Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities
(USC Thesis Other)
Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 1
OBSTACLES TO AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN PURSUING AND SERVING IN
ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN STEM FIELDS AT CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITIES
by
Alexis Matthews
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2017
Copyright 2017 Alexis Matthews
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 8
Significance of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Assumptions of the Study 12
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 13
Definitions of Terms 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 15
Women as Leaders 15
Perception of Women in Leadership 16
Gender Roles and Familial Responsibilities 20
Environment in Academia 22
Chilly Climate 22
Leaky Pipeline 24
Motivation in the Face of Obstacles 26
Expectancy-Value Theory 27
Expectancy Beliefs 28
Task Value 29
Goal Orientation 31
Expectancy-Value Theory Research in STEM and Leadership 32
Social Cognitive Theory 33
Attribution Theory 34
Social Influence 36
Chapter Three: Methodology 39
Research Questions 39
Research Design and Methods 39
Why Quantitative Methods 39
Why Qualitative Methods 41
Sampling 42
Access/Entry 43
Instrumentation 44
Data Collection 45
Chapter Four: Findings 47
Purpose of the Study 48
Research Questions 49
Coding of Data 49
Survey Participants 50
Race/Ethnicity 50
Career Information 50
Home Life 52
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 3
Interview Participants 53
Leader One 54
Leader Two 54
Leader Three 54
Leader Four 54
Leader Five 54
Leader Six 54
Findings 55
Research Question 1 55
Research Question 2 67
Research Question 3 75
Ancillary Findings 81
Summary 85
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications 87
Purpose of the Study 88
Research Questions 88
Findings 89
Research Question 1 89
Research Question 2 91
Research Question #3 93
Implications of the Study 94
How to Mitigate Obstacles 94
How to Motivate Women in STEM Academia 95
Recommendations for Future Research 96
Concluding Remarks 97
References 98
Appendix 108
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 4
List of Tables
Table 1 Race/Ethnicity 50
Table 2 Years in the Field 51
Table 3 Years in an Academic Leadership Position 52
Table 4 Marital Status 53
Table 5 Children 53
Table 6 Statistics 56
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Add title 28
Figure 2: Bandura’s social cognitive theory 34
Figure 3: Weiner’s attribution model 35
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 6
Abstract
Female attrition from STEM education throughout the academic pipeline leads to a dearth
of women academic leaders in STEM fields. Since academic leaders serve as change agents who
shape the direction and vision of their departments and institutions, it is vital that women's
representation in these roles is increased. To better understand how to achieve this goal, this
mixed-methods study sought to investigate the obstacles to women working in these positions
and the motivations that enabled them to overcome said obstacles. Surveys were collected from
23 women academic leaders in STEM fields in California universities. Six participants were
selected for in-depth interviews. Results demonstrated that the top obstacles affecting
participants were gender biases, isolation/lack of allies, and family/gender roles. The top
motivations were task value, attributions/expectancies, support from family/colleagues.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Academic leadership roles, such as deans, department heads, and chairs, in higher
education not only guide instruction practices, but also the cultural climate of the department.
Unfortunately, there is a distinct discrepancy in the number of women in academic leadership
roles in higher education institutions compared to the number of men in these roles, particularly
in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) departments.
Background of the Problem
The underrepresentation of women in STEM fields is evident throughout the higher
education pipeline (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2010). In fact, the number of women
with doctorates in STEM fields is drastically lower than that of men. For example, women
earned only 29% of doctorates in the physical sciences and a mere 21.3% of all engineering
doctorates in 2009 (NSF, 2010). The fact that women are less likely to earn doctorates in STEM
fields leads to a low percentage of women being able to go into academic positions in these
fields, resulting in a discrepancy in tenured-track academic positions (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2002).
While the percentage of women in tenured-track faculty positions in STEM fields has
increased to 28% in 2006 from 10% in 1973 (National Science Board, 2008), there are still areas
of academics where the representation of women in these roles reamains minimal. Only 10.7% of
tenured-track faculty positions in engineering were held by women in 2012 (NSF, 2013).
Approximately only one-third of dean, department head, or chair academic positions in STEM
fields were held by women in 2013 (NSF, 2014). Surprisingly, though, women comprise the
majority of physical science majors, yet only 18% of academic positions in the physical sciences
are held by women (NSF, 2011).
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 8
Given that the number of women in academic leadership positions in STEM fields is
demonstrably lower than the number of men in those positions, even in fields where they
outnumber their male counterparts in degrees earned, it is clear that a number of obstacles exist
to prevent and/or discourage women from pursuing academic leadership positions in STEM
fields. However, in the face of these obstacles, some women do persist in seeking and serving in
academic leadership positions in STEM fields. Therefore, there must be some internal drive and
motivation for these women to continue in the face of adversity. Until now, there has been little
research into the motivational factors that inspire women to pursue these types of academic
positions. Research into the motivations for women who pursue and serve in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields is needed to understand how to engender similar qualities in younger
generations of women in STEM.
Statement of the Problem
The role of the academic leader in a higher education institution is to contribute to the
academic leadership that helps guide the organization. Many current academic leaders believe
their roles to be focused on traditional practices, such as building faculty and student
relationships, recruiting faculty, and external relations (Robinson-Backmon, Kiel, Malone, &
Mautz, 2004). Research also found that academic leaders serve as change agents, who faculty
and other administrators look to for guidance and direction (Hecht et. al, 1999; Phillips-Miller
et.al., 2000). However, the vast majority of academic leadership positions, such as department
chair, are held by men (Nelson & Rogers, 2003).
There is a number of obstacles women face in the pursuit of academic leadership
positions in STEM fields at the university level. One factor that attributes to the lack of women
in academic leadership positions is inequality between genders in STEM fields at the collegiate
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 9
and graduate school level. Though females earn high school credits in science and math at rates
comparable to those of males (National Center for Education Statistics, [NCES] 2007), this
equality dwindles as women continue up the educational pipeline of higher education. While
women earn approximately 58% of all bachelor’s degrees in biological sciences, they earn only
approximately 18% of all computer science bachelor’s degrees, 17.5% of all engineering
bachelor’s degrees, 43% of all bachelor’s mathematics degrees, and 19% of all physics
bachelor’s degrees (NCES, 2013). Unsurprisingly, these numbers remain comparable for
graduate degrees earned by women. Because women earn degrees in STEM fields, both
undergraduate and graduate, at much lower rates than men, they are automatically removed from
consideration for the majority of positions in STEM academia, especially department chair and
other academic leadership positions.
One obstacle women face in entering STEM fields at the collegiate level and pursuing
academic leadership positions is the continued existence of discrimination. Despite a decrease in
outright sexism in STEM fields in academia, discrimination and sexual harassment are still
issues many women in academic STEM fields experience and which are directly related to poor
job satisfaction and higher attrition (Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006). Discrimination
that discourages women from pursuing academic leadership positions in STEM fields can be
much subtler as well. This discrimination can be seen in the form of lower salaries, smaller
research spaces, and higher teaching loads (MIT, 1999). Unfortunately, both men and women
demonstrate negative bias towards women in leadership positions (Eagly & Carli, 2007). These
biases can stem from the existence of a double-bind, in which the perceived qualities of a leader
are in direct opposition to the perceived qualities of women (Jamieson, 1995).
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 10
Lack of support by both male and female colleagues contributes to the existence of
another obstacle: the shortage of mentors and role models for women in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields. Women are more affected than men by the presence of role models of
their own gender (Lockwood, 2006). The presence of female role models can increase
commitment to STEM careers (Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManis, 2011). However, there
is a dearth of female academic role models in STEM fields as a result of their low representation
(Pritchard, 2011).
Another barrier to women pursuing academic leadership positions in STEM fields is the
difficulty in balancing work and family life. Often, societal strictures of traditional gender roles
result in women making the choice to focus on family life, which can derail them from
progressing to higher levels in their careers (Xie & Shauman, 2003). Women at the top of their
fields report balancing familial obligations with the demands of work to be one of their biggest
concerns (Pandian & Jesurajan, 2011). However, most organizations do not recognize the pull of
these responsibilities that women face (Jones & Schneider, 2010). This lack of understanding of
the obstacles women face by the organizations that employ them is a further demonstration of the
unwelcoming or unsupportive academic culture (Xu, 2008).
While there is a number of obstacles women face in the pursuit of chair positions in
STEM academia, there are women who do persevere to reach these jobs. Thus, there must be
some motivational factors that prompts them to do so and a lack of these motivations engendered
in the majority of women who begin and then fall short of pursuing the same goals. As Schunk
(1995) conceptualized, motivation is based on a combination of active choice (in which a person
chooses to or not to participate in an activity), persistence (whether a person chooses to continue
with an activity after initially choosing to do so), and effort (the cost of partaking in a given
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 11
activity). The fact that women initially choose not to, start but do not continue, or do not put
forth the effort required to pursue academic leadership in STEM demonstrates this is a
motivation issue. Schunk (1991) asserts that motivation is key to academic success. Without
encouraging women in the right ways to get them on the path to deanships in STEM fields, the
demonstrated issue of a lack of female deans in STEM will only continue.
Significance of the Problem
The significance of this study is two-fold. The study sought to provide a better
understanding of the obstacles women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in
STEM fields face. It also aimed to serve to uncover the motivations for women who pursue and
serve in these positions despite these obstacles. Revealing the obstacles women experience while
seeking to and continuing to hold academic leadership positions in STEM fields will shed light
on the individual and systematic issues that can prevent women from pursuing these positions.
Only with an understanding of these challenges can work begin to break down these barriers so
that women can have equal opportunities as their male counterparts to move up the ladder in
academia in STEM fields. Understanding the motivations for continuing to pursue academic
leadership positions may teach women to navigate these obstacles and motivate themselves to
continue to pursue academic leadership positions in STEM fields despite these obstacles. By
demonstrating the ways successful female academic leaders in STEM fields motivate themselves
and overcome these obstacles, other women in STEM can learn how to propel their careers to the
higher levels even in the face of challenges.
In order to remedy the lack of equal gender representation in academic leadership in
STEM fields, it is vital that women who may be qualified to pursue these positions understand
the obstacles they may face and the motivational factors that can help overcome them and that
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 12
those who may be agents of change in the institutions that educate and hire these women
understand them as well. Parents, teachers at all educational levels, deans, admissions staff, and
recruitment staff are just some of the key players who, with knowledge these barriers and of how
to motivate women to pursue these paths, can work to create a more inclusive system for women
and guide them in their pursuit of academic leadership in STEM fields.
Purpose of the Study
To better understand the obstacles and motivations for women pursuing and serving in
academic leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level, the study utilized a mixed-
methods approach. Surveys were given to 23 number of female academic leaders in STEM fields
at various California universities. Following analysis of survey data, the interview protocol was
finalized and six women participated in in-depth interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the
results of the survey.
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing and serving in academic
leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?
2. What are the motivations of women who pursue and serve in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?
3. How do these motivations enable women serving in academic leadership positions
in STEM fields to achieve their goal?
Assumptions of the Study
The study assumed that the female academic leaders surveyed and interviewed believed
there are obstacles women face when pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in
STEM fields at the university level. In addition, the study assumed these obstacles faced were
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 13
unique to women in STEM academia. Further, the participants held and utilized motivations to
help overcome these obstacles. Finally, the study assumed that the participants answered the
survey and interview questions, to the extent of their knowledge, truthfully and without
intentional bias.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The study was limited in that the participants were solely women academic leaders in
STEM fields in California universities. The study was limited in its generalizability because it
did not include women in other leadership roles in STEM fields at the university level. Further,
only academic leaders at California universities were selected to participate, meaning that
women in those positions at institutions in other states were not considered in the study. Also,
due to geographical limitations, the researcher did not observe the participants as they served as
academic leaders, which would have allowed a first-hand perspective of the obstacles they face.
Finally, only women were chosen to participate, meaning their answers could not be compared to
or corroborated by their male counterparts.
Despite the limitations described above, the researcher believed that they did not have a
significant impact the overall validity of the study. Limitations regarding the specific position
held (academic leadership), gender (female), and geographical location (California) allow more
in-depth analysis rather than a breadth of analysis without deeper investigation, which would
result from fewer limitations in an attempt to be more generalizable.
There are four delimitations to the study. First, academic leader was the position of the
participants. Second, female was the gender of the academic leaders. Third, STEM fields were
the academic fields in which the participants served. Finally, California was the location for all
of the universities in which the academic leaders held positions.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 14
Definitions of Terms
Below is a list of terms which, for the purpose of this study, are defined as follows:
Attribution: the reason behind a perceived cause and effect relationship (Weiner, 1972).
Catch-22: situation in which either of two choices yields a negative impact on the chooser
(Catch-22, n.d.).
Chilly climate: environment in which someone, particularly women, are made to feel unwelcome
through formal or informal mechanisms (Sandler & Hall, 1982).
Expectancy-Value theory: theory of human behavior involving the interaction of expected
outcomes and task value for a given activity (Eccles et al., 1983).
Gender roles: an amalgam of traditional qualities and behaviors ascribed to each gender based on
the beliefs of a particular society and/or culture (Livingston, 2011).
Leaky pipeline: normal educational progression that systematically removes or causes women to
self-select out of it (Shapiro, Grossman, Carter, Martin, Deyton, & Hammer, 2015).
Post-secondary: level of education after high school; 2- and 4-year colleges and universities
(Post-secondary, n.d.)
Self-efficacy: belief an individual has regarding their ability to complete a particular activity
(Bandura, 1977).
Second shift: the period of additional homemaking and/or familial work and responsibility
working mothers experience when they get home from work (Hochschild, 1990).
Social cognitive theory: theory of human behavior involving the bilateral relationships between
cognition, behavioral, and environmental factors (Bandura, 1977).
STEM: fields of education and careers involving science, technology, engineering, and math
(NSF, 2010).
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
While the number of women earning postsecondary and graduate degrees increased
greatly in the last 50 years, the number of women in high-level positions at these institutions is
still much smaller than what is to be expected of this increase (Klotz, 2014). Further, the
percentage of women earning higher education degrees in STEM fields is much lower than those
in other fields, such as the humanities, which results in even fewer women in high-level
management positions at higher education institutions in STEM fields than in other academic
areas (NSF, 2010). It is clear that women in STEM fields face even more obstacles in pursuing
education and, eventually, high-level academic positions, such as deanships, than women in
other fields of study. To better understand the reasons for this discrepancy, this section provides
a review of the literature related to obstacles women face in pursuing and serving in dean
positions in STEM fields at higher education institutions. Issues of how women as leaders are
viewed are discussed, followed by those that are specific to higher education and STEM fields,
and, finally, a review of the possible motivation factors that could affect, both positively and
negatively, women’s pursuit of leadership positions in STEM despite these obstacles.
Women as Leaders
There are multiple issues women face in pursuit of leadership positions. Not only do
social general roles affect how women are viewed when exhibiting leadership qualities and
pursuing high level positions, but they also contribute to how other responsibilities, such as
familial responsibilities, are divided. Social role theory provides a good lens through which the
issues women face in pursuing leadership positions can be viewed. According to social role
theory, people hold very elaborate sets of associations regarding the differences between genders
based on their perception of experiences in the society in which they reside (Eckes & Trautner,
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 16
2000). Essentially, people are culturally trained to believe men and women should act a certain
way. Cultural beliefs regarding the behaviors men and women should exhibit, as well as the roles
they should serve both professionally and personally, are generated by society and passed on to
each generation (Eckes & Trautner, 2000).
Perception of Women in Leadership
Eagly and Karau (1995) demonstrated the impact of social role theory on leadership
across genders. In their study regarding perceived effectiveness of male and female leaders,
Eagly and Karau found that, while women and men were overall viewed as equally effective,
men were more effective in traditionally male positions and women were more effective in
traditionally female positions. Social role theory explains the reason for this outcome is that
people are more likely to perceive men and women to be successful in certain areas based on
preconceived beliefs of which qualities they possess and what behavior they should exhibit.
This concept is supported by research regarding leader evaluations as well. Cellar, Sidle,
Goudy, and O’Brien (2001) studied how the style and gender of a leader, along with the
personality of the subordinate affect how a leader is evaluated. Subordinates who were
categorized as disagreeable personalities judged behavior inconsistent with societal gender
norms, such as women exhibiting autocratic leadership styles, more severely than their agreeable
peers. Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992) further found that women were more likely to be
devalued when being evaluated as leaders when they served in traditionally male positions and
when the evaluators were men. Given that the majority of high-level academic positions in
STEM fields are held by men, women who try to break the status quo and move into these types
of positions are at a disadvantage as their evaluators will likely devalue their efforts or judge
them for exhibiting qualities typically associated with success in these roles. Women are less
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 17
likely to advance in their careers using traditional methods used by their male counterparts to do
so.
It is not only colleagues who can hold these prejudices against women, but students
taught by female faculty members often also exhibit gender biases against their teachers.
