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 51 - 60 of 95
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study examined the overall and gender-specific impact of the Surprising Possibilities Imagined and Realized through Information Technology (SPIRIT) program on high school students’ attitudes…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine how undergraduate women of color’s precollege characteristics and college experiences and the characteristics of their undergraduate institutions affected…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This publication summarized the obstacles facing girls and women who wish to pursue academic or professional careers in STEM fields and highlighted solutions to these challenges at the secondary,…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This issue brief highlighted the 2009 gender gap in STEM degrees, jobs, and earnings in the United States. The authors used data from the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study described how women in academic STEM positions (compared with corporate environments) constructed their own mentoring networks; it also explored the mentoring configurations female…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study examined the enrollment patterns for low-income women and students with children (including mostly mothers and some fathers, collectively referred to as student parents) in STEM fields…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors investigated aspects of the undergraduate college environment associated with satisfaction with engineering as a major and students’ intent to pursue a career in engineering in the…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The objective of the study was to develop and assess a program to facilitate associate professors’ promotion to full professor, paying particular attention to female associate professors in STEM…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the experiences of several female science and engineering majors within the literature context on predictive factors of persistence in STEM majors and careers…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to determine what characteristics of a college department (referred to as the climate) were conducive to retaining women and underrepresented minorities enrolled in an…
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.