Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Women in STEM fields

Many scholars and policymakers have noted that the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM fields) have been predominantly male occupations, with historically low participation among women, from their origin in the Age of Enlightenment to the present time.

STEM professions, like medicine, require higher education or training—especially in mathematics—in nearly all cases. From the time of Isaac Newton, whose formulation of calculus set the ball rolling, to the late 20th century.

Since the feminist revolution of the 1970s, the opportunities available to men and women in higher education have become broadly similar in most advanced economies (with some countries, such as Canada, now having 'more women than men enrolled in post-secondary education). This has not yet translated to equal representation for women in the STEM professions on the ground.

Scholars are exploring the various reasons for the continued existence of this gender disparity in STEM fields. Those who view this disparity as resulting from discriminatory forces are also seeking ways to redress this disparity within STEM fields (these typically construed as well-compensated, high-status professions with universal career appeal).[1][2][3][4][5] Some proponents view diversity as an inherent human good, and wish to increase diversity for its own sake, regardless of its historical origin or present cause.

Contents

Gender imbalance in STEM fieldsEdit

Studies suggest that many factors contribute to the attitudes towards and achievement of young women in mathematics and science, including encouragement from parents, interactions with mathematics and science teachers, curriculum content, hands-on laboratory experiences, high school achievement in mathematics and science, and resources available at home.[6] In the United States, research findings are mixed concerning when boys' and girls' attitudes about mathematics and science diverge. Analyzing several nationally representative longitudinal studies, one researcher found few differences in girls' and boys' attitudes towards science in the early secondary school years.[6]

Students' aspirations to pursue careers in mathematics and science influence both the courses they choose to take in those areas and the level of effort they put forth in these courses. A report by the U.S. Department of Education found that the gap in the career aspirations of boys and girls in STEM fields exists as early as eighth grade. Among the eighth grade class of 1988, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to aspire to be scientists or engineers (9 and 3 percent, respectively), although girls were more likely than boys to aspire to professional, business, or managerial occupations (38 and 20 percent respectively). While male and female high school seniors are equally likely to expect a career in science or mathematics, male seniors are much more likely than their female counterparts to expect a career in engineering.[7]

Girls begin to lose self-confidence in middle school because they believe that men possess more intelligence in technical fields.[8] The fact that men outperform women in spatial analysis, a skillset many engineering professionals deem vital, generates this misconception.[3] Boys are more likely to gain spatial skills outside the classroom because they are culturally encouraged to build and work with their hands.[9] Research shows that girls can develop these same skills with training.[10][11]

A 1996 study of college freshmen by the Higher Education Research Institute shows that men and women differ greatly in their intended fields of study. Of first-time college freshmen in 1996, 20 percent of men and 4 percent of women planned to major in computer science and engineering, while similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences. The differences in the intended majors between male and female first-time freshmen directly relate to the differences in the fields in which men and women earn their degree. At the post-secondary level, women are less likely than men to earn a degree in mathematics, physical sciences, or computer sciences and engineering. The exception to this gender imbalance is in the life sciences.[12]

Effects of underrepresentation of women in STEM careersEdit

In Scotland, a large number of women graduate in STEM subjects but fail to move onto a STEM career compared to that of men. This represents a £170 million per annum loss to Scotland's national income.[13]

Men's and women's earningsEdit

Although female college graduates shared in the earnings growth of all college graduates in the 1980s, they earned less on average than male college graduates. Some of the differences in salary are related to the differences in occupations entered by women and men. Among recent science and engineering bachelor's degree recipients, women were less likely than men to be employed in science and engineering occupations. There remains wage gap between men and women in comparable scientific positions. Among more experienced scientists and engineers, the gender gap in salaries is greater than for recent graduates.[14] Salaries are highest in mathematics, computer science, and engineering, fields in which women are not highly represented. In Australia, a study conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown that the current gender pay gap between men and women in STEM fields in Australia stands at 30.1 percent as of 2013, which is an increase of 3 percent since 2012.[15]

Representation of women worldwideEdit

UNESCO, among other agencies including the European Commission and The Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia (AASSA), have been outspoken about the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields globally.[16][17][18]

AsiaEdit

 
Proportion of female graduates in science programmes in tertiary education in Asia.

An fact sheet published by UNESCO in March 2015[19] presented worldwide statistics of women in the STEM fields, with a focus on Asia and the Pacific region. It reports that, worldwide, 30 percent of researchers are women. In these areas, East Asia and the Pacific and South and West Asia had the most uneven balance, with 20 percent of researchers being women in each of those sub-regions. Meanwhile, Central Asia had the most equal balance in the region, with women comprising 46 percent of its researchers. The Central Asian countries Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan were the only countries in Asia with women as the majority of their researchers, though in both cases it was by a very small margin.[19]

Countries Percentage of researchers who are female
Central Asia 46%
World 30%
South and West Asia 20%
East Asia and the Pacific 20%

CambodiaEdit

As of 2004, 13.9% of students enrolled in science programs in Cambodia were female and 21% of researchers in science, technology, and innovation fields were female as of 2002. These statistics are significantly lower than those of other Asian countries such as Malaysia, Mongolia, and South Korea. According to a UNESCO report on women in STEM in Asian countries, Cambodia's education system has a long history of male dominance stemming from its male-only Buddhist teaching practices. Starting in 1924, girls were allowed to enroll in school. Bias against women, not only in education but in other aspects of life as well, exists in the form of traditional views of men as more powerful and dignified than women, especially in the home and in the workplace, according to UNESCO's A Complex Formula.[16]

IndonesiaEdit

UNESCO's A Complex Formula states that Indonesia's government has been working toward gender equality, especially through the Ministry of Education and Culture, but stereotypes about women's roles in the workplace persists. Due to traditional views and societal norms, women struggle to remain in their careers or to move up in the workplace. Substantially more women are enrolled in science-based fields such as pharmacy and biology than in mathematics and physics. Within engineering, statistics vary based on the specific engineering discipline; women make up 78% of chemical engineering students but only 5% of mechanical engineering students. As of 2005, out of 35,564 researchers in science, technology, and engineering, 10,874 or 31% were female.[16]

