Sex segregation by field of study and the influence of labor markets: Evidence from 39 countries

Abstract

Data from 39 countries for the years 2008–2011 are used to explore how features of a country’s labor market influence sex segregation by field of study in higher education. A new feature of this empirical study is the use of the system generalized method of moments (system-GMM) to analyze these relationships. Two new labor market variables are included in this study: a measure of a country’s economic protections for women and the national unemployment rate. After controlling for the level of economic development and characteristics of each country’s tertiary system, the results indicate that labor market variables have an important impact on sex segregation by field of study. All else equal, countries that protect women’s economic rights are associated with lower levels of sex segregation by field. Although the finding is less robust, the empirical evidence also supports that countries with higher unemployment rates experience lower levels of sex segregation.

Secondary school subjects and gendered STEM enrollment in higher education in Germany, Ireland, and Scotland

“…Young people’s aspirations may also be shaped by existing labor market structures, including the level of occupational segregation by gender and in particular, the extent to which same-gender role models are apparent in STEM fields (e.g. Gaskell, 1984; Moorhouse, 2017). Furthermore, occupational aspirations are established relatively early so that young women and men may have particular jobs and/or fields of study in mind even before exposure to STEM at upper secondary level (Legewie and DiPrete, 2014a; Sikora and Pokropek, 2012).…”

“…On the other hand, the more options to specialize are available, the more likely students might be to express their (gendered) preferences, which in turn may result in more gender segregated field choices. In their comparative studies, both Charles and Bradley (2002) and Moorhouse (2017) find no significant effect of female participation in higher education on sex segregation by field of study, at least in industrialized countries, but diversification of higher education serves to increase sex segregation. These studies explain sex segregation in terms of features of the higher education system.…”

“…Among them, some comparative studies have taken into account features of the higher educational system, such as its size, its structural diversification, and/or the share of female tertiary participation (e.g. Charles and Bradley, 2002, 2009; Iannelli and Smyth, 2008; McDaniel, 2010; Moorhouse, 2017; Ramirez and Wotipka, 2001; Smyth and Steinmetz, 2008). In these studies, it is argued that, on one hand, the expansion of women’s participation in higher education may empower them to pursue nontraditional, gender atypical fields.…”

“…Moreover, prior comparative research on gender differences in field of study choice has often highlighted the importance of labor market structures and economic conditions, thus explaining variation of field of study choice by expected later labor market returns (e.g. Charles and Bradley, 2002, 2009; Moorhouse, 2017; Zafar, 2013). Labor market opportunities and career aspirations have also been used as an explanation for the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) enrollments (e.g.…”

Global linkages, the higher education pipeline, and national contexts: The worldwide growth of women faculty, 1970–2012

“…The fact that elite professional and managerial positions are less gender-typed than they were 40 years ago (Charles and Grusky, 2004) may explain the non-significance of the measure of women’s participation in the labor force. Future studies could use more refined measures related to the labor force, such as a country’s economic protections for women (Moorhouse, 2017).…”