● Social norms and expectations drive low female participation in STEM fields.

● It’s not a matter of lost talent, but a series of processes that make it difficult for women to participate.

● The solution cannot be partial—it requires planning of the structure, rules of the game, mechanisms, and operational procedures.

The low participation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is not due to the curriculum, but more due to social norms and gender stereotypes against women that are common in Indonesia.

These norms may not always sound like “prohibitions ,” but often appear in simple sentences: “protect your good name,” “it is impolite to argue,” “it is safer at home.”

However, this is where the STEM pathway for women narrows. It’s not that women are less capable, but rather that social expectations force them to lower their voices, limit their movements, and suppress their ambitions in order to remain perceived as “good.”

The domestication of women—as nurturers, keepers, and low-profile—shapes how girls imagine their futures, from what is safe, what is honorable, to what is realistic to pursue. This includes STEM, which requires women to express their ideas, travel, and be seen in public .

This is what’s known as a hidden curriculum that seemingly teaches the public how to view women. It’s not about academic content, but rather social lessons about who is deemed worthy of appearing, acting, leading, and speaking.

Women-unfriendly ‘gates’

When female participation in STEM fields is low, we often refer to it as a “leaky pipeline.” It ’s as if talent is leaking out.

But this metaphor isn’t quite right. The STEM pathway isn’t a smooth stream that suddenly bursts. It’s more like a series of gates that must be passed through one by one— and often easier for men than women.

1) Sound and visibility

STEM is used to debating evidence, testing claims, and examining methods.

However, in many classrooms, feedback from both teachers and students to girls is often inconsistent.

That is, teachers praise women’s academic achievements but women who dare to argue, argue, or appear confident, are often considered risky , “too aggressive” or “too bold”.

If we teach girls to keep their voices down, avoid the spotlight, or be afraid to argue, we are distancing them from the core practices of scientific work: reasoning openly, testing ideas, and defending claims with evidence.

Without a safe space to practice these skills, many high-achieving female students choose a socially “safer” path.

2) Mobility and networking

STEM experiences develop over time and experience. They develop through labs, fieldwork, competitions, conferences, collaborative projects, and community. These experiences open up opportunities for mentors, expand networks, and build confidence.

However, for women, their movement to many places and at certain hours is often restricted by security concerns, demands for propriety, or reputational concerns.

3) Time and burden of care

As women (even from adolescence) take on more household and care work, time for evening study, training, project involvement, or networking becomes more limited.

They not only risk burnout, but also missing out on opportunities that often take place outside of school or work hours.

4) Credibility and leadership selection

STEM depends on credibility: who is seen as legitimate as an “expert” and worthy of leading.

When women are seen as mere support, society is less likely to ask for their expertise, more likely to doubt their abilities, and slower to appreciate them.

This credibility gap is evident in classrooms, campuses, and workplaces, for example, in who is appointed to lead or whose opinions are followed.

Change starts from school

If we want more women to pursue careers in STEM fields, we need institutional design (structural planning, rules of the game, mechanisms, and operational procedures) , not just motivational phrases like “women can do it.”

This means that schools must establish consistent routines that provide a safe space for girls to speak up, move, and lead—without incurring any “social costs.”

1) Make reasoning a classroom habit

Establish a weekly routine for students to explain strategies, compare methods, challenge ideas with evidence, and then openly revise conclusions.

The focus is not on who answers quickly, but on who can explain why their answer makes sense.

2) Make leadership a shared skill

Schools can establish rotating roles, namely taking turns leading discussions, examining evidence, summarizing, and asking critical questions, so that leadership becomes a skill learned together, not a position that “automatically” falls to male students.

Through role reversals, all students can practice being reasoners and small decision makers in the classroom.

3) Audit of class interactions

Schools could have teachers implement simple monitoring: who is interrupted most often, who gets follow-up questions more often, and who is praised for reasoning (rather than just compliance).

Use these notes to improve interaction patterns—for example, by taking turns, allowing a few seconds before pointing at a student ( wait time ), and ensuring questions are distributed more evenly.

The goal is to fix the class system, not blame individuals.

4) Bring STEM figures closer

Invite local professionals, alumni, or students in STEM fields from around the school. When girls see real, immediate examples, they’re more likely to envision themselves in STEM fields.

5) Design safe participation outside the classroom

STEM activities outside of school (clubs, competitions, lab visits) must be accompanied by clear logistical support and safeguards: adequate mentoring, safe accommodation, transparent parental communication, and duty -of-care protocols .

Don’t shift the burden of “risk” to family—especially family who are sensitive to reputation and appropriateness.

Continued by campus and workplace

Campuses and workplaces can help reduce barriers to women’s participation in STEM through several policies:

1) Fund mobility safely and clearly

Provide travel funding for research, internships, fieldwork, conferences, and cross-city projects—along with accompanying arrangements, safe accommodation options, and clear protection procedures (parental/guardian permission if needed, emergency contacts, reporting mechanisms).

This is important because many STEM opportunities in Indonesia are concentrated in certain cities, despite the fact that students and workers come from various regions.

2) Acknowledge that career paths are not always smooth.

Improve scholarship selection, recruitment, and promotion criteria to avoid disadvantage for those taking parental leave, maternity leave, or family responsibilities .

Measure performance proportionally and based on achievements, not just length of time in one job.

3) Building a real return path

Provide a return-to-work/study scheme after a care break or leave. This includes refresher training, secure early project access, phased assignments, and active mentoring.

Ensure the selection process is transparent and evidence-based , so that decisions do not depend on informal networks or perceived reputation.

It will be impossible to promote STEM competitiveness if countries continue to maintain a system that filters women out of the skills pipeline. Without intervention on the hidden curriculum, the rhetoric of gender equality in STEM is just an illusion.

Author Bio: Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin is Associate Professor in STEM Education Research Center (SERC) Faculty of Education. at the University of Canberra