Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Numbers of women in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering are growing, yet women are still far outnumbered by men at upper levels of those fields. The purpose of the study is to review the literature on academic women who develop exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Data sources included 18 scholarly publications selected according to a systematic protocol. Analysis of the studies’ Results and Findings sections yielded four major themes focused on women’s personal and psychological characteristics, social catalysts, institutional catalysts, and cultural production. Themes were synthesized into a four-level socio-ecological model of women’s STEM talent development. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

women academia science STEM talent development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Braun

Clarke

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

*Buday

Stake

Peterson

(2012). Gender and the choice of a science career: The impact of social support and possible selves. Sex Roles, 66, 197-209. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0015-4

*Carlone

H. B.

Johnson

(2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1187-1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237

*Charleston

L. J.

George

P. L.

Jackson

J. F. L.

Berhanu

Amechi

M. H.

(2014). Navigating underrepresented STEM spaces: Experiences of black women in U.S. computing science higher education programs who actualize success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 166-176. doi:10.1037/a0036632

Chesler

N. C.

Barabino

Bhatia

S. N.

Richards-Kortum

(2010). The pipeline still leaks and more than you think: A status report on gender diversity in biomedical engineering. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38, 1928-1935. doi:10.1007/s10439-010-9958-9

Corbett

Hill

(2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Retrieved from American Association of University Women website: http://www.aauw.org/files/2015/03/Solving-the-Equation-report-nsa.pdf

*Dabney

K. P.

Tai

R. H.

(2014). Factors associated with female chemist doctoral career choice within the physical sciences. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1777-1786. doi:10.1021/ed4008815

Dai

D. Y.

Chen

(2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide for theory-based, practice-focused research. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

10.

Etzkowitz

Kemelgor

Neuschatz

Uzzi

(1992). Athena unbound: Barriers to women in academic science and engineering. Science and Public Policy, 19, 157-179. doi:10.1093/spp/19.3.157

11.

*Feist

(2006). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the national academy of sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23-35. doi:10.1007/s10804-006-9002-3

12.

*Ferriman

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517-532. doi:10.1037/a0016030

13.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory1. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682

14.

*Gavin

M. K.

(1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women’s college. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 476-485. doi:10.1177/1932202x9600700406

15.

*George-Jackson

C. E.

(2014). Undergraduate women’s persistence in the sciences. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 7, 96-119. doi:10.1515/njawhe-2014-0006

16.

Grbich

(2013). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Heilbronner

N. N.

(2013). The STEM pathway for women: What has changed? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 39-55. doi:10.1177/0016986212460085

18.

Herman

(2015). Rebooting and rerouting: Women’s articulations of frayed careers in science, engineering and technology professions. Gender, Work & Organization, 22, 324-338. doi:10.1111/gwao.12088

19.

*Herzig

(2004). Becoming mathematicians: Women and students of color choosing and leaving doctoral mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 74, 171-214. doi:10.3102/00346543074002171

20.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(2014). Feminist research practice: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Hewlett

S. A.

Luce

C. B.

Servon

L. J

. (2008, June). Stopping the exodus of women in science. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/06/stopping-the-exodus-of-women-in-science

22.

Hill

Corbett

St. Rose

(2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

23.

Kost-Smith

L. E.

Pollock

S. J.

Finkelstein

N. D.

(2010). Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a “smog of bias.” Physical Review Physics Education Research, 6, 1-17. doi:10.1103/physrevstper.6.020112

24.

Lindberg

D. C.

(2008). The beginnings of Western science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

25.

*Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Shea

D. L.

Eftekhari-Sanjani

Halvorson

M. B.

(2001). Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 12, 309-317. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00357

26.

Malcolm

S. M.

Hall

P. Q.

Brown

J. W.

(1976). The double bind: The price of being a minority woman in science (No. 76-R-3). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

27.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264-269. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

28.

National Science Foundation. (2015a). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2014 (NSF 16-300). Retrieved from National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics website: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/

29.

National Science Foundation. (2015b). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015 (NSF 15311). Retrieved from National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics website: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/

30.

Nobel Prize Awarded Women. (2016, March 16). Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html

31.

Noble

K. D.

Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(1996). A new model for adult female talent development: A synthesis of perspectives from remarkable women. In Arnold

Noble

K. D.

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), Remarkable women (pp. 427-439). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

32.

Nosek

B. A.

Smyth

F. L.

Sriram

Lindner

N. M.

Devos

Ayala

. . . Greenwald

A. G.

(2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593-10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106

33.

Reis

(2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research-based conception of giftedness in women. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Rosser

S. V.

(1987). Feminist scholarship in the sciences: Where are we now and when can we expect a theoretical breakthrough? Hypatia, 2, 5-17. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1987.tb01338.x

35.

Rosser

S. V.

(1995). Reaching the majority: Retaining women in the pipeline. In Rosser

S. V.

(Ed.), Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Teachers College.

36.

*Settles

I. H.

Cortina

L. M.

Malley

Stewart

A. J.

(2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47-58. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x

37.

*Smeding

(2012). Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67, 617-629. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4

38.

*Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(1995). Passing through the gates: Career establishment of talented women scientists. Roeper Review, 18, 55-61. doi:10.1080/02783199509553698

39.

*Subotnik

R. F.

Stone

K. M.

Steiner

(2001). Lost generation of elite talent in science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 33-43. doi:10.4219/jsge-2001-363

40.

*Talves

(2016). Discursive self-positioning strategies of Estonian female scientists in terms of academic career and excellence. Women’s Studies International Forum, 54, 157-166. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.007

41.

*Tate

E. D.

Linn

M. C.

(2005). How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 483-493. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-0223-1

42.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

43.

*Tirri

Koro-Ljungberg

(2002). Critical incidents in the lives of gifted female Finnish scientists. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 151-163. doi:10.4219/jsge-2002-379

44.

*Webb

R. M.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785-794. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785

Catalysts of Women’s Talent Development in STEM: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References