4.6 Article

Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
卷 143, 期 1, 页码 1-35

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000052

关键词

culture; gender; science; STEM; underrepresentation

资金

  1. Sloan Foundation [G-B2014-13]
  2. National Science Foundation [DRL-1420351, DEG-1343012]
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [1420351] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据