4.21) meaning the respondents
in Japan had less positive view than other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan answering to the question“It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the STEM
field.” was 3.55, meaning that their opinion is positive to the support policy toovercome the discrimination It was lower than the average of other 11 countries (3.79)
at a statistically significant (t=-5.394, p.000).
However, the average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan answering to
the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.36, meaning that their opinion is notnegative to the affirmative support policy to overcome the discrimination. This averagescore is the higher than other 11 countries (3.09) having statistical significance (t=3.902,
p.000) on average.

186

Table 4.9.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

QuestionJapan
Average(n=224)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,070)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.02

4.21

-3.162**0.002

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.55

3.95

-5.394***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.36

3.09

3.902***

0.000

Sub Scale

3.46

3.52

-0.993

0.322∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Japan on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 3.16 points, close to mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.98).
It was followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (3.69), “In a relative sense, men are rational while womenare emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (2.81), “I believe gender equality will be fully achieved
only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.67), and “Women are born tohave a way of caring children that men are not capable of in the same way” (2.64).
The overall average of responses to all questions was higher than other 11 countries at
a statistically significant level (t=6.172 p.000) meaning stronger perception of genderequality than other countries on average.
More specifically, the average scores on “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (t=7.656, p.000) havethe highest difference to other countries. It is followed by “Primary breadwinners (whotake care of financial obligations) of households should be men” (t=6.184, p.000), “Inorder to maintain the order and peace of a family, the husband should have greater
power and authority than the wife” (t=6.024, p.000), “In a relative sense, men are
rational while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by
doing what is appropriate for themselves” (t=2.727, p.01).
However, the average score on “Women are born to have a way of caring childrenthat men are not capable of in the same way” (t=-4.366, p.000) was significantly
lower than other countries. The response from Japan showed lower indirect experienceof gender discrimination but higher perception of gender equality.

187

Table 4.9.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

QuestionJapan
Average(n=224)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,070)

t

(p)

1

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves

2.81

2.58

2.727**

0.007

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

3.69

3.19

6.184***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

2.64

3.03

-4.366***

0.000

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family,
the husband should have greater power and authority
than the wife.

3.98

3.52

6.024***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

2.67

2.05

7.656***

0.000

3.16

2.87

6.172***

0.000

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)Sub Scale

4.9.4. Comparison of Responses in Japan with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.74,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Japan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.9.7 shows
the results.
The difference of responses according to the occupation (t=4.107, p.01) ofrespondents in Japan was statistically significant, and revealed there are relatively more
women in the field of healthcare professional (2.38)28.

28

We did not read here the statistical difference due to the children number, because there was only 1
respondent having more 3 children.

188

Table 4.9.7 male/female ratio in Japan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.71
1.79
1.66
1.81

0.615
0.618
0.528
0.686

0.570

0.636

3.63
3.66
4.67

0.664
0.712
-

1.155

0.317

1.94
1.60
1.00

0.657
0.458
0.000

3.264*

0.047

1.66
1.91
2.38
1.33
1.70

0.508
0.637
0.997
0.280
0.619

4.107**

0.003

1.78
1.67

0.556
0.640

0.883

0.379

Type

Average

Total

1.74

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.9.2 Average of Japan and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Japan (1.74) was lower than the average of all countries (1.96) and sixth
lower after Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Nepal and South Korea.

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan to the perception of189

discrimination in STEM (2.61) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Japan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.9.8.
Table 4.9.8 Perception of Discrimination in Japan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.65
2.49
2.64
2.63

0.579
0.644
0.625
0.594

0.839

0.474

3.43
3.49
4.50

0.787
0.805
-

1.010

0.366

2.67
2.55
2.10

0.700
0.795
0.141

0.673

0.515

2.61
2.52
2.43
2.49
2.68

0.651
0.560
0.439
0.756
0.591

0.793

0.531

2.52
2.69

0.687
0.571

-1.336

0.185

Average
2.61

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The standard deviations of the average scores by the personal variable did not show
statistically significances, the average score of the respondents in their 30’s, in double
income were relatively higher than other in each category.

Figure 4.9.3 Averages of Japan and Other Countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit: Point)

190

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Japan on discrimination (2.61) was
similarly higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being mid-level among 12
APNN member countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan on the indirect experienceof discrimination against women in STEM was 1.87 which was close to “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the respondent’s
profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status(if married) in Japan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The results are
summarized in Table 4.9.9.
The difference of responses according to the age (F=4.626, p.01), and of theoccupation (F=2.976, p.05) of respondents in Japan were statistically significant,meaning relatively more indirect discrimination on gender discrimination for older andfor engineers than other respondents in each category.
Table 4.9.9 Indirect Experience in Japan: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.74
1.90
2.03
2.04

0.528
0.496
0.540
0.418

4.626**

0.004

3.63
3.66
4.67

0.664
0.712
-

1.155

0.317

2.12
2.09
1.88

0.545
0.692
0.177

0.175

0.840

1.88
1.98
2.00
2.25
1.76

0.445
0.502
0.408
0.661
0.554

2.976*

0.020

2.00
2.05

0.523
0.500

-0.470

0.639

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.87

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

191

Figure 4.9.4 Averages of Japan and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Japan (1.87) was lower than the average of all countries(2.07), being the third lowest after South Korea and Mongol among 12 countries.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.46, being slightly higher than theneutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in Japan
were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.9.10.
The difference of responses according to the age (F=5.016, p.01) in Japan was
statistically significant, and revealed the respondents in their 30’s (3.14) agree less to
support policy than other ages.

192

Table 4.9.10 Need of Support Policy in Japan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.48
3.14
3.69
3.67

0.710
0.860
0.710
0.844

5.016**

0.002

3.43
3.49
4.50

0.787
0.805
-

1.010

0.366

3.65
3.86
3.25

0.784
1.051
1.061

0.527

0.594

3.50
3.27
3.36
3.89
3.48

0.754
0.929
0.627
1.024
0.716

1.420

0.228

3.48
3.47

0.840
0.745

0.068

0.946

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.46

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.9.5 Averages of Japan and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Japan agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.46) was similarly lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being
mid-level among 12 APNN member countries.

193

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Japan on the perception ofgender equality was 3.16 which was slightly higher than the neutral level. The
differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation,and double income status (if married) of the respondents in Japan were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis.
The difference of responses according to the age (F=5.995, p.01), and theoccupation (F=4.122, p.01) in Japan were statistically significant. It revealed the
respondents in their 30’s and working as teacher/professor showed lower perception ofgender equality than other respondents in each category.
Table 4.9.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Japan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.99
3.22
3.34
3.38

0.554
0.522
0.632
0.578

5.995**

0.001

3.63
3.66
4.67

0.664
0.712
-

1.155

0.317

3.19
3.28
3.40

0.569
0.663
0.283

0.194

0.824

3.30
3.23
3.43
3.18
2.98

0.556
0.489
0.454
0.628
0.567

4.122**

0.003

3.39
3.09

0.616
0.519

2.508*

0.014

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.16

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

194

Figure 4.9.6 Averages of Japan and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Japan on gender equality(3.16) was higher than the average of all countries (2.92), being the fifth highest level
after New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Nepal and South Korea.