Research found that this even translates into formal student evaluations. Basow and Silberg
(1987) reviewed evaluations from 1,000 students for 16 teachers, men and women, in which
teaching status, course division, and tenure status were matched across both genders. Male
students tended to rate female faculty poorer than male faculty across all six of the measures of
teaching evaluation (Basow & Silberg, 1987). Even female students tended to give poorer ratings
to female faculty than male faculty, but only across three of the six measures of teaching
evaluation (Basow & Silberg, 1987).
Bennett (1982) also studied the difference between students’ perceptions of male and
female faculty members by surveying over 250 students taught by 28 male faculty and 11 female
faculty teaching introductory courses. Interestingly, there were twice as many male faculty as
female faculty available for the sample of faculty members. This is, indeed, indicative of the lack
of women in academia at higher education institutions (Bennett, 1982). In this study, female
faculty were expected by students to provide a greater amount of interpersonal support and
students critiqued this support provided by female faculty more harshly than they did that
provided by male faculty (Bennett, 1982). Thus, even when formal teaching measures are not the
issue at hand, students informally judge female faculty differently, and, in many cases, more
harshly, than male faculty. Furthermore, Moore (1997) coalesced anecdotal evidence from
female faculty describing some of the ways these biases manifest in the everyday interactions in
which students can be more critical of women in academia. For example, women teaching
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 18
subjects discussing the issues of patriarchy are often called out for man-bashing by male students
(Moore, 1997).
In addition to formal evaluations, informal reactions to women leading in typically
gender inconsistent positions can create obstacles that prevent women from achieving the
success of their male peers. Research has demonstrated that women in traditionally male
positions are less liked and subject to derogation more often (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, &
Tamkins, 2004). This, then, manifests itself as not only poorer evaluations, but also as fewer
recommendations. Women are not able to build strong and lasting bonds and relationships within
the workplace, which means they are not formally recommended for better jobs and cannot
develop the informal networks helpful in learning of and being selected for higher positions.
Further, women are not only less liked, but demonstrations of certain leadership qualities by
women are overlooked when they are considered traditionally male qualities (Scott & Brown,
2006). According to Williams and Best (1990), agentic leadership qualities, in which the leader
is task-oriented and dominates oneself and the environment to achieve success, are often
associated with men. Agentic leaders are those perceived as competitive, autonomous,
competent, and ambitious.
Contrarily, communal leadership qualities, in which the leader focuses on the well-being
of the group in order to coax others to achieve success, are associated with women (Williams &
Best, 19990). Communal leaders are those perceived as nurturing, kind, sympathetic, and
helpful. Scott and Brown (2006) found that, even when female leaders demonstrated agentic,
typically male, leadership behavior, participants were less likely to encode this behavior as
agentic than they were when male leaders exhibited these behaviors. Therefore, even when
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 19
women behave in ways that demonstrate strong leadership qualities, these behaviors are less
likely to be acknowledged and, thus, less likely to be considered as leaders.
While a good portion of research focuses on the reactions of men to women leaders in the
workplace, it is also important to review how women view other women as leaders. For example,
research found that, when evaluating women in traditionally male leadership positions, women
and older participants were harsher than male and younger participants (Garcia-Retamero &
Lopez-Zafra, 2006). This demonstrates that it is not only men who can hold women back from
advancing into leadership roles, but women also hold prejudices based on societal gender roles,
which can lead towards prejudice against female leaders in typically male positions from both
genders. Ridgeway (1997) and Ridgeway and Balkwell (1997) provided an explanation for how
prejudice against women behaving in historically male manners, even by other women, can
persist despite the large strides women have made in gaining equality, such as voting rights, in
the last century. Ridgeway (1997) asserted that, when co-ed interactions occur, people fall back
on socially accepted gender roles in order to achieve successful interaction. Women and men
believe that behaving in stereotypical ways elicits favorable social responses due to cultural
conditioning. This reaction is instinctual and can lead to negative reactions by others when
people act different than these stereotypes subscribe, such as the case in the study by Garcia-
Retamero and Lopez-Zafra (2006). Therefore, women seeking positions of power experience a
catch-22: the qualities associated with leadership ability required to move up in professional
spheres are often considered to be male qualities, resulting in negative reactions from colleagues
and superiors.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 20
Gender Roles and Familial Responsibilities
One of the major ways gender stereotypes are played out in group dynamics is the
division of familial responsibilities. Women are considered to be the homemakers, while men are
the breadwinners, a stereotype that has been plaguing women in the workplace to this day despite
the existence of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discriminating against
employees on the basis of gender. Though illegal, research found that employers still
discriminate against female employees on the basis of their gender, often using familial
responsibility as an excuse to justify not promoting deserving women or paying them less than
equally qualified male colleagues (Williams & Segal, 2003). Interestingly, Fortin (2005) found
that, while these beliefs that women hold the responsibility for homemaking are decreasing in the
younger generations, the issue is that, once formed, these beliefs become increasingly enduring
over time. These beliefs often start in childhood, with religious ideology being a strong indicator
(Fortin, 2005). Thus, while beliefs that women shoulder the familial responsibilities are
somewhat decreasing in prevalence, they are deeply entrenched in a person’s worldview by the
time they reach the work force, which makes it difficult to overcome these stereotypes.
The existence of these perceptions of traditional gender role responsibility for the home
results in work-family conflict. For example, Livingston (2011) investigated how men and
women domestic partners negotiate how to divide work and family responsibilities when both
partners work. Men tend to me more competitive in their use of negotiation tactics than women
(Livingston, 2011). Further, gender norms that support the notion of women holding the
responsibilities for homemaking are indicators for the outcomes of these negotiations. This
gender-based division of familial responsibility leads working mothers to work what Hochschild
(1990) refers to as a second shift. In observing the home lives of dual-income households with
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 21
children, Hochschild found that only 20% of couples divided housework evenly, leaving 80% of
women in these dyads to perform the majority of the housework. Thus, women are forced to
perform a second shift of work after they get home from their professional jobs. Because of this,
working mothers experience more frequent illness, exhaustion, and decreased libido than their
husbands, all of which can affect the relationship of the couple and, in many cases, result in the
degradation of the marriage (Hochschild, 1990). Craig (2006) supported the idea that working
women put in more work in their roles as parents than working men. Evaluating the division of
parenting tasks as well as the time devoted, Craig (2006) determined that mothering was a
greater time commitment with a more rigid schedule than fathering. It also meant greater
physical labor, such as doing chores, and, overall, was a greater responsibility than fathering
(Craig, 2006). Working mothers also reported lower levels of marital, family, and overall life
satisfaction than working fathers (Hill, 2005). In addition, working fathers also experience less
work-family conflict and individual stress than working mothers do (Hill, 2005).
The added responsibility of familial obligations can lead employers to make decisions
regarding women’s’ career trajectory based on the knowledge that they will likely be juggling
more than simply work. Therefore, Madsen (2007) proposed that, besides male and female, there
is a third gender in the workforce: mothers who work. Colleagues and employers hold
preconceived notions about working mothers regarding their ability to juggle all of their
responsibilities as well as their commitment to their jobs given their personal time constraints
(Madsen, 2007). Further, employers believe work-family conflict is higher among women and,
thus, negatively affects perceived promotability (Hoobler, Wayne, & Lemmon, 2009).
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 22
Environment in Academia
Another area of research that informed this study is that of the environment women face
when pursuing an academic career path. Particularly in STEM fields, the environments can be
skewed against and even hostile toward women. Research refers to the organizational issues that
can lead women to feel unwelcome in academics as a chilly climate or a leaky pipeline.
Chilly Climate
Dr. Bernice Sandler and Dr. Roberta Hall first coined the term “chilly climate” in 1982
when studying the environments women experience in the classroom (Sandler & Hall, 1982).
This work was the first in a series of three to research the issues women face in the academic
sphere, from their time as students to their time as faculty members or administrators. Sandler
and Hall (1982) utilized direct quotes in addition to quantitative analysis to potently portray the
various, sometimes seemingly insignificant, ways behavior of faculty, administrators, and other
students, men or women, can create a chilly climate for women in academia. They assert that
evaluators, regardless of gender, are more likely to give higher marks on work when the
evaluator believes the student submitting it is male (Sandler & Hall, 1982).
Further, when students are successful in completing an assignment or performing well,
males are more likely to be told it is because of their abilities, while women are more likely told
achievement was due to outside forces, such as an easy assignment, rather than their own
competence (Sandler & Hall, 1982). This makes women doubt their abilities and feel as though
they do not belong in academics as much as men do. In the follow-up to the 1982 investigation
of the chilly climate of the classroom for women, Sandler and Hall (1984) investigated how
interactions with faculty, administrators, and other male students outside the classroom
contribute to the chilly climate of educational campuses. Sandler and Hall (1984) found that
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 23
male academic and career counselors are likely to subscribe to traditional views of gender roles
regarding women and work, which, in turn, affects the paths they encourage their students to
follow. This bias against women in academia continues into women’s experience as faculty as
demonstrated in Sandler and Hall’s (1986) third look into the chilly climate of academia.
Confusion of professional and social roles, in which emphasis is unnecessarily placed on
women’s gender, such as feminine traits of attractiveness or personal and familial relationships,
causes women to feel less welcome than men in academia and perpetuates traditional gender
roles in colleagues and students (Sandler & Hall, 1986). Sexual harassment is also prevalent on
college campuses, particularly with female faculty: one-third of tenured women faculty and one-
half of non-tenured women faculty report experiencing sexual harassment (Sandler & Hall,
1986).
Relational demography provides another lens through which the chilly climate towards
women in academia can be viewed. Maranto and Griffin (2010) assert that, per relational
demography theory, the perceived similarities people share with their colleagues helps engender
positive work relationships, increased perceived effectiveness, and better work-life satisfaction.
The researchers found that female faculty experienced greater feelings of exclusion in work
environments with a low number of women in similar positions (Maranto & Griffin, 2010). This
is essentially a catch-22: low numbers of female faculty decrease the likelihood women will
persevere in academic careers, thus perpetuating the low number of female faculty. This also
creates the issue of a lack of fellow female mentors, which causes women in academia to feel
excluded and renders them less capable of utilizing mentors with similar relational demography
to advance their careers (Greene, Stockard, Lewis, & Richmand, 2010). Even when women do
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 24
persist and advance in STEM academia, they feel less job satisfaction than even other women in
academia (Greene et al., 2010).
The chilly climate described above begins even in the classroom for female students.
Crawford and Macleod (1990) surveyed 1,375 students, from a large university and a small
college, to assess how students view student-teacher interaction. The researchers found that
female participation is not as encouraged as male participation (Crawford & Macleod, 1990).
However, this was not a uniform effect of all teacher-student interaction as female professors
were more likely to encourage participation of all students (Crawford & Macleod, 1990). Thus, it
is important to recruit more female professors so that they can improve participation of female
students and serve as mentors. This will help to engender more equality throughout the pipeline
of academia
Leaky Pipeline
The chilly climate environments of academia for women throughout the pipeline, from
undergraduate to graduate to professorship levels, caused what some researchers labeled a leaky
pipeline. Even as early as middle school, children understand gender differences, with more girl
schoolchildren predicting they will deal with difficulty balancing work and family as well as
stopping working, at least temporarily, to raise a family than boy schoolchildren (Shapiro et al.,
2015). Further, in their survey of middle school children, Shapiro et al. (2015) found that boys
are more likely to believe there are particular jobs for which boys are better suited and that they
are more confident in their job prospects than girls. Choosing jobs for themselves, boys and girls
were very accurate in choosing what the opposite gender would likely choose as their top job
positions, demonstrating that they are aware of the gender differences in the workforce. Fewer
than half as many girls as boys chose careers in STEM fields as their likely professions and that
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 25
their parents would support a decision to pursue such a career, which means that even at such a
young age, women do not feel it is likely that they will persist in those fields. Given that parents
are the first ones to shape children’s concepts of gender roles, per Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk,
Eccles, and Sameroff (2001), the lack of parental support coupled with lack of encouragement in
the school system can lead to girls being less inclined to pursue STEM education and
professions. Thus begins the leaky pipeline for women in STEM fields.
One such explanation for girls not being able to imagine themselves as scientists is bias
in science textbooks. Walford (1981) found textbooks rarely depicted females in STEM
professions or education. While Blickenstaff (2005) found that this changed in recent decades,
there is no conclusive evidence on this as there is a lack of research in this area of textbook bias,
with race and ethnicity being the focus of recent research. Baker and Leary (1995) found that the
majority of girls in primary and secondary schools could not envision themselves as scientists.
While the participants noted the bias in textbooks regarding women in science, they also
explained that, while they enjoy science, dissection was often an issue that prevented them from
pursuing science further (Baker & Leary, 1995). If schools were to mentor young girls regarding
the requirements for different sciences, such as engineering or physics, in which dissection does
not play a role, these outcomes may be different.
Interestingly, Stewart (1998) found that girls in advanced high school physics courses
tended to earn better grades than boys, yet were still more likely to leave science fields in
college. Sonnert (1995) alleged that it is not merely a single factor that can cause this flagging of
female participation in STEM fields despite proficiency, but, rather, it is an accumulation of
many smaller factors that can lead women to drop out of the path of science education and
careers. For example, curriculum design can skew towards the strengths of males rather than
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 26
females (Tai & Sadler, 2001). Tai and Sadler (2001) found that women perform better in
introductory college physics courses when their preparatory courses emphasized depth, rather
than breadth, of knowledge of course material. Another contributing issue is that of teacher
perception of the field. Spear (1987) gave identical work samples of students to science teachers
and found that teachers were more likely to give better grades when the teacher believed the
student was male than when the teacher believed the student was female. In addition, female
students receive less attention from teachers on average compared to male students (Sadker &
Sadker, 1994).
Motivation in the Face of Obstacles
Mayer (2011) defined motivation as the “internal state that initiates and maintains goal
directed behaviors” (p. 39). There are three main indicators of motivation: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). Active choice refers to a
stakeholder’s choice to either participate or not participate in a given task or activity. Because
females will often self-select out of STEM fields, as Baker and Leary (1995) demonstrate, this
lack of active choice demonstrates that motivation is an issue to be considered when
understanding why there are not more women continuing on the path toward leadership in
academia in the field. Persistence is determined by whether a stakeholder chooses to continue to
participate in a given task or activity despite distraction (Schunk et al., 2009). It is clear from
Stewart’s (1998) study that the lack of persistence, in which women have taken advanced science
courses but choose non-STEM majors in college, points to a motivational issue as well. Mental
effort is the mental work needed to create new knowledge and learning (Schunk et al., 2009).
Given the added effort women face in navigating a chilly climate in academia, this aspect of
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 27
motivation could likely be a reason for women electing not to pursue academic leadership
positions in STEM fields.
Per Gonida and Urdan (2007), parents can play a pivotal role in influencing children’s
motivation. Eccles et al. (1998) outlined six ways that parents can influence children’s
motivational beliefs:
1. Attributions for child’s performance
2. Perception of difficulty of school work
3. Expectations/confidence in child’s abilities
4. Values for school work
5. Actual achievement standards
6. Beliefs about barriers to success and strategies to overcome those barriers
These beliefs make up expectancy-value theory and social cognitive theory. Below, these two
theories and how their elements affect motivation are outlined.
Expectancy-Value Theory
It was John W. Atkinson (1957) who first developed a theory of motivation that was
eventually honed into expectancy-value theory. Atkinson (1957) proposed that motivation to
either achieve or avoid failure is based on whether one believes one will succeed or fail in a task
and the incentive given for each outcome. In situations where there is little incentive to fail,
performance ability should be high; in situations where performance ability is low, the incentive
to proceed in the face of failure should be great. Eccles et al. (1983) furthered this theory to
develop the model of expectancy-value theory. The theory proposes that motivation is affected
by the dynamic between what one expects the outcome of a task to be and the value of
performing that task given the outcome (Eccles et al., 1983). The de-motivational effects of poor
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 28
outcome expectations can be mitigated if the person values the performance of the task. Below is
the diagram of the expectancy-value theory proposed by Eccles et al. (1983).
Figure 1. Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy Beliefs
Expectancy beliefs can be divided into two types of beliefs: efficacy beliefs and outcome
beliefs. Efficacy beliefs involve the self-efficacy one has regarding a given task. Self-efficacy is
a person’s confidence in his/her ability to perform a particular activity based on their judgments
regarding their physical and cognitive capabilities as well as the difficulty of the task at hand and
the resources available that may help success in the activity (Schunk, 1984). Therefore, one’s
efficacy beliefs play a role in expectancy beliefs. Outcome beliefs refer to the consequences of
partaking in a given task (Bandura, 1977). This is separate from efficacy beliefs as outcome
beliefs involve external forces outside one’s own capabilities. Urbig and Monsen (2012)
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 29
explored how self-efficacy, controllability, and outcome expectancy intertwine. The researchers
found that self-efficacy beliefs can moderate the effects of external-efficacy beliefs (Urbig &
Monsen, 2012). Thus, strong self-efficacy beliefs can overcome the external beliefs and can lead
a person to pursue an activity despite low external outcome expectancy.
