scholarly journals The Effect of Gender on Attributions for Women’s Anxiety and Doubt in a Science Narrative

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gili Freedman ◽  
Melanie C. Green ◽  
Mary Flanagan ◽  
Kaitlin Fitzgerald ◽  
Geoff Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
Stereotype Threat ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Women In Science ◽  
Women In Stem ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Experiences Of Women ◽  
Undergraduate Men

Although the effect of biases and stereotype threat on women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields is well documented, less is known about how men and women attribute an undergraduate woman’s anxieties in a STEM class. We examined how undergraduate men and women perceive a woman facing emotional struggles in a physics class (Study 1, N = 309; Study 2, N = 271) and having her contributions ignored in an environmental science class (Study 3, N = 344) in three studies and an internal meta-analysis. Across the studies and meta-analysis, we found gender differences in reactions to the stories. Men were less likely than women to attribute the student’s anxiety to bias-related factors, such as awareness of stereotypes or instructor treatment, and more likely than women to attribute the anxiety to the student’s lack of preparation. Women were more likely to view the narratives as reflecting real-life experiences of women in STEM. The results indicate a lack of awareness, on the part of undergraduate men, of the difficulties faced by women in STEM classes. Based on the current findings, educators and researchers should consider the role that gender plays in how women’s emotional responses in STEM contexts are interpreted. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684318754528

scholarly journals Trust your Abilities More than the Stereotype: Effect of Gender-stereotype Threat and Task Difficulty on Word Production, Clustering, and Switching in Letter Fluency

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Wulandari Wulandari ◽  
Donny Hendrawan
Keyword(s):  
Stereotype Threat ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Educational Level ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Gender Stereotype ◽  
Cognitive Tasks ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Undergraduate Men ◽  
And Task

Gender-stereotype threat consistently accounts for underperformance phenomena experienced by women on male-stereotyped cognitive tasks. However, only a few studies have examined how the threat is affecting performance on female-stereotyped cognitive tasks, such as letter fluency. The present study examined whether variations in the cues to activate stereotype threat and the level of task difficulty would affect the letter fluency performance of undergraduate men and women (<em>n</em> = 168) and the underlying cognitive processes of this performance (i.e., switching, clustering). The results indicated participants held beliefs about women&rsquo;s superiority in this task. However, threat-activation cues did not affect production of correct words, errors, clustering, or switching in men and women. Task difficulty affected the number of correct words, yet it did not interact with the stereotype threat-activation cues. Finally, participants&rsquo; actual performance was related to their self-rating perception about their ability instead of the stereotyping they perceived. The effect of self-efficacy, educational level, and individuals&rsquo; susceptibilities should be taken into account when studying the effects of stereotype threat.

Women in STEM/SET: gender gap research review of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Patterson ◽  
Damodharan Sowmya Varadarajan ◽  
Beena Saji Salim
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Gender Discrimination ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Women In Science ◽  
Research Review ◽  
Women In Stem ◽  
Stem Careers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
And Gender

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a meta-analysis of existing research on gender discrimination/gender gap and women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in the UAE, specifically, and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in general because of very limited number of articles published on the subject. It will give future researchers insights into the topics, methodologies and findings of such research from 1999–2019. Design/methodology/approach This study conducts a meta-analysis of 72 articles using the Wildcard operator search method and the Boolean operator to perform an integrative literature search related to gender discrimination studies done in relationship to or specific to the UAE. Findings In total, 88 papers related to the UAE and gender gap and women were identified. The articles were narrowed down to the ones published in high-ranked or Scopus journals (72). The findings suggest a decreasing trend in gender discrimination, but the issue still persists, requiring efforts from policy-makers, society and government to ensure gender parity is achieved. Academic research on women in STEM/SET workplace, specific to the UAE and the region, continue to slowly advance, with very few articles published in the same. Practical implications The study provides insights into gender gap research done in the past ten years specific to the UAE national women and gender gap in general and their career choices and prospects in the STEM/SET domain. Social implications There is a need to focus research on Emirati women in STEM careers to develop more insights into gender gap perceptions of Emirati women and identify challenges and methods to close the gender gap in STEM careers. Originality/value This paper brings a holistic perspective to the meta-analysis of research on the gender gap and women in the UAE’s STEM domain.

Professors Who Signal a Fixed Mindset About Ability Undermine Women’s Performance in STEM

2021 ◽  
pp. 194855062110303
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Canning ◽  
Elise Ozier ◽  
Heidi E. Williams ◽  
Rashed AlRasheed ◽  
Mary C. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Field Study ◽  
Stereotype Threat ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Growth Mindset ◽  
Longitudinal Field ◽  
Women In Stem ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Fixed Mindset ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Course Syllabus

Two studies investigate how science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professors’ fixed mindsets—the belief that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable—may induce stereotype threat and undermine women’s performance. In an experiment ( N = 217), we manipulated professors’ mindset beliefs (fixed vs. growth) within a course syllabus. While both men and women perceived the fixed mindset professor to endorse more gender stereotypes and anticipated feeling less belonging in the course, women reported these effects more than men. However, only for women did this threat undermine performance. In a 2-year longitudinal field study (884 students enrolled in 46 STEM courses), students who perceived their professor to endorse a fixed (vs. growth) mindset thought the professor would endorse more gender stereotypes and experienced less belonging in those courses. However, only women’s grades in those courses suffered as a result. Together, these studies demonstrate that professors’ fixed mindset beliefs may trigger stereotype threat among women in STEM courses.

