University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity

(USC Thesis Other)

A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY ON THE ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF
UNDERGRADUATE WOMEN IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND
MATHEMATICS FIELDS AT A PRIVATE, RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

by
Amber Michelle Hroch

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION

August 2011

Copyright 2011 Amber Michelle Hroch
ii

Dedication
Dedicated to my mom and dad.

iii

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee members for their
assistance in this endeavor: Dr. Robert Keim, Dr. Zoe Corwin, and Dr. Kevin Colaner. I
want to thank you all for your unwavering support, guidance, and encouragement. I am
grateful to have had them as professors and for all their edits and advice through this
process. Each of these professors always made themselves available whenever I needed
their assistance and were wonderfully supportive throughout all of my graduate work.
I thank Dr. Keim, my committee chair, for his support, commitment, and
willingness to help at any time of the day. He forced me to clearly articulate and support
my thoughts at every turn. I thank Dr. Zoe Corwin for her support and commitment of her
time and energy as a committee member. I would also like to thank her for always
making time to talk about academia and professional development. I thank her for
encouraging me to fully explore my ideas, think critically, and reflect thoughtfully. I
would also like to thank Dr. Kevin Colaner for his support and for the commitment of his
time and energy as a committee member. I thank him for all his constructive feedback
that has molded me into a better writer. I would like to thank him for always telling me
what I needed to hear, not necessarily what I wanted to hear.
I would like to thank my parents, John and Peggy Hroch, for their endless love
and support. They have always been behind me and have encouraged me to pursue my
goals and dreams. I will be forever thankful.
Thank you to my employers, Jim Fiegert and Tatiana Melguizo, for understanding
my busy schedule and being supportive of my aspirations. I would also like to thank the
iv

undergraduate women who made this project possible. Last but not least, I want to thank
all of my friends and colleagues who have been there when I needed them and offered
words of encouragement.

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Background, Purpose, and Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose and Significance 5
Research Questions and Focus 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review 8
Statistical Overview 8
Reasons for the Lack of Women 9
Stereotypes and Lack of Encouragement 10
Lack of Role Models 12
Gendering Gap 13
Women of Color 15
Domestic STEM in Education and Jobs 16
Summary of Literature Review 17

Chapter 3: Research Methods 19
Research Framework 19
Methodological Approach: Grounded Theory 19
Description of Site 20
Description of Participants 20
Data Collection and Analysis 26
Limitations 29
Trustworthiness 29

Chapter 4: Findings 32
Instruments: Survey and Interviews 32
Survey Findings 33
Participants’ Interviews 35
Background 36
Strategies 37
Motivators 42
Paradigm Success Model 44

Chapter 5: Conclusion 46
Summary of Study 46
Implications for Practice in Higher Education 47
Background Factors 47
Strategies for Success 48
Motivational Implications 50
Future Research 51

References 54

Appendices 61
Appendix A: Survey Protocol 61
Appendix B: Information Sheet 63
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 66

vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Results 34
Table 2: Paradigm Success Model 45

viii

Abstract
This grounded theory study revealed the common factors of backgrounds,
strategies, and motivators in academically successful undergraduate women in science,
engineering, and mathematics (SEM) fields at a private, research university in the West.
Data from interviews with 15 women with 3.25 or better grade point averages indicated
that current academic achievement in their college SEM fields can be attributed to
previous academic success, self awareness, time management and organizational skills,
and maintaining a strong support network. Participants were motivated by an internal
drive to academically succeed and attend graduate school. Recommendations are
provided for professors, advisors, and student affairs professionals.

1

Chapter 1

Background, Purpose, and Overview of the Study
“To understand the development of mathematics, we must have a picture of the
men who made the science” (Kramer, 1951, p. 5). Men have dominated the sciences,
engineering, and mathematics fields for centuries. The issue of women’s
underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
in the United States, in both education and the workforce, continues to be one of the main
themes in current research (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006; Cronin & Roger, 1999; De
Welde, Laursen, & Thiry, 2008). Regardless of substantial gains since the 1960s, gaps
still exist between women and men in terms of their college level enrollment in STEM
majors, with the gap even more apparent in the hard sciences (Bystydzienski & Bird,
2006). Women’s lower participation rates and differential treatment in STEM areas
extends beyond education. National reports continue to highlight these issues, providing
detailed descriptions and statistical figures about women’s disproportionate distribution
and differential treatment in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (NSB, 2002; NSF, 2000, 2003).
More than three decades ago, Congress passed the Women in Science and
Technology Equal Opportunity Act, attempting to advance women in STEM fields
(Handelsman et al., 2005). However, the overall number of women has continued to
decline in these fields since the passage of this Act (Handelsman et al., 2005). Barriers
exist to prevent women from attaining parity with their male counter parts in STEM
fields, yet some women have participated successfully.
2

Statement of Problem
The history of higher education in American reveals the disparity women have
faced in higher education. The first American college, Harvard, opened on 1636, but it
was exclusively for men. The first woman in America to attend college was in 1837 at
Oberlin College (Rudolph, 1990). However, women’s colleges were not established until
the second half of the 1800s: Vassar in 1861(Geiger, 1992), Wellesly in 1870, and Smith
in 1871 (Rudolph, 1990). The number of women in higher education has significantly
increased over the past 170 years (Woodard, Love, & Komives, 2000). Last year in
2010, women made up approximately 57% of the undergraduate higher education
population nationally (Marklein, 2010). According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2010), more women are enrolling as opposed to men in higher education and
will continue to make the gap more apparent. Statistically, women earn better college
grades than men and are more likely to graduate and in less time than men (Sax &
Harper, 2007). Studies by The American Council on Education (2010) claim women and
men are enrolling at the same rate but some subgroups of women are enrolling faster than
their male counterparts; namely, women that are African-American, Latinas, older
students and/or lower socioeconomic status. However, studies have shown that women
are less confident than men (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006; Sax & Harper, 2007). They
have lower confidence in their family and academic backgrounds, intellectual and social
abilities, political attitudes, expectations for college, and life after graduation. On nearly
every assessment, on average, women rated themselves lower than their male
counterparts (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006). Similarly, women rated their mathematical
3