Task Value
The second portion of the expectancy-value theory is task value. Eccles et al. (1983)
explained that task value refers to the value one places on performing a given task. There are
four elements of task value: intrinsic value, utility value, attainment value, and cost (Eccles et al.,
1983). Intrinsic value refers to the personal enjoyment one experiences when participating in an
activity and/or the interest one has in the topic of the activity (Eccles & Wigfield 2002). Utility
value involves an individual’s judgments regarding how performing a task will affect his or her
goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Attainment value is the importance an individual places on
performing a given activity well (Battle, 1966). Eccles et al. (1983) utilized Battle’s (1966)
definition in conjunction with theories on self-schema to include how perceptions of how a task
aligns with the perceptions of the self, such as femininity and masculinity, can affect attainment
value. Cost refers to the negative effects of completing a task, such as missed opportunities,
effort, and possibility of failure (Eccles et al., 1983).
Task value is based on a number of factors, two of which are interest and goal
orientation. There are two kinds of interest: individual and situational (Ainley, Hidi, &
Berndorff, 2002). Situational interest refers to the temporary interest that is context-specific
based on environmental factors, such as engaging instructions (Ainley et al., 2002). Individual
interest refers to the enduring interest an individual has that predisposed him/her to engage in a
particular activity or task related to a certain topic (Hidi, 1990).
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 30
Durik and Harackiewicz (2007) studied how different catch and hold techniques can
affect individual and situational interest, with catch techniques aiming to trigger interest and hold
techniques aiming to maintain interest. The researchers found that catch techniques increased
motivation for individuals with low individual interest, yet decreased motivation for individuals
with high individual interest (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007). Similarly, hold techniques increased
motivation for individuals with high individual interest and decreased motivation for individuals
with low individual interest (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007). Therefore, while catch techniques
can generate situational interest, hold techniques are needed to generate and perpetuate
individual interest. In addition, catch techniques can actually be de-motivating for those with
high individual interest.
Hidi and Renninger (2006) proposed a four-phase model for developing interest as
individual interest is associated with persistence and learning. This model explains how
situational interest can transform into individual interest. First, situational interest is triggered
through various environmental factors, such as surprise or personal relevance to the nature by
which the topic is introduced (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). The next step is to maintain the
situational interest generated, such as continuing personal involvement or cooperative group
work (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Emerging individual interest occurs next when the individual
values and chooses to engage in the particular task, with well-developed individual interest being
the final phase where value for the task is increased even more and individuals persist even when
challenges occur (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). It is this final stage that is necessary for women in
STEM fields to experience given the aforementioned obstacles to achieving academic leadership
positions and even general participation in these fields.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 31
Goal Orientation
Goal orientation is the second factor that can affect task value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Ames (1992) divided goal orientations into two types: performance orientation and mastery
orientation. Performance orientation means the individual is focused on the judgments they
receive from others regarding his or her ability (Ames, 1992). The performance-oriented person
seeks to perform a task so that others may believe him/her to be capable. Mastery orientation
involves enjoyment of the learning process in that a person aims to perform a task for the
purpose of self-improvement (Ames, 1992). Other researchers utilize similar definitions, though
the specific terms can be different, with Nichols et al. (1990) referring to mastery orientation and
performance orientation as task-involved goals and ego-involved goals, respectively.
Further, Dweck (1999), who developed a model by which individuals are motivated to
participate in tasks based on goal orientation and theory of intelligence, refers to mastery
orientation as learning goals and performance orientation as performance goals. Dweck (1999)
asserted that, when one believes intelligence is fixed and, thus, holds performance goal
orientations, persistence in an activity is high when context self-efficacy is high, and persistence
is low when context self-efficacy low. When one believes intelligence is fluid and thus holds
mastery goal orientations, persistence is high despite context self-efficacy being high or low
(Dweck, 1999). Pintrich (2000) explores how goal orientations, using the same terms for goal
orientations as Ames (1992), can cause an individual to approach or avoid a task. Someone who
is mastery oriented approaches a task so that they may learn, understand, and self-improve and
avoids misunderstanding or stagnation in learning (Pintrich, 2000). Someone who is
performance-oriented approaches a task so that they may receive rewards or be considered
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 32
superior and avoids appearing inferior or unintelligent on the task or receiving poor performance
standards (Pintrich, 2000).
Expectancy-Value Theory Research in STEM and Leadership
Research regarding expectancy-value theory demonstrated that it can be an important
consideration when investigating women in high-level academic leadership positions in STEM
fields. Andersen and Ward (2014) studied ninth-graders’ persistence in STEM education
utilizing expectancy-value theory. The researchers analyzed survey data from 1,757 high school
students who scored in the top 10% on a mathematics achievement test. The researchers found
that task value, including intrinsic value, attainment value, and utility value, predicted
persistence in STEM education (Andersen & Ward, 2014). Interestingly, Abraham and Barker
(2015) found expectancies more than value led predicted persistence in STEM. These
researchers sought to understand the motivations for students who were already pursuing STEM
education, based on enrollment in junior level physics, to persist in STEM education at a higher
level, by continuing in senior level physics.
Perhaps the difference between the findings of Andersen and Ward (2014) and Abraham
and Barker (2015) is the rigor level in which the students participated, meaning that the
importance of various elements of expectancy-value theory may change along the academic
pipeline or based on the challenge level of the subject. Broadley (2015) sought to understand
how expectancy-value theory can explain gender differences in participation in STEM fields.
According to Broadley (20115), it is not expected for women to be successful in STEM fields,
which means that women are more likely to avoid this path since they expect to not be
successful.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 33
Social Cognitive Theory
The second theory that informed this study is social cognitive theory. Albert Bandura is
considered the father of social cognitive theory. Bandura’s (1977) theory asserts that behavioral
changes, specifically learning, motivation, and goal attainment, are formed through interactions
of cognitive, environmental, and behavioral factors. The cornerstone of Bandura’s social
cognitive theory is the concept of reciprocal determinism, which asserts that the aforementioned
factors influence each other via two-way interactions, rather than acting entirely separately or in
unilateral ways (Bandura, 1978). Below is a diagram that demonstrates this reciprocal
determinism amongst the various elements of Bandura’s theory. Like expectancy-value theory,
one of the major elements of social cognitive theory is self-efficacy. Bandura (1982) asserted
that self-efficacy is a vital aspect of human agency. A person’s perceptions of his/her abilities
lead to continued or discontinued participation in a given activity. Below is a diagram of social
cognitive theory, which demonstrates the interaction vital to this theory.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 34
Figure 2. Bandura’s social cognitive theory
Source: Hay-Smith, E. J. C., McClurg, D., Frawley, H., & Dean, S. G. (2015). Exercise
adherence: integrating theory, evidence and behaviour change techniques. Physiotherapy.
Attribution Theory
Fritz Heider (1958) asserted that people seek to understand the world around them by
forming assumptions of cause and effect relationships, sometimes incorrectly. Kelley’s (1967)
covariation model explains that people develop ideas about cause and effect relationships based
on three factors: consensus (do most people behave in a similar manner?), distinctiveness (does
an individual exhibit similar behavior in other situations?), and consistency (how does an
individual exhibit similar behavior?). The degree to which behavior has consensus and is
distinctive and/or consistent as perceived by the person analyzing the behavior allows that person
to form attributions of cause and effect. Weiner (1972) built on these models to develop an
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 35
attribution model based on four factors that categorizes these attributions in a way that can
predict or inform human behavior. There are two dimensions in Weiner’s (1972) model, with
two factors in each dimension: stability (stable vs. unstable) and locus of causality (internal vs.
external). In this matrix, outcomes are attributed to ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck. Below
is a diagram of this model:
Figure 3. Weiner’s attribution model
An individual’s perceived self-efficacy can affect the attributions he or she makes and
vice versa. Watt and Martin (1994) studied how perceived performance and attributions for
performance were related and found that those with high self-efficacy sought to maintain this
level of self-efficacy through self-serving attributions of outcomes. Self-efficacy beliefs also
affect the reason to which a person attributes failure. Those with high self-efficacy attribute
failure to external factors, while those with low self-efficacy tend to be self-effacing in the face
of failure, attributing failure to internal factors (Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995). Thus,
understanding the attributions one makes can help inform the level of self-efficacy one holds
regarding a particular task. This is important when considering the motivational factors for
women pursuing academic leadership in STEM because, as previously demonstrated by Sandler
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 36
and Hall (1982), women in academia are more likely to be told their success is based on external
factors. Believing success is based on external factors will likely have a negative impact on their
self-efficacy and, in turn, deter them from pursuing their goals given the expected negative
outcome.
Social Influence
A key component of social cognitive theory is the interaction between the self and the
environment in which the self exists (Bandura, 1977). There are two main ways that
environmental factors can affect an individual’s behavior and motivation: observational learning
and reinforcement. Albert Bandura first demonstrated the concept of observational learning in
his renowned Bobo Doll study (Bandura, 1961). In this study, Bandura observed children’s
behavior with a Bobo Doll when they believed themselves to be alone (Bandura, 1961). One
group of children viewed adults aggressively interacting with the Bobo Doll, while the other
group did not. Bandura (1961) found that children who had observed aggressive behaviors acted
similarly towards the Bobo Doll, while the other children who had not witnessed those behaviors
did not behave aggressively towards the toy. Therefore, when an individual views others
performing a behavior, s/he is more likely to model that specific behavior in a similar situation
(Bandura, 1961). Carroll and Bandura (1982, 1985, 1987, 1990) furthered this concept by
demonstrating that reproduction of modeled behavior is more than simple imitation as people do
not imitate every behavior they see modeled; observational learning and modeling, rather,
requires cognitive processes of conceptual representation and assessment in order to yield a
change in behavior.
The type of model most likely to lead to imitation depends on more than simply the
model itself. Schunk and Hanson (1985) revealed that, when students with low self-efficacy
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 37
regarding mathematical subtraction viewed a peer model, adult model, or no model perform the
task, the students who viewed the peer model had high self-efficacy for the task both before and
after participating in targeted instruction. Therefore, those with lower self-efficacy may benefit
more from observing a peer model than an aspirational one. In addition, model gender plays a
role in task performance. Zimmerman and Koussa (1975) analyzed how the gender of a model
using various toys affects which children’s value judgments regarding the toys and found that,
when children were unsure of task appropriateness, they deferred to the behavior of the same-sex
model. This gives particular insight into the issue regarding women’s participation in STEM
fields as, given their lack, the dearth of same-sex models can lead them to believe science is not a
gender-appropriate task. This could be a reason that, as Baker and Leary (1995) found, girls
cannot envision themselves as scientists.
The second way people interact with their environment, according to social cognitive
theory, is reinforcement. Pavlov (1928) first developed the theory of how reinforcement can
affect behavior. In his study, Pavlov (1928) found that rewards or punishments following a given
behavior can either encourage or discourage the reproduction of that behavior. Cautela (1970)
demonstrated that, even the imagining of either a positive or negative consequence of a behavior,
can serve as reinforcement to either perpetuate or extinguish a behavior. It is in this manner that
social norms can often serve as reinforcement for learning and motivation as people imagine
positive outcomes from conformity or negative outcomes, as Ash (1951) demonstrated in his
experiment regarding group effects. In Ash’s (1951) experiment, groups of participants
compared the lengths of various-sized lines, with some purposefully erroneous comparisons
purported to be group beliefs used to test how participants would respond to the effects of group
beliefs. Ash (1951) found that, even when two lines were different sizes by a significant number
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 38
of inches, people were inclined to declare that the two lines were the same length when the group
belief declared that they were.
Thus, when people encounter even erroneous group beliefs, they tend to conform to those
beliefs. This is likely due to the desire for social approval (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) and/or
the desire to avoid negative group reactions to disobeying social norms (Fehr & Fischbacher,
2004). Interestingly, Fehr and Fischbacher (2004) found that punishments for violating social
norms can even come from third-party members of society with unaffected by the given situation
in which the norm is being violated. This is an important consideration in investigating the
obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing academic leadership positions in STEM fields,
as the anticipated punishment which could come from violating social norms of traditionally
male-dominant fields is likely a demotivating factor that serves as an obstacle, while women who
continue to pursue and serve in these positions must maintain motivation to do so despite this
negative reinforcement.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, the study sought to determine the obstacles
women face in pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at
California universities. Second, the study sought to determine the motivational factors that
inspire the participants to work toward and serve in these positions given these obstacles.
Research Questions
1. What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing and serving in academic
leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?
2. What are the motivations of women who pursue and serve in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?
3. How do these motivations enable women serving in academic leadership positions
in STEM fields to achieve their goal?
Research Design and Methods
This study utilized quantitative methods, surveys, and qualitative methods, interviews, to
gather data pertaining to female academic leaders in STEM fields at California universities in
order to understand their obstacles to and motivations for pursuing and serving in their positions.
The study was a mixed-methods study. The purpose of using mixed methods is to utilize the
advantages of both quantitative and qualitative data, while seeking to alleviate the disadvantages
of each. Below is a description of method selection and how the advantages and disadvantages of
each affect data collection and findings.
Why Quantitative Methods
The researcher chose to use quantitative methods for this study for multiple reasons.
First, quantitative methods allow the collection of data from a larger number of participants than
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 40
qualitative methods (Creswell, 2006). In addition, they can serve as a way to gain a better
understanding of the subject matter and provide context that will aid in more in-depth qualitative
data collection methods, such as interviews, for mixed-methods studies. The goal of the study
was to understand the obstacles to and motivations for women seeking and serving in an
academic leadership position in STEM fields. While a review of the research gave insight into
many of those typical obstacles as well as the possible motivational factors that can affect the
pursuit of this path, the researcher wanted to first gain a better understanding of these obstacles
and motivations using the researcher’s own data collection. That way, the researcher would be
able to learn the specific factors the members of the sample experienced and, thus, better hone
questions for the interviews. This was especially important for the motivational factors aspect of
the study, as not much research has investigated the specific motivations that inspire women to
pursue leadership positions in academia in STEM.
The researcher chose surveys as the method for quantitative data collection as they
worked best for this purpose. Surveys are a relatively inexpensive form of collecting data, which
enables the researcher to collect data efficiently from a large number of participants (Creswell,
2006). This is beneficial to the study, as the researcher was able to learn more about the entire
population of women in academic leadership positions in STEM fields in California universities.
Surveys allowed the researcher to reach all of the people in this population. The researcher
could, therefore, collect the greatest amount of data and discover which obstacles and
motivations were most often experienced and most important to this population. In addition,
surveys provide anonymity to the participants. This as helpful, as the researcher wanted to gain a
better understanding of what professional difficulties women in these positions experience.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 41
Why Qualitative Methods
The researcher chose to use qualitative methods for this study because of the depth of
knowledge they would provide. According to Maxwell (2013), qualitative methods allow
researchers to delve deeper than quantitative methods. The goal of the study was to determine the
obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in
STEM fields at California universities. Maxwell (2013) explained that qualitative methods,
rather than quantitative methods, are best able to help researchers understand how things happen
and the processes that participants utilize because they allow researchers to gather in-depth data
from a select group of participants. Rather than the breadth that quantitative methods allow,
qualitative methods are best-suited when a researcher wants to gather detail and have the option
to probe to uncover further details. Therefore, the researcher chose to utilize qualitative methods
for the data collection in this study, specifically interviews and observations.
The researcher chose to use interviews as part of the data collection process as they
allowed deeper investigation of the obstacles and motivations these women experienced,
particularly in their own words. While surveys provided a broad concept of the various obstacles
and motivating factors these women reported, interviews helped understand academic leaders’
perspectives regarding experiences in their own words at a much more detailed level and
provided the option to probe further. As Merriam (2009) asserted, interviews enable the
researcher to delve into the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of the participant. These are crucial
aspects of understanding female academic leaders’ experiences that would not have been fully
understood through surveys alone.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 42
Sampling
Selecting the sampling process entailed careful review of the advantages and
disadvantages of each method as discussed by Maxwell (2013). Because of the need for
participants who matched the criteria outlined in the research questions, specifically female
academic leaders in STEM fields, it did not make sense to randomly select the participants and
leave the selection to chance. The purpose of the study was to uncover the obstacles and
motivation experienced by a specific population, rather than trying to understand how different
populations experience them. Therefore, purposeful sampling allowed for selecting participants
based on how well they fit the criteria for survey respondents. Due to the relatively small
population of female academic leaders in STEM fields at California universities, the purposeful
sampling method yielded quantitative data from the entire population.