MalaysiaEdit

According to UNESCO, 48.19% of students enrolled in science programs in Malaysia were female as of 2011. This number has grown significantly in the past three decades, during which the country's employment of women has increased by 95%. In Malaysia, over 50% of employees in the computer industry, generally an especially male-dominated field within STEM, are women. It has been theorized that this is due to the fact that computer jobs are more often "indoor" and more suited to women according to Malaysian societal norms, as opposed to "outdoor" jobs more fitting for males. Of students enrolled in pharmacy, more than 70% are female, while in engineering only 36% of students are female. Women held 49% of research positions in science, technology, and innovation as of 2011.[16]

MongoliaEdit

According to UNESCO's data from 2012 and 2011 respectively, 40.2% of students enrolled in science programs and 49% of researchers in science, technology, and innovation in Mongolia are female. Traditionally, nomadic Mongol culture was fairly egalitarian, with both women and men raising children, tending livestock, and fighting in battle, which mirrors the relative equality of women and men in Mongolia's modern-day workforce. More females than males pursue higher education and 65% of college graduates in Mongolia are women. However, women earn about 19-30% less than their male counterparts and are perceived by society to be less suited to engineering than men. Thirty percent or less of employees in computer science, construction architecture, and engineering are female while three in four biology students are female.[16]

NepalEdit

As of 2011, 26.17% of Nepal's science students were women and 19% of their engineering students were women. In research, women held 7.8% of positions in 2010. These low percentages corresponds with Nepal's patriarchal societal values. In Nepal, women that enter STEM fields most often enter forestry or medicine, specifically nursing which is perceived as a predominantly female occupation in most countries.[16]

South KoreaEdit

In 2012, data showed that 30.63% of students enrolled in science programs in South Korea were female, a number that has been increasing since the digital revolution. Numbers of male and female students enrolled at most levels of education are comparable as well, though the gender difference is larger in higher education. Confucian beliefs in the lower societal value of women as well as other cultural factors could influence South Korea’s STEM gender gap. In South Korea, as in other countries, the percentage of women in medicine (61.6%) is much higher than the percentage of women in engineering (15.4%) and other more math-based stem fields. In research in science, technology, and innovation, women made up 17% of the workforce as of 2011. In South Korea, most women working in STEM fields are classified as “non-regular” or temporary employees, indicating poor job stability.[16] In a study conducted by the University of Glasgow which examined math anxiety and test performance of boys and girls from various countries, researchers found that South Korea had a high sex difference in mathematics scores, with female students scoring significantly lower than and experiencing more math anxiety on math tests than male students.[20]

North AmericaEdit

United StatesEdit

According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, women comprise 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but just 24 percent of workers in STEM fields. Half as many women work in STEM jobs as would be expected if gender representation in STEM professions mirrored the overall workforce. This underrepresentation has remained fairly consistent over the past decade, even as women's share of the college-educated workforce has increased. Among STEM jobs, women's representation has varied over time. While the percentage of women has declined in computer and math jobs, it has risen in other occupations. In 2009, women comprised 27 percent of the computer and math workforce (the largest of the four STEM components), a drop of 3 percentage points since 2000. Engineers are the second largest STEM occupational group. Only about one out of every seven engineers is female.[21]

Men are much more likely than women to have a STEM career regardless of educational attainment. Women in STEM fields earn considerably less than men, even after controlling for a wide set of characteristics such as education and age. On average, men in STEM jobs earn $36.34 per hour while women in STEM jobs earn $31.11 per hour.[21]

Percentage distribution of probable fields of study among first-time college freshmen, by sex (fall 1996)

Probable major field of study Men Women
Arts and humanities 9.4 10.5
Biology 6.5 7.4
Business 18.1 13.8
Education 6.3 14.2
Engineering 15.2 2.6
Physical Sciences 2.7 2.0
Professional 9.8 20.2
Social sciences 6.1 11.7
Technical 3.7 1.4
Computer Sciences 4.3 1.2
Undecided 7.4 8.8
Other 10.5 6.5

[12]

The physical sciences include fields such as astronomy, chemistry, earth science, mathematics, and physics. The professional category includes fields such as architecture and health technologies. Women are more likely to hold jobs that are less prestigious and have lower wages than those held by men. While many prestigious fields such as engineering, chemistry, physics, and computer science are dominated by men, women are the majority in the social sciences and life sciences.

It is important to note that the under-representation of women in STEM fields is even more pronounced for women of color in the US. Although Asian women are actually over-represented relative to the percentage of the total population, African American, Hispanic, and Native American women are severely underrepresented. Within academia, these minority women represent less than 1% of all tenure-track positions despite constituting approximately 13% of total US population.[22]

Underrepresentation in STEM-related awards and competitionsEdit

In terms of the most prestigious awards in STEM fields, only a small proportion have been awarded to women. Looking at the Nobel Prize for instance, out of 199 laurates in Physics, 169 in Chemistry and 207 in Medicine, there were only two female laureates in physics, four in chemistry and 11 in medicine between 1901 and 2014.[23] The Fields Medal, which was initiated in 1936 and is considered the most prestigious prize in mathematics, was only obtained for the first time by a woman, Maryam Mirzakhani from Iran, in 2014 out of a total of 56 medallists.[24][25]

When it comes to student participation in prestigious competitions in STEM-related fields such as the International Olympiads for instance, data shows that in the year 2014, female medallists, and more generally female contestants, were significantly underrepresented. For instance, the percentage of female contestants stood at just 4 per cent for informatics, 5 per cent for mathematics and 6 per cent for physics, yet it reached an average of 28 per cent in biology among countries in the region, the latter reflecting the findings on female enrolment within STEM disciplines in higher education.[26][27][28][29][25]

Recent advances in technologyEdit

Abbiss states that "the ubiquity of computers in everyday life has seen the breaking down of gender distinctions in preferences for and the use of different applications, particularly in the use of the internet and email."[30] Both genders have acquired skills, competencies and confidence in using a variety of technological, mobile and application tools for personal, educational and professional use at high school level, but the gap still remains when it comes to enrollment of girls in computer science classes, which declines from grades 10 to 12 and to post-secondary level program options.

