This article provides an assessment of the employment of women in STEM occupations in the U.S. federal government. Women are underrepresented in STEM fields in the U.S. federal service, but their levels of employment vary markedly between departments and agencies. Women also quit federal STEM jobs in disproportionately large numbers, compared with men, and compared with women in other professions, and they resign at varying rates depending on the department or agency. We examine the impact of the presence of women in STEM supervisory positions on these patterns using a two-staged instrumental variable model. Our findings suggest that larger proportions of women in supervisory positions in STEM fields may help to produce higher levels of employment of women, but the presence of women as STEM supervisors has no observable impact on the rate at which women quit STEM jobs.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
2.
BlackburnH. (2017). The status of women in STEM in higher education: A review of the literature 2007-2017. Science and Technology Libraries, 36(3), 235–273.
3.
BlickenstaffJ. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
4.
BottiaM. C.StearnsE.MickelsonR. A.MollerS.ValentinoL. (2015). Growing the roots of STEM majors: Female Math and Science high school faculty and the participation of students in STEM. Economics of Education Review, 45, 14–27.
5.
BradburyM.SowaJ. E.KelloughJ. E. (2013). Employee turnover in public agencies: Examining the extent and correlates. In BurkeR.NobletA.CooperC. (Eds.), Human resources management in the public sector: Achieving high quality service and effectiveness (pp. 177–195). Edward Elger.
6.
BurkeR. J. (2007). Women and minorities in STEM: A primer. In BurkeR. J.MattisM. C. (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 3–27). Edward Elgar Publishing.
7.
CheryanS.DruryB. J.VichayapaiM. (2013). Enduring influence of stereotypical computer science role models on women’s academic aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 72–79.
8.
ConklinS. (2015). Women’s decision to major in STEM fields [Doctoral dissertation]. State University of New York at Albany.
9.
Di BellaL.CrispR. J. (2016). Women’s adaptation to STEM domains promotes resilience and a lesser reliance on heuristic thinking. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 184–201.
10.
DaltonG. W. (1989). Developmental views of careers in organizations. In ArthurM. B.HallD. T.LawrenceB. S. (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 89–109). Cambridge University Press.
11.
EtzkowitzH.KemelgorC.NeuschatzM.UzziB.AlonzoJ. (1994). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266(5182), 51–54.
12.
FeeneyM. K.BernalM. (2010). Women in STEM networks: Who seeks advice and support from women scientists?Scientometrics, 85, 767–779.
13.
FeeneyM. K.BernalM.BowmanL. (2014). Enabling work? Family-friendly policies and academic productivity for men and women scientists. Science & Public Policy, 41(6), 750–764.
14.
FortD. C.VarneyH. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8–13.
15.
GaylesJ. G.SmithK. N. (2019). Advancing theoretical frameworks for intersectional research on women in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 179, 27–43.
16.
GibsonD. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134–156.
17.
GilbertL. A. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 111–123.
18.
GlassJ. L.SasslerS.LevitteY.MichelmoreK. M. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A Comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756.
19.
Government Performance Project. (2007). Survey of 50 state governments. Pew Center on the States.
20.
GregoryR. F. (2014). The Civil Rights Act and the battle to end workplace discrimination: A 50 year history. Rowman & Littlefield.
21.
HermannS. D.AdelmanR. M.BodfordJ. E.GraudejusO.OkunM. A.KwanV. S. Y. (2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basis and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268.
22.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
23.
HinderaJ. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 415–429.
24.
IbarraH. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764–791.
25.
IversenT.RosenbluthF. (2010). Women, work, and politics: The political economy of gender inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564.
27.
KelloughJ. E. (1989). Federal equal employment opportunity policy and numerical goals and timetables: An impact assessment. Praeger Publishers.
28.
KelloughJ. E. (2006). Understanding affirmative action: Politics, discrimination, and the search for justice. Georgetown University Press.
29.
KelloughJ. E.OsunaW. (1995). Cross-agency comparisons of quit rates in the federal service: Another look at the evidence. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 15(4), 58–68.
30.
KrislovS. (1967). The Negro in federal employment. The University of Minnesota.
31.
LewisG. B. (1991). Turnover and the quiet crisis in the federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 51(2), 145–155.
32.
LewisG. B.ParkK. (1989). Turnover rates in federal white-collar employment: Are women more likely to quit than men?The American Review of Public Administration, 19(1), 13–28.
33.
LimH.-H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204.
34.
LlorensJ. J.StazykE. C. (2011). How important are competitive wages? Exploring the impact of relative wage rates on employee turnover in state government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2), 111–127.
35.
LottJ. L.GardnerS.PowersD. A. (2009). Doctoral student attrition in the STEM fields: An exploratory event history analysis. Journal of College Student Retention, 11(2), 247–266.
36.
MeierK. J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393–414.
37.
MeierK. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy; A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration, 2, 1–35.
38.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860.
39.
MeierK. J.StewartJ. J.Jr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 157–171.
40.
MeyerC. K.BevilleM. J.Jr.MagedanzT. C.HackertA. M. (1979). South Dakota State Government employee turnover and work-related attitudes: An analysis and recommendation. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 13(2), 88–118.
41.
MillerD. I.WaiJ. (2015). The bachelor’s to PhD STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: A 30-year analysis. Frontiers of Psychology, 6(37), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00037
42.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K.PetersK. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 465–483.
43.
NoonanR. (2017, November13). Women in STEM: 2017 update (ESA Issue Brief #06-17). Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
44.
OngM.WrightC.EspinosaL.OrfieldG. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209.
QuimbyJ. L.DeSantisA. M. (2006). The influence of role models on women’s career choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 297–306.
47.
ReedM. E. (1991). Seedtime for the modern civil rights movement: The President’s committee on fair employment practice, 1941-1946. Louisiana State University Press.
48.
RyanM. (2014). Who is like a scientist? A self-prototype matching approach to women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Washington.
49.
SaltzsteinG. H. (1979). Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Problems and prospects. Administration and Society, 10, 464–475.
50.
SaucermanJ.VasquezK. (2014). Psychological barriers to STEM participation for women over the course of development. Adultspan Journal, 13(1), 46–64.
51.
SeldenS. C.BrudneyJ. L.KelloughJ. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 717–744.
52.
SeymourE.HewittN. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press.
53.
ShapiroC. A.SaxL. J. (2011). Major selection and persistence for women in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 152, 5–18.
54.
SpeizerJ. J. (1981). Role models, mentors, and sponsors: The elusive concepts. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 692–712.
VallaJ. M.WilliamsW. M. (2012). Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of under-represented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K-12 intervention programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1), 21–53.
57.
Van VeelenR.DerksB.EndedijkM. D. (2019). Double trouble: How being outnumbered and negatively stereotyped threatens career outcomes of women in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 150.
58.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102.
59.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Thompson, South-Western.
60.
XuY. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49, 607–624.