Geographically limiting data collection to California afforded the convenience of easy
travel to collect qualitative data in person. Thus, the researcher utilized convenience sampling as
well. Too much narrowing of the sampling scope through convenience sampling was
undesirable, as there are several drawbacks to this type of sampling. Convenience sampling is
named thusly, as it is more convenient for the researcher (Merriam, 2009). However,
convenience sampling is considered non-probability sampling, thus reducing generalizability,
and is not purposeful, thus limiting ability to ensure a more representative sample. Therefore,
convenience sampling was utilized to a limited extent.
After the first round of combined convenience and purposeful sampling, the process for
selecting interviewees had to be determined. This was a difficult decision between a
representative sample or a diverse sample. Diversity sampling was selected to gain a better
understanding of the various obstacles and motivations female academic leaders in STEM fields
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 43
experience. This investigation was not limited to the typical experiences. Quantitative data
collection served to glean the typical experiences, so the goal for the interviews was to delve
deep into these women’s range of experiences, as, for example, women of color might have
different obstacles or motivations. Utilizing diversity sampling after collecting the data from the
purposeful, convenient sample yielded data about the typical as well as the nuanced experiences
of the diverse participants.
Access/Entry
After selecting the sample for both the survey and interview data collection, the
researcher had to determine how to gain access to the participants. Luckily, due to their
management status, academic leaders’ names and contact information are posted on the
university or department website. In addition, due to their high-level managerial status, academic
leaders usually have authority to approve participation in activities or studies they wish to. Had
the study involved lower-level staff participants, gain approval entry might have been needed
from their superiors. However, academic leaders proved to be their own gatekeepers, essentially.
The real issue with access was not in gaining entry approval so much as being able to
take some of the academic leaders’ time. Being an academic leader is a demanding job and is not
the normal 9-to-5 job. Rather, these roles are salaried positions with changing hours that require
them to be available often on nights and weekends. They also are more likely to travel.
Therefore, it was somewhat difficult to organize the logistics of data collection from the
participants. In order to collect the maximum amount of survey data, the researcher had to send
the email containing the survey multiple times, as not everyone responded on the first or second
round. Given the department chair’s role as the director of the progress for their department, it
was understood that, from day to day or week to week, the convenience with which they can
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 44
complete the survey may change. Sending out the emails multiple times allowed for reaching
those who were not able to respond the first time they were sent out. After quantitative data
collection, there was still a need to find access to the participants chosen as interviewees. Again,
access to contact information made this relatively easy, and contact was made via either phone or
email.
Instrumentation
As Merriam (2009) discussed, there is a continuum of structure by which researchers can
construct their interview and observation protocols that ranges from very structured to very
unstructured, with a variety of options in between. How structured a researcher wants to
construct a protocol is based on a number of factors, not least of which is the researcher’s own
self-efficacy regarding the interview or observation process. For example, a researcher who does
not feel able to cover all of the relevant points the interviews, or capable of remembering to take
note of everything s/he wished to, might choose more structured protocols. To ensure all
predetermined topics were covered, but still allow room to follow interesting lines of inquiry that
might arise during the interviews, a semi-structured interview protocol was used. This also
enabled maintenance of a fairly casual, conversational style of questioning that facilitated the
building of rapport with the participants. The researcher believed a more formal style would
prevent probing and would not produce the same amount of ease in the participants as a more
friendly, casual style would. This rapport was necessary in probing for personal opinions,
thoughts, and beliefs held about possibly difficult times in their lives.
The survey protocol was very structured. The purpose of the surveys was to hone in on
the specific obstacles and motivations these women experienced and which might be the most
vital to the experience of working towards and in an academic leadership position. The Likert
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 45
scale was considered the most appropriate protocol, as it has equal interval measures in which
the difference between subsequent answer options is equal so as to not sway or influence the
participants in any given direction more so than another. Multiple specific Likert-scale
measurements were used, depending on the type of question posed. Questions regarding
obstacles used the following scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5)
strongly agree. This option was selected because the survey asking whether or not they felt
certain obstacles occurred in the pursuit of the academic leadership position. In addition, the
scale with (1) never, (2) seldom, ( 3) sometimes, (4) often, and (5) was used constantly for
questions regarding how often the participants experienced various obstacles. This enabled
understanding of how often an obstacle was experienced instead of merely if it did or did not
occur. Questions about motivational factors also used the aforementioned strongly disagree to
strongly agree scale in addition to the following scale: (1) not important, (2) a little important, (3)
somewhat important, (4) important, (5) very important. The former scale was used for questions
seeking to understand if participants had certain motivations, and the former was used for
questions seeking to understand how important participants felt the various motivational factors
were to their continued pursuit of and experience in a position of academic leadership.
Data Collection
To collect the survey data, the options were paper surveys or electronic surveys.
Electronic surveys were selected for convenience for both the participants and researcher. An
emailed survey link meant participants would not have the added physical clutter of paper, which
they could simply throw away, and they would not need to do the steps required to mail in their
responses. Also, data would be available immediately, ensuring timely collection. In addition,
should the first wave of emails not yield a high response rate, the email could easily be sent
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 46
again. Sending out multiple emails is also much more cost effective than mailing multiple
surveys.
Interviews were to be captured in their entirety, word for word, to provide as much data
as possible to code in case there was something missed in the handwritten. Therefore, a
recording device was used to capture the interviews: a thumbprint-protected iPhone with voice
memo recording software provided an extra layer of privacy control. To keep track of the
researcher’s opinions, notes, or possible themes during the interview, the researcher took
handwritten notes as well. Interviews were conducted in person in order to develop the greatest
possible rapport with participants.
The researcher considered the options of performing these interviews over the phone or
via video chat software, which is convenient for most professionals given the current access to
technology for them. Phone interviews were immediately decided against since these would not
allow for viewing the facial expressions and body language that are crucial in communication
and would be less likely to aid in determining topics about which to probe further. Video chat
interviews were also discarded as an option, as they add a layer of separation that can be a
hindrance in building rapport with interviewees. Working to build rapport was vital, as questions
were very personal and could dredge up not only likely difficult experiences, but also lead
interviewees to delve deep within themselves to uncover their motivations for overcoming those
difficult experiences. Therefore, participants would need to feel as comfortable as possible with
the interviewer. In-person interviews enabled interpretation of the energy in the room and created
an energy to make them feel relaxed, which would be lost when video chatting.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 47
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to present data analysis results collected to gain a deeper
understanding of the obstacles women face when pursuing and serving in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields as well as the motivations that inspire them to continue in light of these
obstacles. Knowing more about the obstacles women experience when seeking and maintaining
academic leadership jobs in STEM fields enables employers and peers, both male and female,
the opportunity to break down these barriers. In addition, learning about how successful women
academic leaders in STEM fields motivated themselves to continue to pursue their goals despite
these obstacles will provide ideas for how females throughout the educational pipeline can
motivate themselves and/or how their support system, such as educators and parents, can
motivate them to overcome these obstacles. It is imperative that women and their supporters
understand these ideas given that women hold only around one-third of STEM academic
leadership positions, with percentages fluctuating much lower in certain areas, such as
engineering (NSF, 2014).
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected via an
electronic survey sent via email to 55 female academic leaders in STEM fields in higher
education. The leaders chosen for participation were those who held academic leadership
positions of a certain caliber. Participants to whom the surveys were distributed were program
directors, vice/associate chairs of departments, department chairs, assistant deans, associate
deans, deans, provosts, and vice provosts. All participants served in their positions at 4-year
universities across California. Out of the 55 participants contacted, 23 responded to the survey,
resulting in a 41.8% response rate.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 48
Qualitative data were collected via face-to-face interviews with six participants chosen to
reflect similar demographic data to that of the survey respondents in areas such as ethnicity and
raising children, while also ensuring that a wide array of collegiate settings and career
backgrounds were utilized to see which obstacles and motivations were universal to all women in
academic leadership positions in STEM fields. Five interviews were conducted in person, while
one interview was conducted via video chat.
The research utilized a semi-structured approach to the interviews with an interview
protocol consisting of 18 questions. While all questions were asked of all participants, the semi-
structured approach enabled the researcher to probe more deeply when needed, ask follow-up
questions, re-direct, and circle back to previous statements and questions (Merriam, 2009).
Confidentiality was ensured by keeping all interview recordings in a thumbprint
protected phone and keeping all information regarding meetings for interviews in a password-
protected file in a password protected computer in a locked apartment or office. No identifying
information was requested from interview participants. Confidentiality for survey participants
was ensured by sending out the survey link to participants, but not requesting any identifying
information in order for them to take the survey. Triangulation was conducted by comparing the
survey and interview data to ensure their validity.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the obstacles to and motivations for women
pursuing and serving in higher education academic leadership positions in STEM fields.
Awareness of these obstacles and how women can be motivated to persist to leadership positions
despite them can aid in enabling more women to rise to these positions and, thus, act as agents of
change.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 49
Research Questions
The research study is guided by the following research questions:
1. What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing and serving in academic
leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?
2. What are the motivations of women who pursue and serve in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?
3. How do these motivations enable women serving in academic leadership positions
in STEM fields to achieve their goal?
Coding of Data
Analysis of the data required coalescing interview and survey data and interpreting them
to determine overarching themes (Merriam, 2009). Before starting the coding process, the
researcher reread the transcripts and listened to the recordings of the interviews after reviewing
the survey data (Maxwell, 2013). In reviewing the data, axial codes were the first consideration:
the preliminary codes posited during data collection based on the literature review and
similarities noticed while gathering data. Data were then reviewed to note the occurrence of the
axial codes and determine if they were still appropriate. They were discovered to be largely
appropriate, but also necessitated more detail to delve into the complexity of the in-depth data.
The researcher then proceeded to review and code the data multiple times in order to hone in on
the most accurate coding.
Codes were analyzed to establish which overarching themes were most appropriate for
the findings of the study. The method used to determine which themes to discuss in the findings
was two-fold, taking into account both the number of occurrences of the codes as well as the
ones that appeared to have the most effect on the participants’ experiences as academic leaders in
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 50
STEM fields. Further, the number of occurrences necessitated consideration of both the number
of times a code arose in a single interview or observation as well as the dual occurrence in both
the interview and observation, which demonstrates corroboration.
Survey Participants
The following sections present demographic, career, and personal characteristics
presented by survey respondents.
Race/Ethnicity
Survey participants were asked which of the following best described their race: African
American, Asian, Caucasian, Native American, Pacific Islander, multiracial, or other. Table 1
below shows the breakdown of all of the options chosen by the respondents. Of the 23 survey
participants, the majority (73.9%) identified as Caucasian. The other two options survey
respondents declared were Asian and Multiracial, each with three participants, (13 %),
responding so.
Table 1
Race/Ethnicity
Career Information
The survey asked participants two questions regarding their career experience. First,
participants were asked how many years they had been working in their current field, with
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 51
answer options ranging from 1 to 10 years on an integer scale as well as including the options for
less than one year and 10+ years. Per Table 2, all participants responded that they had been in the
field at least 10 years, with all except one working in the field for more than 10 years.
The same scale was used for the answer options to the question regarding participants’
experience in an academic leadership position. The responses to this question varied more widely
than to those for the previous one. Per Table 3, nine participants (39.1%) had been in an
academic leadership position for more than 10 years. The next most common response was both
10 years and 6 years, with three responses (13%) each. Two participants responded that they had
been in an academic leadership position for less than one year (8.7%), three years (8.7%), and
four years (8.7%). One respondent each confirmed they had been in such a position for five
(4.3%) and seven (4.3%) years.
Table 2
Years in the Field
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 52
Table 3
Years in an Academic Leadership Position
Home Life
The survey asked respondents to answer two demographic questions regarding their
home life. First, participants were asked what their marital status was, given the options to
identify as single, in a committed relationship, married, or separated/divorced. Per Table 4
below, the majority of participants (78.3%) responded that they were married, with 18
respondents declaring so. Two respondents confirmed that they were either single (8.7%) or
separated/divorced (8.7%). One survey respondent answered that she was in a committed
relationship. Next, participants were asked if they had children. The only answer options were
yes or no. Per Table 5 below, the majority of participants (78.3%) responded that they did have
children, with 18 affirming so. Five (21.7%) confirmed that they did not have children.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 53
Table 4
Marital Status
Table 5
Children
Interview Participants
The researcher sought to recruit interviewees who reflected the breakdown of the
demographic information of the survey participants while ensuring that as many of the various
demographic options as possible were represented in order to see if there were any differences
amongst participants of various backgrounds and circumstances that in-depth interviews could
uncover. Below are the descriptions for the demographic information for each of the six
interview participants.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 54
Leader One
Leader One was a Caucasian woman. She was married and did not have any children.
She had been in her field for 10 years and had served in an academic leadership position for less
than one year.
Leader Two
Leader Two was an Asian woman. She was married and did have children. She had been
in her field for over 10 years and had served in an academic leadership position for more than 10
years as well.
Leader Three
Leader Three was an Asian woman. She was married and did not have any children. She
had been in her field for over 10 years and had served in an academic leadership position for 4
years.
Leader Four
Leader Four was a Caucasian woman. She was married and did have children. She had
been in her field for over 10 years and in an academic leadership position for 10 years.
Leader Five
Leader Five was a Caucasian woman. She was married and did have children. She had
been in her field for over 10 years and had served in an academic leadership position for three
years.
Leader Six
Leader Six was a Caucasian woman. She was married and did have children. She had
been in her field for over 10 years and had served in an academic leadership position for seven
years.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 55
Findings
Per Merriam (2009), after determining codes and analyzing the data for the presence of
these codes, one must reflect on how these results are interrelated. From this analysis, the
research can coalesce a clear picture for how the data inform the research questions. Below is the
analysis conducted to explore the obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving
in academic leadership positions in STEM fields. Quantitative data from the 23 survey responses
and qualitative data from the six interviews were analyzed for the purpose of seeking answers to
the research questions.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing
and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?” In analysis
of the quantitative and qualitative data, three main obstacles emerged as those that most affected
the participants’ pursuit of leadership positions in STEM academia. In the survey, participants
were asked whether a number of possible obstacles affected them. They were then asked to list
the top three obstacles they felt most inhibited them in their careers. Below, Table 6 presents the
most common obstacles. Some of the obstacles were rephrased to determine if asking the
question in a different manner affected the result. Per Table 6 below, gender biases (Q15), access
to mentors/role models (Q8 and Q13), and balancing professional and personal responsibilities
(Q7 and Q10) had the highest mean responses.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 56
Table 6
Statistics
Below, the qualitative responses correlating with the themes demonstrated in the above
quantitative data are explored in depth.
Gender biases. Leader One described her feelings on gender bias she experienced and
how she felt it was detrimental to science as a whole:
I think that, in general, physics misses because…there’s a certain diversity of approaches
to physics that are taken by different genders…And there’s…some women who are very
good at physics and some men who are very good at physics, and, by not necessarily
encouraging all of them, I think we lose out in the end. And I certainly encountered road
blocks in my PhD program…I felt like I wasn’t really taken seriously because I was
female…if I said something [one colleague], didn’t agree with it, [but], if my advisor said
the same thing or supported me, then he agreed…That interaction happened fairly
often…I think earlier on is where the pipeline needs to be strengthened.
She went on to give various examples of times where she had proposed an idea or stated a
scientific theory and male colleagues scoffed at her claims, yet conceded in agreement when she
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 57
had to either physically show them the evidence in a textbook or have her male advisor support
her. In all of these cases, never did the men admit their errors in judgment of her. Leader One felt
very discouraged by this, and the lack of belief in her abilities due to her gender caused her to
quit the PhD program for some time. Though she did return to complete her PhD at a different
institution, Leader One knew that other women who experience the same bias did not choose to
return, which results in a lack of diversity of perspective. When a single gender is excluded from
a given field, Leader One explained, innovation is limited due to a dearth of input from that
different perspective. The bias that Leader One experienced was most intensely felt earlier on in
her career, before she was able to develop confidence, according to her.
Other participants had similar experiences, with many of them expressing that the
experiences that most distressed them occurred earlier on in their careers. Leader Four recounted
experiencing particularly blatant gender bias early in her career as well. She recalled a professor
during her PhD saying to her “I’ve never had a woman graduate student in my research group
because I’ve never met a woman smart enough to be in my research group.” This misconception
follows Spear’s (1987) findings in which science teachers graded identical homework
assignments more harshly when they believed them to be submitted by a female compared to
when they were submitted under a male name. Those in STEM academia often do not believe
women are capable of attaining above a certain level of achievement. Leader Three explained
that, because of this lack of confidence in women’s capabilities, patronizing women is a
pervasive issue in STEM academia. According to Leader Three, women are often treated as if
they are only in their positions in STEM because of tokenism, where women are made to feel as
if their presence in the field is based on the benevolence of men giving them opportunities
because of their gender, not their abilities.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 58
In addition to the skepticism surrounding their work during their pursuit of their
education, all interviewees experienced tangential sexist behavior in which faculty or students
made statements about them that were blatantly negatively based on their gender. For example,
Leader Two described what she had seen as a common occurrence for female STEM students:
It seems to be a trend that the women I’ve talked to in their undergrad, they didn’t speak
up. There was this kind of thing where you had to keep your head down and just try to
blend in as much as possible cause we are so few and we didn’t want to rock the boat. At
least in the undergraduate institution where I went, there’s definitely sexist behavior. And
you don’t want to be calling out your professors for sexist behavior because you rely on
them to give you a class grade or to pass you on your qualifying exam or serve on your
thesis committee.
