The comparative literature on gender and higher education has increasingly focused on differences in access to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). We contribute to this literature through a cross-national analysis of STEM graduates by gender between 1998 and 2018 across 90 countries. Many earlier studies emphasize the positive influence of a global liberal culture on women. More recent scholarship contends that women may be steered away from attaining a STEM degree in more liberal and individualistic societies. Our study shows a lower percentage of women graduates in STEM in countries that are more liberal. However, we find that the opposite is the case for men. Our findings are consistent with the idea that individuals in more liberal cultural contexts are more likely to make degree decisions based on individual preferences that are influenced by gendered societal norms. Both women and men are more likely to “indulge in their gendered selves” in these cultural contexts. Our findings are inconsistent with the idea that liberal modernity influences men and women in STEM in a gender-neutral mode.
ArezkiRBelhajFShahP (2019) Promoting a New Economy for the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
2.
AshourS (2020) The reverse gender divide in the United Arab Emirates: Factors driving “him” away from higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education12(5): 1079–1094.
3.
BakerDP (2014) The Schooled Society: The Educational Transformation of Global Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
BarroRJ (2001) Human capital and growth. American Economic Review91(2): 12–17.
5.
BartoljTPolanecS (2012) College major choice and ability: Why is general ability not enough?Economics of Education Review31(6): 996–1016.
6.
BaskaranA (2016) UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. Institutions and Economies8(2): 125–127.
7.
BerkovitchN (1999) From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
Blair-LoyMCechEA (2022) Misconceiving Merit: Paradoxes of Excellence and Devotion in Academic Science and Engineering. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BoalerJ (1997) Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back. Gender and Education9(3): 285–305.
10.
BoalerJ (1998) Mathematical equity—Underachieving boys or sacrificial girls?International Journal of Inclusive Education2(2): 119–134.
11.
BoserupETanSFToulminC (2013) Woman’s Role in Economic Development. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
12.
BradleyK (2000) The incorporation of women into higher education: Paradoxical outcomes. Sociology of Education73(1): 1–18.
13.
BredaTJouiniENappC, et al (2020) Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(49): 31063–31069.
14.
BromleyPMeyerJWRamirezFO (2011) Student-centeredness in social science textbooks, 1970–2008: A cross-national study. Social Forces90(2): 547–570.
15.
CalderaYMRobitschekCFrameM, et al (2003) Intrapersonal, familial, and cultural factors in the commitment to a career choice of Mexican American and non-Hispanic white college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology50(3): 309–323.
16.
CasadBJHalePWachsFL (2017) Stereotype threat among girls: Differences by gender identity and math education context. Psychology of Women Quarterly41(4): 513–529.
17.
CechEA (2013) The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation. American Journal of Sociology119(3): 747–789.
18.
CharlesMBradleyK (2002) Equal but separate? A cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review67(4): 573–599.
19.
CharlesMBradleyK (2009) Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology114(4): 924–976.
20.
CheryanSMarkusHR (2020) Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review127(6): 1022–1052.
21.
CheryanSZieglerSAMontoyaAK, et al (2017) Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin14(3): 1–35.
22.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007) Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al (2023) V-Dem [country-year/country-date] dataset v13 varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project. Available at: https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds23
24.
DiekmanABWeisgramESBelangerAL (2015) New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review9(1): 52–88.
25.
DoriusSFFirebaughG (2010) Trends in global gender inequality. Social Forces88(5): 1941–1968.
26.
DroriGMeyerJWRamirezFO, et al (2003) Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
EcclesJS (2014) Gender and achievement choices. In: GershoffETMistryRSCrosbyDA (eds) Societal Contexts of Child Development: Pathways of Influence and Implications for Practice and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–34.
European Commission (2000) Science Policies in the European Union: Promoting Excellence Through Mainstreaming Gender Equality. Brussels: European Union Publications Office.
30.
FerreeMMMuellerCM (2004) Feminism and the women’s movement: A global perspective. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Limited, pp. 576–607.
31.
FrankDJMeyerJW (2002) The profusion of individual roles and identities in the postwar period. Sociological Theory20(1): 86–105.
32.
FrankDJHironakaASchoferE (2000) The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentieth century. American Sociological Review65(1): 96–116.
33.
FreemanBMarginsonSTytlerR (2019) An international view of STEM education. In: SahinAMohr-SchroederMJ (eds) STEM Education 2.0. Leiden: Brill, pp. 350–363.
34.
Global Education Monitoring Report and International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth and Student Organization (2021) Don’t look away: No place for exclusion of LGBTI students. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377361 (accessed 5 May 2023).
35.
GouldJKolbWL (1964) A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
36.
GraaflandJde JongE (2022) The moderating role of culture on the benefits of economic freedom: Cross-country analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics50(1): 280–292.
HansonSLSchaubMBakerDP (1996) Gender stratification in the science pipeline: A comparative analysis of seven countries. Gender & Society10(3): 271–290.
39.
Hassani-NezhadLSjögrenA (2014) Unilateral divorce for women and labor supply in the Middle East and North Africa: The effect of Khul reform. Feminist Economics20(4): 113–137.
40.
HodgenJPepperDSturmanL, et al (2010) Is the UK an Outlier? An International Comparison of Upper Secondary Mathematics Education. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
41.
HofstedeGH (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
HofstedeGH (2011) Dimensionalizing culture: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2(1): 3–26.
43.
HortaHFilhoPNL (2015) A keystone to the future of Brazil: Fostering general and STEM education for an inclusive development. In: FreemanBMarginsonSTytlerR (eds) The Age of STEM: Educational Policy and Practice Across the World in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. New York: Routledge, pp. 266–277.
44.
InglehartRNorrisP (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
InglehartRNorrisPWelzelC (2002) Gender equality and democracy. Comparative Sociology1(3–4): 321–345.
46.
IslamSI (2019) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Liberating women in the Middle East. World Journal of Education9(3): 94–104.
47.
JacksonRM (1998) Destined for Equality: The Inevitable Rise of Women’s Status. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
JacobMIannelliCDutaA, et al (2020) Secondary school subjects and gendered STEM enrollment in higher education in Germany, Ireland, and Scotland. International Journal of Comparative Sociology61(1): 59–78.
49.
JacobsJA (1996) Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology22: 153–185.
50.
JohnsMSchmaderTMartensA (2005) Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance. Psychological Science16(3): 175–179.
51.
KahleJBMeeceJ (1994) Research on gender issues in the classroom. In: GabelDL (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching and Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 543–557.
52.
KahnM (2015) STEM education in the quest to build a new South Africa. In: FreemanBMarginsonSTytlerR (eds) The Age of STEM: Educational Policy and Practice Across the World in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. New York: Routledge, pp. 278–290.
53.
KellyA (1985) The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology of Education6(2): 133–152.
54.
KellyGP (1989) Achieving equality in education-prospects and realities. In: KellyGP (ed.) International Handbook of Women’s Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 547–569.
55.
KingEMHillMA (eds) (1997) Women’s Education in Developing Countries: Barriers, Benefits, and Policies. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
56.
KwakNRamirezFO (2019) Is engineering harder to crack than science? A cross-national analysis of women’s participation in male-dominated fields of study in higher education. In: WisemanAW (ed.) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 159–183.
57.
LeeSS (2020) Cultivating “global citizens?” Trends in global awareness, global agency, and competence in textbooks worldwide, 1950–2011. Prospects48: 215–236.
58.
LeeSSWotipkaCMRamirezFO (2021) A cross-national analysis of women graduates with tertiary degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, 1998–2018: Commonalities and variations. In: RoHKFernandezFRamonE (eds) Gender Equity in STEM in Higher Education: International Perspectives on Policy, Institutional Culture, and Individual Choice. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–26.
59.
LerchJRamirezFO (2024) Global liberalism and women’s rights. In: BorzelTGerschewskiJZumM (eds) The Liberal Script at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 322–352.
60.
LerchJSchoferEFrankDJ, et al (2021) Women’s participation and challenges to the liberal script: A global perspective. International Sociology37(3): 305–329.
61.
LesskyFNairzEWurzerM (2022) Social selectivity and gender-segregation across fields of study: Comparative evidence from Austria. International Journal of Comparative Sociology63(4): 201–221.
MeeceJLGlienkeBBBurgS (2006) Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology44(5): 351–373.
64.
MellströmU (2009) The intersection of gender, race, and cultural boundaries, or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by women?Social Studies of Science39(6): 885–907.
65.
MeyerJWJeppersonRL (2000) The “actors” of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory18: 100–120.
