Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Women’s persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been widely researched in educational settings, whereas less is known about their STEM persistence after graduation. Drawing on social cognitive career theory and in-depth semi-structured interviews with twenty women graduates majoring in STEM fields, this article explores women’s persistence in STEM fields in Kazakhstan within four years after university graduation. The findings of the study are mapped around four themes—STEM self-efficacy beliefs, STEM career outcome expectations, organizational factors, and socio-structural factors—that are found important in shaping STEM women’s post-graduation career choices. The study also reveals factors accounting for disparities in women’s STEM persistence across different STEM fields. Implications highlight the need for more work at organizational and socio-structural levels to develop favorable conditions motivating and enabling women to persist in STEM careers within a patriarchal context.

Keywords

woman science,technology,engineering,and mathematics employment persistence career development

Introduction

Globally, building a more promising future is associated with the development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as these disciplines are recognized to drive innovation, technological development, and economic growth (McDonald et al., 2019). Traditionally, STEM careers were primarily male-dominated. Today, however, a growing number of women are choosing STEM careers, though unevenly across different STEM fields (Ceci & Williams, 2011; Wegemer & Eccles, 2019). Nevertheless, increasing the supply and retention of women in STEM education does not guarantee their long-term participation in the STEM workforce (Delaney & Devereux, 2022). Previous international research on employment outcomes of women with STEM degrees shows that they continue to be underrepresented in the STEM labor market, despite holding relevant qualifications (Michelmore & Sassler, 2016).

Kazakhstan, a Central Asian country aspiring to build a knowledge-based economy (Nazarbayev, 2012), also considers STEM disciplines important for strengthening its global economic position. For example, the improvement of STEM education quality was emphasized in the State Education and Science Development Program for 2016-2019. Specialized STEM schools have been established in the country, while STEM teachers have been provided greater professional development support (Kravchenko, 2022). In higher education, the government allocates the largest proportion of state study grants to students pursuing STEM majors (Murat, 2022), including women, the number of whom has increased within recent years, comprising over half of the total student population (Akhmetbekov, 2020).

In general, women in Kazakhstan have favorable access to education, and their participation in the workforce is relatively high, accounting for 48 percent of the total employed population (Tengrinews, 2023). This can be attributed to two main reasons. First, as a former Soviet republic, Kazakhstan was influenced by Soviet ideology, which emphasized women as an essential labor resource and promoted their education and workforce participation (Buckley, 1981; Heinen, 1990). However, despite the liberation, Soviet women remained marginalized and bore the “double burden” (Buckley, 1989, p. 2) of engaging in predominantly low-paid and unskilled jobs traditionally associated with females, while also tending to family responsibilities.

Second, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, liberal Western values permeated the country (Bremmer & Welt, 1996). Kazakhstan ratified several international conventions, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on Political Rights of Women, and the Equal Remuneration Convention. In 2016, the country adopted the 2016-2030 Family and Gender Policy Concept, focusing on achieving a well-balanced representation of both men and women in power structures, providing equal opportunities for women’s economic independence, fostering the growth of their businesses and careers, ensuring equal fulfillment of rights and responsibilities within families, and preventing gender-based violence (UN Women, 2023).

Nevertheless, traditional attitudes toward family and women resurged in post-Soviet Kazakhstan, which pursued nationalizing policies that appropriated “patriarchy as national culture” (Kandiyoti, 2007, p. 611). In this “re-traditionalized” (Kudaibergenova, 2018, p. 379) society, men hold privileges over women, who are considered primary household keepers. In the Kazakhstani labor market, women face segregation. They are overrepresented in traditionally feminine sectors like healthcare and education and constitute a significant portion of employees in food services, the hospitality sector, financial services, commerce, and insurance. These sectors of the economy are less profitable which leads to a gender pay gap, as men predominate in key decision-making posts (parliament and ministries) and more lucrative professions, including mining, transport, storage, and construction (Buribayev & Khamzina, 2019; Kazinform, 2022; Mynbayeva, 2016; Ryskaliyev et al., 2019). Moreover, women are less likely to attain highly paid positions, even within the civil sector, such as governmental agencies and academia (Kuzhabekova & Almukhambetova, 2021; Kuzhabekova et al., 2018).

Given the aforementioned context, it is important to investigate the employment experiences of women holding STEM degrees in Kazakhstan. This is particularly pertinent because existing research on STEM women in the country primarily focuses on their learning experiences.

STEM Careers and Women

Previous research on gender differences in the employment outcomes of STEM graduates reveals that, despite the increasing number of women in STEM education globally, they remain underrepresented in the workforce (Buffington et al., 2016; Eagly, 2021; Michelmore & Sassler, 2016; Xu, 2013), with fewer of them securing STEM position even when holding relevant degrees (Corbett & Hill, 2015; Jiang, 2021; Sassler et al., 2017a). This happens because STEM women are less likely to pursue careers congruent to their majors (Speer, 2023) and tend to switch to non-STEM fields over their careers (Fouad & Singh, 2011; Glass et al., 2013; Xu, 2013). Prior research shows that the gender gap in STEM employment grows over time in all STEM fields except the sciences (Delaney & Devereux, 2022). Similarly, Hunt (2016) shows that the outflow of women in engineering is more apparent compared to men. Pronounced gender disparities immediately after graduation are observed in math-intensive fields, such as technology and mathematics (Delaney & Devereux, 2022; Sassler et al., 2017b). However, in contrast to Western studies, the retention of women in technology-related jobs appears higher in China and Malaysia (Black et al., 2005; Mellstrom, 2009).

Earlier research attributed women’s underrepresentation in traditionally male-dominated jobs to a lack of necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Fouad & Santana, 2017). More recent studies, however, have identified individual, organizational, and socio-structural factors contributing to this phenomenon.

Individual Factors

Individual factors include women’s beliefs about their own abilities and intellectual aptitude, interest in STEM, gender ideologies, and job values. Xu (2013, 2017) found that in the United States, higher-achieving women (with high GPAs) are more likely to select STEM jobs. Women who have lower confidence in their STEM abilities, who find STEM classes challenging, or who have concerns about STEM-related work prospects are less likely to pursue STEM careers, while strong interest in STEM is found critical for sustaining persistence in these fields (Cech et al., 2011; Maltese & Cooper, 2017). Ceci and Williams (2011) argue that women’s persistence in STEM careers is affected by their life choices regarding work-family balance. Such choices can be freely made or constrained by gendered stereotypes formed in childhood or adolescence (Eagly, 2021). While previous research suggests a link between marriage and children and women’s reduced persistence in STEM careers (Delaney & Devereux, 2022; Glass et al., 2013), Sassler et al. (2017a) argue that these findings are inconclusive as women’s lifestyle preferences do not substantially impact their career choices.

Organizational Factors

Organizational factors encompass workplace conditions. The STEM work environment is believed to differ from other professional domains primarily due to its historically male-centric culture (Sassler et al., 2017a). This culture is a reason for workplace challenges and incivility experienced by women in STEM fields. For example, Hunt (2016) posits that women leave engineering because of dissatisfaction with pay and promotion prospects. In a similar vein, Glass et al. (2013) point out that, compared to women in non-STEM fields, women in STEM are less likely to gain job rewards, leading to their lower commitment to STEM careers. In male-dominated occupations, women are also more exposed to sexist behaviors from coworkers and harassment from supervisors (Raj et al., 2020).

Moreover, although often found gender-neutral, organizational policies are selectively used by authorities in ways that privilege men over women in the workplace (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011). Researchers underscore that these policies and practices are built on gender stereotypes, including biased expectations of women employees as less capable and committed. As such, women are excluded from socialization opportunities or deemed undeserving of higher salaries and promotions (Sassler et al., 2017a; Saxena et al., 2019; Swafford & Anderson, 2020). To increase women’s retention in STEM careers, workplace support in terms of advancement opportunities and managers’ greater understanding of balancing work/family roles is crucial (Fouad et al., 2016).

Socio-Structural Factors

Socio-structural factors shaping women’s careers in STEM fields are associated with the external environment in which STEM careers are embedded and encompass families, educational institutions, and broader structures like society, culture, and economy. Women are more inclined to pursue STEM careers if they receive parental and spousal support (Delaney & Devereux, 2022) and have encouraging educational experiences (Morrison, 2013). The existing research emphasizes the crucial role of teachers in fostering women’s interest and self-efficacy in STEM (Aldridge & Rowntree, 2022; Maltese & Cooper, 2017), thereby enhancing their retention in STEM professions. As suggested by Dasgupta (2011), teachers or other in group role models can act as “social vaccines” (p. 232) inoculating women against gender stereotypes. However, previous research shows that students in STEM education encounter differentiated treatment, when teachers tend to engage more and have higher expectations for male students than their female counterparts (Sadker & Zittleman, 2005; Sumpter, 2016). At universities in Kazakhstan, the career aspirations of women majoring in STEM conflict with societal gender norms, as communicated by male peers (Almukhambetova et al., 2023; Almukhambetova & Kuzhabekova, 2021). STEM women in this country also encounter gender-based differentiated treatment at universities and lack female role models because of the scarcity of female professors in their departments (Syzdykbayeva, 2020).

In a society where women are often assigned the primary caregiving role within families, women often grapple with concerns about their ability to balance family and professional responsibilities (Cech et al., 2011; Heck et al., 2021). Often, they feel pressure to follow social expectations (Rosser & Taylor, 2009). Moreover, the potential impact of motherhood extends beyond women’s self-perceptions as less competent and competitive employees. This bias is also reflected in employers’ gendered perspectives (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Reuben et al., 2014), potentially leading to their unfair overlook in hiring and promotion decisions (Sassler et al., 2017a). Finally, economic conditions can limit occupational choices (Holmes, 2013; Santos, 2020) and, as a result, exacerbate employment opportunities for women within STEM fields.

SCCT

The analytical framework of this study is based on SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) which recognizes the importance of self-beliefs and social influences in career development. The key components of the theory are self-efficacy and outcome expectations which are viewed as crucial in shaping an individual’s career choices and persistence. Self-efficacy refers to a personal belief that one can accomplish a particular task or succeed in a specific domain (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy beliefs are relatively dynamic and can change over time. Outcome expectations are understood as personal beliefs about the potential results of engaging in specific actions, such as social approval or tangible rewards (Lent et al., 1994). According to the theory, feeling efficacious and expecting positive outcomes lead to an increased interest in a specific career and the establishment of related career goals. In the context of STEM careers, a sense of self-efficacy and anticipation of favorable outcomes positively influences STEM interest and career choices.

The model also stipulates that career choices and persistence are influenced by environmental variables. These variables refer to a variety of factors that either influence career choices by shaping an individual’s learning experiences or form the organizational and socio-structural context in which career decisions are made (Lent et al., 1994). A supportive environment can reinforce a sense of self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations and, consequently, increase an individual’s commitment and persistence in a specific profession.

The Current Study

While women’s retention in STEM occupations and their STEM persistence throughout various educational stages have been extensively researched, there is a noticeable gap in the study of their persistence within a few years after university graduation, including various STEM fields (Sassler et al., 2017a; Delaney & Devereux, 2022). Therefore, drawing on SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), this study was undertaken to investigate the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and environmental variables in shaping women’s persistence in STEM careers in Kazakhstan within four years after university graduation. Through this study, we aim to contribute to research that advances the understanding of STEM women’s career decision-making in the early stages of their careers, across STEM fields, and within a patriarchal society.

Method

To develop a deeper understanding of women’s persistence in STEM careers after university graduation we opted for a qualitative approach for our study (Creswell, 2013). This approach allowed us to gain a more nuanced understanding of STEM women’s career decision-making.

Participants and Procedures

Upon approval from an institutional review board, participants were recruited applying purposeful and snowball sampling techniques. Initially, purposeful sampling was employed to recruit women graduates with Bachelor’s degrees in STEM from one comprehensive university located in the capital of the country. Inclusion criteria, derived from the literature review, were applied to gather a broad range of perspectives and focused on major, work experience, age, and marital status (Creswell, 2013). Invitation letters were sent to forty potential participants via email identified through the university’s career center. Five women majoring in different STEM disciplines agreed to participate in the study. The low response rate was likely due to the university’s outdated contact information for alumni. Subsequently, during the interviews, initial participants were asked to refer additional women graduates with STEM degrees within their networks to widen the participant pool. The referrals were then contacted by phone and invited to the study. The final sample included twenty women specializing in STEM fields with up to four years of post-graduation work experience. These women were graduates of four universities in South and Central Kazakhstan, including the capital of the country (see Appendix A).

