STEMinism

References

• Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brotman, J., & Moore, F. (2007). Girls and science. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 45, 971–1002.
   Google Scholar
• Bruning, M., Bystydzienski, J., & Eisenhart, M. (2015). Intersectionality as a framework for understanding diverse young women’s commitment to engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 21, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 474–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnegie Mellon University. (2016). CMU’s proportion of undergraduate women in computer science and engineering soars above national averages. Retreived from https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2016/september/undergrad-women-engineering-computer-science.html.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, V., Beachner, M., & Daugherty, M. (2015). Family and consumer sciences and STEM integration. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 107, 55–58.
   Google Scholar
• Cech, E., & Blair-Loy, M. (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social Problems, 57(3), 371–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S., Williams, W., & Barnett, S. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw‐a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, R. W. (1997). Gender politics for men. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17, 62–77.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A., & Greenwald, A. (2011). Math–Gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766–779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, S., Amelink, C., Hirt, J., & Miyazaki, Y. (2012). Women’s educational opportunities: Factors that influence their graduate school aspirations. NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education, 5, 141–165.
   Google Scholar
• Demantas, I., & Myers, K. (2015). Step up and be a man in a different manner:” Unemployed men re-framing masculinity. The Sociological Quarterly, 56, 640–664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., & Nikiforova, I. (2011). Programs for undergraduate women in science and engineering. Gender & Society, 25, 589–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner, K. (2012). Giving women the access code. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/giving-women-the-access-code.html
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few: Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
   Google Scholar
• Jarman, J., Blackburn, R., & Racko, G. (2012). The dimensions of occupational gender segregation in industrial countries. Sociology, 46(6), 1003–1019.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, S., Aronis, J., Wilson, C., Allbritton, D., & Soffa, M. L. (2006). Traversing the undergraduate curriculum in computer science: Where do students stumble?. In J. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 351–374). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leaper, C., & Arias, D. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leuze, K., & Strauss, S. (2016). Why do occupations dominated by women pay less? Work, Employment and Society, 30, 802–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, A. (2010). The shifting supply of men and women to occupations: Feminization in veterinary education. Social Forces, 88, 1969–1998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorde, A. (2015). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In C. Moraga & G. Anzaldua (Eds.), This bridge called my back (pp. 94–97). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2003). Geek mythology. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 23, 17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, K., & Demantas, I. (2016). Breadwinning and bread-losing: Exploring opportunities to re-work manhood. Sociology Compass, 10, 1119–1130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B., & Smyth, F. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reskin, B. (1988). Bringing the men back in. Gender & Society, 2, 58–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reskin, B. (1993). Sex-segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reskin, B., McBrier, D., & Kmec, J. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riegle-Crumb, C, & Humphries, M. (2012). Exploring bias in math teachers’ perceptions of students’ ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gender & Society, 26, 290–322. doi:10.1177/0891243211434614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risman, B. (2018). Where the millennials will take us. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seron, C., Silbey, S., Cech, E., & Rubineau, B. (2018). “I am not a feminist, but….:” Hegemony of a meritocratic ideology and the limits of critique among women in engineering. Work and Occupations, 45, 131–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sportelli, N. (2016). The 13 most important STEM colleges for women. Forbes.com. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliesportelli/2016/03/29/13-best-value-stem-colleges-for-women/#572da7887686.
   Google Scholar
• Stout, J., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., & Madison, G. (2017). Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence. Intelligence, 63, 78–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waitt, G. (2005). Doing discourse analysis. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography (pp. 163–191). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, C., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2012). Gendered organizations in the new economy. Gender & Society, 26, 549–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zucker, A. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar