Studies often cite climate issues in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) employment to explain the lack of diversity by gender and race. Yet, little research directly attends to gender and racial differences in the college experiences, expected family roles, and ideological beliefs about gender that create the racialized “gendered selves” graduates bring to STEM occupations. We examine the experiences and beliefs of graduating chemistry and chemical engineering majors at two U.S. universities, showing where they coalesced into intersectional gender groups whose work and family involvement and desired working conditions substantially differ. Gendered family expectations and workplace beliefs at labor market entry subsequently predict career confidence and family-based limits on job searching, both important factors affecting retention in STEM employment. We find that women at career entry are more likely to have lower confidence and more limits on their job search, though patterns differ by ethnicity. This occurs in part because both male and female graduates who report greater expected family responsibility also report lower confidence and more limits in job searching. Overall, aspirational fulfillment is easier for men whose intersectional gender identities fit the dominant STEM workplace culture, and harder for women and non-white graduates with more flexible gender ideologies and greater anticipated household responsibilities.
BeutelAnn M.BurgeStephanie W.BordenB. Ann. 2018. “Femininity and Choice of College Major.” Gender Issues; New York35(2):113–36.
2.
Blair-LoyMary. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BloodhartBrittanyBalgopalMeena M.CasperAnne Marie A.McMeekingLaura B. SampleFischerEmily V.. 2020. “Outperforming yet Undervalued: Undergraduate Women in STEM.” PLoS One15(6):e0234685.
4.
CechErin A.Blair-LoyMary. 2019. “The Changing Career Trajectories of New Parents in STEM.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116(10):4182–87.
5.
CechErin A.Blair-LoyMaryRogersLaura E.. 2018. “Recognizing Chilliness: How Schemas of Inequality Shape Views of Culture and Climate in Work Environments.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology6(1):125–60.
6.
CechErinRubineauBrianSilbeySusanSeronCaroll. 2011. “Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering.” American Sociological Review76(5):641–66.
7.
CharlesMariaBradleyKaren. 2009. “Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology114(4):924–76.
8.
ChaudharyRuchikaVerickSher. 2014. Female Labour Force Participation in India and Beyond. New Delhi: International Labour Organization.
9.
CheryanSapnaZieglerSianna A.MontoyaAmanda K.JiangLily. 2017. “Why are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced than Others?” Psychological Bulletin143(1):1–35.
10.
ColeDarnell G.EspinozaAraceli. 2009. “When Gender is Considered: Racial Ethnic Minority Students in STEM Majors.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering15(3):263–77.
11.
ColtraneScott. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
CorbettChristianneHillCatherine. 2015. Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
13.
CorrellShelley J.2001. “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments.” American Journal of Sociology106(6):1691–1730.
14.
CorrellShelley J.2004. “Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations.” American Sociological Review69(1):93–113.
15.
DesaiSreedhari D.ChughDollyBriefArthur P.. 2014. “The Implications of Marriage Structure for Men’s Workplace Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors toward Women.” Administrative Science Quarterly59(2):330–65.
16.
DiPreteThomas A.BuchmannClaudia. 2013. The Rise of Women: The Growing Gender Gap in Education and What It Means for American Schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
ElyRobin J.StonePamelaAmmermanColleen. 2014. “Rethink What You ‘Know’ About High-Achieving Women.” Harvard Business Review92(12):100–109.
18.
GersonKathleen. 2010. The Unfinished Revolution: Coming of Age in a New Era of Gender, Work, and Family. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
HandleyIan M.BrownElizabeth R.Moss-RacusinCorinne A.SmithJessi L.. 2015. “Quality of Evidence Revealing Subtle Gender Biases in Science is in the Eye of the Beholder.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(43):13201–6.
20.
HuntJennifer. 2016. “Why Do Women Leave Science and Engineering?” ILR Review69(1):199–226.
21.
IkelsCharlotte. 2004. Filial Piety: Practice and Discourse in Contemporary East Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22.
LandivarLiana C.2013. “Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin.” Education Review29(6):911–22.
23.
MannAllisonDiPreteThomas A.. 2013. “Trends in Gender Segregation in the Choice of Science and Engineering Majors.” Social Science Research42(6):1519–41.
24.
Moss-RacusinCorinne A.DovidioJohn F.BrescollVictoria L.GrahamMark J.HandelsmanJo. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109(41):16474–79.