Leader Two brings to light a very important point to consider regarding the treatment of women
in STEM academia. Women are often too worried about backlash from reporting sexist behavior
that it creates a vicious cycle in which an ignorant administration remains so because it does not
create an environment where women feel free to report sexism without it negatively affecting
their career. This finding is supported by those of Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001), who
discovered that only a small number of women will report sexist behavior in laboratory settings.
Kaiser and Miller (2004) suggested that, because lack of reporting instances of gender bias is not
based on women’s acquiescence to this behavior, it is vital administrations and organizations be
aware of the discrepancy between incidences of sexism and reports of sexism.
Leader Two went on to describe specific instances she experienced as well as how they
inspired her to make changes in training teaching assistants:
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 59
I remember the professor asked me, because he was asking a questions and not enough
response from the class, he said, “Yeah, you’re a woman. You’re used to looking at
yourself in the mirror.” I’m assuming that they didn’t mean to embarrass me like that.
So…as chair, I’ve started to teach a course that’s required for all first-time teaching
assistants here in our department to educate our students, our undergraduate TAs, our
graduate TAs about implicit bias, about the impact of their words and actions. No matter
how well-meaning they are, they need to be aware that stereotypes that affect their
mannerisms or speech or just the way they treat women versus men or minorities versus
majority students, that they can have unintended negative consequences.
She described how, though she experienced instances of blatant sexism, she though that,
sometimes, it can be the implicit, everyday types of bias that build over time in women’s minds
that can lead to attrition in STEM. Leader Three confirmed this belief by saying that the issue
with gender biases are that they are felt in “a million little cuts…little paper cuts that then take
your finger off.” All of the participants echoed this representation of how the small, everyday
gender biases become the, sometimes, insurmountable obstacles they are to women in STEM
academia. Sonnert (1995) asserted that this is the case as well. In the study, Sonnert (1995) found
that attrition of females in STEM is often due to the accumulation of small instances of bias
rather than one single instance or type of bias. It is these seemingly innocuous, even well-
meaning or joking displays of sexism, as Leader Two represented, that can build up to the point
where women feel judged and unwelcome in the male-dominated STEM fields. Her experience
caused her to start training her teaching assistants on the importance of understanding implicit
bias. She, along with the other participants, acknowledged that, often, these smaller incidents of
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 60
gender bias are subconscious, systemically ingrained bias rather than consciously held misogyny.
Therefore, it is vital that those in STEM are made aware of their implicit bias.
While the participants all experienced the accumulation of small instances of gender bias,
and believed a large number of these instances were implicit bias, there is also the issue of
blatant, even aggressive sexism. Leader Four explained:
I think that, by and large, have unconscious bias, and, so, yes, they have gender bias, but I
think, for most of them, it’s unconscious. Now, that being said, there’s certainly some
who are consciously biased. One person said to me, “I’ve never had a woman graduate
student in my research group because I’ve never met a woman smart enough to be in my
research group.” We also had a case in our department where there was an anonymous
piece of hate email sent to one of our female candidates, which caused her to decline our
offer. We were never able to find out who did it because it was done from an anonymous
email that was set up at an Internet café.
In the situation that Leader Four recounted, one of her colleagues sought to scare away a
potential female candidate to the point where the woman decided not to join the department. He
actively, diligently concealed what he had done, clearly knowing that what he did was wrong.
This act caused a female faculty candidate to decline an offer that she otherwise would have
likely accepted, according to Leader Four. Though the participants agreed that the amassing of
smaller instances of gender biases were important in the development of gender biases as an
obstacle, every participant recalled a blatant, more obvious type of gender bias akin to the ones
Leader Four described. This trend is also not necessarily changing with the new generation.
Leader Three recounted her experience with biased students:
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 61
You’ll [also] be amazed at how much gender bias there is in students. You’ll see it in
course evaluations: very explicit and actually quite stunning language in course
evaluations, outright sexist and quite nasty sometimes. I actually happen to be a really
good teacher and mostly get very good evaluations, but, when they’re bad, you will get
explicitly gender-based [ones], cussing out and stuff like that. I see course evaluations for
my faculty, and I will see stuff said about women that I never see for men.
Her experiences are supported by Bennet’s (1982) findings in which students critiqued female
faculty more harshly than their male counterparts as well as in the anecdotal descriptions
gathered by Moore (1997), in which female faculty experienced aggressive interactions with
students demonstrating gender biases. When viewed as a cohesive tapestry, it is evident that the
fact that the more blatant demonstrations of gender bias are then supported by smaller, more
prevalent instances creates an environment in which women in STEM feel degraded and
patronized.
Isolation/Lack of allies. One of the experiences that was unanimous for all participants
was the lack of other women in their educational and work environments. Because they were one
of only a few or, more often, the only women in their departments, participants expressed both
feelings of isolation and heightened scrutiny. Leader Five explained how she felt on display and
separate from the rest of her peers when she was still a student:
I can’t remember any other women in my EE [electrical engineering] classes when I was
an undergraduate. And, since I’ve became a chair…I talk with our students. They do feel
less comfortable speaking up if they’re the only women in the class. That was the way I
felt when I was a student. And I do remember faculty, probably well-meaning, called on
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 62
confidence. I would imagine my male colleagues did not have to go through that because
they were in the majority and also, just generally, the expectations of society.
Being the only woman in her classes prevented Leader Five from feeling comfortable engaging
in class. The other participants reflected her experience, explaining that being the sole woman
made them appear as representative of the entire gender to their male majority colleagues. This
made speaking in class difficult, as they did not want to ask a question considered stupid or
appear as if they did not understand the material. The pressure was two-fold: they did not want to
embarrass themselves nor did they want to reinforce the notion that women were not intelligent
or capable enough to excel in science, manifestations of which they all experienced per the
anecdotes above. The participants’ experiences are supported by Maranato and Griffin’s (2010)
findings that women tend to feel more excluded in environments with low number of women.
The isolation women in STEM experience because of the lack of women in STEM
academia also can make navigating the academic system successfully more difficult. Leader One
explained how this contributed to her decision to leave her PhD program:
I actually quit and decided to become a high school physics teacher…I felt that I couldn’t
do the research, and I wasn’t a tractor beam professor of physics, which I wanted to do. I
didn’t feel I was qualified…Unfortunately, too many students got accepted at the same
time, and they didn’t have enough research positions for everyone. So, it was a pretty
brutal experience when I started there. Because I talked to professor after professor
asking, “Can I do research with you?” And they all said no, and it was very
demoralizing...[and], because I was female, I felt pressure a little bit more. I didn’t feel
confident enough in my own abilities to say I’m just stick with it, and I just got very
discouraged after a while.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 63
Leader One was put in a position where she had to compete with an entirely male population of
peers for support to continue the research required as a PhD student. The combination of
impostor syndrome and the lack of role models made it difficult for her to have confidence in her
ability. She also expressed the belief that her gender may have played a role in male faculty not
choosing to hire her, but she was hesitant to state that belief. Despite Leader One’s hesitance to
claim that notion, Crawford and Macleod (1990) found that female faculty were likely to
encourage female students, while male faculty were not, supporting the idea that Leader One’s
difficulty in securing a research position was, in part, based on her gender. Without a mentor to
guide her and encourage her, Leader One decided to quit. It was only after she had time outside
of STEM academia that she built her confidence enough to return to the career she loved.
Other participants reflected this need for female mentors and role models. In fact, Leader
Four expressed why role models are crucial in the development of successful women in STEM
academia as she considered quitting her PhD program as well:
I really needed role models when I was younger. I mean I still do, but I especially needed
it when I was younger, so I’m happy to the extent that I can provide that for others. I
think people really do look to see people like them to say, “Oh, I can do this, too, because
she can do it.” I felt that way myself with looking, when I was a grad student, thinking of
dropping out of grad school, and it was really looking to other women that made me feel
encouraged and made me feel I could stay in and overcome that hurdle that I was facing
right then. And I understand that’s what people do: they tend to look for role models
similar to themselves. And, so, from that point of view, the fact that I have a bunch of
kids and that I know women will sometimes look at me and think, “Wow, that’s possible
to be a professor and have a bunch of kids.”
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 64
Leader Four’s recounting of her time in graduate school demonstrates that Leader One’s
uncertainty regarding graduate school is not unusual. It begs the question: how many talented
women has the world of science lost due to the isolation and insecurity bred by the lack of
encouragement that could be obtained by having a similar role model to themselves? Leader
Four hoped to improve the experiences of women pursuing STEM education by achieving a
leadership position and serving as a role model to the students at her university. All participants
agreed with Leader Four that they wished they had female mentors and believed there were too
few of them currently in the field for the younger generations. They expressed that being able to
see themselves in a mentor would have improved their confidence as well as given them access
to networking that they did not have. Leader Four went on to explain the domino effect that a
lack of female mentors can have:
People tend to naturally gravitate to socializing with people similar to themselves. And,
so, if you’re at a conference, it’s more likely that the French are going to be hanging out
with the French, and the Australians will be hanging out with the Australians, and the
women are going to be hanging out with the women, and it’s a small group. I don’t know
how much. I’m sort of not part of these networks.
She brought to light something that was common amongst all participants: they know that they
do not have the same access to networking that their male peers do, but it is difficult to know the
extent to which this hinders their careers. Leader Four’s assertion that like gravitates to like is
supported by the theory of relational demography as outlined by Maranato and Griffin (2010).
According to relational demography, people tend to seek out and bond with others they see as
similar to themselves (Maranato & Griffin, 2010). Because of this, women are more likely to be
excluded from social bonding between male colleagues that can lead to crucial mentoring and
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 65
networking relationships. With smaller groups in which to bond, it is more difficult for women to
access the benefits of the wisdom and connections a wider range of mentors provides.
Family/Gender roles. The third main theme for obstacles that arose from analysis of the
data was the demands on women’s time required to fulfill obligations in the home. For some of
the participants, this resulted in the choice to not have children as they would not have been able
to progress in their careers as they wanted to. Leader Three explained how familial obligations
put more constraints on women than men in STEM academia and why she chose not to have
children:
I never had children and it was definitely tied to a professional decision…I couldn’t see a
way of having a family and I didn’t feel that my husband at the time would be willing to
take on that role. And there wasn’t any way for me to do both, and, so, there was an
explicit decision not to have children. Problems are endemic in engineering. So, the men
were almost always married to women whose careers either didn’t exist of came
explicitly second. It was really clear that the career of the man mattered much more than
the career of the woman…The women [in the department] were almost always married to
men of equal stature. I mean there were highly educated women; that invariably meant
dissonance that the woman would deliberately take a step back because the gender
situation invariably meant that they ought to be the one taking care of the family. So, if
there was a fight about whose career came first, the woman’s career always came second.
That was always a theme. So, the pressure on our women faculty is extremely high. I
mean they’re working in this really tough profession, you know, tenure and all of this
stuff and they’ve got children and they don’t always get the support from the men in their
lives that they should. Having children, women pay the price for that. Men don’t pay the
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 66
price for it, but women do because there’s always this idea of another claim on your time
and well, how serious can you be?
Leader Three made the choice that she and a number of her other participants had to make:
pursue her dream career or have children. Women are forced to make this choice often because
of society’s pre-determined gender roles in which women are supposed to be the primary
caregivers of children. Per Craig (2006), the role of mother requires more time, physical labor,
and overall responsibility than the role of father and necessitates a more rigid schedule for
mothers. Because of the increased time as well as mental and physical demands required of
mothers, Leader Three found she could not pursue her career and take on the role of mother.
Women who do not make this choice, as Leader Three has seen, often find their careers plateau
and even stagnate while their male partners’ careers flourish even though they have children as
well. According to Leader Three, even when women do strive to pursue their careers and raise
children, there is an assumption that they cannot devote as much time as their male counterparts
can to certain levels of jobs.
All participants who did have children, Leader Two, Leader Four, Leader Five, and
Leader Six, explained that there were times in their lives when they declined offers for higher
positions or positive changes in their careers because of familial considerations. For example,
Leader Six explained how her children affect her career decisions:
My decisions today pertain a lot to my children wanting me there every evening. And you
think in the beginning it’s like breastfeeding and pumping twice a day and whatever, but
later, when they’re teenagers, it’s about being there when they decide they want to open
up to you. So, it’s because of them that I pick my travel, that I try not to be gone too
many evenings in the week, and I pick my commute hours. They play a big role in going
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 67
up in management because I think deans obviously don’t say no to evenings and
weekends. Chairs I think have a little bit more flexibility. It’s not just the starting [a
family] it’s continuing to maintain [a family]. For me it’s like truly my heart hurts
because it’s my children who want to talk to me before they go to bed or whatever. The
guilt. Whereas with the men it’s more of a guilt that my wife is going to be mad at me [if
I’m not home evenings and weekends] and me it’s like a guilt that I’m not there in the
formative times of my children.
Leader Six asserted that she would not consider taking on a higher management position until
her youngest child is out of school. She recounted the physical as well as temporal taxes on
women when their children are young, particularly regarding breastfeeding schedules, but those
taxes do not end as the children get older. These taxes as well as the emotional pull are
preventing Leader Six from continuing up the career ladder into higher levels of management.
She believed that her male colleagues do not experience this same cognitive dissonance when
desiring to devote oneself to developing a family as well as a career. Per the explanation from
Leader Three above, as well as multiple other participants, this is likely due to the fact that many
of the men in leadership positions in STEM academia, and STEM academia in general, have
partners whose careers take second place to familial duties and, thus, alleviate the time strain that
women whose partners also have demanding careers experience. It is this strain that prevents
Leader Six from progressing into higher positions.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the motivations of women who pursue
and serve in academic leadership positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?”
Through analysis of the quantitative survey data, three main motivational factors emerged. Like
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 68
with the question regarding obstacles the participants faced, participants were asked the degree to
which each of the various motivational factors that might be pertinent based on the literature
affected them. Respondents were then asked to choose which three of these factors were most
influential in motivating them to continue to pursue the path to academic leadership despite the
aforementioned obstacles. Questions regarding some motivational factors were asked in different
ways to discover if variation of phrasing yielded different results. Attributions and expectancies
(questions one, two, three, and seven), task value (question eight and nine), and support from
colleagues (question five) had the highest mean responses (appendix).
Support from family and colleagues. Support from family and colleagues was the first
theme in analysis of the motivations these women utilize to continue to pursue leadership
positions in the face of the obstacles women face in these positions. All participants discussed
how their partners, friends, and family outside of academia provided them with general, moral
support in that they felt supported by them to pursue their dreams. However, support from
colleagues was the theme amongst all participants that appeared to most assist them in their quest
for leadership positions. All of them expressed contentment with their current work environment
and noted that supportive colleagues early in their career paved the way for furthering their
careers. Leader One discussed her relationships with her colleagues as a great working
relationship, while acknowledging that her situation is not necessarily common.
[My department] is an unusual place in that every department is a little different. Some of
them are more dysfunctional than others. Mine happens to be very functional. And they
were very clear with me from the beginning what was needed for tenure…so, it was fairly
painless I would say…and any time I had questions throughout the process, they were
always willing to spend the time to discuss these things with me…My colleagues have all
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 69
been incredibly supportive…They are actually fantastic and they don’t have any of the
inherent biases that some men that I’ve worked with…do. [The campus has] a big focus
on equality and justice
Leader One admitted that her first institution did not feel comfortable, as she did not feel
supported by colleagues, which caused her to leave that institution. The support from her current
team enabled her to not only achieve tenure, but also succeed in her role as department chair.
This was particularly crucial for Leader One as the dismissiveness she experienced during her
first PhD program caused her to quit. Support from her colleagues gave her the confidence and
self-efficacy (Schunk, 1984) to stay the course and achieve higher levels in her career.