Participants provided informed consent and were not compensated. Data collection, accompanied by periodic team meetings for data review, lasted a month until saturation, with the last five participants offering no substantially new insights.

Data Collection Tool

Data was collected through individual semi-structured interviews, enabling in-depth insights into the participants’ experiences through personal stories (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). Open-ended questions, developed based on themes from existing literature (Lent et al., 1994) and the research purpose of the study, allowed exploration of unexpected themes. The interview questions (total 10) inquired about the participants’ backgrounds (e.g., Where do you work now?), employment experiences with a focus on factors shaping their career choices (e.g., Why did you decide to pursue a STEM major/career? As a woman, what challenges or obstacles did you encounter in a job search? How did your learning experiences influence your career choice? As a woman, what support do you receive at your workplace?), and future career plans (e.g., What are your future career plans?). Interviews, lasting 50–70 minutes each, were conducted in person or via Skype in the language preferred by the participants, either Russian (primarily) or English, despite all being of Kazakh ethnicity. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006) according to the selected analytical framework and an inductive approach. Prior to coding, the research team familiarized themselves with the data by reading transcripts multiple times. Then, two randomly selected transcripts were coded by the researchers individually. Through a discussion, they reached a consensus on the initial coding framework. The first author then finalized the coding of the rest of the transcripts using Nvivo 11 software. Where needed, the developed initial codes were refined, expanded, and modified by all the subsequent transcripts. Following this, all codes were examined by the researcher in search of commonalities and variations in data, as well as how identified meanings and experiences related to each other. This process informed the grouping of codes into categories and then bigger themes. The final codes, categories, and themes were reviewed by the remaining three researchers to cross-verify findings and strengthen the validity of the research. As a result, 10 categories, each of which was given a label of general (found in all participants or all participants except for one), typical (found in half or more but all participants), and variant (found in less than half but more than one participant) were grouped into four themes: STEM self-efficacy beliefs, STEM career outcome expectations, organizational factors, and socio-structural factors (see Appendix B).

Research Team

Under the lead of the first author, data were analyzed collaboratively by researchers with expertise in higher education (including STEM), graduate employment, and qualitative research methods. Identifying themselves as women from non-STEM fields and with varied professional experiences, the researchers regularly reflected on their backgrounds, employment experiences, and values to mitigate biases. This ensured that their interpretations of the data were grounded in the research context and participants’ responses.

Findings

The data analysis revealed that education-job congruence differed among the participants and across STEM fields. Thirteen out of twenty participants worked in STEM occupations, whereas the remaining seven held near-STEM jobs. Notably, all graduates with a degree in computing or (applied) mathematics were employed in jobs directly related to their majors, working as software developers, product designers, data analysts, internet security specialists, and research assistants. In contrast, most engineering graduates (specifically in mechanical engineering, petroleum engineering, transportation engineering, and radio engineering, electronics, and telecommunications) pursued near-STEM careers, such as project management, business consulting, and teaching. Among those who graduated in sciences (biology and chemistry), half worked in STEM positions as research staff in academia or industry, while the other half were in near-STEM jobs, including sales management and private tutoring. Interestingly, the majority of graduates with weak education-job congruence moved to near-STEM jobs immediately after undergraduate studies.

Regarding future career plans, all thirteen participants employed in STEM fields expressed a strong commitment to continuing their STEM careers. Some participants in near-STEM positions, in turn, expressed confidence in their career choices and were pursuing Master’s degrees in engineering management, to ensure better compliance of their expertise with near-STEM job requirements. Nonetheless, few of them remained uncertain about their future career trajectories, considering the possibility of transitioning to non-STEM occupations.

The data analysis showed that disparities in the participants’ post-graduation career decisions and future career plans are influenced by differences in their self-beliefs and environmental factors. In the following sections, we discuss our findings under the derived themes, including STEM self-efficacy beliefs, STEM career outcome expectations, organizational factors, and socio-structural factors.

STEM Self-Efficacy Beliefs

The analysis showed that STEM self-efficacy beliefs were important in shaping the participants’ career decisions. These beliefs differed between women in STEM and near-STEM occupations.

High Confidence in STEM Abilities

The data analysis revealed that all participants pursuing STEM careers demonstrated more robust STEM self-efficacy beliefs than those occupying near-STEM positions. This was particularly evident in their confidence in mathematical/science abilities and embrace of a growth mindset. The belief that they can achieve success through learning and hard work was typical among the women in STEM jobs. Furthermore, some participants embarking on STEM careers did not find learning STEM disciplines at university to be excessively challenging. These women noted that they were ranked among the top students in their respective cohorts. One of them noted: “I was one of those who understood advanced math classes at university. Some did not understand anything at all. I was sure I was smart, and I would not have any difficulties at work” (Participant 15, Internet Security Specialist). As such, viewing themselves as good at STEM disciplines, and receiving acknowledgment of their abilities from teaching faculty in the form of good grades (high GPA), positively affected their self-efficacy beliefs related to STEM and, consequently, their commitment to pursuing STEM careers.

Low Confidence in STEM Abilities

Compared to the women in STEM occupations, some of those in near-STEM jobs exhibited lower STEM self-efficacy beliefs. For instance, three women expressed hesitation and doubt about pursuing STEM careers because of concerns about the potential requirement for substantial effort and the associated stress it might entail. Struggling to understand STEM courses caused a few of these women to perceive themselves as less capable in STEM than their university peers. This negatively affected their professional confidence, and they moved into near-STEM fields. One of them with a degree in engineering commented:

While studying at university I realized that car manufacturing is hard to understand. You must know every small detail within a car. You must know the different types of equipment in a garage. For me, it was quite challenging. I realized that I didn’t want to pursue a career in this field. (Participant 17, Import Manager)

STEM Career Outcome Expectations

Future outcome expectations related to STEM careers were found crucial in forming the participants’ career choices after graduation. Such expectations differed between the two groups of women.

Envisioned Success and Financial Stability

The analysis showed that some women in STEM jobs exhibited a strong commitment to persist in STEM careers because of an expectation that they can succeed within STEM fields, advance in careers, and even move to globally recognized STEM companies. The following excerpt is an illustrative example of this: “I want to develop as a data scientist. I want to get more knowledge in this field as I want to work in a big IT company, maybe even a corporation like Facebook or Google” (Participant 8, Data Analyst).