Explanations for low representation of womenEdit

Many people have attempted to make sense of the relatively low numbers of women in STEM fields, leading to the rise of a number of biological, structural, and social-psychological explanations.[31][32][33]

Female interestEdit

A meta-analysis concluded that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. When interests were classified by RIASEC type (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), Men showed stronger Realistic and Investigative interests, and women showed stronger Artistic, Social, and Conventional interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering, science, and mathematics interests.[34]

In their 3-year interview study, Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that perceptions that non-STEM academic majors offered better education options and better matched their interests was the most common (46%) reason provided by female students for switching majors from STEM areas to non-STEM areas. The second most frequently cited reason given for switching to non-STEM areas was a reported loss of interest in the women's chosen STEM majors. Additionally, 38 percent of female students who remained in STEM majors expressed concerns that there were other academic areas that might be a better fit for their interests. Preston's (2004) survey of 1,688 individuals who had left sciences also showed that 30 percent of the women endorsed "other fields more interesting" as their reason for leaving.[34]

A review of UK patent applications in 2016 found that the proportion of new inventions registered by women was rising, but that most female inventors were active in stereotypically female fields such as "designing bras and make-up". 94% of inventions in the field of computing, 96% in automotive applications and mining, and 99% in explosives and munitions, were by men.[35]

Structural explanationsEdit

Rossiter offers two possible structural explanations for the low number of women in STEM fields: hierarchical segregation and territorial segregation. She describes "hierarchical segregation" as a decrease in the number of women as one "moves up the ladder of power and prestige." [36]:33 Rossiter also puts forth the concept of "territorial segregation" or occupational segregation, which is the idea that women "cluster" in certain fields of study.[36]:34 For example, "women are more likely to teach and do research in the humanities and social sciences than in the natural sciences and engineering",[36]:34 and the majority of college women tend to choose majors such as psychology, education, English, performing arts, and nursing.[37] One reason that women tend to form these "clusters" is because of a lack of support in STEM fields where they are outnumbered by men.

Although it has been posited that more female role models would encourage more women to enter fields dominated by men, research has indicated this is not the case,[38] and that women's lack of interest in STEM fields may instead in part stem from stereotypes about employees and workplaces in STEM fields, to which stereotypes women are disproportionately responsive.[39][40]

Leaky pipelineEdit

The metaphor of the leaky pipeline has been used to describe how women drop out of STEM fields at all stages of their careers. Statistician Berry Vetter claims that 280 of any 2,000 9th grade boys and 210 of any 2,000 9th grade girls will have taken enough math to pursue a technical career. Of these, 143 of the men and 45 of the women will major in science in college. Forty-four of these men and 20 of these women will complete their degrees in science. Five of these men and one of these women will go on to obtain PhDs in science.[36]:54–55

Research has found that women steer away from STEM fields because they believe they are not qualified for them; the study suggested that this lack could be fixed by encouraging girls in school to participate in more mathematics classes.[41] Teachers often give boys more opportunity to figure out the solution to a problem by themselves while telling the girls to follow the rules.[36]:56 Teachers are also more likely to accept questions from boys while telling girls to wait for their turns.[42] This is partly due to gender expectations that boys will be active but that girls should be quiet and obedient.[43] Girls also have less laboratory experience because they are given fewer opportunities to gain such experience than are boys.[42] In middle and high school, courses dealing with mechanics and computers as well as the more rigorous science and mathematics courses are mainly taken by male students and also tend to be taught by male teachers.[44] Girls' lack of opportunities to practice their math and science skills can lead to a loss of self-esteem in their math and science abilities. Such low self-esteem may prevent women and girls from entering science and math fields. Many girls will end up not taking enough math classes to qualify for three-quarters of majors in college.[42]

Schiebinger claims this leakage may be due to discrimination, both overt and covert, faced by women in STEM fields.[36]:51 The possible reasons behind these decisions to leave include not being invited to professional meetings, the use of sexually discriminating standards against women, the struggle to balance family and work, the perceived need to hide pregnancies, and inflexible working conditions. The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that three-quarters of women students and residents are harassed at least once during their medical training.[36]:51 In engineering and science education, women make up almost 50 percent of non-tenure track lecturer and instructor jobs, but only 10 percent of tenured or tenure-track professors. In addition, the number of female department chairs in medical schools has not changed for the past 20 years.[42] This lack of women at the highest levels of a profession may be due to the so-called "glass ceiling", a posited phenomenon "that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."[45] Moreover, women who do make it to these high levels may face the difficulties associated with holding a token status. Because these highly ranked women are such an anomaly, they may lack support from colleagues and may face antagonism from peers and supervisors.[43] However, recently a team of psychologists and economists conducted extensive analyses of national data and concluded that the state of women in STEM has changed greatly in the past two decades and any conclusions about their status based on data prior to 2000 are likely to be outdated. In general, they concluded that women had very sizable gains in academic science, including remuneration, promotion, and job satisfaction.[46] Recently, Williams and Ceci showed that in both experimental hiring simulations and in real-world academic hiring, women appear to be preferred over their male counterparts.[36]:51[47]:1[48]

Gender and workEdit

Both men and women who work in nontraditional occupations may encounter discrimination, but the forms and consequences of this discrimination are very different. Although women entering traditionally male professions face negative stereotypes suggesting that they are not real women, these stereotypes do not seem to deter women to the same degree that similar stereotypes may deter men from pursuing nontraditional professions. There is ample historical evidence that women flock to male-identified occupations once opportunities are available.[49] On the other hand, examples of occupations changing from predominantly female to predominantly male are very rare in our history. The few existing cases—such as medicine—suggest that redefinition of the occupations as appropriately masculine is necessary before men will consider joining them.[50]

Although men in female-dominated occupations may contend with negative stereotypes about their masculinity, they may also experience certain benefits. Women, particularly those in male-dominated occupations, tend to hit a glass ceiling; while men in female-dominated occupations may hit a "glass escalator".[51] While the glass ceiling can make it difficult for women and minorities to reach the top of an occupation, the glass escalator allows men to excel in a profession that is female dominated. Since STEM fields tend to be male-dominated, it is likely that women will hit the glass ceiling.[52]

Social-psychological explanationsEdit

Psychologists have long studied issues related to discrimination, motivation, and performance. In more recent years, social psychologists have examined how certain social-psychological phenomena may apply directly to the STEM fields, and may explain the relative lack of gender diversity within these fields.