1954.10. Taiwan
4.10.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Taiwan
A total of 114 male scientists and engineers (8.8% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.10.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Taiwan.
Regarding the age, 31.6% were in their 30’s, 24.6% were in the age of over 50
years, 23.7% were, in the age of 29 years or younger, and 20.2% were in their 40’s.
There were more married respondents at 60.5% than the single respondents at 38.6%.
Of the respondents that had the children (60.5% of total Taiwan respondents), 68.1%
had 2 children, 18.1% had 1 child, and 13.1% had 3 or more children. In the case of
couples, there were more a double-income couple at 76.8% than single-income couple at
23.2%. Regarding occupation, 26.3% were in other occupation, followed by 21.9% wereengineers, 19.3% were teachers/professors, 18.4% were researchers, and 14.0% were
healthcare professional.
Table 4.10.1 General Profile of Respondents in Taiwan(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center,
etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

27

23.7
31.6
20.2
24.6

36
23
28
44

69
1
13

47
9

38.6
60.5
0.9
18.8
68.1
13.1

21
16

19.3
18.4
14.0

25

21.9

30

26.3

53

76.8
23.2

22

16

196

4.10.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Taiwan with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.”
Average scores of the respondents from Taiwan were compared with that from theother 11 APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.94,
and it was similar to that of the respondents from the other 11 countries which was
1.96. The average score for the perception of discrimination (2.62) and for the indirect
experience of discrimination (2.14) were slightly higher than other 11 countries, and theaverage score for the support policy (3.71) was higher than the average score of theother countries (3.49) at a statistically significant (t=2.493, p.05). On the other hand,the average score for the Perception of Gender Equality (2.88) was slightly lower thanother 11 countries.

Figure 4.10.1 Comparisons of Answer between Taiwan and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, Taiwan had slightly more men, showed similarly higher perception ofgender equality, revealed slightly more indirect experience of discrimination, and agreed
more to the need of support policy but slightly lower perception of gender equality thanother 11 APNN Member countries.

197

4.10.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Taiwan andOther APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.94, meaning there
were relatively more men than women in STEM. The male/female ratio at STEM was
the lowest scoring 1.73 in college and highest scoring 2.21 at current work.
The figure (1.94) was similar to that of 11 countries (1.96). Taiwan showed slightly
more men engineers and scientists than other countries, slightly more women scientists
and engineers than other 11 countries on average.
Table 4.10.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries : Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

Question

TaiwanAverage(n=114)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,180)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

1.73

1.91

-1.6580.098

2

The male/female ratio of my department while at graduate
school1.88

2.00-1.1600.246

3The male/female ratio of my current workplace

2.21

2.03

1.623

0.105

4

The male/female ration at management level at my current
workplace

1.95

1.89

0.571

0.568

Sub Scale

1.94

1.96

-0.2080.836∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.62, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” received the highest average score (3.15), while “Girls andboys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during their education
period.” (1.80) got the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.62 and slightly higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.52).
The average score from Taiwan for the statement “Women in STEM generally receive
less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues” received

198

higher score (2.78) than from other 11 countries at a statistically significant level(t=4.194, p.000), while “Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.” (t=-2.857, p.01) received lower scorewith statistical significance.
Although other differences were not statistically significant, the average scores from
Taiwan for “It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than fora man with the same qualifications.” (3.15), and for “Being promoted or becoming atenured professor or a principal investigator is more difficult for female scientists thanfor male scientists.” (3.00) were higher than from other 11 countries. However, theaverage scores for “Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work
appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.” (2.35) got lower scorethan from other 11 countries on average.
Table 4.10.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Question

TaiwanAverage(n=114)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,180)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose
their majors in STEM during their education period.

1.80

2.10

-2.8570.004

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

3.15

2.96

1.664

0.096

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.35

2.40

-0.5400.590

4Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

3.00

2.89

0.953

0.341

5

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

2.78

2.25

4.194***

0.000

Sub Scale

2.62

2.52

1.358

0.177

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Taiwan on
the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.14 points which was lower than the
median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale and close to the level of “I have notseen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
The indirect experience was the discrimination related to ‘marriage, pregnancy or childcare’ got the highest average score (2.68), while the discrimination related to ‘researchfunds or scholarships’ got the lowest score (1.87).

199

The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience (2.14) was slightly higher than the overall average of other 11 countries(2.06). More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of
discrimination related to “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leadinga research project because she is female.” (t=3.026, p.01), “Woman in STEM isdisadvantaged in receiving research funds or scholarships because she is female.”(t=2.517, p.05) were higher, while “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her
marriage, pregnancy or child care.” (t=-2.593, p.01) was lower than that of other 11
countries at statistically significant level.
Table 4.10.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

TaiwanAverage(n=114)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,180)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds
or scholarships because she is female

1.87

1.66

2.517*

0.013

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or leadinga research project because she is female.

1.89

1.65

3.026**

0.003

3 Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treated unfairly

2.11

2.03

0.870

0.384

2.68

2.91

-2.593**

0.010

2.14

2.06

1.229

0.219

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care
Sub Scalet(p)∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a somewhat positive view on the career
outlook of women in their fields as the average score was 4.21, slightly higher than the
average of other 11 countries (4.17) meaning the respondents in Taiwan had similarly
positive view than other 11 APNN member countries.
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.86, meaning that their opinion is close to positive to the support
policy to overcome the discrimination. It was similar to the average of other 11
countries (3.88).
However, the average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan answering to
the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.57, which was higher than in other 11
countries at statistically significant level (t=4.548, p.000) meaning that their opinion isclose to somewhat positive to the affirmative support policy to overcome the200discrimination, but slightly less agreement than support policy to solve gender inequality.
Table 4.10.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type

CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

TaiwanAverage(n=114)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,180)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.21

4.17

0.423

0.673

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.86

3.88

-0.2140.831

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.57

3.09

4.548***

0.000

Sub Scale

3.71

3.49

2.493*

0.013∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.88 points, lower than mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (3.41).
It was followed by “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (3.12), “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” (3.02), “In a relative sense, men are
rational while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by
doing what is appropriate for themselves” (2.67), and on “I believe gender equality
will be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.18) werelower than other scores in the category. The scores indicate that the respondents had
more perception of gender equality regarding the gender role in family.
The overall average score of Taiwan (2.88) was slightly lower than the average scoreof other 11 countries (2.93)
More specifically, the average scores on “Primary breadwinners (who take care offinancial obligations) of households should be men” t=-2.353, p.05) were lower atstatistically significant level. Although other differences were not statistically significant,the average scores on “In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.” was lower, while“Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are not capable of in thesame way” was higher than other 11 countries.

201

Table 4.10.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

TaiwanAverage(n=114)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,180)t(p)

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
1 emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by
doing what is appropriate for themselves

2.67

2.61

0.443

0.658

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations)of households should be men

3.02

3.30

-2.3530.020

3Women are born to have a way of caring children that men
are not capable of in the same way

3.12

2.95

1.372

0.170

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family, thehusband should have greater power and authority than the wife.

3.41

3.62

-1.6350.102

5I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if women
are given equal opportunities as men.

2.18

2.15

0.303

0.762

Sub Scale

2.88

2.93

-0.579

0.563

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

Question

4.10.4. Comparison of Responses in Taiwan with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.94,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Taiwan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.10.7
shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the occupation of respondents (t=7.678, p
.000) in Taiwan was statistically significant, and revealed there are more men in thefield of engineers (1.55) and respondents in other professions (1.58) than of married
respondents.

202

Table 4.10.7 male/female ratio in Taiwan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.06
1.94
2.09
1.71

1.041
0.782
0.796
0.824

1.023

0.386

3.98
3.81
4.33

0.701
0.687
-

1.105

0.335

1.75
1.80
1.94

0.750
0.812
0.899

0.160

0.852

2.07
2.21
2.69
1.55
1.58

0.897
1.007
0.834
0.559
0.603

7.678***

0.000

1.82
1.75

0.751
0.632

0.342

0.734

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.94

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.10.2 Average of Taiwan and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Taiwan (1.94) was similar to the average of all countries (1.96).

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (1.94) was much lower than the mid-level. The differences203according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Taiwan were evaluated by ANOVA (ort) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.10.8.
Although the standard deviations of the average scores by the personal variable of the
respondents did not show statistical significances, the average scores of the respondents
over 50 years, married, having fewer children, single income and engineers were lower
than that of other respondents in each category.
Table 4.10.8 Perception of Discrimination in Taiwan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.67
2.64
2.65
2.49

0.713
0.744
0.644
0.816

0.353

0.787

3.82
3.64
4.00

0.883
0.818
-

0.623

0.538

2.45
2.71
2.69

0.758
0.745
0.530

0.708

0.496

2.60
2.58
2.38
2.77
2.65

0.748
0.761
0.737
0.716
0.716

0.734

0.571

2.62
2.74

0.660
0.869

-0.584

0.561

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.62

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.10.3 Averages of Taiwan and Other Countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit: Point)

204

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on discrimination (2.62) was
slightly higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being mid-level among 12
APNN member countries.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.14 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in Taiwan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.10.9.
The difference of responses according to the age of respondents ((F=3.021, p.01) in
Taiwan were statistically significant, and revealed the respondents in their 40’s (2.40)
had more indirect experiences of discrimination.
Table 4.10.9 Indirect Experience in Taiwan: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.15
2.06
2.48
1.96

0.648
0.763
0.569
0.553

3.021*

0.033

3.98
3.81
4.33

0.701
0.687
-

1.105

0.335

2.27
2.16
2.06

0.732
0.525
0.873

0.328

0.722

2.27
2.02
1.89
2.07
2.31

0.794
0.806
0.483
0.580
0.590

1.502

0.207

2.23
1.95

0.631
0.647

1.535

0.129

Type

Average

Total

2.14

Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Although other differences were not statistically significant, the average scores of the
respondents married, having fewer children, single income and healthcare professional

205

were lower than others in each category, indicate having less indirect experience ofgender discrimination in STEM.

Figure 4.10.4 Averages of Taiwan and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Taiwan (2.14) was slightly higher than the average of all
countries (2.07), being the fourth highest after India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.71, being higher than the neutrallevel. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children,
occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in Taiwan were
evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.10.10.
Although the standard deviations of the average scores by the personal variable of the
respondents did not show statistical significances, the average scores of the respondents
below 40 years old, not married, having fewer children, and single income were higher
than that of other respondents in each category.

206

Table 4.10.10 Need of Support Policy in Taiwan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.96
3.86
3.50
3.46

0.820
0.807
0.707
0.932

2.577+

0.057

3.82
3.64
4.00

0.883
0.818
-

0.623

0.538

3.85
3.63
3.72

0.899
0.811
1.064

0.339

0.714

3.82
3.33
3.66
3.82
3.85

0.795
1.076
0.397
0.865
0.811

1.499

0.207

3.74
3.34

0.788
0.870

1.703+

0.093

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.71

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.10.5 Averages of Taiwan and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Taiwan agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.71) was higher than the average of all countries (3.51), being thefourth highest after Vietnam, India and Nepal.

207∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on the perception ofgender equality was 2.88 which was slightly lower than the neutral level. The
differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation,and double income status (if married) of the respondents in Taiwan were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis.
Although differences by personal variables of respondents were not statisticallysignificant, the average scores in the age of 29 years or younger, married, and in otheroccupations were lower than others in each category, indicate lower perception ofgender equality than others.
Table 4.10.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Taiwan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.67
2.89
3.06
2.92

1.074
0.874
0.740
0.793

0.871

0.459

3.98
3.81
4.33

0.701
0.687
-

1.105

0.335

2.78
2.78
2.87

0.933
0.721
1.204

0.042

0.958

2.95
2.74
3.25
2.94
2.68

0.844
0.893
0.798
0.741
1.021

1.294

0.277

2.95
2.91

0.796
0.700

0.157

0.876

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

2.88

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

208

Figure 4.10.6 Averages of Taiwan and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Taiwan on gender equality(2.88) was similarly lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being mid-level
among 12 APNN countries.

2094.11. Pakistan
4.11.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in Pakistan
A total of 96 male scientists and engineers (7.4% of total respondents) answered thesurvey. Table 4.8.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, and occupationof the male scientist and engineer respondents in Pakistan.
Regarding the age, 44.8% were 29 years or younger, 35.4% were in their 30’s,
14.6% were in their 50 years or older, and 5.2% were in their 40’s. There were moremarried respondents at 57.3% than single respondents at 40.6%. Of the respondents that
had children (44.8% of total Pakistan respondents), 39.6% had 3 or more children,
30.2% had 1 child or 2 children each. In case of couples, 52.7% were single-income
couples while 47.3% were double-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 52.1% were engineers, followed by 18.8% wereteachers/professors, 18.8 were healthcare professional, 10.4% were researchers, and 4.2%
were in other professions.
Table 4.11.1 General Profile of Respondents in Pakistan(Unit: Person, %)CompositionAge
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Frequency

%

43
34
5
14

44.8
35.4
5.2
14.6

39
55
1

40.6
57.3
1.0

13
13
17

30.2
30.2
39.6

18
10
14
50
4

18.8
10.4
14.6
52.1
4.2

26
29

47.3
52.7

210

4.11.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in Pakistan with
Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.” Average scoresof the respondents from Pakistan were compared with that from the other 11 APNN
countries in each category as follows.
The average score of male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers
was 1.45, and it was lower than that from other 11 countries (2.00) at a statisticallysignificant. (t=-8.064, p.000), indicating more male ratio than other countries. The
average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.43 which was slightly lower
than the average score (2.54) from the other 11 countries. The average score for theindirect experience of discrimination was 2.01 which was also lower than the averagescore (2.07) of the other 11 countries. The average score of male scientists andengineers from Pakistan agreeing to the need of support policy to overcome the genderbarrier in STEM was 3.10 which was close to “Neutral” but significantly lower(t=-4.933, p.000) than the average score of the other countries (3.54). Lastly, theaverage score for the Perception of Gender Equality was 2.36 which was lower than the
average score of the other countries (2.97) at a statistically significant (t=-7.398, p
.000).

Figure 4.11.1 Comparisons of Answer between Pakistan and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, the averages scores from Pakistan showed more men in STEM, lessagreement to support policy, lower perception of discrimination, less indirect experienceand lower perception of gender equality than other countries.

2114.11.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in Pakistan
and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.45, meaning there
were more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.18 formanagement level at current workplace but highest during university 1.69, meaning thatthe ratio of women was lower at work than that during their education period.
The figure (1.45) was lower than that of 11 countries (2.00) at a statisticallysignificant (t=-8.064, p.000). Pakistan showed more men during all questioned period(from college to current work and after). The average scores of Pakistan at managementlevel at current work (t=-10.677, p.000), at current work (t=-9.233, p.000), and in
graduate school (t=-3.758, p.000) were lower than that of other 11 countries atstatistically significant level. There were also more men during university than other 11
APNN countries without statistically significant difference. In summary, there were moremen in STEM in Pakistan than other 11 countries for all period from college to the
management level at current work.
Table 4.11.2 Comparison of Answer to Other APNN Member Countries: Male/Female Ratio(Unit: Point)

Type

Question1male/female
Ratio(5-Point
Scale)

2

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education
The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

Pakistan
Average(n=96)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,198)

t

(p)

1.69

1.91

-1.802

0.072

1.59

2.02

-3.758***

0.000

3

The male/female ratio of my current workplace

1.39

2.10

-9.233***

0.000

4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace

1.18

1.95

-10.677***

0.000

Sub Scale

1.45

2.00

-8.064***0.000∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.43, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator is moredifficult for female scientists than for male scientists.” received the highest average212score (2.98). “Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, comparedwith their equally-qualified male colleagues” (1.90) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.43 lower than the overall average of 11 other APNN countries(2.54). Specifically, significant differences were observed for the responses “Women in
STEM generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified
male colleagues” (t=-3.566, p.000), scoring lower than other 11 countries. Besides“Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a principal investigator is moredifficult for female scientists than for male scientists” which get higher average scorethan other 11 countries, the responses from Pakistan about perception of gender
discrimination were lower score than other 11 countries on average.
Table 4.11.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries: Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)

Question

Pakistan
Average(n=96)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,198)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

1.98

2.08

-0.8840.377

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the
STEM field than for a man with the same qualifications.

2.97

2.98

-0.0490.961

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution andwork appraisal compared to men of the same
qualifications and level.

2.33

2.40

-0.5680.571

4Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or aprincipal investigator is more difficult for female
scientists than for male scientists.