Furthermore, four women in STEM occupations, primarily in the IT sector, expressed the belief that STEM careers offer financial security. They believed that in comparison to women in non-STEM fields, they had better chances to earn a higher and stable income: “I think that by having a STEM degree I will always have a secure source of income. Jobs in non-STEM fields are quite risky in terms of earnings” (Participant 1, Research Assistant).

Concerns over STEM Careers

The outcome expectations regarding STEM careers among women in near-STEM jobs were less optimistic. Some women in this group found STEM occupations challenging and believed that they could have adverse effects on personal well-being and family life. In other words, STEM careers were associated with high-cost value and these women seemed to be unwilling to prioritize STEM careers over family commitments:

I am the type of individual who prioritizes my family over selecting a career. I think those women who are married and have children often encounter more barriers in building a career. This is because they may unconsciously decline opportunities or demonstrate less initiative at work, as they are aware that they must first coordinate these decisions with their family responsibilities. (Participant 12, Project Manager)

Moreover, two women majoring in radio engineering, electronics, and telecommunications voiced unwillingness to pursue careers in their respective fields because of the physically demanding nature of the work, especially for newcomers. Such short-term career prospects did not meet their expectations and demotivated to pursue STEM careers:

After graduation, I understood that I did not want to work in my chosen field because entry-level positions in this field typically involve physically demanding work, such as installing communication equipment, which includes tasks like laying cables, setting up Internet connections, or installing telephones. That is, it requires handling large cable coils, getting down on the floor, and climbing up stepladders. (Participant 18, Business Consultant)

Thus, women in near-STEM jobs associated outcomes related to STEM careers with diminished personal well-being, increased stress, potential challenges in family life, and physically demanding work.

Organizational Factors

To understand the influence of organizational factors on women’s persistence in STEM careers, we examined biases and support mechanisms within STEM workplace environments. The analysis revealed that despite gender discrimination, women in STEM fields demonstrated remarkable resilience.

Biases in the Organizational Setting

The data analysis uncovered that some women in STEM jobs have encountered gender prejudices and unfair treatment in the workplace. This discrimination encompassed undermining attitudes from male colleagues, difficulties in communication because of sexist humor, and a gender pay gap despite similar qualifications or job responsibilities. To illustrate, Participant 9 (Software Developer) working at an IT company stated “I think sometimes male colleagues’ sense of humor can hurt because at some point they start dropping sexist jokes and you have to say it if it hurts to defend yourself.” In turn, Participant 7 (Software Developer) complained “In one company, I had a male colleague … We did almost the same job but he was paid more. And this was not explained why. This is unfair.” A few women also noted having limited professional networks at their jobs. In male-dominated fields, they found themselves excluded from internal discussions, which limited their opportunities to informally learn about strategies for promotion or negotiating higher salaries. Interestingly, however, despite experiencing gender biases, all women in STEM occupations demonstrated persistence in pursuing STEM careers. As discussed below, this can be attributed to enabling organizational policies and practices, as well as family support.

Support in the Organizational Setting

Women in STEM careers attributed their STEM persistence to professional development opportunities and supportive workplace policies. The employer’s interest in women employees’ professional development, as evidenced by providing them with professional development opportunities, was considered critical in achieving envisioned STEM career outcomes and, consequently, fostered the women’s commitment to STEM careers. The promotion of women-friendly corporate culture through support groups for women employees and explicit promotion policies were also perceived by a few women working in international companies as crucial for sustaining women’s persistence in STEM. Regarding this, one of the participants pointed out:

“One of the advantages for employees in our company is a clear understanding of how to advance in their careers and the steps needed for career growth. This policy is clearly defined and consistently followed within the company; therefore, many directors in the company are women. Due to this clearly stated policy, it does not matter whether you are a man or a woman. Individuals, regardless of gender, will get promotions if they fulfill the requirements for advancement.” (Participant 15, Internet Security Specialist)

This quote suggests that clearly defined career advancement policies promoted gender equality and reduced the gender gap in leadership and, consequently, encouraged women to persist in STEM.

Socio-Structural Factors

The data analysis revealed that socio-structural factors, specifically family, past learning experiences, gendered cultural stereotypes, and the labor market, played a substantial role in shaping the participants’ career choices after graduation. Gendered cultural stereotypes appear to be the most influential as they impact women’s career decisions through different aspects of social life.

Gendered Cultural Stereotypes

The analysis revealed that women’s persistence in STEM careers was negatively affected by gendered cultural stereotypes existing within the Kazakhstani society and affecting its different aspects. Most women in near-STEM occupations mentioned prioritizing a home-centric life as their primary life goal. This inclination developed within the context of a patriarchal society with its cultural norms and stereotyped perceptions, which assign the primary caregiving role to women. Because of societal pressure, these women felt compelled to accept this role despite their professional interests and ambitions. An illustrative example of this opinion is the following excerpt: “In Kazakhstan, women are treated like a weak gender. There is such a stereotype that women are not supposed to be engineers, but need to stay at home, raise children, and be good wives” (Participant 18, Business Consultant).

Issues related to balancing work and family life were raised by almost all participants, including those in STEM jobs, but primarily by those originating from southern Kazakhstan, where more traditional views are common. Both married and unmarried women expressed concerns that building a family and having children might negatively affect their future careers. As observed, families were typically prioritized over decisions about business trips, taking initiatives at work, or accepting a promotion.

Employers’ reluctance to hire women, which was predominantly observed among participants with engineering degrees, also reflected gendered cultural stereotypes. These women felt less valued in comparison to men when in the recruitment process, they experienced the employer’s discriminating attitude toward women’s intellectual aptitude, as well as were asked illegal questions about their current and future caregiving responsibilities. One participant stated:

It is no secret that women face challenges in securing employment in the field of engineering. In cases of two applicants—one woman and one man—bias often leads to the selection of the man under the widespread perception that men are better technicians than women. (Participant 19, Business Consultant)

The employer’s willingness to avoid costs associated with women’s pregnancy, maternity, and time off from work was perceived as a reason for the reluctance to hire them.

Past Learning Experiences

All women in the sample noted that their decisions to pursue a STEM major at university were driven by internal motivation, particularly stemming from an interest in STEM disciplines nurtured at school. It is worth noting that the majority of the participants finished schools for gifted children. The participants believed that these schools with inspiring teachers, captivating STEM lessons, and STEM-related extra-curricular activities (clubs and Olympiads) fostered their interest in STEM subjects. However, regarding their university education, the women’s opinions varied. The women in STEM jobs were generally positive about the university learning environment, describing it as supportive and encouraging. Only a few of them mentioned occasional situations of witnessing gender biases from peers.

As for women in near-STEM jobs, four of them attributed their choices to leave STEM careers to their educational experiences at university. While two of them found STEM education at university challenging, which negatively affected their STEM self-efficacy beliefs, the other two from the field of engineering pointed to the gendered stereotypes of faculty members—both men and women—and the divide of jobs into masculine and feminine as factors that discouraged them from pursuing STEM careers. More specifically, the women observed that faculty members’ gendered stereotypes resulted in biased expectations for individuals of different sexes, reflected in a superficial approach to developing women’s knowledge and technical skills. This ultimately led to their low confidence in professional competence and unwillingness to pursue STEM careers. Regarding this, one of the participants stated:

During my time at the university, some faculty members expressed sentiments like, ‘Why did you select this major? You are not going to work; you will just get married and stay at home.’ Such comments were discouraging, and such an attitude contributed to my reluctance to embrace my chosen field of study. (Participant 18, Business Consultant)

Thus, gendered cultural stereotypes influenced the participants’ career decisions through their learning experiences. Initially motivated to study STEM, the women were later demotivated to persist in STEM careers because of a discouraging university learning environment. Additionally, there was an overall agreement among the two groups of participants that a greater presence of female role models at university could contribute to women’s persistence in STEM careers after graduation.

Family Support

The analysis showed that family support was crucial in fostering some participants’ STEM persistence. More specifically, women in STEM occupations attributed their STEM persistence after graduation to encouraging and supportive significant others, particularly parents or close relatives who worked in STEM fields. Two married women also held a belief that having a husband who also works in a STEM field can be beneficial for building and advancing in STEM careers. For example, one IT woman, whose husband also worked in the same field, benefitted from his understanding of her job and his assistance with household tasks, allowing her more time to focus on her career: “My husband is also in IT and this is a big plus for my career. He understands me and supports me with household chores. To say the truth, I do not feel as a kelinka¹” (Participant 7, Software Developer).

Labor Market Economic Situation

Finally, the labor market situation was one of the factors that influenced STEM women’s career decisions. For example, in the IT sector, growing job opportunities were perceived as positively affecting women’s education-job congruence: “Regardless of gender, a specialist with a degree in computer sciences will always be in demand, given the increasing job opportunities in this sector, including in Kazakhstan. Therefore, you will not be left without means of earning a living” (Participant 4, Data Analyst). This quote suggests that a growing demand for IT specialists in Kazakhstan creates better employment opportunities for women in this field.

In the field of sciences, the situation was different. Women in this field believed that limited job opportunities for graduates with science degrees in Kazakhstan were a key factor contributing to their moderate persistence in STEM. To illustrate:

To tell the truth, in Kazakhstan, it is difficult to find a job related to a degree in biotechnology, biology, or chemistry. Almost all my friends who graduated with me have jobs unrelated or loosely related to their majors … sciences are underdeveloped in the country. (Participant 11, Sales Manager)

The underdeveloped research capacity of the country means that Kazakhstani universities and industries, except for the field of medicine, offer few research-related job opportunities, resulting in moderate education-job congruence among science graduates overall.

Discussion

This study explored women’s persistence in STEM fields in Kazakhstan within four years after university graduation. We aimed to understand how women from different STEM fields make their post-graduation career choices depending on their self-beliefs and the external environment. The findings of the study indicate that in the context of a patriarchal society, socio-structural and organizational factors play a substantial role in forming STEM women’s post-graduation career decisions either directly or by shaping their STEM self-efficacy beliefs and STEM career outcome expectations. Moreover, the findings suggest that economic conditions in the labor market can account for variations in STEM women’s immediate post-graduation attrition rate across different STEM fields., The current study adds to the previous research in STEM and career studies by describing STEM women’s career decision-making during the early stages of their careers, across different STEM fields, and within a patriarchal society.

The findings of the study indicate that the highest STEM persistence was among graduates majoring in computing and mathematics, whereas the highest immediate dropout was widely spread among women in engineering. These findings do not support previous studies conducted in Western settings (Delaney & Devereux, 2022); however, they are in line with findings from East Asian countries, for example, Malaysia, where the computing field was found to be dominated by woman employees (Mellstrom, 2009).

Our findings also demonstrate that consistently with the predictions of the SCCT, STEM self-efficacy beliefs and STEM career outcome expectations are found crucial in shaping women’s career decisions. Regarding this, our findings indicate that women tend to persist in STEM careers if they feel efficacious in their STEM capabilities, whereas those who experience challenges in learning STEM disciplines are more likely to exit STEM fields. Similarly, positive STEM career outcome expectations, such as achieving success or ensuring financial security, are important factors in sustaining women’s interest and persistence in STEM fields, while negative STEM career outcome expectations, associated with growing stress and potential family issues, as well as unmet career expectations, decrease women’s commitment to pursuing STEM careers. Being in line with previous research, (Bandura, 1986; Ceci & Williams, 2011; Maltese & Cooper, 2017; Xu, 2013, 2017), these findings suggest that negative self-beliefs could explain the existing gap in the literature regarding a high immediate attrition rate among STEM women after graduation (Glass et al., 2013). Moreover, although in line with some previous studies, we found that prioritization of family life could be a reason for the low retention of women in STEM (Delaney & Devereux, 2022; Jiang, 2021), our study also suggests that this is more likely to happen in later career stages (Fouad & Singh, 2011; Glass et al., 2013) when women become mothers.

We found that STEM women’s post-graduation career choices are nested in a broader environment encompassing organizational and socio-structural factors (Heck et al., 2021; Morrison, 2013; Saxena et al., 2019; Swafford & Anderson, 2020; Xu, 2017). Despite recent improvements in gender equality at the policy level, the study reveals that women’s career prospects in Kazakhstan are substantially influenced by gendered cultural stereotypes, leading to bias, discrimination, and prejudice (Buribayev & Khamzina, 2019; Kudaibergenova, 2018; Ryskaliyev et al., 2019). As argued by Rosser and Taylor (2009), despite interest in pursuing a STEM career and receiving a STEM degree, with maturation women seem to be inclined to exit STEM fields because of the gender role expectations and cultural norms the society imposes on women as primary caregivers. In other words, the decision to pursue a STEM career is not set in stone. Such decisions are reconsidered by women throughout their studies and when they enter the job market. Almost all participants expressed worries regarding work-life balance which leads to concerns about the long-term retention of women in STEM careers as similar to those in near-STEM jobs, they may prioritize family life and eventually exit the STEM workforce.

Further, our findings indicate that women’s perceptions of the influence of environmental variables differed across different STEM fields, suggesting that disparities in women’s persistence across different STEM fields depend on the contexts they are embedded. It seems that women in computing and mathematics are exposed to a less gender-biased environment in Kazakhstan. This might be because today they have the same access to learning mathematics and working on computers as men. Moreover, these fields do not require hard physical work (Eagly, 2021). Although in these fields, women encounter gender biases at the organizational level similar to those reported in other national contexts (Bird & Rhoton, 2021; Swafford & Anderson, 2020), they seem not to be discouraged from pursuing STEM careers. On the contrary, their persistence in STEM becomes possible due to significant others who support and encourage them, specifically parents, husbands, employers, and colleagues. An organizational environment supporting women’s professional growth and career promotion is regarded as crucial for persisting in STEM. These findings are consistent with previous studies claiming that an enabling organizational environment is important for women’s STEM persistence (Delaney & Devereux, 2022; Fouad et al., 2016; Maltese & Cooper, 2017).

The study also suggests that the field of engineering in Kazakhstan appears to be more gender-biased in comparison to other STEM fields. This might be because it is perceived as culturally more masculine (de Pillis & de Pillis, 2008). Gender role stereotypes and perceptions of women as tokens in this field take place in educational settings and recruitment. This finding supports the claim that tokenism at an organizational level could be driven by a societal impact (Lent et al., 1994). Moreover, gendered biases in engineering could be a primary reason for a leaky STEM pipeline in this field in Kazakhstan, where women are more likely to exit STEM immediately after graduation.

Our findings show that women’s STEM persistence is influenced by the labor market economic situation (Holmes, 2013; Santos, 2020). While the expanding IT sector contributes to STEM women’s education-job congruence, in sciences, women’s moderate persistence in STEM careers is related to the limited job opportunities in the national labor market, explained by the underdeveloped research capacity of the country.

Overall, this study suggests mounting evidence that increasing supply at the educational stages of the STEM pipeline is not enough to ensure women’s participation in the STEM workforce. More work is required at the organizational and socio-structural levels to develop favorable conditions motivating and enabling women to persist in STEM careers.

Implications

Our empirical evidence supports the SCCT by developing a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which self-efficacy beliefs and career outcome expectations interact with organizational and socio-structural factors to shape STEM women’s post-graduation career decisions. The study suggests that in particular societal contexts characterized by patriarchal norms and economic conditions, challenging labor market conditions and gendered cultural stereotypes, which shape women’s self-beliefs through learning experiences, can reduce women graduates’ persistence in STEM fields within the early stages of their careers. In turn, the substantial growth of a particular professional sector and organizational support in the form of the provision of professional development opportunities and an enabling institutional policy environment has the potential to promote women’s post-graduation persistence in STEM fields.

Regarding practical implications, the study indicates that more attention needs to be paid to improving the educational environment in male-dominated university departments. Faculty (both men and women) could develop more gender-unbiased teaching and communication practices and encourage women students to ensure that their initial desires and ambitions to pursue STEM careers do not vanish over years spent on campus. The findings also suggest that organizational culture needs better alignment with best international practices promoting gender equality in the workplace. Accordingly, we highlight the need for developing more inclusive recruitment, promotion, and remuneration policies, respectful and unbiased communication practices, and a supportive environment for women employees within local organizations to sustain women’s persistence in STEM fields. Increasing public awareness of challenges faced by women in the labor market and the incentives they need for career advancement is also important to sustain their persistence in the STEM workforce. This could contribute to profound changes in society’s perceptions, attitudes, and stereotypes about women. Finally, in the context of developing countries with low research capacity, more work promoting research and the innovative potential of local industries and organizations is needed so that graduates aiming to pursue research-related careers, such as in sciences, could have more opportunities to find jobs directly matching their education.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The study has several limitations. First, the qualitative nature and the cultural background of the study limit the generalizability of the findings. However, it is important to note that the goal of the study was to develop a more nuanced understanding of the subject matter rather than achieve broad applicability. The second limitation is related to the use of snowball sampling, which led to the exclusion of women who moved to non-STEM jobs after graduation from the sample. This limits the construction of a more comprehensive understanding of STEM women’s employment experiences after graduation. Therefore, future research could specifically focus on different career trajectories of STEM women and the reasons underpinning them. Third, our findings do not explain what happens over a longer period to the career development of women demonstrating high STEM persistence after graduation, as in the IT sector. Therefore, further research could examine women’s persistence over a long-term period in STEM fields, demonstrating high education-job congruence. Finally, based on our findings, the differences between the environments at domestic and international companies might be another area to study.

Conclusion

The findings of this study confirm the complexity of career decision-making in STEM fields, influenced by self-beliefs and external factors as stipulated in SCCT. While women’s persistence in STEM careers is impacted by various factors, in patriarchal societies, their post-graduation career choices are substantially influenced by gendered cultural stereotypes, which shape women’s learning experiences and interest in STEM, complicate the job search process, and worsen working conditions in STEM fields. Moreover, the economic conditions in the labor market can account for variations in women’s immediate post-graduation attrition rate across different STEM fields. The study suggests that it is not enough to increase the number of women entering the STEM pipeline to guarantee their involvement in the STEM workforce. It underscores the necessity for additional efforts at organizational and socio-structural levels to create an enabling environment stimulating and empowering women's post-graduation persistence in STEM.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan under grant AP14869690.

