Gap in STEM Education: Why is There a Decline in Women Participation?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v4i1.369Keywords:
STEM education, Gender, Gender differences, Gender equality paradoxAbstract
A steady Gender gap is observed with the number of students enrolled in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields in higher education and universities. The underrepresentation of women in the field of STEM is world-wide. Numerous studies have contemplated different factors for this gap and studies on interests showing, that women's career decisions are often influenced by their interest which is inclined towards working ‘with people’ and deviates them from STEM. Men prefer to work with ‘material and gadgets’ which interests more men towards STEM. Increment in “enterprising and artistic interests†among the women, less awareness on the career and study opportunities, lesser female mentors, the duration to become an expert in STEM, lesser encouragement from the opposite sex, has an impact on the number of females in STEM. The gap was more prominent in egalitarian countries and termed as the “education gender-equality paradoxâ€Â. The difference in early childhood spatial ability can also contribute to the emergence of gender differences in mathematics and science later. This article also suggests more research into making STEM attractive for both genders, providing early education that provides makes STEM attractive for both genders.References
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, (04-11).
Burke, R. J., & Mattis, M. C. (Eds.). (2007). Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Psychology Press.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.
Butz, W. P., Kelly, T. K., Adamson, D. M., Bloom, G. A., Fossum, D., & Gross, M. E. (2004). Will the Scientific and Technology Workforce Meet the Requirements of the Federal Government? Summary. Rand Corporation.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education?.
Cardador, M. T., Damian, R. I., & Wiegand, J. P. (2020). Does More Mean Less?
Interest Surplus and the Gender Gap in STEM Careers. Journal of Career Assessment, 1069072720930658.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157-3162.
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.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological bulletin, 135(2), 218.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1.
Collier, C. M., Spokane, A. R., & Bazler, J. A. (1998). Appraising science career interests in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(1), 37-48.
Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(5), 902.
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where Are All the Women? Gender Differences in Participation in Physical Science and Engineering. American Psychological Association.
GarcÃÂa-Holgado, A., Mena Marcos, J. J., GarcÃÂa Peñalvo, F. J., Pascual, J., Heikkinen, M., Harmoinen, S., ... & Amores, L. (2020). Gender equality in STEM programs: a proposal to analyse the situation of a university about the gender gap. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),(27-30 April 2020, Porto, Portugal) (pp. 1824-1830).
Global Gender Gap Report 2020. (2020). Retrieved October 04, 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf
Golombok, S., Fivush, R., & Fivush, G. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez, H. B., &Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700.
Hardin, E. E., & Longhurst, M. O. (2016). Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive changes during an introductory stem course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 233.
Harris, D. G., Schneider, J., &Su, H. H. (2016, June). Distributed (∆+ 1)-coloring in sublogarithmic rounds. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 465-478).
Hines, M. (2010). Sex-related variation in human behavior and the brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(10), 448-456.
Jacobs, J. E. (2005). Twentyâ€Âfive years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: what have we learned?. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2005(110), 85-94.
Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of science education and technology, 25(2), 284-301.
Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020116.
Kuschel, K., Ettl, K., DÃÂaz-GarcÃÂa, C., & Alsos, G. A. (2020). Stemming the gender gap in STEM entrepreneurship–insights into women’s entrepreneurship in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1-15.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 61-66.
McCabe, K. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2019). Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
McCarty, M. K., Monteith, M. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Communally constrained decisions in workplace contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 175-187.
Meece, J. L., Parsons, J. E., Kaczala, C. M., & Goff, S. B. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 324.
Miller, D. I., & Wai, J. (2015). The bachelor’s to Ph. D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: A 30-year analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 37.
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, min orities, and per- sons with disabilities in science and engineering. Available online at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948-952.
Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165-184.
Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 901-910.
Radermacher, A., & Walia, G. (2013, March). Gaps between industry expectations and the abilities of graduates. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 525-530).
Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 346-351.
Sanders, M. E. (2008). Stem, stem education, stemmania.
Scott, J. W. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist studies, 14(1), 33-50.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving (p. 134). Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137-151.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological science, 29(4), 581-593.
Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 189.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological bulletin, 135(6), 859.
Swafford, M., & Anderson, R. (2020). Addressing the Gender Gap: Women's Perceived Barriers to Pursuing STEM Careers. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 4(1), 61-74.
Tang, H. L., Lee, S., & Koh, S. (2001). Educational gaps as perceived by IS educators: A survey of knowledge and skill requirements. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41(2), 76-84.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Individuality. Houghton, Mifflin.
Tracey, T. J., & Ward, C. C. (1998). The structure of children's interests and competence perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 290.
van den Hurk, A., Meelissen, M., & van Langen, A. (2019). Interventions in education to prevent STEM pipeline leakage. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 150-164.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological bulletin, 117(2), 250.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340.
Wang, M. T., Eccles, J. S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological science, 24(5), 770-775.
Woodcock, A., Graziano, W. G., Branch, S. E., Habashi, M. M., Ngambeki, I., &Evangelou, D. (2013). Person and thing orientations: Psychological correlates and predictive utility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 116-123.
Women in Science. (2019, June). Retrieved October, 2020, from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs55-women-in-science-2019-en.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Anthony Kenneth
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Content Licensing, Copyright, and Permissions
1. License
International Journal of Research in STEM Education (IJRSE) adopts the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly works for non-commercial purposes.
The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by this license, which allows others to share and adapt the work provided proper attribution is given to the author(s) and the journal.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC 4.0
2. Author's Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright vested exclusively in the author, is free of any third-party rights, and that all necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The International Journal of Research in STEM Education aims to disseminate published articles as freely as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, users are permitted to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only, provided that proper attribution is given to the author(s) and this journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
- Copyright and proprietary rights related to the article, such as patent rights.
- The right to use the substance of the article in future works (e.g., lectures, books).
- The right to reproduce the article for personal purposes.
- The right to self-archive the article.
- The right to enter into separate, additional non-exclusive contractual arrangements for the distribution of the article’s published version (e.g., posting to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgment of its initial publication in IJRSE.
If the author has a non-exclusive publishing contract with another publisher under a more restrictive license, the author still retains all rights to republish or distribute the work elsewhere, including commercially, as the author is not bound by the license conditions imposed on the journal.
5. Co-Authorship
If the article has multiple authors, the signatory of this agreement warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf and agrees to inform all co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement may be terminated by either the author or IJRSE with two months’ notice if the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within one month after receiving written notice.
No breach or violation of this agreement will cause automatic termination or affect the license granted to IJRSE.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To the extent legally permissible, the author waives the right to collect royalties in respect of any use of the article by IJRSE or its sublicensees.
8. Miscellaneous
IJRSE will publish the article (or have it published) once the editorial process has been successfully completed.
The journal reserves the right to edit the article for style, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and consistency as deemed appropriate.
The author acknowledges that the article will be made publicly accessible, and such access will be free of charge for readers.
