Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 58, Issue 3–4, pp 251–265 | Cite as

How Undergraduate Engineering Students Perceive Women’s (and Men’s) Problems in Science, Math and Engineering

  • Harriet Hartman
  • Moshe Hartman
Original Article

Abstract

This paper compares perceptions of problems for women and men in the fields of science, math, and engineering among undergraduate engineering students surveyed at a mid-Atlantic American university over a period of 5 years. Gender differences in these perceptions are analyzed, as are changes in these perceptions over the course of the undergraduate years. Undergraduate exposure to female role models in these fields has little impact on these perceptions, but exposure to professional engineering experiences reduces the seriousness with which some problems are perceived, especially by women. While perceived problems do not seem to be related to engineering self-confidence, they are related to men’s satisfaction with engineering, and to women’s intentions to persist in the engineering field after graduation.

Keywords

Academia Gender attitudes Gender differences Stereotypes Work roles 

References

  1. Adelman, C. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analyses of undergraduate careers. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Alper, J. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, 409–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beilock, S., Rydell, R., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., & Skoog, G. (2004). Preparing undergraduate women for science careers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 24–26.Google Scholar
  5. Chao, E., & Ulgoff, K. (2005). Women in the labor force: A databook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor Women’s Bureau, Report 985.Google Scholar
  6. Clewell, B. C., & Campbell, P. B. (2002). Taking stock: Where we’ve been, where we are, where we’re going. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 255–284.Google Scholar
  7. Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology (CAWMSET) (2000). Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Washington, DC: Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development.Google Scholar
  8. Ecochard, K. (2007). Analysis: Diversifying energy’s laborers. UPI Energy Watch. Retrieved July 16, 2007 from http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis 12007107/02/analysis-diversitying-energy-laborers/5305/.
  9. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschag, M., & Uzzi, B. (1994). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266, 51–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feeney, S., & Lewis, M. (2004). Women at the top, better bottom line. Workforce Management, 83, 22.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, S. (1996). Lost talent: Women in the sciences. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2005). Undergraduate women’s participation in professional organizations. Journal of Women and Minorities in Engineering, 11, 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2006). Leaving engineering: Lessons from Rowan University’s College of Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 49–61.Google Scholar
  14. Huang, G., & Peng, S. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. Research and Development Report NCES 2000-601. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  15. Kahveci, A., Southerland, S., & Gilmer, P. (2006). Retaining undergraduate women in science, mathematics, and engineering. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 34–38.Google Scholar
  16. Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Lagesen, V. (2007). The strength of numbers: Strategies to include women into computer science. Social Studies of Science, 37, 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. MIT Computer Science Female Graduate Students and Research Staff (1983). Barriers to equality in academia: Women in computer science at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.Google Scholar
  20. National Academies of Sciences Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine (2006a). Biological, social and organizational components of success for women in academic science and engineering: Workshop report. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. National Academies of Sciences Committee on the Guide to Recruiting and Advancing Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering, National Research Council (2006b). To Recruit or to advance: Women students and faculty in science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. National Academies of Sciences Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) and Policy and Global Affairs (PGA) (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. National Science Foundation (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. Table H-7. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
  24. Rinehart, J., & Watson, K. (1998). A campus climate survey at Texas A&M University. Proceedings of the 1998 WEPAN National Conference, 93–99.Google Scholar
  25. Rusch, E. A. (2002). The [un]changing world of school leadership: From discourse to practice. In G. Perreault & F. Lunenburg (Eds.), The changing world of school administration. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.Google Scholar
  26. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thom, M. (2001). Balancing the equation: Where are women and girls in science, engineering and technology? Washington, DC: The National Council for Research on Women.Google Scholar
  28. Tonso, K. L. (1996). Engineering gender–gendering engineering: A cultural model for belonging. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 365–404.Google Scholar
  29. Van Anders, S. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51, 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyRowan UniversityGlassboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyBen-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations