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 21 - 30 of 95
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
The article discussed how career counselors can use social cognitive career theory (SCCT), a theory that one’s background and characteristics influence self-efficacy and ultimately career choice, to…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…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper was a literature review of research about gender differences in STEM education levels and careers in the United States, including any evidence available for specific cultural, biological…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors explored the relationships among male and female engineering major undergraduates’ perceptions of research and researchers, their intellectual orientation toward people versus objects,…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s main objective was to describe and promote the implementation of WomenLEAD, a program offered at a business and engineering college to foster leadership development in female faculty by…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study addressed two research questions concerning the retention rates of engineers in the United States: whether more women leave the engineering field because of family-related concerns than…
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.