Differences in STEM Gender Disparity
Between India and the United States
Purva Yardi

Abstract

School of Information

Turning standard narratives of technology and genderin the developing world upside down, India sees muchless gender disparity in computing education than theUnited States. Based on qualitative research to explore
this phenomenon, we draw preliminary conclusions thatwomen in India feel pushed by their parents to go into
computer science for socio-economic reasons, and thatcompared with the United States, sex-based
differentiation in schools is muted in India. If
confirmed, these conclusions raise complex questions
about the relationship of gender, technology, anddevelopment that challenge some HCI efforts forgender equality or socio-economic development.

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
purvak@umich.edu
Megh Marathe
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
marathem@umich.edu
Kentaro Toyama
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Author Keywords

toyama@umich.edu

Gender equity; STEM education; India; cross-cultural.

ACM Classification Keywords
Paste the appropriate copyright/license statement here. ACM now
supports three different publication options:• ACM copyright: ACM holds the copyright on the work. This is thehistorical approach.
• License: The author(s) retain copyright, but ACM receives anexclusive publication license.
• Open Access: The author(s) wish to pay for the work to be open
access. The additional fee must be paid to ACM.
This text field is large enough to hold the appropriate release statement
assuming it is single-spaced in Verdana 7 point font. Please do notchange the size of this text box.
Each submission will be assigned a unique DOI string to be included here.

K.3.2 [Computer and Information science education]

Introduction
In the United States, there is widespread concern about
disproportionately low interest from girls and women in
STEM fields - science, technology, engineering, andmath. The problem is salient in computer science,
where, for example, in 2012 women only accounted for
21% of undergraduate computer science majors(OECD, 2014).

Male-to-Female Ratio in
Computer Science
Education in India andthe United States

Womenwith CS
degreeFemale
population
Male-toFemale
Ratio in CS
graduate
education

India

U.S.A.

45%

21%

47.7%

50.8%

1.2:1.0

4.2:1.0

Table 1: Statistical comparison ofthe percentage of women in CS
education and population in India
and the U.S.
Sources: Percentage of women incomputer science (OECD 2014;All India Survey on HigherEducation, 2015). Population data
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2015;(Census of India n.d.)

Curiously, this phenomenon is not nearly as stark incountries such as India, where women are wellrepresented in computer science: 45% of computerscience undergraduates were women in 2013 (All India
Survey On Higher Education, 2015).
What is striking about this difference, as we crossborders from the United States to India, is that itoccurs in spite of gender-equity contexts that go in theopposite direction. The United States is among theworld’s leading countries in terms of gender equality ingeneral, and education specifically: It is ranked 1st by
the World Economic Forum’s (2014) Gender Parity
Rankings for Educational Attainment. India on the other
hand was ranked 103rd, despite recent progress.
The phenomenon thus turns standard narratives oftechnology and gender upside down. In this preliminary
paper, we explore possible underlying causes for thisphenomenon based on qualitative interviews withyoung women from the United States and India who
majored in STEM and non-STEM fields as
undergraduate students. Our tentative conclusions
raise complex questions about gender, technology, anddevelopment and potentially challenge HCI work inrelevant areas.

Related Work
Studies have sought to understand why women’s
representation in computer science is so low in theUnited States. There is consensus that the causes aresocio-cultural factors as opposed to biology or genetics.
The reasons for this view are compelling: There areconsiderable swings in representation over time, andthere are significant differences across countries (Hill etal., 2010; Andreescu et al., 2008).

Several articles note the influence of backgroundstereotypes. STEM subjects are seen as masculine
while the arts and the humanities are perceived as
feminine. Women and girls may therefore experiencestereotype threat (Spencer et. al, 1999). Girls
consistently assess their mathematical ability to belower than boys of equal capability (Correll S. J., 2001).
Over time, that assessment can lead to“disidentification,” where individuals lose aspirations forfields they are stereotyped against (Nosek et al., 2009;Good et al., 2008). The other effect acts through men
and boys where a dominant “geek culture” mayalienate anyone who feels anything less than ardor forthe subject (Margolis & Fisher, 2002).
Findings from the United States contrast with what is
known about women in India, who do not perceive
computer science to be a masculine field but simply apath to socio-economic success (Varma & Kapur,2015). Indeed, women studying computer science inIndia report high confidence about their academic
performance (Escueta, Saxena, & Aggarwal, 2013).
One study associates this gender-neutrality with familycentered cultures (Venkatesh, 2015).
All of these studies confirm that women’s
representation in computer science is greater in India
than in the United States, and they provide
intermediate explanations for why this might be.
However, existing work falls short of arriving at
ultimate causes and offering actionable
recommendations. For example, why is it that Indian
women do not perceive computer science to be a field
for men, when evidence suggests many American
women do?