abilities significantly lower than men (Sax & Harper, 2007). These results have been
present for over “four decades on Freshman Surveys” (Sax, Lindholm, Astin, Korn, &
Mahoney, 2002). “Studies have found that, regardless of aptitude, having low confidence
in one's overall academic abilities makes one less likely to choose a STEM field as an
undergraduate major or for a graduate program” (Sax & Harper, 2007, p. 671).
Contrary to the increasing number of women in higher education, STEM fields
have some of the lowest populations of women (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006).
Historically, women have struggled to gain positions in STEM fields even after earning
advanced degrees. In the early decades of the twentieth century, very few women were
able to study and practice fields in STEM (Kohlstedt, 2006). Many women ended up
studying the social sciences as opposed to the hard sciences. The women that did earn a
degree, “failed to get jobs and others quickly hit, what would later be called, the ‘glass
ceiling’” (Kohlstedt, 2006, p. 30).
In 1921, Committee W of the American Association of University Professors was
founded to deal with faculty issues, specifically academic freedom (Kohlstedt, 2006).
The Committee W report in 1921 made it clear “that there were no women at all on
faculty at 27 of the 100 major coeducational colleges studied” and at the other institutions
“women held only 4% of the full professorships, and less than that if highly feminized
fields like home economics and physical education were omitted” (Kohlstedt, 2006, p.
28). Even during and after World War II, few women seemed to make remarkable
advances and were still getting paid less than males (Howes & Herzenberg, 1999). The
postwar baby boom lead to an increase in women in STEM fields; however, many took
4

positions in primary and secondary education. A survey in 1954-1955 showed “that there
were 3,600 women scientists in higher education, but that they were concentrated at the
poorest and least prestigious institutions” (Kohlstedt, 2006, p. 33). At the 20 leading
institutions in 1960, “women were concentrated in home economics, but representation
was nonexistent or negligible in physics, geology, mathematics, engineering, and some
biological sciences” (Rossiter, 1995, p. 186).
During the 1970s and most of the 1980s, increases of women in STEM fields
became apparent as programs and agencies pushed for more women participation. The
gender differences across STEM fields “indicated that women continued to cluster in the
less prestigious and less well-supported areas” (Kohlstedt, 2006, p. 34). Men were
evenly distributed in STEM fields, while women were highly concentrated in psychology
and the life sciences and marginally represented in mathematics, engineering, and
computer science (Clark & Corcoran, 1986). Men continued to dominate STEM fields,
but in the 1990s their numbers began to decline while the number of women had
stabilized. The gap between men and women in STEM fields remained in the thousands
(Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006). Between 1970 and 2000, women had slightly increased
but historical patterns had persisted. Fifty percent of women were gaining degrees in
psychology, behavioral sciences, and biological and social sciences; whereas, less than
30% were in engineering, physical sciences and mathematics (Long, 2001).
This study will focus on undergraduate women who excel academically in
science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM) fields. It is important to note this study
excludes technology due to the nonexistent technology major offered at this institution.
5

Understanding the factors that enable women to be academically successful in areas that
have been traditionally male dominated will aid higher educational professional to
advance women’s representation in STEM fields.
Purpose and Significance
The purpose of this study is to reveal the shared reasons for success in female,
undergraduate women in SEM fields at a large, private research university in the West by
using a grounded theory approach and create a paradigm model. This study aims to
lessen the literature gap regarding the reasons for the success of undergraduate women in
STEM fields. Most research on women in STEM fields focuses on the negatives of the
current state of affairs, including the reasons why there are so few women (Sonnert &
Holton, 1996). There remains limited literature on the reasons for academic success of
undergraduate women in STEM fields. Currently, the research continues to study why
there are so few women in STEM fields, instead of trying to promote the positive aspects
of why women pursue STEM fields and why they are successful. There is research
regarding certain populations of women’s success and retention rates, but the majority
focuses on why there continues to be a lack of women in these fields (Bystydzienski &
Bird, 2006; Davis et al., 1996; Wyer, Barbercheck, Giesman, Ozturl, & Wayne, 2009).
A paradigm model on successful women in SEM fields may be used by academic
affairs administrators, advisors, and faculty to help increase the number and success of
women in these fields. This study could be used as a reference, but should not be
generalized to all types of higher education institutions. It may not be appropriate to
compare the findings to two-year institutions or other institutions that are not heavily
6

research based. A grounded theory study on academically successful, undergraduate
women in SEM fields is significant because it provides an opportunity to learn about the
experiences of these women.
Research Questions and Focus
Using a grounded theory approach attempts to find connections between
undergraduate women’s success in SEM fields and their backgrounds, personal strategies,
and motivators. Therefore, the focal research questions encompassed one broad question:
What makes undergraduate women academically successful in SEM fields at a private,
research university in the West? Additional, more specific questions include:
• What do undergraduate women in SEM fields perceive as the key to their
success?
• What is their SEM teachers’ role in the success of undergraduate women majoring
in a SEM field?
• What is their parents’ role in the success of undergraduate women in SEM fields?
• What influence does family background have on the success of the women in
SEM fields?
• What influence does previous education have on the success of the women in
SEM fields?
• What are the strategies that undergraduate women in SEM fields use for
maintaining academic success?
• How are the undergraduate women coping with the gender stratification in their
SEM classes?
7

• What are their plans after completion of their degree? (Do they plan to continue
their study in their major topic?)
• How, if at all, are the undergraduate women discriminated against by peers,
professors, or others?
For this research study, “successful” is strictly based on academic achievement in
a SEM field. Academic success is defined by obtaining a 3.25 or higher grade point
average (GPA) after four or more consecutive semesters; hence, junior standing. A
minimum of junior class standing indicates commitment in academic success. These
undergraduate women students are set in their major and have a strong foundation in their
SEM field. In addition to this, these undergraduate women are in upper division SEM
classes, where the gender gap is more apparent in the hard sciences (Ferreira, 2003).
In summation, this research study aims to determine the reasons why and how
undergraduate women in SEM fields succeed academically at a private, research
university. By utilizing qualitative methods, this study strives to reveal common factors
in the backgrounds, strategies, and motivators for successful, undergraduate women in
SEM fields.

8

Chapter 2
Literature Review
The literature and research on women in STEM fields has a broad focus;
therefore, it is only appropriate to give a literature review encompassing women in all
STEM fields. Overall, the literature on women in STEM fields can be categorized into
four major areas: 1) statistical research demonstrating the disparity between women and
men in STEM fields, 2) the theoretical reasoning behind the lack of all women in all
areas of STEM fields, including higher education and jobs, 3) women of color in STEM
fields, and 4) domestic and international women in STEM fields in terms of education
and jobs.
Statistical Overview
Despite the fact that women out number men in terms of bachelor’s degrees,
women are still underrepresented in STEM fields in America (Koehler, 2008; National
Center for Education Statistics, 2001). According to the National Science Foundation
(NSF) (2009), four-year colleges and universities awarded approximately 138,874
bachelor’s degrees to men and approximately 88,371 to women in STEM fields in 2009.
In 2010, fewer women than men intended to major in a STEM field; only 15.1% of
women and 29.3% of men (Anonymous, 2011). In higher education institutions, women
account for more than half the study body population but with women administrators and
faculty in smaller percentages (Hassen, 2007). However, research has begun to focus on
women’s access and minorities (Blickenstaff, 2005; Davis et al., 1996; Wyer et al.,
2009).
9

In addition, it is important to note the dropout rates for women across all majors is
declining as level of education increases; however, women continue to drop out of STEM
fields at a higher percentage rate than men (Seymour, 2006). This is often referred to as
the ‘leaky pipeline’ (Alper, 1993; Blickenstaff, 2005; Kohlstedt, 2006). The term ‘leaky
pipeline’ is used metaphorically to convey the increasing decline of women moving from
secondary school to the university level and then on to jobs in STEM fields (Alper, 1993;
Blickenstaff, 2005; Kohlstedt, 2006). Blickenstaff (2005) theorizes “this pipeline leaks
students at various stages” (p. 369). This may be for several reasons: 1) students may
express interest in STEM fields but change their minds when applying to institutions and
select other areas of study, 2) others in post-secondary education may change majors
from a STEM major to a major outside of STEM, or 3) some may leave the pipeline after
graduating with a STEM degree and choose a different career. Women leak out more
than men do in this pipeline, causing a gender imbalance in STEM fields and careers that
are observed today (Alper, 1993; Blickenstaff, 2005). Cronin and Roger (1999) explain
the absence of women in STEM as both progressive and persistent, meaning the farther
down the pipeline you go, the less women you will find and the problem of retaining
women continues despite efforts to retain them.
Reasons for the Lack of Women
A review of the literature reveals that a large portion of the literature focuses on
theoretical reasoning behind the lack of all women in STEM fields (Bystydzienski &
Bird, 2006; Davis et al., 1996; Wyer et al., 2009), and does not focus on the reasons
women are in STEM fields. Thus, when literature discusses the lack of undergraduate
10

women students in STEM fields, it is most frequently encompassing, women and
underrepresented groups, such as minority groups and people with disabilities (NSF,
2009; Towns, 2010) at a variety of institutions. It is important to focus on undergraduate
women, successfully engaging in STEM fields and the factors that they have in common
in a private, research university in the West.
Clearly, research has proven there is a lack of women in STEM fields but the
reasons why there continues to be a deficit of women remains a common concern and
topic of a large segment of the literature. According to Vetter (1996), the first step to put
a halt to the decline is to recognize the problems. Researchers have theorized why the
number of women in STEM fields has continually declined, more so in the hard sciences
(Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006). In addition, researchers have generally focused on
existing barriers as they offer several explanations for the low numbers of women at all
stages of STEM careers. The three major barriers are 1) stereotypes and lack of
encouragement, 2) lack of role models, and 3) the gender gap.
Stereotypes and Lack of Encouragement
“Longstanding stereotypes about women’s inferior ability to succeed in STEM
fields have been difficult to eradicate” (Campbell, 2011, p. 26). One explanation for why
there are so few women in STEM fields may be from stereotyping in early childhood,
according to Koehler (2008). “Classroom attitudes of teachers, books written for
children, and subtle but constant parental and societal pressures persuade children” that
boys are better at science, technology, engineering, and mathematics than girls because
“girls are better with words” (Vetter, 1996, p. 30). Girls grow up with the assumption
11

that boys are better than them in mathematics and mechanical talent (Vetter, 1996).
Teachers in grade school play a role in this process because they may follow communal
beliefs and favor boys in the science and mathematics classes (Vetter, 1996). Valian
(1998) hypothesizes people have preconceived mental categories and certain beliefs
regarding gender roles - “people create normative beliefs and stereotypes about gender
that affect the way they perceive the behavior and attributes of women and men” (p. 15).
Additionally, poor preparation and a lack of encouragement in school contribute
to a lack of women in STEM fields (American Association of University Women, 2007;
De Welde et al., 2008). During high school, “girls may be less prepared than boys in
science and math, lagging behind their male peers in some measures of science
achievement and in confidence in their scientific abilities” (De Welde et al., 2008, p. 3).
Studies have proven girls score as well as boys through their early teens in science and
math classes (Scafidi & Khanh, 2010). According to Cavanagh (2008), even though
women perform as well as men, school officials still face a major task in overcoming the
stereotypes held by parents, teachers, and even girls themselves that boys are more suited
to STEM studies and profession (Cavanagh, 2008).
When entering into college, “mathematics is the single most important factor in
determining admissions and success in science and engineering careers” (Vetter, 1996, p.
30). Women undergraduates enter STEM majors highly qualified and competent, yet
experience a drop in confidence in the first year of their science and engineering studies
(Brainard & Carlin 2001; Seymour, 1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; De Welde et al.,
12

2008). Continued negative perceptions and stereotypes about their abilities in STEM
fields add to the lack of women (Santovec, 2011).
Lack of Role Models
Another contributing factor to the lack of women in STEM fields is the
underrepresentation of women role models in STEM careers. Ferreira’s (2003) study
concluded that women students look to faculty as role models, especially in terms of
balancing a career with a family. Concluding “if career demands are seen as excessive,
they may leave their department in higher numbers than men” (Ferreira, 2003, p. 975).
Women in STEM fields may benefit from mentors and role models, specifically the
women role models who realize the differential experiences women face in these fields.
(Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, Uzzi, & Neushatz, 2000). Women students who lack role models
face significant barriers in science and harmful effects on self-esteem (Nelson, Brammer,
& Rhoads, 2007; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997) and lack persistence in science (Nelson et al.,
2007).
“A lack of ‘critical mass’ of women in a department may lead to dissatisfaction
and greater attrition of women scientists” (Ferreira, 2003, p. 978). The theory of critical
mass asserts that as representation of women increases, so will their access to important
resources and social networks (Dresselhaus, Franz, & Clark, 1995). However, Etzkowitz
et al. (2000) highlight the paradox of “critical mass” by arguing that the organization and
culture of academic science must change in order to encourage more women to enter the
profession. “Critical mass” is meaningful only if the organization is democratic and
inclusive (De Welde et al., 2008). There is often a sense of belonging in STEM
13

departments and/or programs and in the classroom that is missing for women,
perpetuating the lack of critical mass of female peers or faculty (Santovec, 2010). The
majority of the STEM departments are dominated by white male professors (Santovec,
2010).
Gender Gap
The gender gap between men and women in STEM fields continues to increase
(Vetter, 1996). One reason postulated could be the biases and discrimination in hiring
women in STEM fields, leading to a slower advancement of women (De Welde et al.,
2008). The high-profile MIT report in 1999 showed that “women faculty were
increasingly marginalized as they progressed through their careers at that institution,
subject to disparities in salary, lab space, awards, resources, and response to outside job
offers, despite having equal professional accomplishments to their male colleagues” (De
Welde et al., 2008, p. 4).
Once employed, women working in STEM fields advance more slowly than men,
thus holding back salary increases and increasing the salary gap (Vetter, 1996). Women
in academic positions in all types of institutions are far outnumbered by men by a ratio of
two to one (Nelson, 2004). According to Nelson (2004), this gap is most prevalent in
research-oriented, doctorate-granting, and comprehensive institutions. The National
Science Foundation (2004b) speculates males are more likely to be employed full-time as
scientist and engineers, whereas women are more likely to be employed part-time or
outside of their fields of degree. Women who are employed in STEM fields have a lower
salary, up to 34% less than their male counterparts (American Association of University
14

Women, 2007).
The challenge to bring more women into STEM fields is not a new problem
(Blickenstaff, 2005). Educators have been working for over 30 years trying to encourage
more girls and women to participate in programs such as Girls Into Science and
Technology (GIST), Women In Science and Engineering (WISE), and Project Access in
the United States (Sonnert & Holton, 1995). Efforts continue to increase women in
STEM fields and scholars in a wide range of disciplines continue to pay attention to the
issue of women underrepresentation in STEM fields (Blickenstaff, 2005).
According to Kahveci, Southerland, and Gilmer (2006), women are still less
likely to choose a career in science, mathematics, or engineering than men, and are more
likely to earn a bachelor’s degree not in the hard sciences (nonscience and
nonengineering). The majority of female students that do choose a subject in the STEM
fields are still concentrated in certain fields, such as the soft sciences (NSF 2000; NSF
2004a; NSF 2004b). Further research indicates at four-year colleges and universities,
women professors in physical and related science only make up 22% of the faculty and
only 9% of engineering (NSF, 2009). A study of science and engineering departments in
Association of American Universities institutions shows that only “about 5% of the full
professors and 4.2% of the chairs in engineering, mathematics and statistics, earth
sciences, chemistry, and physics and astronomy combined were female” (Niemeier &
Gonzales, 2004, p. 160). While merely increasing the number of women in STEM fields
will not solve the negative experiences, more women need to become a part of these
majors.
15

Reform efforts in the United States, and national initiatives often target K-12
education to encourage girls to participate in STEM fields (National Research Council,
1996, 2000; NSF 2003). The rationale underlying these efforts has been to improve
women’s interest in STEM fields; unfortunately, these efforts are not visible at the
college level (Kahveci et al., 2006). Matyas (1992) claims there are few programs in the
United States that directly target female undergraduate students. Even though the
numbers of women have increased in the last twenty years, there is still a long way to go
until women are equally represented in STEM fields (Blickenstaff, 2005).
Women of Color
A third area of focus in the literature is women of color in STEM fields. The
National Science Foundation (2009) defines women of color in the stem fields as Asian,
African American (black), Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (Native
American). It should be noted that Asian women in STEM fields have a much greater
representation than do whites (Peterson, Kraus, & Windham, 2005; Towns, 2010).
Women as a whole are underrepresented in STEM fields, but minorities are even more
underrepresented. Gains in education by the underrepresented minorities have not been
as substantial in STEM fields.
The available literature indicated that Latino, African American, and American
Indian students face the greatest difficulty getting in and out of STEM academic
programs (Cole & Espinoza, 2008). Although Latinas enroll in college at greater numbers
than Latinos (NCES, 2001), Latinas are under-represented in the STEM fields. For both
Latinas and other minority students, their selection and persistence in STEM majors has
16

been significantly correlated with their academic preparation in high school (Bonous &
Hammarth, 2000). Astin and Astin Higher Education Research Institute studies
documented minority groups, such as Hispanic, African American, and Native American
students, have a higher percentage of dropout rates in STEM fields (Cole & Espinoza,
2008). Overall, underrepresented minorities earned 16% of the bachelor's degrees, 11%
of the master's, and nearly 6% of the doctorates awarded in STEM fields in 2003-2004
(National Science Foundation, 2004b).
Domestic STEM in Education and Jobs
A fourth area of literature focus is on domestic women and international
outsourcing in STEM fields. Collier (2007) discusses the efforts by the National Science
Federation (NSF) and other federal agencies to broaden the diversity in STEM fields for
underrepresented groups. Recognizing the need for American STEM majors, Congress
enacted the Science and Engineering Opportunities Act in 1980 (Blickenstaff, 2005;
Collier, 2007). The act authorized the NSF to increase the support of educational
programs at all levels in order to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities
and women in STEM fields. Billions of dollars have been invested in education
programs at the K-12 level in urban and rural areas, and at the undergraduate and
graduate level (Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006). Realizing the need for domestic women in
STEM fields, the National Science Board states that “the Census based estimates of the
population of science and engineer occupations filled by scientists and engineers born
abroad show steep increases at every degree level from 1990 to 2000” (Collier, 2007, p.
1). The United States government has been “promoting and funding programs to increase
17

American women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities” in the
nation’s STEM education and workforce (Collier, 2007, p. 1). Despite the immediate
efforts by the government, there has been outsourcing for STEM jobs, with individuals
coming from other countries (Lamont, 2005). This also translates into the increase of
international students in STEM higher education programs in the United States
(Kantrowitz, 2007). Thus taking away the opportunities from Americans as students and
employees.
Even though enrollment of women students in STEM fields has increased (Huang,
Taddese, & Walter, 2000; Seymour, 2006), domestic women are becoming out numbered
by international students (Collier, 2007). According to Collier (2007), while recruiting
students from overseas may address our immediate workforce needs, the strategy ignores
the potential long-term effects on the underrepresented groups from the United States in
STEM fields. The United State’s determination to win the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics race among other nations is overall hurting the domestic
students. With more international students taking the seats of domestic students, we are
further enabling a lack of underrepresented domestic students (Blickenstaff, 2005).
Outsourcing is going to continue until more American women begin to fill the positions
in STEM.
Summary of Literature Review
Previous research has documented the disproportion between women and men in
STEM fields. While the majority of the literature studies all women in STEM fields and
the potential barriers they may face, this study will focus on undergraduate women who
18

are successfully engaging in SEM fields and attempt to uncover the factors they have in
common. It is imperative to have a clear understanding not only why women are
underrepresented, but to also understand why those women who have chosen to pursue a
SEM field are successful. This study will focus on the undergraduate women in SEM
fields and attempt to uncover the factors these women have in common. Understanding
their commonalities will enable the academic community to nurture future students and
increase the numbers of women in STEM fields, bringing them to parity with their male
counterparts in the United States. Being able to nurture the factors in common and
remove barriers to women in STEM fields can potentially increase their numbers.

19

Chapter 3
Research Methods
Research Framework
Qualitative methods have increasingly evolved as an important mode of research
being “pragmatic, interpretive, and grounded in the lived experiences of people”
(Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 2). Therefore, qualitative research is a broad approach to
the study of social phenomena with various genres that are “naturalistic, interpretive, and
critical,” drawing on multiple methods of inquiry (Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 2).
Historically, there are several typologies qualitative researchers have identified in the
field with grounded theory being one of the typologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). When
conducting qualitative research, three major themes emerge from the categories of
qualitative research: individual lived experiences, society and culture, and language and
communication (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). This study focused on individual lived
experiences.
Methodological Approach: Grounded Theory
“Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make
sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 1994, p. 2). The purpose of this study was to provide a paradigm model with
respect to data collected from undergraduate women in a SEM field. After reviewing the
literature, it became apparent that existing research was inadequate and no theories or
models existed in addressing the academic success of women in STEM fields. Therefore,
it became necessary to learn how and why these women are academically successful.
20

Stern (1980) proposed that grounded theory is a useful method when there is little
research and no theory or models exists on a topic. For that reason, the rationale for
selecting a grounded theory study as the research method was to develop a paradigm
model and expand the understanding of what makes these undergraduate women
academically successful.
Description of Site
The focus of this research study was successful junior and senior undergraduate
women in SEM fields at a large, private, research university in the West. The university
has over 17,000 undergraduate students and over 19,000 graduate and professional
students. The institution’s student body encompasses approximately 7,000 international
students, more than any other institution in the United States. The university offers 95
undergraduate majors and 147 academic and professional minors.
Women have always been a part of the student body since the opening of the
campus. The College of Letter, Arts, and Science is the largest and oldest of the schools
at this campus. The sciences offer 23 bachelor’s degrees. There is a specific technology
program that includes eight subject areas and a total of 58 courses offered; however, no
bachelor’s degrees are offered so technology will not be included in this study. The
institution houses its own School of Engineering, offering students more than 30 degree
options. The mathematics department offers five different bachelor degrees in
mathematics.
Description of Participants
Academically successful female students in a science, engineering, and
21

mathematics field at this university were the subjects in this study. Currently, the science
field has 2,182 students with 1,242 being women and only 739 being a junior or senior
woman. The engineering department has a total of 2,108 students with only 604 being
female students. Out of the 604 women, only 308 are juniors or seniors earning a
bachelor’s in engineering. The smallest department, mathematics, has 184 students
majoring in one of the five bachelor’s degrees with 69 of those students being women.
Only 35 of the 69 are female juniors or seniors. The women interviewed were limited to
juniors and seniors with at least a 3.25 GPA. Only 15 women were interviewed with the
appropriate GPA and willingness to participate. Approximately half of the participants
were juniors and the other half were seniors, with their GPAs ranging from 3.35 to 3.92.
To ensure the confidentiality of the participants, all names have been changed.
Alexandria, who is in her third year of school, is an engineering major. From
northern California and the valedictorian of her high school, Alexandria always knew she
would be an engineering major. Her father has his Ph.D. in physics and her mother is a
lawyer. She grew up in a studious environment with one older sister. Her current GPA is
a 3.54 and she is on the Dean’s Honor Roll. After graduation, she plans to continue on to
graduate school.
Ashley, a junior majoring in biomedical engineering with an emphasis in
chemical engineering, is from Massachusetts. Attending a private high school, she always
thrived in her science and mathematics classes. Not knowing exactly what major to
choose, her dad persuaded her into an engineering major. Her current GPA is 3.88,
earning her first B last semester. She is on the Dean’s Honor Roll and participates in
22

Associated Students of Biomedical Engineering. After completion of her degree, she
plans to work in the field for a couple of years and hopes her job will pay for her
advanced degree in engineering, specifically researching pharmaceuticals. Her mother
used to be a lawyer, but is currently a stay at home mom, while her father has a Ph.D. in
engineering and works in the field.
Brittney is a junior computer science major. She grew up in central California and
attended a public high school. Growing up with her mother as a broadcast journalist, she
was influenced to be a career woman. Her mother has her teaching credential and her
father has his master’s in business. Early in her academic career, she was enrolled in the
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program. Her current GPA is 3.57 and has been
on the Dean’s Honor Roll. In addition, she is a member of the Society of Women
Engineers. Once completing her degree, she plans on working for a company in hopes
they will pay for a master’s degree in business.
Carly, a junior biology major, specializing in human development and aging, is
originally from China. Her father has his master’s degree in telecommunications and her
mother has her Associate’s degree. Moving to the states when she was 10 years of age,
she attended one of the biggest, most prestigious high schools in the states. She was very
involved in extracurricular activities and ranked three out of 1,250 students in her senior
class. Earning a full academic scholarship to this institution, she has a 3.92 GPA.
Currently, she is involved in ministry (dedicating at least 20 hours per week), a member
of the Global Health Club, and participates in research. She is on the Dean’s Honor Roll
23

