Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education

Abstract

A conceptual framework of positions on women in science, engineering, and technology (SET) was developed, showing a chronological progression of the main approaches to women's underrepresentation in SET during the past 20 years. Numerous initiatives have been advocated to address women's underrepresentation in SET in higher education. This article arose out of one such initiative, Winning Women, which was intended to help higher education in Scotland move toward good practice in this field. Two members of the project team describe their key findings and experiences. They illustrate how the underrepresentation of women in SET continues to be both progressive and persistent (using an SET parity index). The conceptual framework was conceived and developed from a metaanalysis of feminist theories of the gendered politics of science and technology.Women are underrepresented in science, engineering, and technology subjects in higher education. 1 Of the 31,205 undergraduates studying science, engineering, and technology (SET) in Scottish higher education institutions in 1995 -1996, women accounted for only 32%. This ranged from 14% in engineering and technology to 62% in biological sciences. These figures are roughly similar to those for the United Kingdom as a whole, and the underrepresentation of women in most SET subjects persists in many other European countries, the United States, Stationery Office [HMSO], 1993), and The rising tide (HMSO, 1994), and the subsequent establishment of the Development Unit on Women in SET within the Office of Science and Technology.In 1995, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) continued these efforts by launching a 2-year Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology initiative, at a cost of £300,000, to research and document examples of good practice which could be implemented in Scottish higher education to increase the participation of women in SET. The Winning Women research project, 2 on which this article is based, formed the first and third strands of this initiative. The second strand was composed of a number of related action projects in several Scottish JOURNAL

Predicting stereotype endorsement and academic motivation in women in science programs: A longitudinal model

“…That is, specific characteristics (other than those evaluated) of the programs may have influenced gender stereotype endorsement and autonomous academic motivation. For example, professors' expectations and teaching methods, level of academic difficulty, and the use of competitive learning activities can vary between programs (Cronin & Roger, 1999;Seymour, 1995;Young & Fraser, 1994).…”

Successful Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Adapting versus Adopting the Institutional Environment

“…From the individual perspective, the status of women in science and engineering is attributed to, or thought to correspond to, women's individual characteristics. These individual characteristics include attitudes, behaviors, aptitudes, skills, and experience of women that may affect their participation and performance in science (Astin and Sax 1996;Cronin and Roger 1999;Fox 1998;Ong 2005;Sonnert and Holton 1995a, b). For example, women's lower level of self-confidence in mathematics and lower internal sense of ability or potential for scientific achievement can be seen as barriers to pursuing careers in these fields (Astin and Sax 1996).…”

“…From the institutional or structural perspective, the status of women in science and engineering is more strongly attributed to factors beyond individual characteristics, that is, to features of the settings in which women are educated and in which they work. These factors may include, for example, patterns of inclusion or exclusion in research groups, selective access to human and material resources, and different practices and standards of evaluation that may operate for women compared to men (Astin and Sax 1996;Cronin and Roger 1999;Fox 1995Fox , 1996Fox , 1998Fox , 2001Frehill 1997;Robinson and McIlwee 1989;Seymour and Hewitt 1997;Sonnert and Holton 1995a, b). From this structural perspective, factors also include science and engineering teaching environments that may isolate students from social concerns (Rosser 1993), portray science and engineering as highly competitive, masculine domains (Margolis and Fisher 2002), and tend to ''weed-out'' students in the curricular process (Seymour and Hewitt 1997).…”

The Influences of Perceived Identity Compatibility and Social Support on Women in Nontraditional Fields During the College Transition

“…For example, women in science and engineering fields represent only 28% of tenure-track faculty members (NSF, 2009). Explanations for these gender disparities have at times focused on differences in women's academic ability or interest in these fields, yet as accumulating evidence disconfirms the existence of such differences (e.g., Hyde, 2005;Spelke, 2005), explanations have focused on the academic and social environment, such as the gender discrimination, bias, and stereotypes that women face in their pursuit of STEM careers (e.g., Blickenstaff, 2005;Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009;Cronin & Roger, 1999;Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). There is considerable evidence that female college students in STEM recognize that they are in a more hostile environment than their male peers; women report not having as much positive contact with faculty as do men and having fewer opportunities for achievement and advancement (e.g., Ferreira, 2003;Hollenshead, Younce, & Wenzel, 1994).…”