2
Kim, J. Y, Meister, A. (2023). Microaggressions, interrupted: The experience and effects of
gender microaggressions for women in STEM. Journal of Business Ethics, 185, 513-531.
In this article the primary focus was the impact of microaggressions on females that work
in the STEM field. When it comes to women in STEM they are considered not represented and
continue to be in leadership positions. In this article they speak on the five different types of
gender microaggressions that are experienced. While looking at how these microaggressions that
they have encountered affect them when it has happened. With that comes a negative impact that
needs to be dug into on how it can affect the women’s identity and how this can stir up a cycle of
self-doubt. Where in some cases cause women to leave the STEM field all together instead of
countering the negative impacts of those microaggressions.
The method that was used for this type of research was the qualitative inductive approach
when examining the research questions of microaggressions in the STEM field regarding gender.
The researchers conducted interviews with a total of 39 women with some sort of leadership
positions in the STEM field. When it came to the criteria there were two sets of criteria for each
women the first one being they had to identify as a woman, and they have at least five years of
experience in the STEM field in North America. The fields in STEM included biology,
chemistry, physics, technology, and environmental sciences. There racial component of this
study came to be a mix of different races White being 70%, Asians being 13%, Black being 8%,
multi-ethnic being 6% and finally Latina only being 3%. Each of the ladies were around the age
of 39 and have a working experience of around 14 years. The leadership positions that were
looked at in this study were Director or Senior Vice President, the Senior Manager and the Team
Leads. These interviews lasted for 35-72 min they were recorded so they could go back and
3
make sure the data was accurate. When it came to the interview itself it consisted of a series of
questions since it be being semi-structured it allowed for the opportunity of open-ended
questions and further questioning to have a descriptive answer to all of the experiences.
The results showed that out of the 39 women interviewed 36 of the women interviewed
brought up at least one notable experience of microaggression towards their gender in the office.
From those 36 women there were 224 incidents of gender microaggressions brought up within
the interviews. When it comes to gender microaggression in STEM it came down to be five types
seen in the office. The first one being the devaluing of technical competence which was basically
men conveying the message that women are incapably of working in that field. Some people in
this case had their task taken away from them and was given to a man in the office. Whereas
other people were completely ignored and removed from the project all together due to their
gender. The second thing being the devaluing due to physical appearance this stems from being
blatantly ignored like they do not exist. Men will look past the women when they are in the same
room and act like they are not there. Which then makes the women feel invisible in the
workplace and not comfortable or seen whatsoever.
The third type being the denial of one’s reality not only did the women feel a form of
microaggression, but they also felt a form of microinvalidation when it came to the workplace as
well. Women in those leadership positions were questioned and told that it wasn’t that bad the
guy’s behavior was ok and nothing to worry about. Men would and still often validate each
other’s behaviors even through it is not okay in reality. The fourth type of microaggression is
pathologizing the woman’s own character. Men in the office told the women that need to be
softer when it comes to leading or they need to have a better poker face because they give
everything away. Also, when it came to the men in the office that assertive behavior was
4
encouraged from them but when it came to the women it was more so discouraged. This makes
women feel visible but instead of a highly unwanted way. However, when the women were
asked what they experienced from these types of microaggression it was three negative emotions
anger, sadness, and indignation. The emotions were expressed in the interviews when it came to
tone of voice, facial expressions, and body gestures.
The results showed that gender microaggressions do affect women in STEM in negative
aspects due to no respect being shown. These microaggressions have affected the woman’s
confidence and leadership aspirations when it comes to themselves and working in the STEM
field or let alone any field from here on out. The limitations in this study according to the
researchers discussed that the sample was limited to those who have been in STEM for a number
of years which may have a bias when it comes to the survivorship of the workplace. The range of
leadership could have hindered the differences in the types of microaggressions. For the next
time this research is done take more time understanding the woman’s experience stick to one
group and try and figure out if ally intervention could have helped when it comes to redemptive
qualities.
This topic relates a lot to PSYC 351 based in the content we are learning in class. For
example, in class we are going over the different ways someone could be treating multiple
people different because their part a specific group. Dr. Conner gave the example in class the
other day of redheads in regards to microaggression. If he chooses to shut the door on one person
who was a redhead that would just be rude. However, if he shut the door on one redhead and
then proceeded to the shut the door on every redhead that would be a microaggression. Which in
this case it would be considered gender microaggression? Where females are being treated