Stereotypes and heuristicsEdit

A heuristic is a cognitive shortcut that people use to make decisions.[53] Stereotypes, or commonly held beliefs about certain groups, are often employed as heuristics when making decisions in social situations. Stereotypes about what someone in a STEM field should look and act like may cause established members of these fields to overlook individuals who may be highly competent but may not fit people's idea of how a person in a STEM field should appear.[54] The stereotypical scientist or individual in another STEM profession is usually thought to be male.[55] This indicates that women in STEM fields may not fit individuals' conceptualization of what a scientist, engineer, or mathematician "should" look like and may thus be overlooked or penalized. The role congruity theory of prejudice states that perceived incongruity between gender stereotypes and the stereotypes associated with a particular role or occupation can result in negative evaluations.[56][57][58] In addition, negative stereotypes about women's quantitative abilities may lead people to devalue their work or discourage these women from continuing in STEM fields.[59]

Individuals of a particular gender are often perceived to be better suited to particular careers or areas of study than those of the other gender.[60][61] A study by Gaucher et al.[60] found that job advertisements for male-dominated careers tended to use more agentic words (or words denoting agency, such as "leader" and "goal-oriented") associated with male stereotypes. If individuals are given information about a prospective student's gender, they may infer that he or she possesses traits consistent with stereotypes for that gender.[62] Social role theory states that men are expected to display agentic qualities and women to display communal qualities.[63] These expectations can influence hiring decisions.[64] Madera et al.[64] found that women tended to be described in more communal terms and men in more agentic terms in letters of recommendation. These researchers also found that communal characteristics were negatively related to hiring decisions in academia.[64]

Another stereotype associated with male dominated roles is that women who do these jobs are more "manly" and not considered to be "real women", and many females are turned off at the prospect of these jobs because they do not want to appear less feminine to the opposite sex. This is a result of years of media portrayal of what women should be doing and how women should act.[65]

DiscriminationEdit

Some researchers have demonstrated a general evaluative bias against women.[66] In an audit study in which they sent email requests to meet to professors in doctoral programs at the top 260 U.S. universities, researchers found evidence for discrimination against ethnic minorities and women relative to Caucasian men.[67] While it was impossible to determine whether any particular individual in this study was exhibiting discrimination, since each participant only viewed a request from one potential graduate student, the overall tendency to favor Caucasian men over all other groups indicates that discrimination is still very much an issue. In another study, science faculty were sent the materials of student who was applying for a lab manager position at their university.[68] The materials were the same for each participant, but each participant was randomly assigned either a male or a female name. The researchers found that faculty members rated the male candidate as both more competent and more hirable than the female candidate, despite the fact that the applications were identical except for the applicant's gender.[68] Again, it is impossible to say whether any of the individual faculty members were acting in a discriminatory fashion, but it is apparent that there is still a widespread bias against women in science fields. Another study by Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams (2014) reported a that men are favored in some domains, such as, tenure rates in biology, but that the majority of domains were gender-fair; the authors interpreted this to suggest that the underrepresentation of women in the professorial ranks was not solely caused by sexist hiring, promotion, and remuneration.[48] In a subsequent article by Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci, 872 faculty at 371 institutions and in all fifty states were studied. They found that faculty strongly preferred to hire an assistant professor who was a woman over an identically-qualified competitor who was a man. Moreover, they showed that in the real world of professorial hiring, there has been a similar preference for hiring women dating back to the 1990s.[69]

Implicit discriminationEdit

In highly competitive STEM fields, the support and encouragement of a mentor can make a lot of difference in women's decisions of whether or not to continue pursuing a career in their discipline [70][71] This may be particularly true for younger individuals who may face many obstacles early on in their careers.[5] Since these younger individuals often look to those who are more established in their discipline for help and guidance, the responsiveness of these potential mentors and their willingness to help is incredibly important. Regardless of whether the majority of those in STEM fields outwardly agree with importance of increasing the representation of women in these areas, they may still hold biases—conscious or not—that affect how they interact with women looking to enter their particular discipline. If these biases manifest themselves in the differential treatment of women, particularly in respect to their willingness to assist young women in their respective field of study, this could impact the number of women choosing to enter into, and persist in, STEM careers.

Stereotype threatEdit

Stereotype threat arises from the fear that one's actions will confirm a negative stereotype about one's in-group. This fear creates additional stress, consuming valuable cognitive resources and lowering task performance in the threatened domain.[72][73][74] Individuals are susceptible to stereotype threat whenever they are assessed in a domain for which there exists a negative stereotype about a group to which they belong. Stereotype threat has been shown to undermine the academic performance of women and girls in math and science to the extent that standard measures of academic achievement often underestimate the abilities of women and girls in these subjects.[33][59] Laboratory experiments have also found that individuals who identify strongly with a certain area (e.g. math) are more likely to have their performance in that area hampered by stereotype threat than those who identify less strongly with the area.[74] This means that even highly motivated students from negatively stereotyped minority groups are likely to be adversely affected by stereotype threat and, as a result, may come to disengage from the stereotyped domain.[74] Negative stereotypes about girls’ capabilities in mathematics and science drastically lower their performance in mathematics and science courses as well as their interest in pursuing a STEM career.[75] Studies have found that this gender difference in performance disappears if students are told that there are no gender differences on a particular mathematics test.[33] This indicates that the learning environment can greatly impact women's success in a course.

Not only has stereotype threat been widely criticized by on a theoretical basis,[76][77] but has failed several attempts to replicate it's experimental evidence.[77][78][79][80] The findings in support of the concept have been suggested by multiple methodological reviews to be the product of publication bias.[80][81]

Black Sheep effectEdit

The Black Sheep effect occurs when individuals are likely to evaluate members of their in-group more favorably than members of their out-group when those members are highly qualified.[82][83][84][85] However, when an individual's in-group members have average or below average qualities, he or she is likely to evaluate them much lower than out-group members with equivalent qualifications.[82][83][84][85] This might suggest that women who are already established in STEM fields will be especially likely to help women who are earlier on in their career trajectories when these younger women display qualifications but will be less likely than their male colleagues to help younger women who do not display such qualifications.

