Under-Representation of Women in Science: From Educational, Feminist and Scientific Views

References

• Ankney, D. C. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16, 329–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, L. (1995). U.S. women in science and engineering, 1960–1990. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 213–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen, S. (2007). Sex differences in mind: Keeping science distinct from social policy. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 159–172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bebbington, D. (2002). Women in science, engineering and technology: A review of the issues. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 360–375.
   Google Scholar
• Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buck, G. A., Plano Clark, V. L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarraga, P. (2008). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky Publications, 20, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, D. P., & Vanderwolf, C. H. (1990). A critique of Rushton on race, brain size and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 777–784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2007). Are we moving closer and closer apart? Shared evidence leads to conflicting views. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 213–236). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 275–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS, 108(8), 3157–3162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science. Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69(1), 58–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connellana, J., Baron-Cohena, S., Wheelwrighta, S., Batkia, A., & Ahluwaliab, J. (2000). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behaviour & Development, 23, 113–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbett, C., Hill, C., & St. Rose, A. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
   Google Scholar
• Danielsson, A. T. (2012). Exploring woman university physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics.” Gender and Education, 24(1), 25–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Ellemers, N., Van Den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erwin, L., & Maurutto, P. (1998). Beyond access: Considering gender deficits in science education. Gender and Education, 10(1), 51–69.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, B. (2000). The gendered subject: Students’ subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 35–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning contemporary key debates. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Jacquelynne, S., Eccels, J. S., & Barbe, B. L. (2008). Is the desire for a family-flexible job keeping young women out of male-dominated occupations? In H. M. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 195–214). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Geake, J. G., & Cooper, P. W. (2003). Implications of cognitive neuroscience for education. Westminster Studies in Education, 26(10), 7–20.
   Google Scholar
• Geary, D. C. (2007). An evolutionary perspective on sex differences in mathematics and the sciences. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 173–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its “other”: Looking underneath “woman” and science for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13(3), 291–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, J. (2002). Women and scientific employment: Current perspectives from the UK. Science Studies, 15(1), 29–45.
   Google Scholar
• Glover, J., & Fielding, J. (1999). Women and the sciences in Britain: Getting in? Journal of Education and Work, 12(1), 57–73.
   Google Scholar
• Goldenberg, S. (2005, January 18). Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president. The Guardian, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). (2013). Statistical first release 183-student enrolments and qualifications. Retrieved from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/2667/
   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
• Hoskins, K. (2013). Social context. (Lecture). London, UK: King’s College of London.
   Google Scholar
• Hyde, J. S. (2007). Women in science: Gender similarities in abilities and sociocultural forces. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 131–145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Jerison, H. J. (1982). The evolution of biological intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 216–244). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, L., & Smart, T. (1995). Confidence and mathematics: A gender issue? Gender and Education, 7, 157–165.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. (1985). The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(2), 133–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura, D. (2007). “Underrepresentation” or mirrepresentation? In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 39–46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 61–66.
   Google Scholar
• Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2007). Sex differences in personal attributes for the development of scientific expertise. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 79–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, I., & Nowosenetz, T. (2009). An exploratory study of students’ constructions of gender in science, engineering and technology. Gender and Education, 21(5), 567–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire, M. (2006). Gender and movement in social policy. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and education (pp. 109–124). London, UK: SAGE Publication LTD.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). The image of the scientist among high school students: A pilot study. Science, 126(3269), 384–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Shea, M., Heilbronner, N. N., & Reis, S. M. (2010). Characteristics of academically talented women who achieve at high levels on the scholastic achievement test–mathematics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 234–271.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science. A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phipps, A. (2002). Engineering women: The “gendering” of professional identities. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(4), 409–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, A., Dainty, A., & Bagilhole, B. (2011). A poisoned chalice? Why UK women engineering and technology students may receive more “help” than their male peers. Gender and Education, 23(5), 585–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayman, P., & Brett, B. (1995). Women science majors: What makes a difference in persistence after graduation? The Journal of Higher Education, 66(4), 388–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, A. S. (1965). Women in science: Why so few? Social and psychological influences restrict women’s choice and pursuit of careers in science. Science, 148(3674), 1196–1202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton, J. P. (1990). Race, brain size and intelligence: A rejoinder to Cain and Vanderwolf. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 785–794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(1), 21–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal, L. (2003). Thinking like a man? The cultures of science. Women: A Cultural Review, 14(1), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, E. (2011a). Staying in the science stream: Patterns of participation in A-level science subjects in the UK. Educational Studies, 37(1), 59–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. (2011b). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 993–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E., & Gorard, S. (2011). Is there a shortage of scientists? A re-analysis of supply for the UK. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 159–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (1994). The impact of double science. London, UK: The Engineering Council.
   Google Scholar
• Spelke, E. S., & Grace, A. D. (2007). Sex, math and science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 58–67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, M. (1998). Gender issues in physics education. Educational Research, 40(3), 283–293.
   Google Scholar
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Bendow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willerman, L., Rutledge, J. N., & Bigler, E. D. (1991). In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence, 15, 223–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2007). Introduction: Striving for perspective in the debate on women in science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar