Research on the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) “pipeline” has charted the loss of potential STEM talent throughout students’ secondary and postsecondary trajectories. One source of STEM talent loss that has been commonly suggested throughout the literature is the lack of family friendly flexibility in STEM careers. This explanation has been offered as a reason why women are underrepresented in the STEM fields. We test this thesis using original survey data collected from 3,229 college students at each of the 16 North Carolina public universities. Our results indicate that a concern for the potential inflexibility of one’s future career is associated with a decreased likelihood of majoring in the “hard” STEM fields (physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics). However, we did not find gender differences in this effect, suggesting that men and women who are concerned with the family flexibility of their future career are equally likely to be deterred from STEM.
AhujaM. K.2002. “Women in the Information Technology Profession: A Literature Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda.”European Journal of Information Systems11:20–34.
2.
ArumRichardRoksaJosipa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BalAmita S.2010. “A Study on the Perception of Work-life Balance Policies among Software Professionals.”The IUP Journal of Management Research9(2):51–79.
5.
BergPeterKallebergArne L.AppelbaumEileen. 2003. “Balancing Work and Family: The Role of High-commitment Environments.”Industrial Relations42(2):168–88.
BianchiSuzanne M.MilkieMelissa A.SayerLiana C.RobinsonJohn P.2000. “Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.”Social Forces79(1):191–228.
8.
BianchiSuzanne M.RobinsonJohn P.MilkieMelissa A.2006. The Changing Rhythm of American Family Life. New York: Russell Sage.
9.
BianchiSuzanne M.SayerLiana C.MilkieMelissa A.RobinsonJohn P.2012. “Housework: Who Did, Does or Will Do It, and How Much Does it Matter?”Social Forces91(1):55–63.
10.
BilefskyDan. 2015. “Comments on Women in the Lab Spur Outcry.”New York Times. June12, p. A4.
11.
BittmanMichaelWajcmanJudy. 2000. “The Rush Hour: The Character of Leisure Time and Gender Equity.”Social Forces79:165–89.
12.
Blair-LoyMary. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Blair-LoyMaryWhartonAmy S.2002. “Employees’ Use of Work-family Policies and the Workplace Social Context.”Social Forces80(3):813–45.
14.
BlickenstaffJacob C.2005. “Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter?”Gender and Education17(4):369–86.
15.
BrewsterKarin L.PadavicIrene. 2000. “Change in Gender-ideology, 1977–1996: The Contributions of Intracohort Change and Population Turnover.”Journal of Marriage and Family62(2):477–87.
16.
ByronKristin. 2005. “A Meta-analytic Review of Work-family Conflict and Its Antecedents.”Journal of Vocational Behavior67(2):169–98.
17.
CallisterRonda R.2006. “The Impact of Gender and Department Climate on Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit for Faculty in Science and Engineering Fields.”The Journal of Technology Transfer31:367–75.
18.
CarenNeal. 2013. “The Major Pipeline: Linking College Majors to Occupations.” Retrieved August21, 2015 (http://www.unc.edu/~ncaren/majors/).
CassadyJerrell C.2001. “Self-reported GPA and SAT: A Methodological Note.”Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation7(12). Retrieved August21, 2015 (http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12).
21.
CechErin A.Blair-LoyMary. 2014. “Consequences of Flexibility Stigma among Academic Scientists and Engineers.”Work and Occupations41(1):86–110.
22.
CeciStephen J.WilliamsWendy M.BarnettSusan M.2009. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.”Psychological Bulletin135(2):218–61.
23.
ChapaJorgeDe La RosaBelinda. 2006. “The Problematic Pipeline: Demographic Trends and Latino Participation in Graduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs.”Journal of Hispanic Higher Education5(3):203–21.
24.
CharlesMariaBradleyKaren. 2009. “Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.”American Journal of Sociology114(4):924–76.
25.
ColeJames S.GonyeaRobert M.2010. “Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores: Implications for Research.”Research in Higher Education51(4):305–19.
26.
ColtraneScott. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work.”Journal of Marriage and Family62:1208–33.
27.
CookColleenHeathFredThompsonRussel L.2000. “A Meta-analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-based Surveys.”Educational and Psychological Measurement60(6):821–36.
28.
CoserLewis A.1974. Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York: Free Press.
29.
CrossChristineLinehanMargaret. 2006. “Barriers to Advancing Female Careers in the High-tech Sector: Empirical Evidence from Ireland.”Women in Management Review21(1):28–39.
