The present study examines the five principles of the life course perspective—life span development, time and place, agency, timing, and linked lives—and their interplay on the experiences of 26 emerging adults (11 males and 15 females) during their transition from college completion into the STEM labor force in Spain. Findings derived from the in-depth interviews focus on the multilevel challenges these young people face and the set of strategies they develop to overcome them. From a gender perspective, the challenges reveal the structural inequalities (many associated with existing gender stereotypes) that women encounter throughout their educational and professional trajectory. The research also identifies how these women and men display agentic features (at a micro-level) and mobilize different types of networks (at a meso-level) to overcome this adverse structural context, especially, during the economic post-crisis in Spain.
AlwinD. F.McCammonR. J. (2003). Generations, cohorts, and social change. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 23–49). Springer.
2.
BarkerL. J.AspreyW. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In CohoonJ. M.AsprayW. (Eds.). Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 3–54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
3.
BensonJ. E.BougakovaA. (2018). Kin networks and mobility in the transition to adulthood. In BensonJ. E. (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 54, pp. 259–282). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2017.10.004
4.
BynnerJ. (2016). Institutionalization of life course studies. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J.JohnsonM. K. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 27–58). Springer International Publishing.
5.
CarrascoC.BorderíasC.TornsT. (2019). El trabajo de cuidados. Historia, teoría y políticas [Care work. History, theory and politics]. Cataratas.
CheryanS.ZieglerS. A.MontoyaA. K.JiangL. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
8.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
9.
CrockettM. (2002). Inquiry as professional development: Creating dilemmas through teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 609–624.
10.
CrouchM.McKenzieH. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584
11.
DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
12.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
13.
EaglyA. H. (2001). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities. In WorellJ. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender. Academic Press.
14.
EcclesJ. S. (2007a). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-016
15.
EcclesJ. S. (2007b). Families, schools, and developing achievement-related motivations and engagement. In GrusecJ. E.HastingsP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 665–691). Guilford Press.
EcclesJ. S.BarberB.JozefowiczD. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In SwannW. B.LangloisJ. H.GilbertL. A. (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 153–192). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10277-007
18.
ElderG. H.GeorgeL. K. (2016). Age, cohorts, and the life course. In ShanahanM.MortimerJ.Kirkpatrick JohnsonM., (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer.
19.
ElderG. H.JrKirkpatrickJ. M.CrosnoeR. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (p. 3–19). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing.
20.
GauthierA. H.KotowskaI. E.Vono de VilhenaD. (2018). Gender (In)equality over the life course. Discussion Paper No. 10. Max Planck Society/Population Europe.
21.
GecasV. (2003). Self-agency and the life course. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 369–388). Springer.
22.
GierynT. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496.
23.
GonzálezS.Mateos de CaboR.SáinzM. (2020). Girls in STEM: Is It a Female Role-Model Thing?Frontiers in Psychology11:2204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
24.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
25.
HagestadG. O.DykstraP. (2016). Structuration of the life course: Some neglected aspects. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J.JohnsonM. K. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 131–157). Springer Science.
26.
HeinzW.R. (2003). From work trajectories to negotiated careers. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer.
27.
HuffJ. L.SmithJ. A.JesiekB. K.ZoltowskiC. B.OakesW. C. (2019). Identity in engineering adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 7(6), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818780444
28.
HughesR. M.NzekweB.MolyneauxK. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9345-7
KariyaT.RosenbaumJ. E. (2003). Stratified incentives and life course behaviors. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer.
31.
LeaperC.FarkasT. (2014). The socialization of gender during childhood and adolescence. In GrusecJ.HastingsP. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 541–565). Guilford.
32.
LeaperC.FarkasT.BrownC. S. (2011). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z
33.
Lena-DickeA.SafavianN.EcclesJ. S. (2019). Traditional gender role beliefs and career attainment in STEM: A gendered story?Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–14. Frontiers Media. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053
34.
MasterA.MeltzoffA. (2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology, 12(1), 152–198.
35.
MichelmoreK.SasslerS. (2017). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter?Russell Sage Found Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 194. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.4.07
36.
MiguélezF.TornsT. (1998). Introducción al análisis del trabajo y de la vida cotidiana [Introduction for the analysis of work and daily life]. Papers: Revista de Sociologia, 55, 9–25.
37.
MoenP. (2011). From ‘work–family’ to the ‘gendered life course’ and ‘fit’: Five challenges to the field. Community, Work & Family, 14(1), 81–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2010.532661
38.
MortimerJ. T.MoenP. (2016). The changing social construction of age and the life course: Precarious identity and enactment of ‘early’ and ‘encore’ adulthood. In ShanahanM.MortimerJ. T.JohnsonM. K. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 111–129). Springer.
39.
Perez-FelknerL. (2013). Socialization in childhood and adolescence. In DeLamaterJ.WardA. (Eds.), Handbooks of sociology and social research. Handbook of social psychology (p. 119–149). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_5
40.
PutneyN. M.BengtsonV. L. (2003). Intergenerational relations in changing times. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 149–164). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
41.
ReinkingA.MartinB. (2018). The gender gap in STEM fields: Theories, movements, and ideas to engage girls in STEM. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2), 148–153. ISSN: 2254-7339https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.7.271
42.
RobinsonR. V.JacksonE. F. (2001). Is trust in others declining in America? An age-period-cohort analysis. Social Science Research, 30, 117–145.
43.
RobnettR. D.NelsonP. A.ZurbriggenE. L.CrosbyF. JChemersM. M. (2018). Research mentoring and scientist identity: Insights from undergraduates and their mentors. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(41). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0139-y
44.
SáinzM.ArroyoL.CastañoC. (2020). Mujeres y digitalización. De las brechas a los algoritmos [Women and digitalization. From gaps to algorithms]. Instituto de la Mujer. https://doi.org/10.30923/MujDigBreAlg-2020
45.
SáinzM.Martínez-CantosJ. L.Rodó-de-ZárateM.RomanoM. J.ArroyoL.FàbreguesS. (2019). Young Spanish people’s gendered representations of people working in STEM. A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(996). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00996
46.
SáinzM.EcclesJ. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.005
47.
SáinzM.UpadyayaK. (2016). Accuracy and bias in Spanish secondary school students’ self-concept of math ability: The influence of gender and parental educational level. International, Journal of Educational Research, 77, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.02.009
SandelowskiM. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1):77–84.
50.
SasslerS.GlassG.LevitteY.MichelmoreK. M. (2017). 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
51.
SchreierM. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.
52.
SetterstenR. A. (2003). Age structuring and the rhythm of the life course. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer.
SteinkeJ. (2017). Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 716. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716
55.
UhlenbergP.MuellerM. (2003). Family context and individual well-being. In MortimerJ. T.ShanahanM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 123–148) Kluwer Academic.
VerdJ. M.BarrancoO.BolíbarM. (2019). Youth unemployment and employment trajectories in spain during the great recession: What are the determinants?Journal for Labour Market Research, 53(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-019-0254-3
60.
WangM. T.YeY.DegolJ. L. (2017). Who chooses STEM Careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 46, 1805–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8
Zapata-GietlC. E.RosenbaumJ. E.AhearnC.BeckerK. I. (2016). College for all: New institutional conflicts in the transition to adulthood. In ShanahanM. J.MortimerJ. T.Kirkpatrick JohnsonM (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 201–221). (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). Springer International Publishing.
