Sapna Cheryan, Ella J. Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N. H. Pham, Katherine Weltzien
{"title":"Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and explanations for their persistence","authors":"Sapna Cheryan, Ella J. Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N. H. Pham, Katherine Weltzien","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Women and girls are underrepresented in many, though not all, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields around the world. In this Review, we describe four key factors that help explain the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM. In many parts of the world, women lack access to education and job opportunities, preventing them from pursuing STEM. In places where women do have educational and professional opportunities, masculine cultures — shaped by both masculine defaults and differential treatment — can hinder entry and retention of women in STEM fields. Addressing masculine cultures is important to increase the representation of women, and research has identified multiple promising avenues for intervention. When masculine cultures remain, gender disparities can be reduced by increasing the positive experiences of women and girls in STEM. Finally, choices made by men to enter some STEM fields also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these fields. We conclude by reviewing promising future directions for research on gender disparities in STEM, including examining the intersections of these factors, sociopolitical and economic contexts, and the experiences of trans and non-binary individuals and people with multiple marginalized identities in STEM. Women remain underrepresented in some STEM fields throughout much of the world. In this Review, Cheryan and colleagues discuss four factors that might explain this underrepresentation — access to education and employment, masculine cultures, insufficient positive experiences, and men’s choices — and interventions that might help reduce these disparities.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"4 1","pages":"6-19"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature reviews psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-024-00380-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Women and girls are underrepresented in many, though not all, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields around the world. In this Review, we describe four key factors that help explain the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM. In many parts of the world, women lack access to education and job opportunities, preventing them from pursuing STEM. In places where women do have educational and professional opportunities, masculine cultures — shaped by both masculine defaults and differential treatment — can hinder entry and retention of women in STEM fields. Addressing masculine cultures is important to increase the representation of women, and research has identified multiple promising avenues for intervention. When masculine cultures remain, gender disparities can be reduced by increasing the positive experiences of women and girls in STEM. Finally, choices made by men to enter some STEM fields also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these fields. We conclude by reviewing promising future directions for research on gender disparities in STEM, including examining the intersections of these factors, sociopolitical and economic contexts, and the experiences of trans and non-binary individuals and people with multiple marginalized identities in STEM. Women remain underrepresented in some STEM fields throughout much of the world. In this Review, Cheryan and colleagues discuss four factors that might explain this underrepresentation — access to education and employment, masculine cultures, insufficient positive experiences, and men’s choices — and interventions that might help reduce these disparities.