This topic area focuses on programs, courses, and other interventions designed to foster interest and success among girls and women in STEM fields. CLEAR identified causal research that examined the effectiveness of these interventions and reviewed the studies against the causal guidelines.
Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM)
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1994 - 2014.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 11 - 20 of 95
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors described two programs partnering with California community colleges—the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement Community College Program (MCCP) and the CalWomen Tech Program—that…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors sought to determine whether the complexity of a mother’s occupation (or the quality of employment as defined by its task complexity, autonomy, and authority) affected her 6- to 13-year-…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study determined the impact of a four-week series of civil engineering workshops on Australian middle school girls’ perceptions of engineers and the engineering profession. The goal of the…Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence, and perspectives (Brawner & Camacho 2012)
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study explored why more women major in industrial engineering in college than other engineering fields. The authors tabulated quantitative data from eight colleges and universities in the…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine factors that affect motivation to pursue a computer and information sciences (CIS) degree, with the intention of informing strategies to increase the number of…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 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…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…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…
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.