For working mothers, support from colleagues can be especially motivating as that is
often a time when women take a step back from their careers in STEM academia. For Leader
Six, her colleagues were incredibly supportive of her role as a mother. She described the integral
part her dean played in her decision to first take on an academic leadership position:
When I became chair, I was the director of a program, but that was just so basic. I was
not planning to become chair, but my dean wanted me to become chair, which was really
interesting because I had a four-year-old and a two-year-old, so I had no desire to become
chair. I said “no,” and he said “yeah,” and he did that for months and then, at the same
time, asking me, “so when are you going to have your third?” Basically, he was saying “I
want you to consider this position, but I’m not trying to say you should shut down on
having more children. Do what you want to do, but you can do all of that.” I didn’t feel
that way, but after months and months, he talked me into it, so I decided to run and was
elected.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 70
For Leader Six, having young children had originally prevented her from thinking she could take
on a leadership position like department chair. However, it was the support of her dean that
enabled her to envision herself capable of filling both roles. Without the encouragement of her
dean as well as his assurance that her home life would be encouraged rather than considered a
hindrance, Leader Six’s career trajectory would likely have looked quite different. Given that
Hill (2005) found that working mothers experience more work-family conflict than working
fathers, Leader Six’s worry over her ability to balance a leadership position and young children
was justified. Her colleagues’ support motivated her to strive for more in her career even as her
family required what Hochschild (1990) referred to as the second shift of motherhood, which can
demand as much as a second job of working mothers.
Leader Five also found the support of her department particularly motivating as a
working mother. Her colleagues were encouraging and understanding of the demands of
motherhood, and she even nursed her babies in department meetings. Per Fehr and Fischbacher
(2004), individuals can alter behavior to avoid negative social interactions. In addition, Cialdini
and Goldstein (2004) found that people can conform to erroneous group beliefs in a desire for
social approval. Since participants and Madsen (2007) found that employers tend to make
decisions based on their doubt that mothers can handle all of the responsibility required of their
jobs, the demonstrable support of colleagues for working mothers served as positive
reinforcement for these participants. This positive reinforcement, as defined by Pavlov (1928),
motivated the participants to pursue academic leadership positions.
Task value. Task value, or the importance placed on performing a given activity,
emerged as the second most important motivational factor that spurred women into pursuing
academic leadership positions in STEM fields. There were a number of various reasons for
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 71
placing importance on leadership positions, but all but one of the participants expressed a value-
based drive to serve in academic leadership positions. Leader One, the only participant who did
not express this drive, still demonstrated that she believed academic leadership to have certain
responsibilities that she sought to live up to, therefore demonstrating that she held task value for
the position. She asserted that being a role model as a woman in STEM was very important to
her. The importance of serving as a role model for other women in STEM was one of the most
common task values as all participants agreed that they felt it was a responsibility of theirs as
women in STEM academia. Leader Three described this responsibility as follows:
It seemed to me that I should, because of my own position as a woman in engineering and
in this profession, that I ought to do something to move the big needles. That’s really
what the driver was for me. Because if you don’t play that role, who is going to do it? I
see that as a critical part of my job.
Leader Three detailed the responsibility she felt as a woman in STEM to take on that role as
there are so few women in those positions who can bring about change that increased inclusivity,
particularly for other women. Striving for better practices in STEM academia regarding diversity
and women’s issues was also a theme amongst the participants. Leader Two explained the
changes she desires to see in her institution and how her value for inclusion motivated her to
reach for higher leadership positions:
Having been here for 20 years, I thought that it certainly is a worthy institution to try to
continue to help, uphold, to be successful. And, from my viewpoint, there is a need for
somebody to step up and try to help…when I saw that things need an improvement, and I
didn’t think others would be willing to step up and lead, that’s when I was willing to step
up [since] certain things like diversity and inclusion…was a concern to me…That’s why
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 72
I stepped up to lead the department, and we did turn around the transfers, making
significant improvements in the percentage of women for sure and underrepresented
minorities.
Leader Two believed greatly in the importance of inclusion in STEM, a value she did not see
others supporting in the way that she deemed would serve her institution’s students. Academic
leadership had not necessarily been an avenue Leader Two had planned to pursue until her value
for increasing diversity at her university grew to the point that she realized, to make the changes
she wanted to see, she would need to take on position of leadership.
Leader Five also explained that she did not begin her career desiring to take on leadership
roles, but, in her career experiences as well as information gained from seminars she attended,
she realized that pursuing leadership positions was an important goal for her as it would give her
the platform to enact the changes she sought to see in STEM academia. As Leader Six put it, it
was the alternatives, the others who were running for department chair, who sealed her decision
to seek out a leadership position. She had a clear vision for the future of her department and felt
that the other candidates were not going to bring that vision to fruition. Thus, she found the
pursuit of academic leadership important.
Leader Four explained how the practice of leading in academia cemented her value for
the work she was doing:
I really have enjoyed it, and I also feel like I’ve made a difference in many cases with
individual students in cases, say, of sexual harassment or cases where a student is having
a problem graduating and there’s something with the sort of machinery of the school. I’ve
really been able to help out in people’s lives. I’ve also been concerned with diversity,
both for women for underrepresented minorities, and also for low-income students. I can
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 73
deal with a lot of student matters that I really care about. When I first took the job, it was
aimed at helping students and that was important to me.
For Leader Four, the underlying reasoning for desiring to see greater inclusion in STEM was the
desire to help students succeed. She wanted to help students and knew that, as an academic
leader, she would be able to work to increase diversity during her tenure. Each of the other
participants echoed her assertion that the desire to help students, and seeing how they helped
affect students in actuality, were their favorite parts of being academic leaders. For these
participants, the importance they placed on being able to enact change and, thus, serving as
academic leaders demonstrates that task value was a major motivation for them pursuing these
avenues. Therefore, it would behoove departments to understand and cultivate task value for
leadership positions in female faculty.
Attributions/Expectancies. Attributions, and the expectancy beliefs they lead to, were
the third theme uncovered through analysis of the data regarding the motivating factors for
women pursuing and serving in STEM academic leadership positions. Coupled with task value
and support from colleagues, the final piece of the puzzle that motivated these participants was
what the fact that they attributed success to personal capabilities rather than outside forces. Per
Weiner’s (1972) model, attributions of cause and effect based on personal qualities are internal
and stable, the type of attributions most likely to motivate continuance of a certain behavior. All
of the participants expressed beliefs that they are a good leader. In addition, when asked what
made them a good leader, they attributed it to personal, stable skills and attributes. Leader Three
stated that her attributions and expectancies for success made her confident that she could be
successful as an academic leader:
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 74
I attribute it to myself. I worked at it. I did well, and I also had teams that were really
very good at my center that I was running before I took on academic leadership. [To do
what I do] you have to be technically solid. You have to know your stuff because, if you
don’t have that, then you have zero credibility among academics. So, you have to have
that, and I think I did have that. Beyond that, I think leadership, of course, requires good
communication skills, and I think that’s something I do have, written and oral. I think
academic leadership requires breadth. You have to be able to look at engineering, in this
case, broadly. I mean, in my current position, it’s not academic rigor and depth that’s the
most useful. It is having a broad view of engineering: where it’s going, what its
challenges are going to be, what you are going to be able to do to succeed, how you are
going to compete. That breadth is hard for academics to have. Academics are naturally
narrow and deep. Foresight, strategic thinking, broad knowledge. Big picture thinking
doesn’t come naturally to researchers who are one pursuing one idea for a long time
because our research tends to drive us deep rather than broad. So, leadership requires
breadth and strategy and I felt I had that. I do believe I am a good leader.
Leader Three expressed firm notions regarding what qualities make leaders successful and,
according to her, she embodies these qualities and seeks to cultivate them in herself. Because of
her abilities, such as creative thinking and strategic planning, Leader Three had confidence in her
leadership skills and anticipated being successful as an academic leader.
The assertions Leader Three outlined regarding her leadership qualities were similar to
those made by the other participants. For example, Leader Six declared that the impetus for her
pursuing her first academic leadership positions was that she knew she had a clear vision and
strategic plan for the department, while all of the other candidates did not exhibit these same
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 75
skills. Leader Six’s beliefs regarding the reasons she had been successful in the past enabled her
to expect to success as her department’s chair. Leader Five also expressed that her ability to plan
and solve problems was the reason for her success. She also discussed how her ability to
communicate with others and honor their dignity so that they feel truly heard were key in her
success. Leader Four echoed this sentiment by stating that, in conjunction with her ability to
effectively determine how to bring a plan to fruition, her utilization of input from those involved,
thus generating diversity of approaches to a given problem, are the reasons for her success and
the foundation for her belief that she is a good leader.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How do these motivations enable women serving in
academic leadership positions in STEM fields to achieve their goal?” The researcher sought to
answer specifically how the main motivational factors motivated participants to overcome the
obstacles they faced as women in STEM academia. What the researcher sought to answer
through this analysis was the effect each of the above uncovered themes had so that those who
work in STEM academia can understand the specific ways they can develop these motivations in
women. Below are some of the ways that women described how each theme specifically
motivated them to pursue academic leadership positions.
Support from family, friends, and colleagues. Discovering the specific ways that
support from family, friends, and colleagues assists in understanding why support from these
people, particularly colleagues as discovered above, is crucial in spurring women in STEM to
pursue leadership in academia. Three methods of support emerged in analysis of the data. First,
support from colleagues reinforced self-efficacy, or the confidence in one’s ability for a given
task, which enabled women to feel confident in pursuing these positions. A number of the
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 76
participants expressed that encouragement from colleagues regarding their capabilities bolstered
their already held attributions for their skills as leaders. For example, Leader One explained that
she “never felt there was anything, in anyone, doubt that I could succeed.” This experience
regarding the belief her colleagues had in her ability to succeed was echoed by Leader Four and
Leader Five as key in motivating them to take on leadership roles.
The second method of support specifically regarded working mothers. By colleagues
demonstrating support of motherhood without diminishing women’s professional abilities,
participants who were mothers felt that they would not have to cope with the additional obstacle
of skepticism or discrimination from colleagues for pursuing leadership positions because of
their obligations as mothers. Leader Four, Leader Five, and Leader Six asserted that this type of
support gave them added confidence in pursuing leadership positions as they knew they had that
network of support to aid them in their desire to satisfy work and family responsibilities. For
Leader Six, this was particularly crucial and her dean even mentioned that he would encourage
her to have more children if she wanted. His confidence in her abilities to do both spurred her to
finally choose to pursue academic leadership.
The third way method through which colleagues’ support motivated participants was in
creating networks of peers to whom these women could turn for advice as well as assistance with
the job search process. Leader Three recounted how support from her female colleagues gave her
networking avenues, which helped pave her way in her career:
Early on, we formed a women’s group in my research area because we were so few that
we used to clump together early on, and that group has persisted for 30 years at this point.
I’ve known those women since I was barely out of graduate school, and that group has
been incredibly good. I mean, I talk to them whenever there’s a change, and I’m looking
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 77
for a job or looking for a change in careers. Somebody else has done it ahead of me. And
these are my peers. These are people who are roughly my age. We also undertake to
mentor younger women in our professions. At conferences, we bring our female graduate
students in, young professors in. So, we’ve tried to form the core of support for women.
So, for jobs, for example, when these calls come in, I can call my friends who are either
department chairs or a dean somewhere and say do you know anything about this
position? What do you know? Is this a good place? Is it supportive? And they’ll tell you
because there’s a lot of information floating around. I’ve called on them for advice during
interviews. They will talk you through all of that.
Leader Three’s group of female colleagues serves as a source of knowledge for each of the
members of the group. They used each of their own experiences to benefit the entire group,
which eased the way for others in the group who were facing similar situations. Having a support
network based on open communication and support for all increased Leader Three’s self-efficacy
in rising in the ranks in STEM. This was also true for Leader Six, who developed relationships
early on with members of Women in Science and Engineering (WISE), or as she called them,
“the good old girls,” at her institution. These women gave Leader Six role models whom she
could turn to for advice on how to cope with the obstacles that women in STEM academia face
as discussed above. Through these findings, it is evident that there are distinct methods through
which support colleagues can motivate women to pursue leadership positions. Employers,
faculty, and other change agents can reinforce individual qualities that are beneficial for
leadership in these women as well as assert their support for working mothers by stating this
support as well as enabling working mothers’ flexibility when they need to tend to familial
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 78
obligations. Finally, institutions can develop mentorship groups, in which women can advise
each other on how to overcome obstacles and achieve higher level positions.
Task Value. Gaining an understanding of how task value can be levied to engender a
desire to pursue leadership positions will give change agents greater insight into how to
successfully motivate female students and faculty to follow in those footsteps. When discussing
participants’ beliefs that serving in academic leadership positions to be an important goal, five of
the interviewees explained that their belief that their values and vision for the future were not
being brought to fruition by current leadership launched them into leadership positions. Leader
Four summed up this experience:
I liked challenges. I like problem-solving. I like working collaboratively. I like
transparency and lifting the academic program and faculty so they can better serve our
students….I’m attracted to these women leadership organizations. So, I noticed that the
American Council on Education [was] having a regional women’s leadership conference
and [my dean] funded me to go. And I learned some more things and more skills and
about how to be a leader. So, I did that, and I did another leadership training, and, after
that ,I was like, “Okay, I want to become a leader. I want to open up opportunities for
more students in an equitable, transparent way. I want to build excellence in higher ed.”
So, it was a journey. I didn’t want to jump into it. I wanted to get training and see
different levels of training. I’d been ramping up and education so personally transformed
me, in terms of the life I have now, I want to give that back and do it well and include
more students from our society in the U.S. to have those opportunities, so that is what’s
been most important to me.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 79
Leader Four, along with Leader Two, Leader Three, Leader Five, and Leader Six were motivated
to action specifically when they saw that the changes they wished to see at their institutions, and,
indeed, in STEM academia at large, were not being enacted. They realized that, to cause the
change they wished to see, they needed to rise to leadership positions to, as Leader Three
asserted, “move the big needles.” It is also helpful, as Leader Four explained above, that there
are aspects of leadership positions that are tasks that female faculty want to do. All
aforementioned participants placed task value not only on the results of leadership, but also on
certain tasks or activities, such as problem-solving and seeing a vision through to fruition, that
they would be able to partake in by rising to academic leadership positions. Thus, it was
important to demonstrate to female students and faculty that leadership positions are good
avenues for generating the changes they believe would benefit their departments, institutions,
and the field as a whole, while emphasizing the aspects of leadership that appeal to the individual
they wish to motivate.
Attributions/Expectancies. The final piece of this study aimed to discover how
participants’ attributions motivated them to pursue academic leadership positions in STEM. For
all the participants, exposure to the role of academic leader prompted them to see in themselves
the qualities befitting the position and thus increased their self-efficacy. For five interviewed
participants, this process was a key factor in motivating them to pursue academic leadership
positions. Leader Four described how her personal attributions for success inspired her to seek a
leadership position:
[My] compassion, organizational skills, and meticulousness just made me aware that I
could be good at [academic leadership]. I knew I could by being organized and careful
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 80
and I thought, “Alright, I will be able to do a good job at this. Things aren’t going to get
dropped through the cracks.”
Like the other interviewees who demonstrated that they attribute success to personal qualities
and expect success based on those attributions, Leader Four first learned about the qualities she
believed made good leaders by being exposed to those in leadership positions and developing
opinions regarding the best leadership qualities based on that experience. It took time and
exposure to academic leaders from the perspective of being a faculty member for participants to
understand the traits of effective leaders before they then compared them to their own
attributions and found them compatible.
Leader Five’s journey to academic leadership also involved exposure to different
leadership styles in order to inform her attributions and belief that she is a good leader. When
asked to what does she attribute her success, Leader Five replied the following:
A lot of hard labor and planning out how to solve a problem. And I’m very persistent. I
don’t tend to give up. Or, if I do, I pivot, but I still keep going forward somehow. I’m
resilient. I [believe I’m a good leader] because I’m honest, and I honor the dignity of
everyone. I aspire to honor the dignity of each person, so this could be some mundane
problem or it could be some years long personnel problem in a department, and I try to
listen and hear. I value the voices of each person, and, when I’ve made a decision, I feel
successful. There might be disappointment or joy, but no one feels unheard. Over a dozen
years I’ve been moving this way [toward academic leadership] and I feel like I’m
prepared and I have really sound skills. I do expect to be successful [as a leader].
Leader Five participated in a number of leadership training sessions before she took the leap to
become an academic leader. Through this training, she worked to learn about successful
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 81
leadership and hone her own skills as a leader. In experiencing various leadership styles, Leader
Five extrapolated which leadership qualities and skills were the best indicators of a good leader.
She then reflected on her own skills and concluded that she possessed the skills necessary,
including the desire to continue to improve those skills, to be successful as a leader. This
expectancy belief regarding her success as a leader catapulted her to make the final choice to
strive toward a leadership position.
Ancillary Findings
In analyzing the interview data, additional themes emerged as relevant to the study of the
obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in
STEM fields. Below is the analysis of the ancillary finding themes.
Impostor syndrome. The first theme found in the analysis of the interview data that was
not proposed as part of the original study was the additional obstacle of impostor syndrome.