Queen Bee effectEdit

The Queen Bee effect is similar to the Black Sheep effect but applies only to women. It explains why higher-status women, particularly in male-dominated professions, may actually be far less likely to help other women than their male colleagues might be.[86][87] The study by Ellemers et al.[87] found that while doctoral students in a number of different disciplines did not exhibit any gender differences in work commitment or work satisfaction, faculty members at the same university believed that female students were less committed to their work than male students. What was particularly surprising was that these beliefs by faculty members were most strongly endorsed by female faculty members, rather than male faculty members.[87] One potential explanation for this finding is that individual mobility for a member of a negatively stereotyped group is often accompanied by a social and psychological distancing of oneself from the group. This implies that women who are successful in male-dominated careers don't see their own success as proof that negative stereotypes about women's quantitative and analytical abilities are wrong but rather as proof that they personally are exceptions to the rule.[87] Thus, such women may actually play a role in perpetuating, rather than abolishing, these negative stereotypes.

Education and perceptionEdit

Women in STEM fields are underrepresented by an estimated 15% from their male counterparts. The percentage of women earning Ph.Ds in STEM fields is below 30%, whereas the ratio of male/female in non-STEM fields is approximately equal.[88] In a study women related the following traits as being feminine and unprofessional: talking socially, laughing, being soft spoken, or undecided. They reported distancing themselves from women they see as more feminine and emotional, these women reported that they would shy away from talking about what was seen as light subjects when at work such as, family or personal interests, not wanting to be seen as chatty to their colleagues.[88] It's these stereotypes and educational differences that lead to the decline of women in STEM fields. These difference start as early as the third grade according to Thomas Dee, with boys advancing in Math and Science and girls advancing in reading.[89]

Innate vs. learned skillEdit

Some studies[90] propose the explanation that STEM fields (and especially fields like math and philosophy) are considered by both teachers and students to require more innate talent than skills that can be learned (though this is not necessarily the case). Combined with a tendency to view women as having less of the required innate abilities, researchers propose this can result in assessing women as less qualified for STEM positions.

Strategies for increasing representation of womenEdit

 
The CMS Girls Engineering Camp at Texas A&M University–Commerce in June 2015

There are a multitude of factors that may explain the low representation of women in STEM careers. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman to hold the position of Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State,[91] has recently suggested some strategies to the corporate and political environment to support women to fulfill to the best of their abilities the many roles and responsibilities that they undertake.[92] The academic and research environment for women may benefit by applying some of the suggestions she has made to help women excel, while maintaining a work-life balance.

Social-psychological interventionsEdit

A number of researchers have tested interventions to alleviate stereotype threat for women in situations where their math and science skills are being evaluated. The hope is that by combating stereotype threat, these interventions will boost women's performance, encouraging a greater number of them to persist in STEM careers.

One simple intervention is simply educating individuals about the existence of stereotype threat. Researchers found that women who were taught about stereotype threat and how it could negatively impact women's performance in math performed as well as men on a math test, even when stereotype threat was induced. These women also performed better than women who were not taught about stereotype threat before they took the math test.[93]

Role modelsEdit

One of the proposed methods for alleviating stereotype threat is through introducing role models. One study found that women who took a math test that was administered by a female experimenter did not suffer a drop in performance when compared to women whose test was administered by a male experimenter.[94] Additionally, these researchers found that it was not the physical presence of the female experimenter but rather learning about her apparent competence in math that buffered participants against stereotype threat.[94] The findings of another study suggest that role models do not necessarily have to be individuals with authority or high status, but can also be drawn from peer groups. This study found that girls in same-gender groups performed better on a task that measured math skills than girls in mixed-gender groups.[95] This was due to the fact that girls in the same-gender groups had greater access to positive role models, in the form of their female classmates who excelled in math, than girls in mixed-gender groups.[95] Similarly, another experiment showed that making groups achievements salient helped buffer women against stereotype threat. Female participants who read about successful women, even though these successes were not directly related to performance in math, performed better on a subsequent math test than participants who read about successful corporations rather than successful women.[96] A study investigating the role of textbook images on science performance found that women demonstrated better comprehension of a passage from a chemistry lesson when the text was accompanied by a counter-stereotypic image (i.e., of a female scientist) than when the text was accompanied by a stereotypic image (i.e., of a male scientist).[55] Other scholars distinguish between the challenges of both recruitment and retention in increasing women's participation in STEM fields. These researchers suggest that although both female and male role models can be effective in recruiting women to STEM fields, female role models are more effective at promoting the retention of women in these fields.[97]

Self-affirmationEdit

Researchers have investigated the usefulness of self-affirmation in alleviating stereotype threat. One study found that women who affirmed a personal value prior to experiencing stereotype threat performed as well on a math test as men and as women who did not experience stereotype threat.[98] A subsequent study found that a short writing exercise in which college students, who were enrolled in an introductory physics course, wrote about their most important values substantially decreased the gender performance gap and boosted women's grades.[99] Scholars believe that the effectiveness of such values-affirmation exercises is their ability to help individuals view themselves as complex individuals, rather than through the lens of a harmful stereotype. Supporting this hypothesis, another study found that women who were encouraged to draw self-concept maps with many nodes did not experience a performance decrease on a math test.[100] However, women who did not draw self-concept maps or only drew maps with a few nodes did perform significantly worse than men on the math test.[100] The effect of these maps with many nodes was to remind women of their "multiple roles and identities," that were unrelated to, and would thus not be harmed by, their performance on the math test.[100]

Organized effortsEdit

Organizations such as Girls Who Code, Blossom, Engineer Girl, and Kode with Klossy (spearheaded by supermodel Karlie Kloss) aim to encourage women and girls to explore male-dominated STEM fields. Many of these organizations offer summer programs and scholarships to girls interested in STEM fields. The U.S. government has funded similar endeavors; the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs created TechGirls and TechWomen, exchange programs which teach Middle Eastern and North African girls and women skills valuable in STEM fields and encourage them to pursue STEM careers.[101]

See alsoEdit

SourcesEdit

  This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 Licence statement: A Complex Formula: Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in Asia, 15, 23-24, UNESCO, UNESCO. UNESCO.

To learn how to add open-license text to Wikipedia articles, please see Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia.

ReferencesEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Gürer, Denise and Camp, Tracy (2001). Investigating the Incredible Shrinking Pipeline for Women in Computer Science. Final Report – NSF Project 9812016.
  2. ^ Ceci, S.J.; Williams, W.M. (2010). "Sex Differences in Math-Intensive fields". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (5): 275–279. doi:10.1177/0963721410383241. 
  3. ^ a b Ceci, S.J.; Williams, W.M.; Barnett, S.M. (2009). "Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (2): 218–261. PMID 19254079. doi:10.1037/a0014412. 
  4. ^ Diekman, A.B.; Brown, E.R.; Johnston, A.M.; Clark, E.K. (2010). "Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles". Psychological Science. 21 (8): 1051–1057. PMID 20631322. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342. 
  5. ^ a b Griffith, A.L. (2010). "Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?". Economics of Education Review. 29 (6): 911–922. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010. 
  6. ^ a b S.L. Hanson, "Lost Talent, Women in the Sciences", Philadelphia, PA.: Temple University Press, 1996.
  7. ^ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Profile of the American Eighth-Grader: NELS:88 Student Descriptive Summary, Washington, D.C.: 1990, table 4.6
  8. ^ Pajares, F (1996). "Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students". Contemporary Educational Psychology. 21 (4): 325–44. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0025. 
  9. ^ Hill, Catherine, and Christianne Corbett. Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: AAUW, 2010.
  10. ^ Sorby, S. A. (2009). "Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students". International Journal of Science Education. 31 (3): 459–80. doi:10.1080/09500690802595839. 
  11. ^ "Stem Talent Girl: to empower girls and women to ensure they develop their talent". 2017. 
  12. ^ a b Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1996, University of California, Los Angeles, 1996.
  13. ^ Tapping All our Talents, United Kingdom: The Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 2012, ISBN 9780902198661, retrieved 4 March 2015 
  14. ^ National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996, Washington, D.C.: 1996, appendix table 5-8.
  15. ^ "Women in STEM in Australia" (PDF). Professionals Australia. 
  16. ^ a b c d e f g "A Complex Formula: Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in Asia" (PDF). UNESCO. UNESCO Bangkok Office. 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2016. 
  17. ^ "She figures 2012 - Research policy and organisation - EU Bookshop". doi:10.2777/38520. 
  18. ^ "Women in Science and Technology in Asia". The InterAcademy Partnership. AASSA, Gyeonggi-Do. 1 September 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2016. 
  19. ^ a b "Women in Science" (PDF). UNESCO. 
  20. ^ Stoet, Gijsbert; Bailey, Drew H.; Moore, Alex M.; Geary, David C. (2016-04-21). "Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls". PLOS ONE. 11 (4): e0153857. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4839696 . PMID 27100631. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153857. 
  21. ^ a b Beede, David, Tiffany Julian, David Langdon, George McKittrick, Beethika Khan, and Mark Doms. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administrations. www.esa.doc.gov. "Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation", 2009.
  22. ^ Towns, Marcy (Spring 2010). "Where Are the Women of Color? Data on African American, Hispanic, and Native American Faculty in STEM" (PDF). National Science Teachers Association. 
  23. ^ Nobelprize.org. 2014. Nobel Prize Facts. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/ (Accessed 29 October, 2014) 
  24. ^ IMU. 2014. The Work of Maryam Mirzakhani. Press Release. http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Prizes/2014/news_release_mirzakhani.pdf (Accessed 30 September, 2014) 
  25. ^ a b UNESCO (2015). A Complex Formula: Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in Asia (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 15, 23–24. ISBN 978-92-9223-492-8. 
  26. ^ IBO. 2014. IBO 2014 Results. IBO 2014: http:// ibo2014.org/international-biology-olympiad/ results/ (Accessed 22 September, 2014) 
  27. ^ IOI. 2014. IOI 2014 Contestants. International Olympiad in Informatics - Statistics: http://stats.ioinformatics.org/contestants/2014 (Accessed 23 September, 2014) 
  28. ^ IPhO. 2014. Results. IPHO 2014: http:// ipho2014.kz/blogs/view/1/42 (Accessed 23 September, 2014) 
  29. ^ IMO. 2014. 55th IMO 2014. Individual Results. International Mathematical Olympiad: http:// www.imo-official.org/year_individual_ r.aspx?year=2014 (Accessed 23 September, 2014) 
  30. ^ Abbiss, Jane (2011). "Boys and Machines" (PDF). Gender and Education. 23 (5): 601–617. doi:10.1080/09540253.2010.549108. 
  31. ^ Gender Gap in Spatial Ability Can Be Reduced Through Training, Science Daily, 16 September 2010
  32. ^ Has feminism changed science? Londa Schiebinger Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999 p. 33
  33. ^ a b c Spencer, S.J.; Steele, C.M.; Quinn, D.M. (1999). "Stereotype threat and women's math performance". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 35 (1): 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373. 
  34. ^ a b Su, Rong; Rounds, James; Armstrong, Patrick (2009). "Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (6): 859–884. PMID 19883140. doi:10.1037/a0017364. 
  35. ^ Keate, Georgie (27 December 2016). "New generation of inventors wanted: women need to apply". The Times. pp. 22–23. 
  36. ^ a b c d e f g h Schiebinger, Londa (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science?. Harvard University Press. 
  37. ^ Ruchika Tulshyan. "Top 10 College Majors For Women - 10: Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies, Humanities". Forbes.com. Archived from the original on 2013-01-23. Retrieved 2013-03-07. 
  38. ^ Cheryan, Sapna; Siy, John Oliver; Vichayapai, Marissa; Drury, Benjamin J.; Kim, Saenam. "Do Female and Male Role Models Who Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women's Anticipated Success in STEM?". Social, Psychological, and Personality Science, via Sage Journals. Retrieved 27 July 2015. 
  39. ^ Page, Lewis (15 December 2009). "Ladies put off tech careers by sci-fi posters, Coke cans". Retrieved 27 July 2015. 
  40. ^ Page, Lewis (27 June 2013). "Trick-cyclist's claim: I have FOUND how to get GIRLS INTO TECH". Retrieved 27 July 2015. 
  41. ^ Page, Lewis (27 July 2015). "New study into lack of women in Tech: It's NOT the men's fault". Retrieved 27 July 2015. 
  42. ^ a b c d Pell, A. N. "Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia." (PDF). Journal of Animal Science. Retrieved 4 December 2012. 
  43. ^ a b Lips, Hilary (2008). Sex & Gender: An Introduction Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill. 
  44. ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50056290/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/t/popovich-girls-need-be-shown-path-success-through-stem-education/#.UL2VYYNfCSo. Retrieved December 5, 2012.  Missing or empty |title= (help)[dead link]
  45. ^ Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995, p. 4.
  46. ^ Ceci, Stephen (2014). Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Association for Psychological Science. p. 76. 
  47. ^ Williams, Wendy (2015). National hiring experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 
  48. ^ a b Ceci, S. J.; Ginther, D. K.; Kahn, S.; Williams, W. M. (2014). "Women in academic science: a changing landscape". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 15 (3): 75–141. PMID 26172066. doi:10.1177/1529100614541236. 
  49. ^ Cohn, Samuel. 1985. The Process of Occupational Sex-Typing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  50. ^ Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. 1978. For Her Own Good: 100 Years of Expert Advice to Women. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.
  51. ^ Williams, Christine (1992). "The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the 'Female' Professions". Social Problems. 39: 253–267. JSTOR 3096961. doi:10.1525/sp.1992.39.3.03x0034h. 
  52. ^ Reskin, Barbara, and Patricia Roos.1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  53. ^ Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1973). "Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability". Cognitive Psychology. 5 (2): 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9. 
  54. ^ Wells, Gary L. (2007). "The Conjunction Error and the Representativeness Heuristic". Social Cognition. 3 (3): 266–279. doi:10.1521/soco.1985.3.3.266. 
  55. ^ a b Good, Jessica J.; Woodzicka, Julie A.; Wingfield, Lylan C. (2010). "The Effects of Gender Stereotypic and Counter-Stereotypic Textbook Images on Science Performance". Journal of Social Psychology. 150 (2): 132–147. doi:10.1080/00224540903366552. 
  56. ^ Eagly, A.H.; Karau, S.J. (2002). "Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders". Psychological Review. 109 (3): 573–598. PMID 12088246. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573. 
  57. ^ Garcia-Retamero, R.; Lopez-Zafra, E. (2006). "Prejudice against Women in Male-congenial Environments: Perceptions of Gender Role Congruity in Leadership". Sex Roles. 55 (1–2): 51–61. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9068-1. 
  58. ^ Ritter, B.A.; Yoder, J.D. (2004). "Gender Differences in Leader Emergence Persist Even for Dominant Women: An Updated Confirmation of Role Congruity Theory". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 28 (3): 187–193. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00135.x. 
  59. ^ a b Miyake, A.; Kost-Smith, L.E.; Finkelstein, N.D.; Pollock, S.J.; Cohen, G.L.; Ito, T.A. (2010). "Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation". Science. 330 (6008): 1234–1237. PMID 21109670. doi:10.1126/science.1195996. 
  60. ^ a b Gaucher, D.; Friesen, J.; Kay, A.C. (2011). "Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (1): 109–128. PMID 21381851. doi:10.1037/a0022530. 
  61. ^ Lyness, K.S.; Heilman, M.E. (2006). "When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers". Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 (4): 777–785. PMID 16834505. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777. 
  62. ^ Deaux, K.; Lewis, L.L. (1984). "Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46 (5): 991–1004. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991. 
  63. ^ Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. (1991). "Explaining Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Perspective". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (3): 306–315. doi:10.1177/0146167291173011. 
  64. ^ a b c Madera, J.M.; Hebl, M.R.; Martin, R.C. (2009). "Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences". Journal Applied Psychology. 94 (6): 1591–1599. doi:10.1037/a0016539. 
  65. ^ Collins, Rebecca L. (2011-01-22). "Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go?". Sex Roles. 64 (3–4): 290–298. ISSN 0360-0025. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5. 
  66. ^ Swim, J.; Borgida, E.; Maruyama, G.; Myers, D.G. (1989). "Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?". Psychological Bulletin. 105 (3): 409–429. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409. 
  67. ^ Milkman, K.L; Akinola, M.; Chugh, D. (2012). "Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia". Psychological Science. 23 (7): 710–717. PMID 22614463. doi:10.1177/0956797611434539. 
  68. ^ a b Moss-Racusin, C.A.; Dovidio, J.F.; Brescoll, V.L.; Graham, M.; Handelsman, J. (2012). "Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109: 16474–16479. PMC 3478626 . PMID 22988126. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109. 
  69. ^ Williams, W. J.; Ceci, S.J. (2015). "National hiring experiments reveals 2-to-1 preference for women faculty on STEM tenure-track.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1 12 (17): 5360–5365. PMC 4418903 . PMID 25870272. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112. 
  70. ^ Sonnert, G.; Fox, M.F.; Adkins, K. (2007). "Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions Over Time". Social Science Quarterly. 88 (5): 1333–1356. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00505.x. 
  71. ^ Stout, J.G.; Dasgupta, N.; Hunsinger, M.; McManus, M.A. (2011). "STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (2): 255–270. PMID 21142376. doi:10.1037/a0021385. 
  72. ^ Schmader, T.; Johns, M. (2003). "Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (3): 440–452. PMID 14498781. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440. 
  73. ^ Steele, C.M.; Aronson, J. (1995). "Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69 (5): 797–811. PMID 7473032. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. 
  74. ^ a b c Steele, C.M.; Spencer, S.J.; Aronson, J. (2002). "Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 34: 379–440. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80009-0. 