and is part of an honors research project. After completion of her degree, she hopes to
earn a Ph.D. in public health, focusing on epistemology.
Elizabeth is a senior environmental engineer. Her mother has her master’s degree
and is a financial planner, while her father works as a jeweler and has his bachelor’s
degree. Growing up in Kansas, she attended a top ranking public high school. Currently,
her GPA is a 3.41 and she already has a job lined up after graduation. She has thought
about earning a master’s in business only if the company she works for will pay for the
advanced degree. In addition to being on Dean’s Honor Roll, Elizabeth is involved in
many extracurricular activities, which includes the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Honor Society (only students who belong to a sorority and have a 3.5 or above GPA are
admitted).
Jamie, a junior majoring in chemistry is from Oregon. She has a 3.66 GPA and is
on the Dean’s Honor Roll. She is also involved in a sorority, as well as volunteers at a
local high school. Her father is a lawyer and her mother teaches high school biology.
Jamie plans to pursue a doctorate in chemistry after a couple years of work experience.
Jessica is a fifth year majoring in mechanical engineering and minoring in
economics. She decided to take an extra year of school to earn a minor and participate in
all of the extracurricular activities she desired. Growing up with several learning
disabilities, she attended a small private high school in Colorado. Since high school, she
has been extremely involved, which persisted into her college career. Her current GPA is
a 3.77. In addition to schoolwork, she is a member of Society of Women Engineers, a
member of a sorority, is a merit research scholar, and volunteers at a local high school.
24

Her father has his degree in architecture and his master’s of business, while her mother
has her bachelor’s degree. After earning her bachelor’s degree, Jessica hopes to work and
earn a master’s degree in business.
Kelly, a senior majoring in earth sciences is from Texas. Growing up in Dallas,
she went to a public school and was involved in high school. Both of her parents have
their master’s degree. Currently, she has a 3.35 GPA and is involved in an internship.
After completion of her degree, she plans to work in the field.
Kristen, a senior biochemistry major, is from a small town in northern California.
She plans to become a pediatrician. She is following the footsteps of her father, who is a
doctor. Her mom works at a university as a professor. Kristen has a 3.72 GPA, is on the
Dean’s Honor Roll, and has an internship at the local hospital. She grew up as the only
child and was an outstanding student in high school, earning valedictorian.
Marissa is pursing two bachelor’s degrees, one in geology and the other in
history. From Indiana, she went to a well known public high school and graduated top of
her class. Marissa is in her third year with a 3.45 GPA. Her mother is an insurance agent
and her father is in real estate; both have their bachelor’s degree. After graduation,
Marissa plans to work for a company she interned for last summer. She has thought about
graduate school, but is unsure if she wants to pursue an advanced degree.
Molly is a senior aerospace engineering major. She is originally from Tokyo,
Japan and came to the states when she was in high school. Half of her high school
education consisted of a private all girls’ school in Japan and the second half a public
school in the states. Molly is a member of the International Golden Key Honor Society,
25

on the Dean’s Honor Roll, and a member of the Aerospace Honor Society. Additionally,
she is Vice President of the Society of Women Engineers. Her current GPA is a 3.5.
Paige, a senior from Southern California, is majoring in engineering. Attending a
private high school, her parents pressured her to excel in school. She was valedictorian of
her high school. Paige has a partial academic scholarship, has a 3.72 GPA, and has
consistently been on Dean’s Honor Roll. Additionally, she is a member of the Society of
Women Engineers. Once completing her degree, she plans on working for a company in
hopes they will pay for a master’s degree in business. Both of her parents have advanced
degrees, her father is a lawyer and her mother is a professor.
Renee is a junior double majoring in mathematics and music. She is from
Southern California and went to a public high school where she earned valedictorian. Her
father has his Ph.D. in analytical chemistry and her mother has her bachelor’s in
mathematics and a teaching credential. She has taken the maximum number of units to
graduate a year early; however, she plans on taking graduate courses in her spare year to
determine if she plans to immediately continue her education in mathematics. Her current
GPA is a 3.76. Renee plans on earning her Ph.D. in mathematics sometime in the near
future.
Shannon, a senior mechanical engineer, is originally from India but moved to
Central California when she was 10 years of age. She attended a public high school and
earned valedictorian. She has a 3.78 GPA, is on the Dean’s Honor Roll, had a merit
research scholarship award her freshman and sophomore years, and works part-time as a
26

residential-assistant. Shannon has a job lined up to start after graduation but hopes to
have a company pay for a master’s in business.
Stephanie, a senior from Florida, is majoring in chemistry. She comes from a very
academically driven family; her father is an orthodontist and her mother is a dentist.
Stephanie attended a private high school, was involved in several extra-curricular
activities, and graduated top of her class. Her current GPA is a 3.80. She plans to attend
medical school and follow in the footsteps of her parents working in dentistry.
Data Collection and Analysis
Research data for this study was conducted using surveys and in-depth interviews.
First, data collection began by contacting each SEM department’s advisor so he or she
could forward an email regarding filling out the survey. The survey consisted of five
questions (See Appendix A). The survey took approximately five minutes to complete. At
the end of the survey, the student was asked if she was willing to participate in a one-on-
one interview; if so, she had a box to leave her contact information. Students were
allotted three weeks to complete the survey. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), the
researcher can then use other forms of data collection. The next steps in the data
collection process involved selecting fifteen female students for an interview. The
interview was completely voluntary. There were only fifteen women that completed the
survey and were willing to participate with the appropriate criteria for this study.
Therefore, there was no selection process from the survey collection.
Prior to conducting interviews, each interviewee signed an informed consent
form, which explained the “explicit purpose” for the interviews (Spradley, 1979, p. 59).
27

The same form was distributed to each interviewee, affirming their identity will be
protected (See Appendix B). The consent form allowed the interviewee to review the
material and the final findings of the study (Seidman, 1991).
The interviews conducted with the women from SEM fields were semi-structured,
scheduled at their convenience (Kvale, 1998). The semi-structured interviews allowed
“the participants to convey their situation from their own perspective and in their own
words” (Kvale, 1998, p. 11). The interview questions encompassed “structural and
contrast questions” (Spradley, 1979, p. 60). The structural questions allowed the
researcher to discover information about the informants and their experience; whereas,
the contrast questions were based on their experience as a woman in a SEM major (See
Appendix C). As a result, the design of the interview questions allowed for an
“asymmetrical power relation”, where the informants did most of the talking (Kvale,
1998, p. 14).
All interviews took place in the library. Interviews averaged about 40 minutes,
although some lasted longer. The interviews were tape-recorded. Typed notes were also
taken during the interview. The interviews were then transcribed and coded (Kvale,
1998).
When conducting a grounded theory study, data collection and data analysis are
one interconnected process. Initial data collected was immediately analyzed for emerging
ideas and themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this case, interview answers were analyzed
and coded. Once the ideas and themes emerged from the data, the researcher used that
28