2.98

2.90

0.681

0.496

5

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal
work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues

1.90

2.33

-3.566***

0.000

2.43

2.54

-1.442

0.150

Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Sub Scalet(p)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in Pakistanon the indirect experience of discrimination was 2.01 points which was close to themedian value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale, meaning “I have not seen or heard of it
but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (3.25) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “participating or leading a research project” (1.48).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect213

experience was lower than the overall average of other 11 countries (2.01).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of indirect
experience related to “Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage, pregnancy
or child care”(t=3.506, p.000) was higher in order than the average scores of othercountries at statistically significant. But the average response of “Woman in STEM
being sexually harassed or treated unfairly” (t=-3.570, p.000), and “Woman in STEM
is disadvantaged in participating or leading a research project because she is female.”(t=-2.538, p.05) got lower score at a statistically significant level than other 11
countries.
Table 4.11.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Question

Pakistan
Average(n=96)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,198)

t

(p)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving
research funds or scholarships because she isfemale1.48

1.70-2.538*0.013

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.59

1.68

-0.9320.351

3Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly

1.72

2.06

-3.570***

0.000

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

3.25

2.86

3.506***

0.000

Sub Scale

2.01

2.07

-0.9500.342∘ Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 4.13. The score was similar to theaverage of 11 other countries (4.18).
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 4.01, meaning that they agreed to it. It was higher than the averagescore of other 11 countries (3.87).
However, the average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan answering to
the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan to solve
gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 2.19 meaning that they somewhat disagree tothese policies. This score was lower than the average (3.54) of other 11 countries at a
statistically significant level (t=-7.794, p.000).

214

Table 4.11.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

Pakistan
Average(n=96)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,198)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

4.13

4.18

-0.6050.546

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

4.01

3.87

1.333

0.183

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system oraffirmative plan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

2.19

3.21

-7.794***0.000

Sub Scale

3.10

3.54

-4.9330.000∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 2.36 points, being lower than the mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (2.81).
It was followed by “Women are born to have a way of caring children that men are
not capable of in the same way” (2.44), In a relative sense, men are rational while
women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (2.30), “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men” (2.22) and “I believe gender equality will befully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.04). The scoresindicate that the respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding thegender role in family.
The overall average score of Pakistan (2.31) was lower than the average score ofother 11 countries (2.97) at a statistically significant level (t=-7.398 p.000). Morespecifically, the average scores on “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men” (t=-8.602, p.000), “In order to maintain theorder and peace of a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than
the wife” (t=-5.372, p.000), “Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way”(t=-4.151, p.000), and “In a relative sense,
men are rational while women are emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves”(t=-2.795, p.01) were lower thanother 11 countries at statistically significant levels.
And the average score of the statement of “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” was also lower thanother 11 countries.

215

Table 4.11.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Question

Pakistan
Average(n=96)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,198)

1

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves

2.30

2.64

-2.795**0.006

2Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

2.22

3.36

-8.602***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

2.44

3.01

-4.151***

0.000

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family,
the husband should have greater power and authority
than the wife.

2.81

3.66

-5.372***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

2.04

2.16

-1.1060.271

Sub Scale

2.36

2.97

-7.398***

0.000

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)

t(p)

4.11.4. Comparison of Responses in Pakistan with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.45,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in Pakistan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.11.7
shows the results.
The difference of responses according to the age (F=4.504, p.01), occupation(F=19.523, p.000), and the income status (t=2.096, p.05) of the respondents inPakistan were statistically significant. It showed there were more men in the field ofolder respondents, more men in the field of single-income respondents thandouble-income respondents, but fewer men in the field of healthcare professional
respondents.
Although no statistical significances, the average scores of single respondents and of
having more children respondents were lower in each category.

216

Table 4.11.7 male/female ratio in Pakistan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.49
1.64
1.15
1.02

0.630
0.619
0.224
0.067

4.504**

0.006

3.40
3.47
3.67

0.783
0.621
-

0.147

0.864

1.62
1.46
1.18

0.808
0.548
0.457

2.031

0.145

1.43
1.47
2.27
1.16
2.13

0.624
0.579
0.398
0.292
0.777

19.523***

0.000

1.64
1.28

0.711
0.493

2.096*

0.042

Average
1.45

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.11.2 Average of Pakistan and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in Pakistan (1.45) was lower than the average of all countries (1.96), being
the lowest among 12 APNN countries.

217

∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan to the perception of
discrimination in STEM (2.43) was lower than the mid-level. The differences according
to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income
status (if married) of the respondents in Pakistan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t)
analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.11.8.
The differences of responses according to the age (F=10.899, p.01) and childnumber (F=3.701, p.05) of the respondents in Pakistan were statistically significant.
The average score of older respondents was higher than the youngers as well as ofhaving more children than of having fewer children respondents. Although differenceswere not statistically significant, the average scores of married, double-income andresearcher respondents were relatively high in each category.
Table 4.11.8 Perception of Discrimination in Pakistan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.10
2.44
2.92
3.29

0.693
0.745
0.610
0.539

10.899***

0.000

2.97
3.19
3.00

0.937
0.755
-

0.771

0.466

2.34
2.68
3.10

0.512
1.112
0.532

3.701*

0.034

2.39
2.82
2.56
2.36
2.05

0.966
0.607
0.295
0.855
0.661

1.047

0.388

2.73
2.63

0.858
0.701

0.481

0.633

Average
2.43

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

218

Figure 4.11.3 Averages of Pakistan and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on gender discrimination(2.43) was lower than the average of all countries (2.53), being the fourth lowest level
after India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 2.01 which was close to “Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.” The differences according to the
respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) in Pakistan were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 4.11.9.
The differences of responses according to the age (F=3.948, p.05) and occupation(F=-2.140, p.05) of the respondents in Pakistan were statistically significant. The
average scores was lower for the respondents at the age 29 years or less and forengineers respondents in the category. Although the difference of the average score was
not statistically significant, the average score of single respondents, of the respondents
having 1 child were relatively low in each category.

219

Table 4.11.9 Indirect Experience in Pakistan: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.78
2.18
2.15
2.25

0.608
0.661
0.518
0.528

3.740*

0.014

3.40
3.47
3.67

0.783
0.621
-

0.147

0.864

1.98
2.29
2.15

0.360
0.683
0.650

0.886

0.420

2.01
2.15

0.572
0.580

2.64
1.81

0.516
0.616

5.735***

0.000

1.94

0.375

Double income

2.36

0.697

2.148*

0.038

Single income

2.02

0.422

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)

Average
2.01

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.11.4 Averages of Pakistan and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in Pakistan (2.01) was slightly lower than the average of all
countries (2.07), being mid-level among 12 APNN member countries.

220∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.10, being close to neutral level.
The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children,
occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in Pakistan were
evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.11.10.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents by their personalvariable were not statistically significant, the average scores of the younger respondents
than that of older, of single respondent than that of married and of double-income
respondents than of single-income respondents were relatively low in each category.
Table 4.11.10 Need of Support Policy in Pakistan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type

Average

Total

3.10

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

0.727

0.538

0.771

0.466

0.674

0.515

0.493

0.741

-0.8990.373

Age
29 years or younger

2.96

0.907

30 - 39

3.18

0.834

40 - 49

3.20

0.758

Over 50

3.29

0.545

Single

2.97

0.937

Married

3.19

0.755

Others (including divorced)

3.00

-

1

3.12

0.893

2

3.00

0.677

3 or more

3.29

0.532

Marital status

Number of Children

Occupation
Professor/Teacher

3.03

0.737

Researcher

3.00

1.027

Healthcare professional

3.04

0.134

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

3.12

0.904

Other

3.63

1.250

Double income

3.10

0.583

Single income

3.28

0.882

Double income status (married)

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

221

Figure 4.11.5 Averages of Pakistan and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The above figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support
policy to overcome the gender barrier. Respondents in Pakistan agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.10) was lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being thesecond lowest after New Zealand.

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on the perception ofgender equality was 2.36 which was lower than the neutral level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in Pakistan were evaluated by ANOVA(or t) analysis.
The difference of responses according to the age was statistically significant but
rejected through post verification. Although the differences of the average scores of the
respondents by their personal variable were not statistically significant, the averagescores of the respondents having more children, researcher, and single-income wererelatively low, meaning lower perception of gender equality in each category.

222

Table 4.11.11 Perception of Gender Equality in Pakistan: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.55
2.43
1.80
1.81

0.638
0.827
0.566
0.447

5.288**

0.002

3.40
3.47
3.67

0.783
0.621
-

0.147

0.864

2.51
2.17
1.92

0.972
0.770
0.534

2.230

0.121

2.47
2.18
2.46
2.37
1.95

0.860
0.485
0.287
0.828
0.342

0.611

0.656

2.32

0.731
0.683

1.436

0.157

Average
2.36

2.04

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.11.6 Averages of Pakistan and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in Pakistan on gender equality(2.36) was lower than the average of all countries (2.92), being the second lowest level
after India among 12 countries.

223

4.12. South Korea
4.12.1. General Profiles of Male Respondents in South Korea
A total of 133 male scientists and engineers (10.3% of total respondents) answered
the survey. Table 4.12.1. shows the age, marital status, number of children, andoccupation of the male scientist and engineer respondents in South Korea.
Regarding the age, 42.1% were in their 40’s, 36.8% were in their 30’s, 14.3% wereat 29 years old or younger, and 6.8% were in their 50 years or older.
There were more married respondents at 74.4% than single respondents at 25.6%. Of
the respondents that had children (59.4% of total South Korea respondents), 63.3% had
2 children, 27.8% had 1 child, and 8.9% had 3 or more. In case of couples, 52.1%
were double-income couples while 47.9% were single-income couples.
Regarding the occupation, 84.2% were researchers, followed by 9.0% were in otherprofessions, 3.8% were teachers/professors, and 3.0% were engineers. There were no
respondents work as healthcare professional from South Korea.
Table 4.12.1 General Profile of Respondents in South Korea(Unit: Person, %)Composition

Frequency%

29 years or younger

19

14.3

30 - 3949

36.8

40 - 4956

42.1

Over 5096.8Single34

25.6

Married99

74.4

Others (including divorced)

-

-

Age

Marital status

Number of Children
1

22

27.8

2

50

63.3

3 or more

7

8.9

Professor/Teacher

5

3.8

Researcher

112

84.2

Healthcare professional--

Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)

4

3.0

Other

12

9.0

Double income

50

52.1

Single income

46

47.9

Occupation

Double income status (married)224

4.12.2. Comparison of Answer by Male Scientists and Engineers in South Korea
with Other APNN Member Countries
The questions in the survey are divided into five categories including “male/female
ratio” in the major field of respondents, “perception of discrimination” against women in
STEM, “indirect experience” of discrimination in STEM, “need of support policy” toresolve gender barriers in STEM, and perception of “gender equality.” Average scoresof the respondents from South Korea were compared with that from the other 11
APNN countries in each category as follows.
The average score of male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers
was 1.72, and it was lower than that from other 11 countries (1.99) at a statisticallysignificant. (t=-4.150, p.000), indicating more male ratio than other countries. The
average score for the perception of discrimination was 2.63 which was slightly higher
than the average score (2.52) from the other 11 countries. The average score for theindirect experience of discrimination was 1.81 which was significantly lower (t=-5.674, p
.000) than the average score (2.10) of the other 11 countries. The average score ofmale scientists and engineers from South Korea agreeing to the need of support policy
to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.21 which was close to “Neutral” butsignificantly lower (t=-3.834, p.000) than the average score of the other countries(3.54). Lastly, the average score for the Perception of Gender Equality was 3.20 which
was higher than the average score of the other countries (2.89) at a statisticallysignificant (t=5.261, p.000).

Figure 4.12.1 Comparisons of Answer between South Korea and Other Countries (Unit: Point)

In summary, the averages scores from South Korea showed more men in STEM, lessagreement to support policy, lower perception of discrimination, less indirect experiencebut higher perception of gender equality than other countries.

2254.12.3. Comparison of Response by Male Scientists and Engineers in South
Korea and Other APNN Member Countries to Each Question∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of respondents was 1.72, meaning there
were more men. The male/female ratio in STEM was the lowest scoring 1.55 formanagement level at the current workplace but highest scoring 1.84 at the current
workplace. There were more men at graduate school than at university (college) during
education period, and more men at management level at workplace in South Korea.
The figure (1.72) was lower than that of 11 countries (2.99) at a statisticallysignificant (t=-4.150, p.000). South Korea showed more men during all questioned
period (from college to current work and after).
The average scores of ‘management level at current work’ (t=-5.367, p.000), ‘in
graduate school’ (t=-4.779, p.000) and ‘at current work’ (t=-2.565, p.000) werelower than that of other 11 countries at statistically significant levels. There were moremen also during university than other 11 APNN countries without statistically significant
difference. In summary, there were more men in STEM in South Korean than other 11
countries for all period from college to the management level at current work.
Table 4.12.2 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : male/female ratio(Unit: Point)Typemale/female
Ratio(5-Point Scale)

Question

S. Korea
Average(n=133)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,161)

t

(p)

1

The male/female ration of my department during myuniversity(college) education

1.83

1.90

-0.651

0.515

2The male/female ratio of my department while atgraduate school

1.66

2.03

-4.779***

0.000

1.84

2.07

-2.565*

0.011

1.55

1.93

-5.367***

0.000

1.72

1.99

-4.150***0.000

3 The male/female ratio of my current workplace
4

The male/female ration at management level at mycurrent workplace
Sub Scale∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points means Neutral)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of perception of discrimination in STEM was 2.63, which was
below the mid-level. Of the five questions related to the perception of gender barrier,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.” received the highest average score (3.11). “Women in STEM

226

generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues” (2.35) received the lowest average score.
The overall average of the answers to the questions related to perception of
discrimination was 2.63 slightly higher than the overall average of 11 other APNN
countries (2.52). Specifically, significant differences were observed for the responses“Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose their majors in STEM during theireducation period.” (t=3.614, p.000), scoring higher than other 11 countries. Besides,“It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM field than for a man withthe same qualifications.”, “Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work,
compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues” (2.50), “Women in STEM
generally receive less pay for equal work, compared with their equally-qualified malecolleagues” (2.35) get slightly higher average score than other 11 countries the
responses.
Table 4.12.3 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Discrimination(Unit: Point)Type

Perception ofDiscrimination(5-Point Scale)

Question

Average
S. Korea of
Other
Average Countries(n=133) (n=1,161)

t

(p)

1

Girls and boys were equally encouraged to choose theirmajors in STEM during their education period.

2.39

2.04

3.614***

0.000

2

It is more difficult for a woman to get a job in the STEM
field than for a man with the same qualifications.

3.11

2.96

1.354

0.176

3

Women in STEM receive equal work distribution and work
appraisal compared to men of the same qualifications and level.

2.50

2.38

1.182

0.237

Being promoted or becoming a tenured professor or a
4 principal investigator is more difficult for female scientists
than for male scientists.

2.83

2.91

-0.8190.413

Women in STEM generally receive less pay for equal work,
compared with their equally-qualified male colleagues

2.35

2.29

0.558

0.577

Sub Scale

2.63

2.52

1.858

0.063

5

∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The overall average of the response by the male scientist and engineers in South
Korea on the indirect experience of discrimination was 1.81 points which was close to
the median value of 2.5 points in a 4-point scale, meaning “I have not seen or heardof it but am aware of it.”
The highest level of indirect experience was the discrimination related to “marriage,
pregnancy, and childbirth” (2.80) while the lowest level of indirect experience was that
related to “receiving funding or scholarships” (1.17).
The overall average of responses to questions related to the level of indirect
experience was significantly lower (t=-5.674, p.000) than the overall average of other227

11 countries (2.10).
More specifically, the average scores of the responses to the questions of indirect
experience related to “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving research funds or
scholarships because she is female”(t=-12.332, p.000), and “Woman in STEM isdisadvantaged in participating or leading a research project because she isfemale.”(t=-5.330, p.000) were lower in order than the average scores of othercountries at statistically significant. And the average response of “Woman in STEM
being sexually harassed or treated unfairly”, and “Woman in STEM is disadvantaged inparticipating or leading a research project because she is female.” got slightly lower
score without statistical significances than other 11 countries.
Table 4.12.4 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Indirect Experience(Unit: Point)

Question

S. Korea
Average(n=133)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,161)

1

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in receiving
research funds or scholarships because she is female

1.17

1.74

-12.332***

0.000

2

Woman in STEM is disadvantaged in participating or
leading a research project because she is female.

1.36

1.71

-5.330***

0.000

3

Woman in STEM being sexually harassed or treatedunfairly

1.91

2.05

-1.682

0.093

4

Woman in STEM leaving work due to her marriage,
pregnancy or child care

2.80

2.90

-1.039

0.299

1.81

2.10

-5.674***

0.000

Type

Indirect
Experience of
discrimination(4-Point Scale)

Sub Scalet(p)∘Career Outlook and Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The male scientists and engineers had a very positive view on the career outlook ofwomen in their fields as the average score was 3.75. The score was lower than the
average of 11 other countries (4.21) at a statistically significant level (t=-6.091, p.000).
The average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea answering to thequestion “It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve gender inequality in the
STEM field.” was 3.41, meaning that they agreed to it. It was lower than the averagescore of other 11 countries (3.93) at a statistically significant level (t=-5.626, p.000).
Lastly, the average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea answeringto the question “It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmative plan tosolve gender inequality in the STEM field.” was 3.02 meaning that they neither agree,
nor disagree to these policies. This score was lower than the average (3.15) of other 11
countries.

228

Table 4.12.5 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Career Outlook & Need of Support Policy(Unit: Score)

Type
CareerOutlook
Need ofSupport
Policy(5-Point
Scale)

Question

S. Korea
Average(n=133)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,161)

t

(p)

1

I believe things will turn out fine in the future career for
women in STEM

3.75

4.23

-6.091**0.000

1

It is crucial to have strong policy support to solve genderinequality in the STEM field.

3.41

3.93

-5.626***

0.000

2

It is appropriate to introduce the quota system or affirmativeplan to solve gender inequality in the STEM field.

3.02

3.15

-1.3250.187

Sub Scale

3.21

3.54

-3.834***0.000∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender equality
Five questions were asked of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on theirperception of gender equality in STEM. The overall average of responses to allquestions was 3.20 points, being mid-level.
The highest score was on to the statement “In order to maintain the order and peaceof a family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (4.10).
It was followed by “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (3.79), “In a relative sense, men are rational while womenare emotional and thus, they ought to complement each other by doing what is
appropriate for themselves” (3.25), “Women are born to have a way of caring childrenthat men are not capable of in the same way” (2.81), and “I believe gender equality
will be fully achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men” (2.08). The
scores indicate that the respondents had more perception of gender equality regarding
the gender role in family.
The overall average score of South Korea (3.20) was higher than the average scoreof other 11 countries (2.89) at a statistically significant level (t=5.261 p.000).
More specifically, the average scores on “In order to maintain the order and peace ofa family, the husband should have greater power and authority than the wife” (t=6.680,
p.000), “In a relative sense, men are rational while women are emotional and thus,
they ought to complement each other by doing what is appropriate for themselves”(t=6.327, p.01), and “Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial obligations) of
households should be men” (t=5.952, p.000) were higher than other 11 countries atstatistically significant levels.
But the average scores on “Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way”, and “I believe gender equality will be fully
achieved only if women are given equal opportunities as men.” received relatively lower
than other 11 countries, means relatively lower perception on gender equality.

229

Table 4.12.6 Comparison of Answer to Other Countries : Perception of Gender Equality(Unit: Point)

Question

S. Korea
Average(n=133)

Averageof OtherCountries(n=1,161)

1

In a relative sense, men are rational while women are
emotional and thus, they ought to complement eachother by doing what is appropriate for themselves

3.25

2.55

6.327***

0.000

2

Primary breadwinners (who take care of financial
obligations) of households should be men

3.79

3.21

5.952***

0.000

3

Women are born to have a way of caring children that
men are not capable of in the same way

2.81

2.98

-1.421

0.156

4

In order to maintain the order and peace of a family,
the husband should have greater power and authority
than the wife.

4.10

3.54

6.680***

0.000

5

I believe gender equality will be fully achieved only if
women are given equal opportunities as men.

2.08

2.16

-1.064

0.289

3.20

2.89

5.261***

0.000

Type

Perceptionof Gender
Equality(5-pointscale)Sub Scalet(p)

4.12.4. Comparison of Responses in South Korea with Other Countries∘ Male/Female ratio (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
Lower score means relatively More men
Higher score means relatively More women
The average male/female ratio in the fields of male scientists and engineers was 1.72,
meaning there were relatively more men. The differences according to the profiles (age,marital status, number of children, occupation, and double income status (if married) of
the respondents in South Korea were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Table 4.12.7
shows the results.
Although the differences of the average scores due to the personal variable did nothave statistical significances, there were more men in the field of older respondents, anddouble-income respondent than single-income respondents in the category.

230

Table 4.12.7 male/female ratio in South Korea: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.00
1.77
1.59
1.69

0.707
0.698
0.611
0.610

1.983

0.120

3.09
3.07
-

0.597
0.493
-

0.226

0.822

1.51
1.63
1.36

0.670
0.611
0.497

0.745

0.478

1.60
1.71
1.31
2.02

0.627
0.672
0.375
0.635

1.392

0.248

1.57

0.589

-1.022

0.310

1.70

0.664

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income

1.72

Single income
Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.12.2 Average of South Korea and Other Countries in male/female ratio (Unit: Point)

As shown in the figure, the male/female ratio in the fields of the male scientists andengineers in South Korea (1.72) was lower than the average of all countries (1.96),
being the fifth lowest after Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Nepal.

231∘ Perception of Discrimination (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea to the perceptionof discrimination in STEM (2.63) was lower than the mid-level. The differences
according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation, and double
income status (if married) of the respondents in South Korea were evaluated by
ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.12.8.
The difference of responses according to income status (t=2.207, p.05) of the
respondents from South Korea was statistically significant. The average score of
double-income respondents was higher than that of single-income respondents. Althoughdifferences were not statistically significant, the average scores of 40’s, married, andrespondents having fewer children were relatively low in each category.
Table 4.12.8 Perception of Discrimination in South Korea: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

2.86
2.61
2.51
3.04

0.817
0.723
0.747
0.823

1.966

0.122

2.74
2.60
-

0.764
0.762
-

0.945

0.346

2.48
2.66
2.80

0.681
0.794
1.026

0.588

0.558

2.88
2.57
2.95
3.05

0.522
0.771
0.929
0.579

1.917

0.130

2.75
2.41

0.656
0.827

2.207*

0.030

Average
2.63

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

The figure below shows the comparative average scores among different countries.
The perception of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on gender discrimination(2.63) was slightly higher than the average of all countries (2.53), being the fourthhighest level after Vietnam, Mongol, and Bangladesh.

232

Figure 4.12.3 Averages of South Korea and Other countries in Perception of Discrimination (Unit : Point)∘ Indirect experience of Discrimination (4-point scale)
The Higher score means The More indirect experience of discrimination
The average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on the indirect
experience of discrimination against women in STEM was 1.81 which was close to “ Ihave not seen or heard of it but am aware of it.”
Table 4.12.9 Indirect Experience in South Korea: Differences according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

1.78
2.18
2.15
2.25

0.608
0.661
0.518
0.528

3.740*

0.014

3.40
3.47
3.67

0.783
0.621
-

0.147

0.864

1.98
2.29
2.15

0.360
0.683
0.650

0.886

0.420

2.01
2.15
2.64
1.81
1.94

0.572
0.580
0.516
0.616
0.375

5.735***

0.000

2.36
2.02

0.697
0.422

2.148*

0.038

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

1.81

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

233

The differences according to the respondent’s profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) in South Korea were evaluatedby ANOVA (or t) analysis. The results are summarized in Table 4.12.9.
Although the differences of the average scores due to the personal variable did nothave statistical significances, the average scores of the older respondents, of the
respondents having fewer children, and double-income respondents were higher thanother respondents in each category.

Figure 4.12.4 Averages of South Korea and Other Countries in Indirect Experience (Unit : Point)

The figure shows the cross-country average scores on the indirect experience of
discrimination in 12 countries. The indirect experience of discrimination by the malescientists and engineers in South Korea (1.81) was lower than the average of all
countries (2.07), being the lowest among 12 APNN member countries.

∘ Need of Support Policy (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score means The Stronger agreement
The average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on the need ofsupport policy to overcome the gender barrier in STEM was 3.21, being close toneutral level. The differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number ofchildren, occupation, and double income status (if married) of the respondents in South
Korea were evaluated by ANOVA (or t) analysis. Results are summarized in Table
4.12.10.
Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents did not havestatistical significances, the average score of the respondents more 50 years old washigher than other respondents in the category.

234

Table 4.12.10 Need of Support Policy in South Korea: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.11
3.30
3.12
3.61

1.150
0.935
0.934
1.024

0.884

0.452

2.74
2.60
-

0.764
0.762
-

0.945

0.346

3.23
3.21
3.36

1.120
0.964
0.556

0.068

0.934

3.50
3.21
3.25
3.17

0.707
0.985
1.443
0.862

0.156

0.926

3.22
3.13

0.964
1.030

0.440

0.661

Type

Average

Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

3.21

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Figure 4.12.5 Averages of South Korea and Other Countries in Need of Support Policy (Unit: Point)

The figure shows the cross-country average scores on the need of support policy toovercome the gender barrier. Respondents in South Korea agreeing to the need ofsupport policy (3.21) was lower than the average of all countries (3.51), being the third
lowest after New Zealand and Pakistan.

235

∘ Perception of Gender Equality (5-point scale, 3 points : “Neutral”)
The Higher score, The Higher Perception of Gender Equality
The average score of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on the perceptionof gender equality was 3.20 which was slightly higher than the neutral level. The
differences according to the profiles (age, marital status, number of children, occupation,and double income status (if married) of the respondents in South Korea were evaluatedby ANOVA (or t) analysis.
Table 4.12.11 Perception of Gender Equality in South Korea: Difference according to Personal Variable(Unit: Point)

Type
Total
Age
29 years or younger
30 - 39
40 - 49
Over 50
Marital status
SingleMarried
Others (including divorced)
Number of Children
1
2
3 or more
Occupation
Professor/Teacher
Researcher
Healthcare professional
Engineer (company, R&D center, etc.)
Other
Double income status (married)
Double income
Single income

Standard
Deviation

F/T

p

3.31
3.24
3.16
3.04

0.559
0.707
0.628
0.467

0.469

0.704

3.09
3.07
-

0.597
0.493
-

0.226

0.822

3.25
3.09
3.54

0.532
0.621
0.629

1.998

0.143

3.28
3.21
3.15
3.12

0.576
0.660
0.900
0.356

0.113

0.953

3.11
3.20

0.569
0.641

-0.713

0.478

Average
3.20

Note: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

Although the differences of the average scores of the respondents did not havestatistical significances, the average score of the older was higher than the younger. And
the average score of the respondents having 3 or more children was relatively high,meaning had relatively higher perception of gender equality than other respondents inthe category.

236

Figure 4.12.6 Averages of South Korea and Other Countries in the Perception of Gender Equality (Unit: Point)

The figure above shows the cross-country average scores on the perception of genderequality. The perception of male scientists and engineers in South Korea on genderequality (3.20) was higher than the average of all countries (2.92), being the fourthhighest level after New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.

237

5. For Conclusion and Suggestions: 2017 MAPWiST

5. For Conclusion and Suggestions: 2017 MAPWiSTThis document has reviewed the result of the survey of male scientists and engineers
in 12 APNN countries conducted by KWSE in 2017.
The survey results, as well as the size and characteristics of male scientists andengineers, were diverse. It cannot be concluded that the results of this survey accuratelyreflect the scientists and engineers in each country or the reality of culture or genderbarrier in each country. Nevertheless, this survey process will surely provide a good
opportunity to understand the common characteristics of male scientists and engineers
who have participated in and provided opinions to this survey and how they differedfrom country to country although they had similar research, occupation, age, and family
status.
Most of all, we hope that this attempt to share our study with male scientists andengineers in 2017 goes beyond the gender barriers and is another extension or
beginning of the cooperation of APNN member countries for science and technology forsustainable development. In closing the report, we substitute the conclusion and policy
suggestion with the summary of the policy forum of female scientists and engineers of
APNN member countries held in Plaza Hotel in Seoul on September 2, 2017. The
keynote speeches by Prof. Kong-Ju-bock Lee of Ewha Womans University, Gender &Leadership CEO Yanghee Kim, and the EU representative Caroline Belan-Menagieraccurately explained the reason and purpose of this report. These keynote speeches
precisely reflected the will of female scientist and engineers who pursue science andtechnology-gender-innovation and sustainability. They were followed by the main
discussion of current status in Nepal, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Japan. The attendees
discussed the meaning and characteristics of gender barrier as the female scientist andengineers in each country understood and reaffirmed the will for innovation andsustainable development by overcoming the gender barrier. We conclude this report bysummarizing the discussion at the policy forum of female scientists and engineers of in
the Asia Pacific region in 2017.

5.1. 2017 MAPWiST (Meeting of Asia & Pacific Women in Science & Technology)
2017 MAPWiST was the last session of BIEN (The International Conference of Women
Scientists and Engineers conference on BT, IT, ET and NT) 2017 held in Seoul under
the theme of “Shaping the Future.” The international policy forum was geared towards
the discussion on the present conditions and predictions of science andtechnology-nation-woman in each country and Asia-Pacific based on the national andglobal policy issues.

2412017 MAPWiST was the extension of 2014 MAPWiST held by APNN (Asia andPacific Nation Network, a regional network of INWES (The International Network of
Women Engineers & Scientists)) in Seoul as the international conference.
The forum was chaired by Prof. Jung Sun Kim of Dongseo University who hasplanned and managed all MAPWiST meetings and included the panel discussion by the
representatives from Nepal, Taiwan, Mongolia, Japan, and Korea. The discussion focusedon the current status of female scientists and engineers in Asian-Pacific countries andgender issues in science and engineering.
This MAPWiST included the keynote lectures and invited lectures centered on genderequality survey and policy development research in science and engineering that havebeen carried out by KWSE for four years since 2014. This project by KWSE is theoutcome of realizing the need for Asian-Pacific version of “SHE FIGURES” publishedby the EU every three years since 2003. Its objective is to draw a map of genderedinnovation and development in science and engineering by tracking and collecting thereality of female scientists and engineers in the Asia-Pacific region according to timeand space taking into account the geographical and historical differences between theinter-continental regions in addition to the European and Western societies.
Dr. Caroline Belan Menagier, who has led the “gendered innovation” project of the
EU for the past 10 years, gave a special lecture in support of the objective.

“Balanced Development of Human Resources in STEM for the Future of AI”
Prof. Kong-Ju-bock Lee opened the MAPWiST session with a video presentation
showing that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” was not just an issue but the reality
close to our daily living through time and space, personal relationship, technology, andhuman life. It reflected her expertise as the physicist and researcher of policy forfemale scientists and engineers.
Prof. Lee explained that the change brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution was
not just the recent issue but the outcome of the gradual changes and developments ofscience and technology. In other words, the science and technology have alreadybecome part of our daily living and changed the meaning of space. Prof. Lee’s
explanation of the meaning of time was relative enough to understand Einstein’s
explanation inversely in reality. The science and technology that “change everything”
extends the universality of life through speed and mobility and differentiate the past andthe future at a faster rate. They are developed rapidly and closer to our lives with thenecessity of “future form” to predict the paradigm that is different from convention.
Prof. Lee used the Human Development Index (HDI), Gender Inequality Index (GII),242

and Gender Gap Index (GGI) to explain that the science and technology by humans
exceeded the speed of human lives and the speed of acceptance of diversity. Therefore,
she argued that there was the need for more appropriate resolution than the issues of
equality and equity in the past and present. Prof. Lee concluded her lecture with theneed to expand and extend the role of female scientist and engineers as the keyword in
solving the gender and human inequalities through science and technology.

“Gender barriers perceived and experienced by women scientists andengineers among APNN member countries”
Dr. Yanghee Kim, CEO of Gender & Leadership, gave the first invited lecture. Dr.
Kim pointed out that “the science and technology” and “woman” can be two key words
in solving two main challenges for humans - sustainable development and overcomingof poverty. She, however, criticized that they are not the practical issues for policy
makers who were the decision-makers in the international society as well as in eachcountry.
Dr. Kim’s lecture focused on the discussion of the results of the survey of status offemale scientists and engineers in APNN member countries which were part of the
KWSE project in its fourth year to demonstrate the importance of data as the reliablebasis for realistic policy formation.
The survey reflected the perceptions of female scientists and engineers of 13 APNN
member countries based on the review of HDI, GII, GGI, Economic Activity
Participation Rate of OECD member countries, and the status of female scientists andengineers by UNESCO. The 13 APNN member countries were Nepal, New Zealand,
Malaysia, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India, Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan,
Australia, and Korea.
The purpose of the survey was to study typical gender roles; discrimination in
employment, wage, and promotion; inequalities in work-family balance and housework
sharing; institutional and customary barriers centered on sexual harassment or otherunfair practices; conscious and unconscious discrimination; and obstacles to genderequality.
Dr. Kim explained that the survey of 1,379 male scientists and engineers in 12
APNN countries except for Australia in 2016 showed that the female students were stillless encouraged to have the career in STEM and it led to women to have relatively
difficulties of finding jobs in the fields. The difficulties of women in STEM continued
as they became professionals after school as the survey showed that it was moredifficult for female scientists and engineers to have regular jobs or become project243

managers than males. The difficulties of female scientists and engineers increased due towork-family balancing and burden of housework. Moreover, women experienced gender
harassment as well as inequalities in scholarship and degree acquisition. Althoughstereotypes of gender roles showed various characteristics by country and age,characteristics that are perceived by the roles and occupations of men and women as
symbolized by reason and emotion still remained.
As the result of the survey and policy studies, Dr. Kim pointed out the need for“Broad and continuous implementation of investigation and research for gender barriers
and policy support,” Collection of statistics related to female scientists and engineers in
STEM,” “Expansion of excellent support projects and collection of policy information ineach country,” “Establishment of indicators for improvement and development that cansymbolize SHE FIGURE of APNN,” and “Establishment of mid and long term plan forsupporting the development of women in STEM.” She also argued for the need for theefforts and cooperation of APNN countries for them.

“Making full use of human potential: how structural change is being promoted”
Dr. Caroline Belan-Menagier is in charge of the EU's international relations project at
Confederal University Leonardo da Vinci located in Poitiers, France. She worked as the
French representative to the Helsinki Group on gender in Research & Innovation for thegendered innovation in the EU as the gender expert at the French Ministry of Higher
Education and Research in 2009 - 2015.
Dr. Belan-Menagier reviewed the key work by the team of Kong-Ju-bock Lee, Prof.
Jung Sun Kim, and Dr. Yanghee Kim for KWSE's “SHE FIGURE” Asia Pacific version
project and presented the outcomes, limitations, and current challenge of Gendered
Innovations in Science and Engineering in the EU which began the program almost 20
years earlier.
The gendered innovation program for scientific and engineering research andinnovation in the EU began with the Framework Program (FP) 5 (2002 - 2006) in 1998
and was detailed by the Helsinki Group the following year. It led to the Lisbon
Strategy n 2000, the recommendation for gender mainstreaming strategy of main stream
policy in 2002, the research by the EU Commission and Member States in 2005 toestablish of the goal of 25% female ratio in public sector of research and technology,
the implementation of gender mainstreaming in science and technology through the
integration of gender-sensitivity in mainstream policies in 2007, and the policy proposal
for family-friendly job and research environment in 2008. They were followed by
Horizon 2020 (a 7-year action plan with the budget of nearly EUR 80 billion withthree key objectives of “Gender balance in decision-making and research teams at all244

levels,” “Gender dimension in research,” and “Gender balance in innovative contents”)
announced in 2013 and the EU resolution in 2015 for gender equality in research andinnovation through continuous and new paradigm. The EU has been publishing She
Figures every three years since 2003. It reviews the current situations of European
woman scientists through horizontal separation, vertical separation, and job opportunities.
Dr. Belan-Menagier, however, pointed out in the lecture that the quantitative increase
did not necessarily lead to qualitative improvement even quality in Europe and that theincrease in numbers did not result in rapid improvement, so the firm gender barriers
have remained the most difficult challenge. She added that the challenge for overcoming
the gender barrier move beyond increasing the ratio of women and building the system
to change the “knowledge” itself.

Discussion of female scientist and engineer representatives of APNN member countries
Prof. Lee lectured on the role of female scientists and engineers for the future andthe need for overcoming gender barriers in science and engineering. Dr. Kim presented
the current status of female scientists and engineers and gender barriers in the Asia
Pacific countries and the outcome and limitation of overcoming gender barriers throughthe funding and mainstream policies of the government and international organizations
for the past 20 years. Their speeches vividly relayed the challenges ahead in all
countries participating in the session.
Following the panel discussion, the attendees discussed the current outcomes andchallenges of female scientists and engineers in each country based on diversity of thecountries. They agreed on the need for collection of data for each country to overcome
the firm gender barriers especially in the countries where the Confucian tradition
remained strong, continuous international interchange and networking in the APNN
region as well as the national and regional cooperations and the drive for international
support.
The panel speakers’ discussion showed the differences in the timing of enactment of
the law on gender equality as well as the pace and extent of women’s representation incountries like Mongolia, Nepal, Taiwan, and Japan. Nevertheless, they all agreed on theimportance of the effect of the cooperation and interactions among the female scientists
and engineers on individuals and communities. Regardless of nationality, the female
scientists and engineers were equally sensitive to the fact that the gender issue was usedjust to give more opportunities to women or for the passive policy of mobilizing
women as part of the solution of national or global crises.
2017 MAPWiST provided the opportunity for the female scientists and engineers in245

the Asia-Pacific region to express their desire for new policies and practices throughstrong networking. The passion continued through debates and opinions into late hours.
This event confirmed that the policies supporting female scientists and engineers must
evolve into new paradigm for gender policy in science and technology and they must
continue their passion and cooperation for the goal.

246

6. Appendix

6. Appendix
6.1. 2017 MAPWiST: Contents of Keynote Lectures∘ Dr. Kong-Ju-Bock Lee (Professor, Department of Physics, Ewha Womans University)

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

∘ Dr. Yanghee Kim (CEO, Gender & Leadership)

261

262

263

264

265

∘ Dr. Caroline Belan-Menagier (Confederal University Leonardo da Vinci, Head ofUnit, International Relations and Lifelong Learning Strategies)

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

6.2. 2017 MAPWiST: Discussion of Status by Country∘ Mongolia

281

282

283

284

∘ Nepal

285

286

287

∘ Taiwan

288

289

290

291

292

∘ Japan

293

294

6.3. 2017 Questionnaire for Gender Barriers in Science and Engineering in Asia and the Pacific

295

296

297

298

6.4. Email Requesting for Survey Participation

299