Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report analyzed faculty members’ perceptions of how hard they have to work at their job based on their sex and parental status, specifically in the context of science, technology, engineering,…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study summarized the role of various factors, both within and outside a university, in shaping use of the university’s parental leave policy. The authors conducted semistructured interviews in…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study examined the career perspectives and decisions of women earning doctorates in chemistry in the United States. Specifically, the study looked at the factors women considered when making…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This case study described implementation of a STEM mentoring program for female faculty at a polytechnic institution, including sucesses, challenges, and lessons learned. After each of three phases…Mentoring practices proven to broaden participation in STEM disciplines (Crumpton-Young et al. 2014)
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study identified effective mentoring practices, mostly at postsecondary institutions, for women and minority students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This article summarized current gender equity issues in career and technical education (CTE) as well as in STEM fields for high school and college students. Using findings from various other…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study explored whether U.S. students’ prior achievement in math and science contributed to higher enrollment rates for men versus women in physical science and engineering degree programs in the…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors summarized the goals, concerns, and activities of undergraduate programs for women in science and engineering. They focused on whether the programs considered individual-level concerns,…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors’ main objective was to develop recommendations for recruiting and developing female faculty in STEM disciplines. The authors conducted a series of eight focus groups with science and…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper examined whether people with high math and verbal abilities were more likely to work in STEM occupations at the age of 33 compared with people with high math but only moderate verbal…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.