In our study, we take a closer look at the experiences
and motivations of women in India and the UnitedStates, in an effort to understand the underlying causesof this surprising difference.

Methodology
We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews of 45 to75 minutes in length. The participants were chosensuch that half (10) were Indian women who had
attended university in India, and half (10) wereAmerican women who had attended college in theUnited States. Within each group, half (5) had majoredin a STEM subject, and half had majored in a non-STEM
subject. Most participants were master’s students at
the University of Michigan School of Information. All
participants were from middle- or upper-middle classbackgrounds and all had at least one parent with acollege degree. All participants also had significant
familiarity with STEM fields – either in their pastexperience or because of a future career interest.
The interviews were semi-structured with a protocol
focused on family, educational background, personal
characteristics, and professional experience with special
attention to gender dynamics and academic
experiences with STEM/non-STEM subjects. Toward theend of each interview, we also asked specific questions
about gender discrimination.

Preliminary Results
Below are preliminary findings from an informal
analysis of the interviews.
Commonalities: There was strong agreement between
women from India and the United States about thebehavioral differences between girls/women andboys/men.

Speaking Out in Public: All of the women weinterviewed -- whether they were from India or theUnited States – specifically expressed a “fear of beingwrong” in public or among their peers. Many of theparticipants self-consciously expressed a sense ofinsecurity, lack of confidence, and self-doubt. Even
participants who identified themselves as beingconfident in their technical abilities reported being very
cautious about what they say out loud.
Group Dynamics: When asked if there were differences
between working in groups with boys/men andgirls/women, participants consistently reported thatmen were more assertive, and women were moreconsiderate. Women in general were described as moreorganized, more emotional, and more thoughtful ingroup work. This is related to, but not the same as thepoint above about public expression: Women weredescribed as being mindful of other people and theirviews. Men were described as being “childish” or“aggressive.”
Differences: Stark differences between what Indian
women and American women reported occurred in
discussions about family and school environment.
Limited Career Choice in India: Among families whosend their children to university in India, engineering or
medicine is the default expectation (both for men andwomen). Parents place great pressure on their children
to study specific subjects for reasons of socio-economic
prospects –career and marriage partners are a prime
concern. For the most part, children feel they mustcomply. Partly as a result, there are well-worn
pathways and institutional support for computing
education in India. Most of our Indian participants did
not consider other majors or career options.

Further reinforcing parental choice, curricula are rigid
throughout secondary school and college, with little
ability for students to choose among options, or toswitch directions once they arrive.
Discrimination in Schools: Our Indian participants
categorically denied experiencing gender discriminationin school. They acknowledged discrimination in otherareas of life including in the family and in postuniversity professional environments, but not in formal
education. In contrast, most American women reported
experiencing some bias or discrimination at school.
Studies confirm that subtle gender bias on part of U.S.
teachers favors boys in STEM education as early as
primary school (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
It is surprising is that this difference exists when India
can be otherwise highly discriminatory toward women.
For now, we have only speculations for why this might
be: One is that Indian women may not take as muchnotice of gender discrimination as their Americancounterparts. This seems unlikely, however, because
our Indian participants noted discrimination in nonschool contexts. Another possibility is that formal
education in India is largely desexualized through drab
uniforms, strict disciplinary practices, and social norms
that inhibit sexuality for minors. In contrast, American
schools all but celebrate gender differentiation throughan absence of dress codes and institutions such as
school dances.
Geek Culture: Validating Verma & Kapur (2015), one
response we heard only from our American participants
was an association of computer science with nerds orgeeks. Our American participants referred to a “bro” or“geek” culture in STEM fields, which they did not feel apart of. Indian women did not see the sameassociation. Despite male-female differences, Indian
girls/women still felt that their participation waswelcome in groups and their input was valued. Women
who had experience working with both American andIndian men specifically noted this difference.

