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 61 - 70 of 95
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to suggest successful strategies for increasing the number of women and girls in STEM classes. The author used studies of other programs and lessons learned from personal…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report highlighted a 2013 convening of stakeholders who discussed barriers to becoming successful STEM faculty for black, Hispanic, and Native American women, and strategies to overcome those…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study described the implementation of the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program at New York City College of Technology. This year-long program…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study examined institutional and student factors that had the greatest effect on students’ decisions to persist in STEM majors, emphasizing factors promoting STEM degree completion for female…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the relationship between parents’ and middle school students’ perceptions of science education and whether that relationship varied based on the gender of the…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper described the ADVANCE IT-Catalyst study that examined the barriers facing female STEM faculty members at six Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) colleges, compared with men at RIT…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine differences in students’ likelihood of majoring in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field, based on gender and ethnicity. The study…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to determine whether women, specifically mothers, in STEM academic or industry jobs were less likely to participate in the patenting process than fathers and childless…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether middle and high school girls’ levels of interest and confidence in science and mathematics differed and to identify factors that promote their…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether universities participating in Transformative Graduate Education Programs (TGPs) conferred a greater number of science, technology, engineering, and…
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.