25.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2013. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Arlington, VA: Special Report NSF 13-304. Retrieved from (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/).
26.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2019. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Alexandria, VA: Special Report NSF 19-304. Retrieved from (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd).
27.
OkamotoDinaEnglandPaula. 1999. “Is There a Supply Side to Occupational Sex Segregation?” Sociological Perspectives42(4):557–82.
28.
PennerAndrew M.WillerRobb. 2019. “Men’s Overpersistence and the Gender Gap in Science and Mathematics.” Socius5:2378023118821836.
29.
Perry-JenkinsMaureenGerstelNaomi. 2020. “Work and Family in the Second Decade of the 21st Century.” Journal of Marriage and Family82(1):420–53.
30.
Pew Research Center. 2018. Women and Men in Stem Often at Odds over Workplace Equity. Pew Research Center.
31.
QuadlinNatasha. 2020. “From Major Preferences to Major Choices: Gender and Logics of Major Choice.” Sociology of Education93(2):91–109.
32.
RaineyKatherineDancyMelissaMickelsonRoslynStearnsElizabethMollerStephanie. 2018. “Race and Gender Differences in How Sense of Belonging Influences Decisions to Major in STEM.” International Journal of STEM Education5(1):10.
33.
ReubenErnestoSapienzaPaolaZingalesLuigi. 2014. “How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(12):4403–8.
34.
RidgewayCecilia L.2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
Riegle-CrumbCatherineKingBarbaraGrodskyEricMullerChandra. 2012. “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? Prior Achievement Fails to Explain Gender Inequality in Entry into STEM College Majors Over Time.” American Educational Research Journal49(6):1048–73.
36.
RiffleRebeccaSchneiderTameraHillardAmyPolanderEmilyJacksonSarahDesAutelsPeggyWheatlyMichele. 2013. “A Mixed Methods Study of Gender, Stem Department Climate, and Workplace Outcomes.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering19(3):227–43.
37.
SakamotoArthurGoyetteKimberly A.KimChangHwan. 2009. “Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.” Annual Review of Sociology35(1):255–76.
38.
SasslerSharonGlassJenniferLevitteYaelMichelmoreKatherine M.. 2017. “The Missing Women in STEM? Assessing Gender Differentials in the Factors Associated with Transition to First Jobs.” Social Science Research63:192–208.
39.
SeronCarrollSilbeySusan S.CechErinRubineauBrian. 2016. “Persistence Is Cultural: Professional Socialization and the Reproduction of Sex Segregation.” Work and Occupations43(2):178–214.
40.
SeronCarrollSilbeySusanCechErinRubineauBrian. 2018. “‘I Am Not a Feminist, but. . .’: Hegemony of a Meritocratic Ideology and the Limits of Critique Among Women in Engineering.” Work and Occupations45(2):131–67.
41.
ShaumanKimberlee A.NoonanMary C.. 2007. “Family Migration and Labor Force Outcomes: Sex Differences in Occupational Context.” Social Forces85(4):1735–64.
42.
SinghRomilaFouadNadya A.FitzpatrickMary E.LiuJane P.CappaertKevin J.FiguereidoCatia. 2013. “Stemming the Tide: Predicting Women Engineers’ Intentions to Leave.” Journal of Vocational Behavior83(3):281–94.
43.
StevensReedAmosDanielJocunsAndrewGarrisonLari. 2007. “Engineering As Lifestyle and a Meritocracy of Difficulty: Two Pervasive Beliefs Among Engineering Students and Their Possible Effects.” Paper Presented at 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition, June 24, Honolulu, Hawaii. doi:10.18260/1-2--2791.
44.
ThébaudSarahCharlesMaria. 2018. “Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM.” Social Sciences7(7):111.
45.
ThébaudSarahTaylorCatherine J.. 2021. “The Specter of Motherhood: Culture and the Production of Gendered Career Aspirations in Science and Engineering.” Gender & Society35(3):395–421.
46.
WatanabeTeresaLuJennifer. 2020. “Affirmative Action Divides Asian Americans, UC’s Largest Overrepresented Student Group.” Los Angeles Times, November1.
47.
WintersKatherine E.MatusovichHolly M.BrunhaverSamantha R.. 2014. “Recent Engineering Graduates Making Career Choices: Family Matters.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering20(4):294–316.
48.
XieYuKillewaldAlexandra A.. 2012. Is American Science in Decline?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