Clance and Imes (1978) define this syndrome, dubbed impostor phenomenon by them, as the
internal experience in which high-achieving women feel as if they do not deserve the
achievement they have earned. Essentially, highly successful women, particularly women in
graduate school, can have the tendency to feel as if they have been fooling everyone and are not
actually as intelligent as their achievements make them appear (Gibson-Beverly & Schwartz,
2008). All interview participants expressed, to varying degrees, that they had suffered from
impostor syndrome during their graduate education. Leader Two outlined how this experience
affected her career.
I definitely had impostor syndrome, although I know male colleagues go through that as
well. You know, everyone doubts whether or not they’re good enough to be a faculty
member or grad student at some point. But, certainly, I think I suffered more from
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 82
impostor syndrome. And people along the way wouldn’t have expected me to be
successful as an electrical engineer, or professor, in my field. I guess I got used to this. It
didn’t bother me? Looking back, I could have certainly done more if I didn’t suffer from
impostor syndrome. But, also, because I didn’t really make a big deal out of being
discriminated against, that’s probably why the situation hasn’t improved.
Leader Two explained that she felt as though she did not belong in her field due to a sense of not
being as good as she should be based on her achievements. This was, in part, because of the low
expectations others had for her, which, as demonstrated in the above findings regarding gender
biases in STEM academia, was likely due to the fact that she was a woman in a male-dominated
field. Leader Two asserted that her career was negatively affected by this because she did not
feel confident enough to pursue all opportunities open to her. She further explained that it is still
common for female students and even faculty to experience impostor syndrome, which she
believed was due to women not wanting to cause trouble by reporting their discrimination, thus
allowing the cycle of biases to spur impostor syndrome in women to continue.
Leader Four also explained how impostor syndrome is still prevalent in women in STEM
academia. She relayed her own experience with the feeling of being a phony in graduate school
when her advisor did not act as a mentor and essentially ignored her:
It was women friends, you know, senior graduate students who could point out and
convince me that I was not an impostor, not a loser, and just really had a lousy advisor.
That’s definitely not unusual, the impostor feeling, for women in graduate school.
As an associate dean of students, Leader Four’s large degree of interaction with STEM students
demonstrated to her that impostor syndrome is still common for women pursuing graduate
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 83
education in STEM. Per her experience, other women overcoming that feeling can serve as
mentors to encourage others experiencing impostor syndrome to overcome it as well.
According to Leader Three, the barrage of gender bias that leads to impostor syndrome
can also negatively affect the relationships women have with the role of women in STEM:
I’m fairly sure that we also evaluate each other on more negative terms than we evaluate
men because we absorbed exactly the same biases, meaning that there is even in our own
minds, I think, an idea that engineering really does belong to men.
The root causes of impostor syndrome in women in STEM, the gender biases that assert that
women are not likely to be successful in STEM or do not belong in those fields, can be
internalized to the point of feeling developing the syndrome and even projecting that assumption
onto other women in STEM. Therefore, it is vital that women be aware of the far-reaching
effects of these erroneous assumptions.
The reluctant leader. The sense of reluctance women in academic leadership positions
in STEM fields have regarding serving in those positions was another theme that arose through
analysis of interview data yet was not part of the original framework of the study. A number of
participants expressed that they did not initially want to, and sometimes would not prefer to,
serve as academic leaders, but felt compelled to due to the underrepresentation of their values in
others seeking to lead in academia. Leader Six asserted multiple times that it was the
undesirability of having the other potential leaders direct the future of the department that led her
to finally making the choice to campaign to be a department chair. She originally did not want to
do so at the time, but felt that the poor vision of the other contenders required her to step up and
steer the department to a brighter future.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 84
Leader Two explained how she felt she needed to serve as a leader despite it not being a
self-serving goa:
I’m happy doing research and teaching. Pretty much only when I’m asked and
encouraged by faculty, colleagues, and students and so on to step up, then I’ve done so.
And I have become aware that it is important to help develop other diverse members of
our community, so younger faculty and students and staff really make sure that there’s a
pipeline of talent that’s cultivated to take on leadership positions. That’s the best way to
make sure I don’t stay in the leadership position for too long. Because it does take a lot of
time, you know, serving as an administrative leader, away from research and teaching.
So, my own research perpetually shrunk over the last few years. My research productivity
has gone down. And [my institution] being a research institution, I really would prefer to
be able to contribute more in research, but I understand that there’s need, at least for now,
that I can full. So, I’m happy with my part of the work.
Leader Two asserted that the drawbacks to serving in an academic leadership position, which is
largely focused on the fact that teaching and research time can be reduced to fulfill
administrative duties, made her desire to not remain in a leadership position for the rest of her
career. However, she knew that she is one of the few uniquely qualified to steer her institution to
be a more inclusive and diverse place for underrepresented populations in STEM. Thus, despite
her reluctance to allow her research productivity to remain lowered, Leader Two decided that she
had to continue to serve as a change agent until those available to lead the institution in the future
exhibit the diversity required to continue to decrease the underrepresentation of certain
populations. Leader One also expressed reluctance to be an academic leader due to the fact that it
drew her away from conducting the research that was the impetus for her interest in being a
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 85
professor in STEM. Thus, it might behoove departments to give greater research support staff to
academic leaders, so that they do not fall behind in their research.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings derived from the 23 survey responses as well as six
interviews conducted with female academic leaders in STEM fields at California universities.
These findings from the mixed-methods approach utilized in this study demonstrate that women
pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields experience a number of
obstacles that can inhibit their path to these positions. As indicated by the results of the study, the
obstacles that most affect women with these goals are gender bias, gender roles in the home, and
isolation as the minority in STEM fields. These findings are congruent with the current literature,
which indicates that gender-based discrimination (Heilman et al., 2004), exclusion and lack of
role models (Maranto & Griffin, 2010), and familial responsibilities (Livingston, 2011) are
common obstacles women face in STEM.
In addition to the results on obstacles, the findings also presented information on the
motivations that women in academic leadership positions in STEM fields utilize in order to
overcome the above obstacles. The top motivational factors revealed by analysis of the data were
support from colleagues, attributions and expectancies, and task value. These findings align with
the concepts outlined by expectancy-value theory (Atkinson, 1957), which asserts that the beliefs
regarding the outcomes of performing a task as well as the incentives to participate in the task
can affect one’s motivation to act, and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), which proposes
that an individual’s behavioral changes, such as changes in motivation, are the result of
interactions between the person’s environment, cognitive functions, and behavioral experiences.
The findings of the study, combined with the theories and related literature, demonstrate that
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 86
there are strategies that can be utilized to increase motivation in women in STEM so they may
persist in seeking higher level positions despite the obstacles they face.
Chapter Five serves as a discussion of the findings in conjunction with the literature as
well as the implications of the research and recommendations for future research.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 87
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Women are underrepresented in STEM fields throughout the academic pipeline (NSF,
2010). This has, in turn, resulted in underrepresentation of women in academic leadership
positions within these STEM fields in which only approximately one-third of these positions are
held by women (NSF, 2014). Given that academic leaders serve as change agents who steer their
department and institution toward their vision for the future (Hecht et. al, 1999; Phillips-Miller
et.al., 2000), it is vital to understand what obstacles women face when pursuing and serving in
these positions as well as what motivational factors inspired them to overcome these obstacles.
In understanding these factors, employers, professors, teachers, and other STEM field members
can learn ways to motivate female students and faculty to pursue academic leadership positions.
Increasing the number of women in these positions means that they can contribute their own
vision based on experience as a woman in STEM and will serve to decrease the discrepancy of
STEM participation between women and men.
According to research, some of the most common obstacles women face while pursuing
and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM are lack of other female mentors and role
models (Pritchard, 2011; Livingston, 2011), work-life balance and familial obligations (Pandian
& Jesurajan, 2011), and gender bias (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Based on the need to overcome a
wide array of obstacles to pursue these career paths, there must be additional motivating factors
spurring on these women (Schunk et al., 2009). Research demonstrated that expectancy-value
theory and social cognitive theory are two frameworks through which one can effectively view
motivation. According to the expectancy-value theory, expectancy beliefs and task value
regarding a certain activity can increase motivation (Eccles et al., 1983). The social cognitive
theory posits that the behavioral changes, such as motivation, are affected by the interaction of
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 88
social experiences, cognitive functions, and behavioral factors (Bandura, 1977). Research
demonstrated that task value (Andersen & Ward, 2014), expectancy beliefs (Abraham & Barker,
2015), attributions (Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995), and social influences (Cialdini & Goldstein,
2004; Schunk & Hanson, 1985) are factors that can most affect motivation to continue in the face
of obstacles.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the obstacles to and motivations for women
pursuing and serving in higher education academic leadership positions in STEM fields.
Awareness of these obstacles and how women can be motivated to persist to leadership positions
despite them can aid in enabling more women to rise to these positions and, thus, act as agents of
change.
Research Questions
1. What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing and serving in academic
leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?
2. What are the motivations of women who pursue and serve in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?
3. How do these motivations enable women serving in academic leadership positions
in STEM fields to achieve their goal?
Methodology
This study was conducted utilizing a mixed-methods approach, in which both quantitative
and qualitative data were gathered and analyzed. Quantitative data were collected via a survey
distributed to 55 female academic leaders in STEM fields at California universities, to which 23
participants responded, yielding a response rate of 41.8%. Qualitative data were collected via
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 89
interviews with six participants. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured
approach, for which the protocol included 20 questions. Collected data were analyzed after
triangulation, through which data from which multiple sources were compared to support
findings.
Findings
The results of this study are based on the quantitative and qualitative data collected and
analyzed as described above. Below are the findings, as interpreted by the researcher, outlined by
research question, demonstrating the link between the data and the literature discussed
previously.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What obstacles do women encounter when pursuing
and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at the university level?” Three
themes emerged as the most commonly reported as well as most affecting obstacles for women
pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields. Gender biases are one
main obstacle that women in STEM academia must overcome in order to rise up the ranks
(Heilman et al., 2004; Moore, 1997). Data collected from the survey demonstrated that
participants felt obstructed by gender bias they experienced in their fields. Further, interviewed
participants recounted that gender bias was still a common issue they faced as students as well as
faculty. Gender biases in which men as well as women hold a prescribed view of how women
should behave and the reasons for that behavior can result in harsher evaluations for female
leaders compared to male leaders, since leadership traits are most often attributed to masculinity
(Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006). This means that women tend to be discriminated
against when seeking and serving in leadership positions when evaluators and colleagues possess
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 90
these stereotypical views, particularly in, as the National Science Foundation (2014)
demonstrated, such traditionally male-dominated fields like those in STEM.
Isolation and lack of mentors arose as the second theme with regard to the obstacles
respondents faced when seeking academic leadership positions. Stout et al. (2011) found that the
existence of female role models can increase retention for women in STEM careers, but the lack
of mentors due to underrepresentation of women in these fields is still an issue (Pritchard, 2011).
All participants reported they felt both a sense of isolation and of being on display because they
were either the only or one of very few women in their departments. This prevented them from
accessing the same support networks their male colleagues did, which, they admitted, inhibited
their careers in unknown ways. The dearth of female role models also made them feel greater
pressure and stress during their education as they felt they served as a representation for their
gender’s ability in STEM, since there were so few others. Maranto and Griffin (2010) confirm
the experiences of the participants as they found that female faculty experience greater exclusion
when there are low numbers of female role models. In addition, the lack of female mentors made
it difficult for participants to envision certain paths for themselves. Research supports that the
presence of a role model of the same gender enables one to imagine they can achieve similar
things, thus making it more difficult for women in STEM to do given the lack of female role
models (Zimmerman & Koussa, 1975; Baker & Leary, 1995).
The final theme uncovered the obstacle women face while pursuing and serving in
academic leaderships in STEM field was the issue of work-life balance, especially for working
mothers. Participants who did not have children cited the desire to pursue a career in STEM
academia as the reason for choosing not to have children, as they did not feel they could devote
enough of their time to both work and family without the success of one or the other suffering.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 91
This is understandable as employers tend to consciously or subconsciously discriminate against
hiring or promoting women under the assumption that they will start a family and not be able to
devote as much time to their work as fathers (Hoobler et al., 2009; Williams & Segal, 2005).
Participants who did have children asserted that they had to choose family over rising in the
ranks in their career because they had to spend more time at home with their children at the time
and did not feel they could take on greater responsibility at work. Research supports that societal
gender roles tend to dictate that mothers dedicate more time and energy to raising children than
fathers (Craig, 2006), requiring them to compromise their own career aspirations much more
than their male partners (Livingston, 2011).
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the motivations of women who pursue
and serve in academic leadership positions in STEM fields to continue given these obstacles?”
Through analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data through the framework of the literature,
three key motivational factors were found to most affect women’s continued pursuit of academic
leadership positions in STEM fields given the above obstacles. In order, they were attributions
and expectancies, task value, and support from friends and colleagues. Research demonstrated
that attributing success to an internal locus of causality can increase one’s motivation to continue
performing a given task (Weiner, 1972), though women in STEM are more likely to be told their
success is due to external causes (Sandler & Hall, 1982). Attributing success to high skill level
can lead one to expect success when performing a given task. These expectancy beliefs, in turn,
increase one’s motivation as well (Bandura, 1977). Survey respondents most often rated
attributions and expectancies as their most motivating factors. Interviewees asserted they were
and, indeed, expected to be successful in leadership roles because they possessed the skills and
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 92
outlook that they believed vital for leaders to possess. These findings are supported by research
asserting that expectancy beliefs can be the most motivating factor for women in STEM fields
(Abraham & Barker, 2015).
Task value was found to be the second most motivating factor for women in STEM.
Research demonstrated that task value, which refers to the value on places on performing a
certain task (Eccles et al., 1983) can inspire people to persist in an activity even when there are
obstacles Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Both survey respondents and interviewees asserted that they
held value for operating as academic leaders in STEM. Interviewees expounded that it was
important for them to serve as role models and change agents as women in STEM. Andersen and
Ward (2014) agreed that task value can be particularly important for motivating females in
STEM academia.
The final most motivating factor for women in STEM was support from friends and
colleagues, especially colleagues. Based on social cognitive theory, social influence plays a key
role in motivating people to manifest behavior (Bandura, 1977). Both reinforcement, which is the
linking of an outcome to a behavior (Pavlov, 1928), and modeling, in which people mimic the
behavior of others after witnessing said behavior (Bandura, 191), are common motivational
factors of social influence. Participants responded that social support, particularly from
coworkers, was a key aspect of motivating them to pursue higher positions in STEM academia.
Reinforcement of their abilities increased their self-efficacy and solidified their attributions and
expectancies regarding success. Research supports that social reinforcement can change the
nature of one’s beliefs (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), thus enabling women who previously may
have been told their success was due to external forces to increase their self-efficacy, which, in
turn, motivates them to strive to rise in the ranks.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 93
Research Question #3
The third research question asked, “How do these motivations enable women serving in
academic leadership positions in STEM fields to achieve their goal?” Through in-depth
interviews, participants gave insight as to exactly how their motivations inspired them to pursue
becoming academic leaders in STEM despite the many obstacles. The findings pertaining to the
previous research questions outlined what the motivations are, but it is crucial to understand how
these motivations work in practice. Attributing their success to personal skills and qualities led
respondents to expect to be successful in seeking and serving in leadership positions. As research
demonstrated, positive expectancy beliefs increase motivation (Eccles et al., 1983). Though
participants did not originally desire to become academic leaders when they became faculty,
exposure to leadership once they had the perspective of being a faculty member combined with
confidence in their own skills, which Schunk (1984) refers to as self-efficacy, to motivate them
to aspire to higher positions.
The task value that these women had was specific in that it was not to help themselves,
such as satisfying their ego. Rather, the value in being academic leaders lay in altruistic values.
All participants asserted that it was a desire to help and see positive changes for future students
that gave importance to working as leaders in STEM academia. This type of value is indicative
of individual rather than situational interest, as it is not based on context but an enduring interest
in the task, in this case interest in helping students by serving as leaders (Hidi, 1990).
According to participants, support from colleagues was key in motivating them to pursue
academic leadership positions as it reinforced self-efficacy as well as provided mentors to give
them guidance. Participants asserted that support from colleagues reaffirmed their confidence in
their abilities to succeed both as faculty and as leaders. It also was particularly motivating for
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 94
participants who were mothers as it increased their self-efficacy in believing they could devote
the necessary time to both work as leaders and family, which was not something they had
necessarily believed previously. In the cases where participants had female friends or role
models, these support networks not only served as sounding boards to increase their self-
efficacy, but also gave them models through which they could model their behavior. Per Schunk
and Hanson (1985), viewing peer models perform a task, such as female faculty rising in the
ranks, can increase one’s own belief they can succeed in that task.
Implications of the Study
This study aimed to contribute to existing and future research regarding the obstacles to
and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM
fields. The findings were supported by existing literature, reinforcing the need for even further
study in this area.