Implications for HCI
These findings, if valid, have a number of implicationsfor HCI projects, especially where the goal is either
gender equality or socio-economic development in thedeveloping world. First, our findings counter any
narrative of monotonic forward progress. Advances inpersonal agency – girls’ right to choose their majors or
career aspirations – may cause apparent regressions ingender equality in the technology field, as girls areunderstandably more likely to opt for other fields whenconfronted with discriminatory behavior. Second, while
HCI-for-social-change projects tend toward behavioral
nudges that have temporary effects on behavior,
deeper causes of gender disparity may deserve closer
scrutiny. Third, given the apparently non-discriminatory
school environment in countries such as India, it may
be unwise to rush to introduce digital technology, whichsome have found to have unintentional gender biases(Beckwith & Burnett, 2004; Huff, 2002).

Summary
Qualitative interviews among Indian and American
women with undergraduate degrees in STEM and nonSTEM fields suggests that while women in bothcountries see some commonalities in their interactions
with boys/men, there are also significant differences in
educational contexts that could explain why women areproportionally represented in computer science in India,
while highly under-represented in the United States.
Women in both India and USA seem to experiencesimilar internal struggles, but Indian girls report littlediscrimination from figures of authority at school.
American boys and men, meanwhile, seem to treat
women differently compared with Indian boys and men,possibly due to heightened sexualization of the school
context. Meanwhile, Indian girls face great parentalpressure to go into STEM fields, while American girls do

References
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

9.

All India Survey On Higher Education 2013-2014.
(2015).
Andreescu, T., Gallian, J. A., Kane, J. M., & Mertz,
J. E. (2008). Cross-cultural analysis of students
with exceptional talent in mathematical problem
solving. Notices Am. Math. Soc., 55(10), 1248–60.
Beckwith, L. and Burnett, M. Gender: An importantfactor in problem-solving software? IEEE Symp. on
Vis. Lang. & Human-Centric Computing Languages
and Environments, Sept. 2004, 107-114.
Census of India : Sex Ratio. (n.d.).
http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_Glance/fsex.aspx
Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences:
Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations.
Escueta, M., Saxena, T., & Aggarwal, V. (2013).
Women in Engineering : A comparative study ofbarriers across Nations.
http://www.aspiringminds.com/sites/default/files/w
omenInEngineeringComparativeStudyBarriersAcros
sNations_1.pdf
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008).
Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat andwomen’s achievement in high-level math courses.
J. of Applied Dev. Psych., 29 (1), 17–28.
Gupta, N. (2012). Women undergraduates inengineering education in India: A study of growing
participation. Gender, Technology andDevelopment, 16(2), 153-176.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why sofew? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering,not. These findings have complex implications for HCI
projects that address either gender equality or socioeconomic development. Future work will follow up onthese preliminary findings.

and Mathematics. American Association ofUniversity Women.
10. Huff, C. (2002). Gender, software design, andoccupational equity, SIGCSE Bull., 34(2):112-115.
11. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., & Miller, F. (2002). Caring
about connections: Gender and computing.
Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
12. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F., Sriram, N., Lindner, N.,
Devos, T., Ayala, A., Bar-Anan, Y. (2009). Nat’ldifferences in gender-science stereotypes predict
nat’l sex differences in science & math achievement.

Proc. Nat’l Acad. Science, 106 (26), 10593–97.
13. Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), Education at a Glance, 2014.
14. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M.
(1999). Stereotype threat and women’s mathperformance. J. Exp. Soc. Psych., 35(1), 4–28.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 “Female persons,percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015).”
16. Varma, R., & Kapur, D. (2015). Decoding femininity
in computer science in India. Communications ofthe ACM, 58(5), 56-62.
17. Venkatesh, S. Forms of Social Asymmetry andCultural Bias: Of Gender and Science in India andthe World. Transcience (2015), 6(1).
18. World Economic Forum. (2014). The Global Gender
Gap Report. World Economic Forum, Geneva,Switzerland.
19. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L.,
Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Sciencefaculty’s subtle gender biases favor malestudents. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.