data to direct further data collection. The processes was continued until the data became
saturated, meaning no new information and themes transpired (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The first step in data analysis was to create files and organize the data (Gibbs,
2009). Analyzing the interviews began by transcribing each tape-recorded interview. The
interviews were transcribed into a Word document, leaving ample margins to mark with
notes and codes. As soon as the data was transcribed, the researcher employed “open
coding,” forming initial codes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, p. 143). Open coding is
where the “text is read reflectively to identify relevant categories” (Gibbs, 2009, p. 50).
The researcher constantly compared the data, attempting to saturate these categories
(Creswell, 1998). After identifying categories, the researcher compared similarities in the
data, using these comparisons in the coding process.
The second step in data analysis was “axial coding, where categories were
refined, developed, and related or interconnected” (Gibbs, 2009, p. 50). This is where “a
theory is built or generated” (Creswell, 1998, p. 151). Grouping open codes into
conceptual categories, the categories reflected “casual condition, background, intervening
conditions, strategies or consequences” (Creswell, 1998, p. 151). Subsequent to using
open and axial coding on the initial data, the researcher determined what further data
needed to be collected. At this point in the research, the researcher tried to “saturate the
categories” (Creswell, 1998, p. 150).
At this point of saturation and engaging in “selective coding, where the ‘core
category’ or central category that ties all other categories in the theory together into a
story,” allowing final themes to emerge from the data (Gibbs, 2009, p. 50). By
29

connecting the relationships between the themes, a theory was formed. The final steps in
analysis “were to develop a paradigm model and present the theory via model or chart”
(Creswell, 1998, p. 152).
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the low number of participants in the survey
process. The advisors not willing to distribute the survey limited the results. Of the
women in a SEM field at this private university, there were a limited number of
successful women willing to participate in this study, possibly skewing the data. This
limitation draws parallels to other various research on the low number of women
contributing to STEM majors. Also, very few women of color participated in the survey
and interview process. The unfortunate implication is that academically successful
women are not prominent at this institution in SEM majors, but further research is needed
before drawing this conclusion.
In addition to the above limitations, time was also a significant limitation. The
two-year program at this university does not allow enough time for a longitudinal study.
More research needs to be conducted before concluding any major theories. Another
limitation is that other studies done on this topic using another methodology could
influence the outcome in different ways than presented in this study. Interpreting the data
by utilizing other methodologies could influence the perceived findings of the study.
Trustworthiness
Implementing a grounded theory methodology as this study’s research framework
provided ways to ensure this study was verifiable and trustworthy (Strauss and Corbin,
30

1990). According to LeCompte and Goetz (1982), all fields that engage in scientific
inquiry, “reliability and validity of findings are important” (p. 31). In this background,
reliability “refers to the extent to which studies can be replicated” (LeCompte and Goetz,
1982, p. 25). In this regard, “the conception of validity as a process in the ‘truth’ seeking
purpose is progressive induction through which data need to be collected, analyzed,
interpreted, triangulated” (Cho & Trent, 2006, p. 328). To put it simply, validity is
concerned with the accuracy of the scientific findings; thus, having established a credible
research study (Le Compte & Goetz, 1982). Verification of a grounded theory is used to
judge the quality of the research study (Creswell, 1998). Constantly comparing and
refining data, creating codes and establishing themes, will saturate the data (Cho & Trent,
2006). Nevertheless, there are still other techniques to establish reliability and validity in
a grounded theory study.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) posit, “There can be no validity without reliability, a
demonstration of the former is sufficient to establish the later” (p. 316). Reliability is
dependent on both external and internal reliability (Hansen, 1979). External reliability
addresses whether an independent researcher would discover the same phenomena in the
same or similar settings (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). Internal reliability “refers to the
degree to which other researchers would match the data in the same way as the original
researcher” (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p. 32). The aim of a qualitative researcher is for
comparability and translatability, but not direct transferability. Comparability requires
the researcher to delineate the group study so other researchers can compare other groups
that are similar or not (Wolcott, 1973). Translatability “assumes that research methods,
31

analytic categories, and characteristics of phenomena and groups are identified so
explicitly that comparisons can be conducted confidently” (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p.
34). This research study, if conducted again, could produce the same results, depending
on the type of institution and location.
In addition to the previous methods, peer review is another method to verify the
trustworthiness of the research study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer reviewers provide an
external check on the research study (Ely et al., 1991). For this process, the researcher
relied on the thesis committee chair, who works in the higher education department, for
peer review. Also, the researcher conversed ideas and pieces of the research and writing
with graduate student peers in both the education department and STEM backgrounds.
Lastly, the researcher relied on the two other committee members, who are faculty
members in the education department, on the thesis committee for feedback regarding the
study. Additionally, the students that decided to participate in the interview were allowed
to review their transcripts, clarifying and adding comments.

32

Chapter 4
Findings
The intent of this qualitative study was to expand the understanding of why
women in SEM fields are successful. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005), it was of
utmost importance that the researcher captures the true essence of the participants’
educational experiences by portraying a descriptive portrait of what she learned.
Therefore, the data was first collected using a survey, gaining an overview of the women
in SEM fields, followed by in-depth interviews. The surveys, created by the researcher,
were used as a tool to collect basic information about a group of women in SEM fields.
The participants, with the proper criteria and willing to be a part of a one-on-one
interview, signed an informed consent prior to participating in individual interviews.
This chapter describes the study’s results in several different sections. First, an
overview of the surveys is given. The next section portrays the individual participants’
shared stories of their background. Themes were identified and common threads exposed
from the data analysis process. Three important categories relating to the participants
academic success emerged from the data: 1) Background, 2) Strategies, and 3)
Motivators. Then, a final discussion on how these three categories link together will be
displayed in a paradigm success model.
Instruments: Survey and Interviews
A survey was conducted first and chosen as an aid to the primary research
instrument, interviews. Through the institution’s advisor roster, which was found online,
SEM advisors were contacted first. Then the survey was sent through an email from an
33

advisor to the targeted audience, women in SEM fields. The survey consisted of seven
total questions. The first five questions had multiple-choice answers. Question 6 asked if
they were willing to participate in an interview; question 7 had an open answer where if
selected “Yes” on question 6, the responder could write her email and/or telephone
number (Appendix A). Exactly 15 women had the proper criteria from the survey results
to participate in an interview.
The interviews were the main source of data. During the interviews, some women
were very explicit about what they think makes them successful; whereas, other themes
were collected through interpretation during the data analysis process. Common factors
emerged through the data analysis process.
Survey Findings
The science, engineering, and mathematics departments’ advisors were all
contacted through email in order to forward the Institutional Review Board’s approved
email to their students. Out of the 16 specific departments contacted, only three
department advisors would not forward the email. Out of the 1,915 women in a SEM
major, 203 women responded to the survey (approximately a 10% return rate). The
survey had a dual purpose. First it provided an overview of the women in SEM fields.
Secondly, it was used to find women willing to participate in an interview who had
specific qualifications. Table 1 illustrates the responses to the survey questions
(Appendix A).