How to Mitigate Obstacles
To reduce the obstacles women face while pursuing and serving in academic leadership
positions in STEM fields, employers, faculty, and school administrators must be aware of these
key obstacles. Scott and Brown (2006) asserted that gender biases held by both men and women
negatively affect their view of women in leadership, as masculine traits are associated with
leadership qualities and women exhibiting those traits are considered to break with social norms.
Therefore, it is vital that employers and administrators work to counteract these biases in the
workplace by making employees aware of the harm that even unconscious bias can have on
women looking to lead (Cellar et al., 2001).
The underrepresentation of women in STEM academia causes women in these fields to
feel isolated, and the lack of female role models can make it difficult for women to navigate their
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 95
chosen career path (Greene et al., 2010). It is, therefore, important for institutions to set up
mentorship programs for women in STEM to connect with each other and serve as role models.
As a long-term solution, it is important for institutions throughout the academic pipeline to create
environments that support girls’ and women’s participation in STEM fields so that there is no
longer an underrepresentation of female faculty and academic leaders. To do this, they must also
work against the gender bias against females in STEM education and engender their motivation
for pursuing these careers.
Familial obligations per traditional gender roles require women to often choose between
family and career as these obligations require women to work what Hochschild (1990) refers to
as a second shift of work. Employers and administrators must, therefore, create an environment
in which women feel confident that they will be supported should they decide to start or increase
their families.
How to Motivate Women in STEM Academia
Decreasing the underrepresentation of female academic leaders in STEM also
necessitates change agents, such as deans, teachers, and counselors, to understand the key
motivational factors that inspire women to pursue these fields. They must then work to engender
these motivations in female students and faculty. This effort can and should begin even in
elementary school as research demonstrates that the demotivation from obstacles women tend to
experience in STEM is evident even in middle school girls (Shapiro et al., 2015). For students,
administrators must make it a point for teachers and counselors to affirm when girls succeed
based on their own merits rather than outside forces that that is the reason for their success. For
female faculty, employers should make an effort to acknowledge when women exhibit good
leadership skills and encourage their professional development.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 96
Change agents throughout the academic pipeline should also work to increase task value
in women for pursuing academic leadership as well as STEM careers in general. To increase the
task value for pursuing STEM fields in general, schools should utilize catch techniques to
transform situational interest into individual interest and then hold techniques to further increase
motivation (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007). Employers should seek to reinforce the notion that
being an academic leader can mean creating change and helping students in order to encourage
the creation of task value based on mastery goal orientation (Pintrich, 2000).
Recommendations for Future Research
This study collected survey data from 23 female academic leaders and interview data
from six academic leaders in STEM fields in California universities. Findings from the study
demonstrated there is a number of areas that should be further explored. The following are the
researcher’s recommendations for future research:
1. Compare the efficacy of various programs for reducing gender bias in schools and the
workplace.
2. Conduct a mixed-methods study on women in STEM throughout the academic pipeline to
discover if motivations work differently at different stages in the pipeline.
3. Expand on the current study by evaluating the obstacles and motivations for female
academic leaders across the United States.
4. Develop and/or evaluate methods for increasing the aforementioned motivations in
female students and faculty in STEM.
5. Longitudinally explore the career trajectories of women in STEM who were motivated
via various techniques and those who were not.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 97
Concluding Remarks
This study demonstrated there are still a number of obstacles that hinder women’s pursuit
of academic leadership in STEM fields. While representation of women in academic leadership
roles as well as throughout the academic pipeline increased in recent decades, there are still
many fields and positions dominated by men. Therefore, it is vital that members of STEM
academia, and STEM fields in general, understand how these obstacles negatively affect
women’s participation due to lacking diversity of perspective.
Further, the motivational factors confirmed by the 23 survey respondents and described
by the six interviewees gave valuable insight into how change agents can motivate female
students and faculty to strive for academic leadership career paths in STEM fields despite the
obstacles in these fields. The in-depth interviews also demonstrated how these motivational
factors interact and, indeed, reinforce each other to create enduring motivation.
In order to reduce the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership positions in
STEM fields, and in STEM fields in general, employers, administrators, academic leaders,
teachers, counselors, and other change agents must seek to understand and mitigate the obstacles
these women face. These change agents must also realize that, in order for women to persist in
the face of these obstacles, they must serve them by understanding best practices for generating
motivation to pursue these paths and work to put forth such best practices in motion. By
acknowledging obstacles, learning about these obstacles and the motivations required to
overcome them, and enacting strategies to engender these motivations, influencers of female
students and faculty throughout the academic pipeline can increase equality for women in STEM
academia. Increasing the number of women in STEM benefits those fields as it also increases the
diversity of perspectives and, thus, can lead to greater innovation.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 98
References
Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2015). An expectancy-value model for sustained enrolment
intentions of senior secondary physics students. Research in Science Education, 45(4),
509-526.
Academic Leader. American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education.
Oryx Press, PO Box 33889, Phoenix, AZ 86067-3889.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes
that mediate their relationship. Journal of educational psychology, 94(3), 545.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational
psychology, 84(3), 261.
Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy value models for the STEM persistence plans of
ninth grade, high ability Students: A comparison between black, hispanic, and white
students. Science Education, 98(2), 216-242.
Ash, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgment. Groups, leadership and men; Research in human relations, 177-190.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
review, 64(6p1), 359.
Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of research in
science teaching, 32(1), 3-27.
Bandura, A. (1961). Psychotherapy as a learning process. Psychological Bulletin, 58(2), 143.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 99
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American psychologist, 33(4),
344-358.
Bandura, A. (1985). Model of causality in social learning theory. In Cognition and
psychotherapy (pp. 81-99). Springer US.
Basow, S. A., & Howe, K. G. (1987). Evaluations of college professors: Effects of professors'
sex-type, and sex, and students' sex. Psychological Reports, 60(2), 671-678.
Battle, E. S. (1967). Motivational determinants of academic competence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5(3), 378.
Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors:
Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74(2), 170.
Broadley, K. (2015). Entrenched gendered pathways in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics: Engaging girls through collaborative career development. Australian
Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 27-38.
Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leader
behavior. Sex roles, 23(7-8), 413-419.
Carroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1982). The role of visual monitoring in observational learning of
action patterns: Making the unobservable observable. Journal of motor behavior, 14(2),
153-167.
Carroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1987). Translating cognition into action: The role of visual
guidance in observational learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19(3), 385-398.
Carroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1990). Representational guidance of action production in
observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of motor behavior, 22(1), 85-97.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 100
Cellar, D. F., Sidle, S., Goudy, K., & O'brien, D. (2001). Effects of leader style, leader sex, and
subordinate personality on leader evaluations and future subordinate motivation. Journal
of business and psychology, 16(1), 61-72.
Chen, X. (2013). STEM Attrition: College Students' Paths into and out of STEM Fields.
Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001. National Center for Education Statistics.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annu.Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.
Clark Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and education, 17(4), 369-386.
Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers
in intact families spend time with children. Gender & society, 20(2), 259-281.
Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the
“chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23(3-4), 101-122.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How
individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597.
Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. M. (2000). The developmental social psychology of gender.
Psychology Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard business
review, 85(9), 62.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 101
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the Effectiveness of Leaders:
A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the Evaluation of
Leaders. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22.
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U., (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp.
1017-1095). New York: Wiley.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and
human behavior, 25(2), 63-87.
Fortin, N. M. (2005). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across
OECD countries. oxford review of Economic Policy, 21(3), 416-438.
Fritz, H. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. The Journal of Marketing, 56, 322.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on
motivation. University of Nebraska Press.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial
environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex roles, 55(1-2), 51-
61.
Gibson-Beverly, G., & Schwartz, J. R. (2008). Attachment, entitlement, and the impostor
phenomenon in female graduate students. Journal of College Counseling, 11(2), 119-133.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 102
Gonida, E. N., & Urdan, T. (2007). Parental influences on student motivation, affect and
academic behaviour: Introduction to the Special Issue. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 22(1), 3-6.
Greene, J., Stockard, J., Lewis, P., & Richmond, G. (2010). Is the academic climate chilly? The
views of women academic chemists. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 381-385.
Grigg, W., Donahue, P., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation's Report Card [TM]: 12th-Grade
Reading and Mathematics, 2005. NCES 2007-468. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 416.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational research, 60(4), 549-571.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Hill, E. J. (2005). Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work
family stressors and support. Journal of Family issues, 26(6), 793-819.
Hochschild, A. R., & Manchung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working women and the
revolution at home. New York: Viking.
Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict
and women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of management
journal, 52(5), 939-957.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 103
Hopkins, N. (1999). MIT and gender bias: Following up on victory. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 45(40), B4-B5.
Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. Oxford University
Press on Demand.
Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents' roles in
shaping early adolescents' occupational aspirations. Child development, 72(4), 1247-
1266.
Jones Jr, T. O., & Schneider, B. Z. (2010, September). Beyond" opting out:" dissecting the
barriers affecting women's entrance and success in business. In Forum on Public Policy:
A Journal of the Oxford Round Table (No. 2). Forum on Public Policy.
Klotz, L., Potvin, G., Godwin, A., Cribbs, J., Hazari, Z., & Barclay, N. (2014). Sustainability as a
route to broadening participation in engineering. Journal of engineering
education, 103(1), 137-153.
Livingston, B. A. (2014). Bargaining behind the scenes spousal negotiation, labor, and work
family burnout. Journal of Management, 40(4), 949-977.
Lockwood, P. (2006). ” SOMEONE LIKE ME CAN BE SUCCESSFUL”: DO COLLEGE
STUDENTS NEED SAMEGENDER ROLE MODELS?. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30(1), 36-46.
Madsen, S. R. (2007). Learning to Lead in Higher Education: Insights into the Family
Backgrounds of Women University Presidents. The Journal of Women in Educational
Leadership, 5(3).
Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. (2011). The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’for women faculty
in higher education. Human relations, 64(2), 139-159.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 104
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach (3rd ed., p. 232).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Towards a science of motivated learning in technology-supported
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 301-308.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey - Bass.
Moore, M. (1997). Student resistance to course content: Reactions to the gender of the
messenger. Teaching Sociology, 25(2), 128-133.
Nelson, D. J., & Rogers, D. C. (2003). A national analysis of diversity in science and
engineering faculties at research universities. National Organization for Women.
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental
perspective. Competence considered, 11-40.
Pandian, S. P. K., & Jesurajan, S. V. (2011). An empirical investigation on the factors
determining the success and problems faced by women Entrepreneurs in Tiruchirapalli
District–Tamilnadu. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 3(3), 914-922.
Pavlov, I. P., & Gantt, W. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes: Twenty-five years of
objective study of the higher nervous activity (behaviour) of animals.
Phillips-Miller, D., Pitcher, B., & Olson, P. (2000). Faculty morale: a qualitative study of
influences and recommendations. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 4(2), 52.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 105
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering
employment. American Sociological Review, 218-235.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Balkwell, J. W. (1997). Group processes and the diffusion of status
beliefs. Social Psychology Quarterly, 14-31.
Robinson-Backmon, I., Kiel, M., Malone, C., & Mautz Jr, R. D. (2004, September). Sourcing the
Leadership Needs of the Academic Enterprise: The Critical Role of the Department
Chair. In ACADEMY OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP (Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 19).
Hecht, I. W., Higgerson, M. L., Gmelch, W. H., & Tucker, A. (1999). The Department Chair as
Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2001). Success in introductory college physics: The role of
high school preparation. Science Education, 85(2), 111-136.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (2010). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. Simon
and Schuster.
Sandier, B., & Hall, R. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty,
administrators, and graduate students. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women.
Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for
women. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Selfefficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2),
208-223.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4),
207-231.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 7(2), 112-137.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 106
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and
achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 77(3), 313.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Scott, K. A., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of
leadership behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 101(2),
230-242.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in
academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30(1), 47-58.
Shapiro, M., Grossman, D., Carter, S., Martin, K., Deyton, P., & Hammer, D. (2015). Middle
School Girls and the “Leaky Pipeline” to Leadership: An Examination of How Socialized
Gendered Roles Influences the College and Career Aspirations of Girls Is Shared as well
as the Role of Middle Level Professionals in Disrupting the Influence of Social Gendered
Messages and Stigmas. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 3-13.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful
performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between
performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 62(3), 286-299.
Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. J. (1995). Gender differences in science careers: The project access
study (p. 187). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Spear, M. G. (1987). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Science
for girls, 46-51.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 107
J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, pp.
75-146.
Stewart, M. (1998). Gender issues in physics education. Educational Research, 40(3), 283-293.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: using
ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 255.
Urbig, D., & Monsen, E. (2012). The structure of optimism:“Controllability affects the extent to
which efficacy beliefs shape outcome expectancies”. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 33(4), 854-867.
Walford, G. (1981). Tracking Down Sexism in Physics Textbooks. Physics Education, 16(5),
261-65.
Watt, S. E., & Martin, P. R. (1994). Effect of general self-efficacy expectancies on performance
attributions. Psychological reports, 75(2), 951-961.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.
Williams, J. C., & Segal, N. (2003). Beyond the maternal wall: Relief for family caregivers who
are discriminated against on the job. Harv. Women's LJ, 26, 77.
Xie, Y., Shauman, K. A., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and
outcomes (Vol. 26, No. 73.4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Xu, Y. J. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover
intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607-624.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Koussa, R. (1975). Sex factors in children's observational learning of value
judgments of toys. Sex Roles, 1(2), 121-133.
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 108
Appendix
Motivational Factors
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones? (c…Belief
in leadership
ability)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c…Confidence I
can do the job
well)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones? (c…My
success is because
I am skilled)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c… Being
encouraged by
family/friends
N Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Percentiles 25
50
75
23
0
.39
.499
.00
.00
1.00
23
0
.35
.487
.00
.00
1.00
23
0
.35
.487
.00
.00
1.00
23
0
.09
.288
.00
.00
.00
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c… Being
encouraged by
coworkers/peers
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c… Confidence I
could successfully
obtain the
position)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c… Belife I will
be successful in
current and future
positions)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations,
which are the
most significant
ones?
(c…Importance of
being a woman in
an academic
leadership
position)
N Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Percentiles 25
50
75
23
0
.17
.388
.00
.00
.00
23
0
.04
.209
.00
.00
.00
23
0
.48
.511
.00
.00
1.00
23
0
.48
.511
.00
.00
1.00
OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR WOMEN IN STEM 109
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations, which
are the most
significant ones?
(c… Importance of
being a role
model/mentor to
other women)
Q28 – Regarding
the previous
motivations, which
are the most
significant ones?
(c… If I try hard, I
can earn and thrive
in whatever career I
choose)
N Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Percentiles 25
50
75
23
0
.26
.449
.00
.00
1.00
23
0
.26
.449
.00
.00
1.00
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Female attrition from STEM education throughout the academic pipeline leads to a dearth of women academic leaders in STEM fields. Since academic leaders serve as change agents who shape the direction and vision of their departments and institutions, it is vital that women's representation in these roles is increased. To better understand how to achieve this goal, this mixed-methods study sought to investigate the obstacles to women working in these positions and the motivations that enabled them to overcome said obstacles. Surveys were collected from 23 women academic leaders in STEM fields in California universities. Six participants were selected for in-depth interviews. Results demonstrated that the top obstacles affecting participants were gender biases, isolation/lack of allies, and family/gender roles. The top motivations were task value, attributions/expectancies, support from family/colleagues.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...
PDF
An investigation of the relationship between educational attainment goals and motivation theory: a mixed-methods study of past and present graduate students in the United States
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California
PDF
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
PDF
Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools
PDF
Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher advis...
PDF
Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts
PDF
The role of educational leadership in participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Escuela Universitaria in the Nacional Region of Costa Rica
PDF
Microdevelopments in adaptive expertise in STEM-based, ill-structured problem solving
PDF
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
PDF
The role of leadership in a time of crisis: preventing, preparing for, and responding to crises on a school campus
PDF
The impact of educational leadership on participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Pacific Elementary
PDF
The role of educational leadership on participation in the Costa Rican National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Atlantic Elementary in the Occidente Region
PDF
The influence of authentic leadership attributes on credibility: how administrative leaders in an academic medical center build, maintain or lose credibilty
PDF
Influence of SciFest on Irish students in developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and 21st-century skills in preparation for competing in a global economy
PDF
Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools
PDF
Implementation of instructional programs targeting African American students to increase academic achievement
PDF
Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools
PDF
Globalization and the need for 21st-century skills: implications for policy education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and project-based learning in schools in Ireland
Asset Metadata
Creator
Matthews, Alexis
(author)
Core Title
Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/02/2017
Defense Date
03/20/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic,California,educational psychology,Higher education,leadership,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,obstacles,STEM,Women
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
akmatthe@usc.edu,lexikmatthews@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-422183
Unique identifier
UC11264816
Identifier
etd-MatthewsAl-5674.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-422183 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MatthewsAl-5674.pdf
Dmrecord
422183
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Matthews, Alexis
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic
educational psychology
obstacles
STEM