ORCID iD

Gulfiya Kuchumova

Data Availability Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality issues and ethical restrictions. *

Note

Appendix

Author Biographies

Dr. Gulfiya Kuchumova holds a PhD degree in Education from Nazarbayev University, where she specialized in doctoral education research. She is currently serving as an Associate Professor in the School of Liberal Arts at Maqsut Narikbayev University, where she teaches courses on research methods and corpus linguistics. Her research areas include doctoral education, university-industry partnerships, academic careers, and graduate employment. Currently, she is leading a project on research-based teacher education and is also involved in a project on academic promotion and remuneration policies at universities in Kazakhstan. Outside of academia, Dr. Kuchumova enjoys practicing yoga. She finds that yoga helps maintain a work-life balance and cultivate a focused mind, which is essential to conducting research effectively. Current Address: 10 Narikbayev Str., Aprt. 106, Astana, Kazakhstan. Mailing Address: 10 Narikbayev Str., Aprt. 106, 010000 Astana, Kazakhstan. Cell phone number: +7 775 736 32 50. Fax number: - Email: g_kuchumova@kazguu.kz. I am available and responsive till July 2024 should you have any questions or need further information regarding our submission. In July, you can reach me via the following. email gulfiya.kuchumova@icloud.com

Dr. Aliya Kuzhabekova is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Governance at Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. She specializes in the field of higher education research focusing on understanding the processes of research capacity development and internationalization in the process of educational reform in post-Soviet Central Asia. In addition, a significant portion of her research is concerned with understanding equity issues in higher education. Beyond the academic context, Dr. Kuzhabekova enjoys gardening and ballroom dancing. Mailing Address: University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Email: aliya.kuzhabekova@ucalgary.ca Phone: +1(587)839-3575

Dr. Ainur Almukhambetova is an Instructor at the Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University (Kazakhstan). She holds a PhD in Education from Nazarbayev University. Her primary research interests are students’ experiences in higher education and critical transitions, equity and access in STEM education, and international student mobility. Dr. Almukhambetova published 15 papers in international peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. She enjoys hiking outside of her academic pursuits. Hiking provides her an opportunity to disconnect from busy daily life and reflect on her work. Mailing address: 010000, 53 Kabanbay Batyr Avenue, Astana, Kazakhstan. Email: ainur.almukhambetova@nu.edu.kz Phone number: +77770177733

Dr. Aigul Nurpeissova holds a PhD in Education from Nazarbayev University and has extensive experience working on various research projects. Her primary research interests include students’ experiences and financing in higher education. Currently, Dr. Nurpeissova serves as the Dean of the School of Education at Kozybayev University. She likes traveling and singing. Mailing address: Kazakhstan, Petropavlovsk city, 7 Abay Street. Email: ah.nurpeissova@gmail.com Phone number: +77023294224

References

Akhmetbekov

(2020, February 4). Bolee poloviny vsekh kazahstanskih studentov sostavlyayut devushki [More than a half of all Kazakhstani students are girls]. Azattyq-ryhy. https://rus.azattyq-ruhy.kz/society/4992-bolee-poloviny-vsekh-kazakhstanskikh-studentov-sostavliaiut-devushki

Aldridge

Rowntree

(2022). Investigating relationships between learning environment perceptions, motivation and self-regulation for female science students in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Research in Science Education, 52(5), 1545–1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09998-2

Almukhambetova

Kuzhabekova

(2021). Negotiating conflicting discourses. Female students’ experiences in STEM majors in an international university in Central Asia. International Journal of Science Education, 43(4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1875150

Almukhambetova

Torrano

Nam

(2023). Fixing the leaky pipeline for Talented women in STEM. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10239-1

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bird

S. R.

Rhoton

L. A.

(2021). Seeing Isn’t always believing: Gender, academic STEM, and women scientists’ perceptions of career opportunities. Gender & Society, 35(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211008814

Black

Jameson

Komoss

Meehan

Numerico

(2005, February 1). Women in computing: A European and international perspective [Conference presentation]. In 3rd European symposium on gender and ICT: Working for change, Weston Conference Centre. UMIST. https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/92v38/women-in-computing-a-european-and-international-perspective

Bobbitt-Zeher

(2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gender & Society, 25(6), 764–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211424741

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

10.

Bremmer

Welt

(1996). The trouble with democracy in Kazakhstan. Central Asian Survey, 15(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634939608400944

11.

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

12.

Buckley

(1981). Women in the Soviet union. Feminist Review, 8(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.1981.13

13.

Buckley

(1989). Women and ideology in the Soviet union. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

14.

Buffington

Harris

B. C.

Jones

Weinberg

B. A.

(2016). STEM training and early career outcomes of female and male graduate students: Evidence from UMETRICS data linked to the 2010 census. The American Economic Review, 106(5), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161124

15.

Buribayev

Y. A.

Khamzina

Z. A.

(2019). Gender equality in employment: The experience of Kazakhstan. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 19(2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229119846784

16.

Cech

Rubineau

Silbey

Seron

(2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420815

17.

Ceci

Williams

(2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(8), 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108

18.

Corbett

Hill

(2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. The American Association of University Women. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/03/Solving-the-Equation-report-nsa.pdf

19.

Creswell

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

20.

Dasgupta

(2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313

21.

Delaney

Devereux

(2022). Gender differences in STEM persistence after graduation. Economica, 89(356), 862–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12437

22.

De Pillis

de Pillis

(2008). Are engineering schools masculine and authoritarian? The mission statements say yes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.33

23.

Eagly

(2021). Hidden in plain sight: The inconsistent gender gaps in STEM and leadership. Psychological Inquiry, 32(2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.1930764

24.

Fouad

Santana

(2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324

25.

Fouad

Singh

(2011). Stemming the tide: Why women leave engineering, executive summary. University of Wisconsin. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_StemmingtheTideWhyWomenLeaveEngineering.pdf

26.

Fouad

Singh

Cappaert

Chang

Wan

(2016). Comparison of women engineers who persist in or depart from engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.002

27.

Glass

Sassler

Levitte

Michelmore

(2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social forces; a scientific medium of social study and interpretation, 92(2), 723–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot092

28.

Heck

Santhanagopalan

Cimpian

Kinzler

(2021). Understanding the developmental roots of gender gaps in politics. Psychological Inquiry, 32(2), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2021.1930741

29.

Heinen

(1990). Inequalities at work: The gender division of labour at the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Studies in Political Economy, 33(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19187033.1990.11675471

30.

Holmes

(2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.587140

31.

Hunt

(2016). Why do women leave science and engineering? ILR Review, 69(1), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915594597

32.

Jiang

(2021). Women in STEM: Ability, preference and value. Labour Economics, 70, 101991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.101991

33.

Kandiyoti

(2007). The politics of gender and the Soviet paradox: Neither colonized, nor modern? Central Asian Survey, 26(4), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930802018521

34.

Kazinform . (2002, March 4). V kakih sektorah ekonomiki preobladayut zhenschiny? Kazinform. [In what economic sectors do women dominate?]. https://www.inform.kz/ru/v-kakih-sektorah-ekonomiki-kazahstana-preobladayut-zhenschiny_a3907536?ysclid=lrjeck8thi934012702

35.