66.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGM (1987) Ontology and rationalization in the western cultural account. In: ThomasGM (ed.) Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 12–37.
67.
MoaklerMWJrKimMM (2014) College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly62(2): 128–142.
68.
Moss-RacusinCAPietriESVan der ToornJ, et al (2021) Boosting the sustainable representation of women in STEM with evidence-based policy initiatives. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences8(1): 50–58.
69.
MullenAL (2014) Gender, social background, and the choice of college major in a liberal arts context. Gender & Society28(2): 289–312.
70.
Musu-GilletteLEWigfieldAHarringJR, et al (2015) Trajectories of change in students’ self-concepts of ability and values in math and college major choice. Educational Research and Evaluation21(4): 343–370.
71.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Elementary School Journal84(2): 113–130.
72.
PaxtonPHughesMMGreenJL (2006) The international women’s movement and women’s political representation, 1893–2003. American Sociological Review71(6): 898–920.
73.
PearsonWFrehillLMJrMcNeelyCL (2015) Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective. Cham: Springer.
74.
PerkinsAG (2019) Yale Needs Women: How the First Group of Girls Rewrote the Rules of an Ivy League Giant. Chicago, IL: Sourcebooks.
75.
PorterSRUmbachPD (2006) College major choice: An analysis of person–environment fit. Research in Higher Education47: 429–449.
76.
RamirezFKwakN (2015) Women’s enrollments in STEM in higher education: Cross-national trends, 1970–2010. In: PearsonWFrehillLMcNeelyC (eds) Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective. Cham: Springer, pp. 9–49.
77.
RamirezFWotipkaCM (2001) Slowly but surely? The global expansion of women’s participation in science and engineering fields of study, 1972–92. Sociology of Education74(3): 231–251.
78.
RamirezFSoysalYShanahanS (1997) The changing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of women’s suffrage rights, 1890 to 1990. American Sociological Review62(5): 735–745.
79.
RanisGStewartFRamirezA (2000) Economic growth and human development. World Development28(2): 197–219.
80.
RichardsonSSReichesMWBruchJ, et al (2020) Is there a gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? Commentary on the study by Stoet and Geary (2018). Psychological Science31(3): 338–341.
81.
RidgeN (2014) Education and the Reverse Gender Divide in the Gulf States: Embracing the Global, Ignoring the Local. New York: New York Teachers College Press.
82.
RidgewayCLCorrellSJ (2004) Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society18(4): 510–531.
83.
RoHKFernandezFRamonEJ (2022 [2021]) Gender Equity in STEM in High Education: International Perspectives on Policy, Institutional Culture, and Individual Choice. New York: Taylor & Francis.
84.
SchiebingerLSchraudnerM (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews36(2): 154–167.
85.
SchoferEMeyerJW (2005) The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review70(6): 898–920.
86.
SchoferERamirezFMeyerJW (2000) The effects of science on national economic development, 1970 to 1990. American Sociological Review65(6): 866–887.
87.
ShekharCDeviR (2012) Achievement motivation across different academic majors. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology2(2): 105–109.
88.
SikoraJPokropekA (2012) Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education96(2): 234–264.
89.
StoetGGearyDC (2018) The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science29(4): 581–593.
90.
SubramanianB (2015) Engineering education in India: A comprehensive overview. International Perspectives on Engineering Education: Engineering Education and Practice in Context1: 105–123.
91.
ThébaudSCharlesM (2018) Segregation, stereotypes, and STEM. Social Sciences7(111): 1–18.
92.
UNESCO (2012) International standard classification of education ISCED 2011. Report for the United Nations International Family of Economic and Social Classifications. Montréal, QC, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
93.
UNESCO (2017) Cracking the Code: Girls’ and Women’s Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Paris: UNESCO.
94.
UNESCO (2021) Database. Montréal, QC, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Available at: http://data.uis.unesco.org/
WiswallMZafarB (2015) Determinants of college major choice: Identification using an information experiment. The Review of Economic Studies82(2): 791–824.
97.
World Bank (2021) World Bank Open Data. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/
98.
WotipkaCMRamirezFO (2008) World society and human rights: An event history analysis of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. In: SimmonsBADobbinFGarrettG (eds) The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–342.
99.
XuK (2008) Engineering education and technology in a fast-developing China. Technology in Society30(3–4): 265–274.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