  75. ^ Christine Bork, Women in science, Huffington Post
  76. ^ Arthur Robert Jensen "The g factor: the science of mental ability" 1998 ISBN 0-275-96103-6,Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881, pages 513-515: "the phenomenon of stereotype threat can be explained in terms of a more general construct, test anxiety, which has been studied since the early days of psychometrics. Test anxiety tends to lower performance levels on tests in proportion to the degree of complexity and the amount of mental effort they require of the subject. The relatively greater effect of test anxiety in the black samples, who had somewhat lower SAT scores, than the white subjects in the Stanford experiments constitutes an example of the Yerkes-Dodson law ... by conducting the same type of experiment using exclusively white (or black) subjects, divided into lower- and higher-ability groups, it might be shown that the phenomenon attributed to stereotype threat has nothing to do with race as such, but results from the interaction of ability level with test anxiety as a function of test complexity."
  77. ^ a b Stoet, G.; Geary, D. C. (2012). "Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement?". Review of General Psychology. 16: 93–102. doi:10.1037/a0026617.  Pdf.
  78. ^ Fryer, R. G.; Levitt, S. D.; List, J. A. (2008). "Exploring the Impact of Financial Incentives on Stereotype Threat: Evidence from a Pilot Study". American Economic Review. 98 (2): 370–375. doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.370. 
  79. ^ Yong, Ed (9 September 2016). "A Worrying Trend for Psychology’s 'Simple Little Tricks'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 11 September 2016. 
  80. ^ a b Ganley, Colleen M.; Mingle, Leigh A.; Ryan, Allison M.; Ryan, Katherine; Vasilyeva, Marina; Perry, Michelle (1 January 2013). "An Examination of Stereotype Threat Effects on Girls' Mathematics Performance." (PDF). Developmental Psychology. 49: 1886–1897. PMID 23356523. doi:10.1037/a0031412. 
  81. ^ Flore, Paulette C.; Wicherts, Jelte M. (2014). "Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis". Journal of School Psychology. 53 (1): 25–44. ISSN 0022-4405. PMID 25636259. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002. 
  82. ^ a b Eidelman, S.; Biernat, M. (2003). "Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection?". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 39 (6): 602–609. doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00042-8. 
  83. ^ a b Kerr, N.L.; Hymes, R.W.; Anderson, A.B.; Weathers, J.E. (1995). "Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments". Law and Human Behavior. 19 (6): 545–567. doi:10.1007/bf01499374. 
  84. ^ a b Marques, J.; Abrams, D.; Serodio, R.G. (2001). "Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (3): 436–447. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.436. 
  85. ^ a b Taylor, T.S.; Hosch, H.M. (2004). "An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect". Law and Human Behavior. 28 (5): 587–598. doi:10.1023/b:lahu.0000046436.36228.71. 
  86. ^ Cooper, V.W. (1997). "Homophily or the Queen Bee Syndrome". Small Group Research. 28 (4): 483–499. doi:10.1177/1046496497284001. 
  87. ^ a b c d Ellemers, N.; Van den Heuvel, H.; de Gilder, D.; Maass, A.; Bonvini, A. (2004). "The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?". British Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (3): 315–338. PMID 15479533. doi:10.1348/0144666042037999. 
  88. ^ a b Miyake, Akira, et al. “Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation.” Science, vol. 330, no. 6008, 2010, pp. 1234–1237. New Series, www.jstor.org/stable/40931525.
  89. ^ Dee, Thomas S. “Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement.” The Journal of Human Resources, vol. 42, no. 3, 2007, pp. 528–554., www.jstor.org/stable/40057317.
  90. ^ Beliefs about innate talent may dissuade students from STEM
  91. ^ Slaughter, A
  92. ^ Finding a work-life-balance, Toronto Star, 11 July 2012
  93. ^ Johns, Michael; Schmader, Toni; Martens, Andy (2005). "Knowing Is Half the Battle: Teaching Stereotype Threat as a Means of Improving Women's Math Performance". Psychological Science. 16 (3): 175–179. PMID 15733195. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00799.x. 
  94. ^ a b Marx, D.M.; Roman, J.S. (2002). "Female role models: Protecting women's math performance". Personality and Social bulletin. 28 (9): 1183–1193. doi:10.1177/01461672022812004. 
  95. ^ a b Huguet, P.; Regner, I. (2007). "Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances". Journal of Educational Psychology. 99 (3): 545–560. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.545. 
  96. ^ McIntyre, R.B.; Paulson, R.M.; Lord, C.G. (2003). "Alleviating women's mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 39 (1): 83–90. doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00513-9. 
  97. ^ Drury, Benjamin J.; Siy, John Oliver; Cheryan, Sapna (2011). "When Do Female Role Models Benefit Women? The Importance of Differentiating Recruitment From Retention in STEM". Psychological Inquiry. 22 (4): 265–269. doi:10.1080/1047840x.2011.620935. 
  98. ^ Martens, A.; Johns, M.; Greenberg, J.; Schimel, J. (2006). "Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women's intellectual performance". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 42 (2): 236–243. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.010. 
  99. ^ Miyake, A.; Kost-Smith, L.E.; Finkelstein, N.D.; Pollock, S.J.; Cohen, G.L.; Ito, T.A. (2010). "Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation". Science. 330 (6008): 1234–1237. PMID 21109670. doi:10.1126/science.1195996. 
  100. ^ a b c Gresky, D.M.; Eyck, L.L.T.; Lord, C.G.; McIntyre, R.B. (2005). "Effects of salient multiple identities on women's performance under mathematics stereotype threat". Sex Roles. 53 (9–10): 703–716. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7735-2. 
  101. ^ "Advancing the Status of Women and Girls Around the World". Retrieved 2016-09-25. 

Further readingEdit

  • American Association of University Women (2010). Why So Few?
  • Natarajan, Priyamvada, "Calculating Women" (review of Margot Lee Shetterly, Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race, William Morrow; Dava Sobel, The Glass Universe: How the Ladies of the Harvard Observatory Took the Measure of the Stars, Viking; and Nathalia Holt, Rise of the Rocket Girls: The Women Who Propelled Us, from Missiles to the Moon to Mars, Little, Brown), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXIV, no. 9 (25 May 2017), pp. 38–39.