‘Not to be stereotypical, but .’. Exclusive and inclusive gendered discourses about geology field experiences

References

• Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194.
   Google Scholar
• Baxter, J., & Wallace, K. (2009). Outside in-group and out-group identities? Constructing male solidarity and female exclusion in UK builders’ talk. Discourse & Society, 20(4), 411–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracken, L., & Mawdsley, E. (2004). ‘Muddy glee’: Rounding out the picture of women and physical geography fieldwork. Area, 36(3), 280–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucholtz, M. (2003). The handbook of language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 43–68). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, P., & Mattox, S. (2020). Decadal review: How gender and race of geoscientists are portrayed in physical geology textbooks. Journal of Geoscience Education, 68(1), 2–7.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journali, 40(4), 519–531.
   Web of Science ®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
• DeWelde, K. D., & Laursen, S. L. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(3), 571–595.
   Google Scholar
• Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2017). The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(May), 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyse talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods (pp. 25–38). London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis. In N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: A critical study of language (pp. 846). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_2104.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, D., & Martin-Dunlop, C. (2021). Uncovering stories of resilience among successful African American women in STEM. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-10006-8
   Google Scholar
• Frederick, A., Daniels, H. S., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2019). ‘I’ve never felt like that inhibits anything’: The gendered frameworks of Hispanic women college students in a STEM program. Gender and Education, 1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1632806
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698–727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. A., Winn, S., & Roberts, N. S. (1996). ‘Kind of in the middle’: The gendered meanings of the outdoors for women students. In Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Third Research Symposium Proceedings, Bradford Woods, Indiana.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenney, L., McGee, P., & Bhatnagar, K. (2012). Different, not deficient: The challenges women face in STEM fields. Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 28, 2–10.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Mitten, D., Gray, T., Allen-Craig, S., Loeffler, T. A., & Carpenter, C. (2018). The invisibility cloak: Women’s contributions to outdoor and environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 49(4), 318–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser, S. (2007). On disciplinary culture: Archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 235–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, K., Gallaher, C., & McCarragher, S. (2019). STEMinism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(6), 648–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nairn, K. (1996). Parties on geography fieldtrips: Embodied fieldwork? Women’s Studies Journal, 12(2), 86–97.
   Google Scholar
• Nairn, K. (1999). Embodied fieldwork. Journal of Geography, 98(6), 272–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NSF/NCSES). (2015). Earth and ocean science degrees awarded, by degree level and sex of recipient: 1966–2012. National Science Foundation, accessed October 5, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab31.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parson, L. (2016). Are STEM syllabi gendered? A feminist critical discourse analysis. Qualitative Report, 21(1), 102–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. B., & Rose, J. (2019). A critical exploration of women’s gendered experiences in outdoor leadership. Journal of Experiential Education, 42(1), 37–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittington, A. (2016). Femininity in the outdoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(3), 205–221.
   Google Scholar