Kravchenko

(2022, November 8). V akmolinskoi oblasti aktivno razvivayut STEM obrazovaniye [STEM education is actively developed in the Akmola oblast]. Nur.kz. https://www.nur.kz/politics/kazakhstan/1996288-v-akmolinskoy-oblasti-aktivno-razvivayut-stem-obrazovanie/

36.

Kudaibergenova

(2018). Project kelin: Marriage, women, and re-traditionalization in post-soviet Kazakhstan. In Najafizadeh

Lindsey

(Eds.), Women in asia: Globalization, development, and gender equity (pp. 379–390). Routledge.

37.

Kuzhabekova

Almukhambetova

(2021). Women’s progression through the leadership pipeline in the universities of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1599820

38.

Kuzhabekova

Janenova

Almukhambetova

(2018). Analyzing the experiences of female leaders in Civil Service in Kazakhstan: Trapped between economic pressure to earn and traditional family role expectations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(15), 1290–1301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1387142

39.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

40.

MacDonald

Hunter

Wise

Fraser

(2019). STEM and STEAM and the spaces between: An overview of education agendas pertaining to ‘disciplinarity’ across three Australian states. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2019.64

41.

Maltese

Cooper

(2017). STEM pathways: Do men and women differ in why they enter and exit? AERA Open, 3(3), 233285841772727. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417727276

42.

Mellstrom

(2009). The intersection of gender, race and cultural boundaries, or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by women? Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 885–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709334636

43.

Michelmore

Sassler

(2016). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter? RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.4.07

44.

Morrison

(2013). Development of American and foreign-national female graduate students in engineering at research universities. Publication No. ED558404) [Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

45.

Moss-Racusin

Dovidio

Brescoll

Graham

Handelsman

(2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

46.

Murat

(2022, April 6). 70% goszakaza budet otdano na tekhnicheskie special’nosti – Mon RK [70% of state grants will be allocated to technical majors – MES RK]. Kazinform. https://www.inform.kz/ru/70-goszakaza-budet-otdano-na-tehnicheskie-special-nosti-mon-rk_a3919751?ysclid=lhueitnb3q565540545

47.

Mynbayeva

(2016). Women in Kazakhstan: Wonder foundation insight report. Wonder Foundation. https://wonderfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Women-in-Kazakhstan-Wonder-Foundation-Insight-Report-Digital.pdf

48.

Nazarbayev

(2012, December 14). Address by the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan, leader of the nation. In Strategy Kazakhstan 2050: New political course of the established state. Akorda. https://www.akorda.kz/en/addresses/addresses_of_president/address-by-the-president-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-leader-of-the-nation-nnazarbayev-strategy-kazakhstan-2050-new-political-course-of-the-established-state

49.

Raj

Johns

Jose

(2020). Gender parity at work and its association with workplace sexual harassment. Workplace Health & Safety, 68(6), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079919900793

50.

Reuben

Sapienza

Zingales

(2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111

51.

Rosser

Taylor

(2009). Why are we still worried about women in science? Academe, 95, 7–10. https://www.aaup.org/article/why-are-we-still-worried-about-women-science

52.

Ryskaliyev

Mirzaliyeva

Tursynbayeva

Muratova

Buribayev

Khamzina

(2019). Gender inequality among employees in Kazakhstan. The Lawyer Quarterly, 9(4), 319–332. https://tlq.ilaw.cas.cz/index.php/tlq/article/view/370/364

53.

Sadker

Zittleman

(2005). Gender bias lives, for both sexes. The Education Digest, 70(8), 27–30.

54.

Santos

(2020). Career boundaries and employability perceptions: An exploratory study with graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1620720

55.

Sassler

Glass

Levitte

Michelmore

(2017a). The missing women in STEM? Assessing gender differentials in the factors associated with transition to first jobs. Social Science Research, 63, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.014

56.

Sassler

Michelmore

Smith

(2017b). A tale of two majors: Explaining the gender gap in STEM employment among computer science and engineering degree holders. Social Sciences, 6(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6030069

57.

Saxena

Geiselman

Zhang

(2019). Workplace incivility against women in STEM: Insights and best practices. Business Horizons, 62(5), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.005

58.

Speer

J.D.

(2023). Bye bye ms. American sci: Women and the leaky STEM pipeline. Economics of Education Review, 93, 102371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102371

59.

Sumpter

(2016). Boys press all the buttons and hope it will help’: Upper secondary school teachers’ gendered conceptions about students’ mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1535–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9660-3

60.

Swafford

Anderson

(2020). Addressing the gender gap: Women’s perceived barriers to pursuing STEM careers. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 4(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-2118.1070, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1254004.pdf

61.

Syzdykbayeva

(2020). Exploring gender equality in STEM education and careers in Kazakhstan. In STEM education for girls and women: Breaking barriers and exploring gender inequality in Asia (pp. 189–225). UNESCO. Bangkok Office.https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375106

62.

Tenginews . (2023, March 7). Skolko zhenschin rabotaet v Kazahstane I gde? [How many women work in Kazakhstan and where?]. Tengrinews. https://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/skolko-jenschin-rabotaet-v-kazahstane-i-gde-492989/?ysclid=lott4vjh73286782429

63.

UN Women . (2023). UN women in Kazakhstan [Brochure]. https://eca.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/un_women_engl.pdf

64.

Wegemer

Eccles

(2019). Gendered STEM career choices: Altruistic values, beliefs, and identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110(A), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.020

65.

(2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2

66.

(2017). Attrition of women in STEM: Examining job/major congruence in the career choices of college graduates. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633787

Women’s Science,Technology,Engineering,and Mathematics Persistence After University Graduation: Insights From Kazakhstan

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

STEM Careers and Women

Individual Factors

Organizational Factors

Socio-Structural Factors

SCCT

The Current Study

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data Collection Tool

Data Analysis

Research Team

Findings

STEM Self-Efficacy Beliefs

High Confidence in STEM Abilities

Low Confidence in STEM Abilities

STEM Career Outcome Expectations

Envisioned Success and Financial Stability

Concerns over STEM Careers

Organizational Factors

Biases in the Organizational Setting

Support in the Organizational Setting

Socio-Structural Factors

Gendered Cultural Stereotypes

Past Learning Experiences

Family Support

Labor Market Economic Situation

Discussion

Implications

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

Note

Appendix

Author Biographies

References