Role Models for Mobile Women Scientists

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira Didenkulova ◽  
Gianna Avellis
Keyword(s):  
Young Women ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Women Scientists ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Women In Science ◽  
Women In Stem ◽  
Wide Range

&lt;p&gt;The need of Role Models is one of the basic needs in our lives, and should be ensured and followed especially when one is thinking of undertaking a challenge. At different stages of our life and career we face different challenges and each of them needs a separate Role Model. The main message which comes from these Role Models is &amp;#8220;You are not alone. I have done it as well. It&amp;#8217;s doable.&amp;#8221; Therefore, when talking about Role Models for Women in Science, it is important to cover the whole spectrum of different challenges women face during different stage of their career. The need for Role Models has been understood by the society and reflected in the recent literature (see, Howes and Herzenberg, 2015; McCullough, 2016; Calvin, 2017) and in datasets, such as AcademiaNet https://www.academia-net.org/, which is a European database listing outstanding women researchers in Germany. However, they are mostly focused on outstanding women academics, which are at the peak of their career, while young women need Role Models throughout the whole career and especially in its beginning. Role Models for early-career, middle-career and senior scientists may be different. Therefore, we think it is important to talk about Role Models at different stages of their career, and to show the whole wide range of challenges women face and to respond them by their stories.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In our project we focus on one such challenge, which is mobility of women scientists. Mobility support for women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) career is an increasingly important issue in today&amp;#8217;s world. Cutting edge research tends to be undertaken via international collaboration, often within networks built up by moving to a new country. In addition, many of today&amp;#8217;s funding opportunities are geared towards international cooperation. This topic is a bit overlooked by the society, while it is clear that mobility is gender sensitive especially for families with small kids. We have undertaken a Women Networking and Mobility project which is funded under the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Alumni award, to address the issues above. The project focus is specifically on the networking of women in STEM paying special interest to their mobility, and should provide mentoring support to those women who do or plan to do their research abroad. In order to support women and especially early career scientists who do or plan their research abroad, we published three books and created a database of corresponding Role Models. Our Role Models are at different stages of their career from PhD studies to professorship and they represent &amp;#8220;real life&amp;#8221; Role Models, which satisfies the need especially of young women. The latter means that they do not need to be outstanding in terms of winning Nobel Prize or ERC Synergy or Advanced Grant, but rather be successful in their research and achieve healthy work-life balance. We hope their stories and experience will support and inspire the young female scientists in their academic career.&lt;/p&gt;

Navigating the Gendered Math Path

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-174
Author(s):  
Christina D. Weber ◽  
Angie Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Gender Norms ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Doing Gender ◽  
Women In Stem ◽  
Stem Fields ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Male Dominated ◽  
Mathematics Coursework

Using dialogues with our informants, as well as with each other, we explore how the men and women in our research make it through their mathematics coursework and, in turn, pursue their intended majors. Our research focuses on how students navigate what we call the gendered math path and how that path conforms to and diverges from traditional gender norms. Common themes of women's lower than men's self-perception of their ability to do mathematics, along with the divergent processes of doing gender that emerged in men's and women's discussions of their application of mathematics, reminded us of the continued struggles that women have to succeed in male-dominated academic disciplines. Although self-perception helps us understand why there are fewer women in STEM fields, it is important to understand how different forms of application of ideas might add to the diversity of what it means to do good science.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for chronic post-surgical pain after lung or pleural surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051554
Author(s):  
Pascal Richard David Clephas ◽  
Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks ◽  
Marialena Trivella ◽  
Christian S Guay ◽  
Preet Mohinder Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Surgical Pain ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Chronic Post Surgical Pain

IntroductionChronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after lung or pleural surgery is a common complication and associated with a decrease in quality of life, long-term use of pain medication and substantial economic costs. An abundant number of primary prognostic factor studies are published each year, but findings are often inconsistent, methods heterogeneous and the methodological quality questionable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed to summarise the evidence.Methods and analysisThe reporting of this protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include retrospective and prospective studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting patient-related factors and surgery-related factors for any adult population. Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report on prognostic factors for CPSP after lung or pleural surgery. We will exclude case series, case reports, literature reviews, studies that do not report results for lung or pleural surgery separately and studies that modified the treatment or prognostic factor based on pain during the observation period. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar and relevant literature reviews will be searched. Independent pairs of two reviewers will assess studies in two stages based on the PICOTS criteria. We will use the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool for the quality assessment and the CHARMS-PF checklist for the data extraction of the included studies. The analyses will all be conducted separately for each identified prognostic factor. We will analyse adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures separately. When possible, evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis and otherwise narratively. We will quantify heterogeneity by calculating the Q and I2 statistics. The heterogeneity will be further explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on clinical knowledge. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline 28.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be necessary, as all data are already in the public domain. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021227888.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document