30.
DaempflePeter A.2003. “An Analysis of the High Attrition Rates among First Year College Science, Math, and Engineering Majors.”Journal of College Student Retention5(1):37–52.
31.
DavisAmy E.KallebergArne. 2006. “Family-friendly Organizations? Work and Family Programs in the 1990s.”Work and Occupations33(2):191–223.
32.
DavisJames A.1985. The Logic of Causal Order. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33.
De WeldeKrisLaursenSandra L.2011. “The Glass Obstacle Course: Informal and Formal Barriers for Women Ph.D. Students in STEM Fields.”International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology3(3):572–95.
34.
EnglandPaula. 2010. “The Gender Revolution Uneven and Stalled.”Gender & Society24(2):149–66.
35.
EtzkowitzHenryKemelgorCarolUzziBrian. 2000. Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
FanPi-LingMariniMargaret Mooney. 2000. “Influences on Gender-role Attitudes during the Transition to Adulthood.”Social Science Research29:258–83.
37.
FriedmanSarah. 2015. “Still a ‘Stalled Revolution?’ Work/Family Experiences, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Moving toward Gender Equality.”Sociology Compass9(2):140–55.
38.
FuhrmannCynthia N.HalmeD. G.O’SullivanP. S.LindstaedtB.2011. “Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline: Recommendations Based on a Survey of Doctoral Students in the Basic Biomedical Sciences.”CBE-Life Sciences Education10(3):239–49.
GardnerSusan K.2012. “‘I Couldn’t Wait to Leave the Toxic Environment’: A Mixed Methods Study of Women Faculty Satisfaction and Departure from One Research Institution.”NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education5(1):71–95.
41.
GershunyJonathan. 2000. Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Postindustrial Society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
42.
GillJudithSharpRhondaMillsJulieFranzwaySuzanne. 2008. “I Still Wanna Be an Engineer! Women, Education and the Engineering Profession.”European Journal of Engineering Education33(4):391–402.
43.
GlasmanLaura R.AlbarracinDolores. 2006. “Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A Meta-analysis of the Attitude-behavior Relation.”Psychological Bulletin132:778–822.
44.
GoldenLonnie. 2001. “Flexible Work Schedules: Which Workers Get Them?”American Behavioral Scientist44(7):1157–78.
45.
GoodsteinJerry D.1994. “Institutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness: Employer Involvement in Work-family Issues.”Academy of Management Journal37(2):350–82.
HillCatherineCorbettChristianneSt. RoseAndresse. 2010. “Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.”American Association of University Women. Retrieved August21, 2015 (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509653.pdf).
48.
HillE. JeffreyGrzywaczJoseph G.AllenSarahBlanchardVictoria L.Matz-CostaChristinaShulkinSandeePitt-CatsouphesMarcie. 2008. “Defining and Conceptualizing Workplace Flexibility.”Community, Work & Family11(2):149–63.
49.
HochschildArlieMachungAnne. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. New York: Penguin Books.
50.
JacobsJerry A.GersonKathleen. 2004. The Time Divide: Work, Family and Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
JamesAl. 2011. “Work-life (Im) ‘Balance’ and its Consequences for Everyday Learning and Innovation in the New Economy: Evidence from the Irish IT Sector.”Gender, Place & Culture18(5):655–84.
52.
KanwarY.SinghA.KodwaniA.2009. “Work-life Balance and Burnout as Predictors of Job Satisfaction in the IT-ITES Industry.”Vision13(2):1–12.
53.
KeeneJennifer ReidQuadagnoJill. 2004. “Predictors of Perceived Work-family Balance: Gender Difference or Gender Similarity?”Sociological Perspectives47(1):1–23.
54.
KonradAlison M.RitchieJ. EdgarLiebPamelaCorrigallElizabeth. 2000. “Sex Differences and Similarities in Job Attribute Preferences: A Meta-analysis.”Psychological Bulletin126(4):593–641.
55.
KurdekLawrence A.1993. “The Allocation of Household Labor in Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Married Couples.”Journal of Social Issues49(3):127–39.
56.
MariniMargaret MooneyFanPi-LingFinleyEricaBeutelAnn M.1996. “Gender and Job Values.”Sociology of Education69(1):49–65.
57.
MasonMary AnnGouldenMarc. 2002. “Do Babies Matter? The Effects of Family Formation on the Lifelong Careers of Academic Men and Women.”Academe, November-December2002. Retrieved August21, 2015 (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/ND/Feat/Maso.htm).
58.
MatonKenneth I.HrabowskiFreeman A.2004. “Increasing the Number of African American PhDs in the Sciences and Engineering: A Strengths-based Approach.”American Psychologist59(6):547–56.
59.
McIlweeJudith SamsonRobinsonJ. Gregg. 1992. Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
60.
MilkieMelissa A.RaleySara B.BianchiSuzanne M.2009. “Taking on the Second Shift: Time Allocations and Time Pressures of U.S. Parents with Preschoolers.”Social Forces88(2):487–517.
61.
MorganStephen L.GelbgiserDafnaWeedenKim A.2013. “Feeding the Pipeline: Gender, Occupational Plans, and College Major Selection.”Social Science Research42(4):989–1005.
National Science Foundation. 2012. “Higher Education in Science and Engineering: Undergraduate Education, Enrollment, and Degrees in the United States.”Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Retrieved August21, 2015 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/c02.pdf).
64.
OngMariaWrightCarolEspinosaLorelle L.OrfieldGary. 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 Review81(2):172–209.
65.
PowellGary N.GreenhausJeffrey H.2010. “Sex, Gender, and Decisions at the Family → Work Interface.”Journal of Management36(4):1011–39.
ScholariosDoraMarksAbigail. 2004. “Work-life Balance and the Software Worker.”Human Resource Management Journal14(2):54–74.
71.
SchorJuliet. 1992. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.
72.
SettlesIsis H.CortinaLilia M.MalleyJanetStewartAbigail J.2006. “The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable.”Psychology of Women Quarterly30(1):47–58.
73.
SeylerDian L.MonroePamela A.GarandJames C.1995. “Balancing Work and Family: The Role of Employer-supported Child Care Benefits.”Journal of Family Issues16(2):170–93.
74.
SeymourElaine. 1992. “‘The Problem Iceberg’ in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education: Student Explanations for High Attrition Rates.”Journal of College Science Teaching21(4):230–38.
75.
ShuXiaolingMariniMargaret Mooney. 1998. “Gender-related Change in Occupational Aspirations.”Sociology of Education71(1):43–67.
76.
SolomonSondra E.RothblumEsther D.BalsamKimberly F.2005. “Money, Housework, Sex, and Conflict: Same-sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings.”Sex Roles52(9–10):561–75.
77.
StearnsElizabethMickelsonRoslynMollerStephanieBottiaMartha C.2013. “Training Tool and Codebook ROOTS of STEM: A Dataset on Students Who Attended North Carolina Public Schools, Grades 6 through 16.” Unpublished document. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Roots of STEM.
78.
SubotnikRena F.TaiRobert H.RickoffRochelleAlmarodeJohn. 2009. “Specialized Public High Schools of Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Technology and the STEM Pipeline. What Do We Know Now and What Will We Know in 5 Years?”Roeper Review32(1):7–16.
79.
SullivanTeresa A.2014. “Greedy Institutions, Overwork, and Work-life Balance.”Sociological Inquiry84(1):1–15.
80.
ThompsonCynthia A.BeauvaisLaura L.LynessKaren S.1999. “When Work-family Benefits Are Not Enough: The Influence of Work-family Culture on Benefit Utilization, Organizational Attachment, and Work-family Conflict.”Journal of Vocational Behavior54(3):392–415.
81.
TysonWillLeeReginaldBormanKathryn M.HansonMary A.2007. “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment.”Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk12(3):243–70.
82.
VaiseyStephen. 2009. “Motivation and Justification: A Dual-process Model of Culture in Action.”American Journal of Sociology114(6):1675–715.
83.
van AndersSari M.2004. “Why the Academic Pipeline Leaks: Fewer Men than Women Perceive Barriers to Becoming Professors.”Sex Roles51(9–10):511–21.
84.
WilliamsJoan C.Blair-LoyMaryBerdahlJennifer L.2013. “Cultural Schemas, Social Class, and the Flexibility Stigma.”Journal of Social Issues69(2):209–34.
85.
XieYueShaumanKimberlee A.2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
86.
XuYue. 2008. “Gender Disparity in STEM Disciplines: A Study of Faculty Attrition and Turnover Intentions,”Research in Higher Education49(7):607–24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