34

Table 1: Survey Results
Response Response
Count Percentage
1. What year are you currently in?
Freshman 71 35%
Sophomore 49 24%
Junior 43 21%
Senior 40 20%

2. What degree are you obtaining?
Bachelor’s of Arts 6 3%
Bachelor’s of Science 197 97%

3. What ethnicity are you?
Caucasian 97 48%
African-American 4 2%
Hispanic 16 8%
Pacific Islander 0 0%
Asian 83 41%
Native American 0 0%
Other 3 1%

4. Where were you born?
In USA 164 81%
Not in USA 39 19%

5. Select your cumulative GPA
3.80 and above 42 20%
3.60-3.79 42 20%
3.40-3.59 30 15%
3.25-3.39 24 12%
3.0-3.24 47 24%
3.0 and below 18 9%

6. Would you like to participate in an interview?
Yes 67 33%
No 136 67%

35

Table 1 gives a breakdown of the respondents in terms of a number and
percentage. Almost 60% of the women were freshman and sophomores that responded.
The majority of the respondents were earning bachelor’s of science degrees. Question 3
provides a glance of the ethnic breakdown in SEM fields at this university. The majority
of women responders were Caucasian and Asian, 48% and 41%. Less than 10% were
Hispanic, 2% were African American, 1% were marked Other, and 0% were Pacific
Islander or Native American. This institution’s high international population was
illustrated in question 4 with almost 20% of the respondents born outside of the United
States. This was transferred into my interview; one fifth of my interviewees were
international students. In question 5, regarding cumulative GPA, the largest single
grouping was 3.0-3.24 (which was below the cut off for qualifying for an interview).
However, 40% of the women had a 3.60 or above GPA. Lastly, 67 women were willing
to participate in an interview. Of those 67 women, exactly 15 were juniors or seniors and
had above a 3.25 GPA.
Participants’ Interviews
The majority of data was obtained through the interview process. Through the
data analysis process of the women’s interviews common themes emerged that contribute
to their academic success in their SEM fields. There are three themes that surfaced that
will be highlighted as the main contributors to the academic success of these women: 1)
Background, 2) Strategies, and 3) Motivators.

36

Background
Background provided a foundation for these women’s academic success.
Background in this document refers to their history or personal background. The women
interviewed experienced previous academic success that played a role in their current
accomplishments. Approximately half of the interviewees were valedictorian of their
high school. Also, it is important to note five of the women have full academic
scholarships for their outstanding academic merit. In addition, all of these women have at
least one academic award – all of these women have been on Dean’s Honor Roll at least
once throughout their college attendance.
Many of the women participants expressed attending rigorous high schools, both
public and private. All of the women attended high school in the United States, but three
of the girls were born outside of the states. The participants’ parents minimally had a
college education and most had advanced degrees. All of the women took at least one
Advance Placement (AP) courses and some were enrolled in honor programs. Most
demonstrated academic excellence even earlier than high school in junior high and
elementary school. As noted by Brittney,
Um…I was sort of…I was always academically oriented. I was like that little kid
who got upset about grades and stuff. That was always me. My district had a
GATE program so I was able to participate in like one of 60 kids in the district. In
junior high I took all the GATE classes I could. I took zero period so I could be in
band. Um high school, same thing, every honors, GATE, AP I could take, I took. I
think I ended up taking ten AP courses, and passing nine of the tests. So I did all
of that, I did speech and debate. I did extra-curricular like piano and dance for like
my whole life.

Additionally, Carly stated,
37

I went to a public high school. It was really competitive. Most people from
Texas have probably heard of it. We are known for our academic record, and
being competitive. It is also one of the biggest high schools in the United States. It
has about 1,200 graduates per year, just from my high school. And I mean it has a
really good selection of AP courses. I took a total of twelve AP tests. I got fives
on all AP tests, if that matters. I do well in school, I guess. My overall GPA was
four point something. Every school weights their grades differently. I think rank
would give a better assessment. I was ranked number three out of 1,250 people.
That gives you more a perspective.

This prior academic success has played a critical role in these women’s academic
preparation. Alexandria noted that “My high school was the biggest influence. My
foundations are ridiculous. My freshman year (of college) I didn’t have to go to class
because my AP classes in high school were so hard and I had already learned that stuff.”
Additionally, these successful women all had a specific amount of self-awareness
that contributed to their academic excellence. Shannon mentioned she “did pretty well in
high school; she graduated valedictorian.” Molly recognized that in high school she was
“always good at chemistry.” Elizabeth stressed the importance of learning how and what
to study in high school. She said that one of the reasons she did so well in high school
was because she knew the material to study for the tests. These women expressed their
self-awareness of their academic abilities, which has contributed to their success.
Strategies
The women interview participants all had specific strategies to maintain
their academic success throughout college. These included time management skills,
organizational skills, continuing their passion to learn about their major, and maintaining
a strong support networks. Also, to note, all of the women participated in at least one
38

extra-curricular activity in college, while most of the women participated in several. They
recognized their academic boundaries, juggling classes and extracurricular activities.
Time management was a crucial aspect, which contributed to these women’s
academic success. Time management encompassed day-to-day activities as well as long-
term activities. Almost all of the participants noted time management in their strategies to
maintaining academic success. Renee citied that, “when I keep really busy, I do my best
(academically). My first semester of college I got a 4.0 and I was taking eight classes
(four classes is a “normal” schedule) so you know clearly I have time management
skills.” Ashley made a point to “budget in friend time by getting her work done early.”
Many of the women participants pointed out that they complete assignments as soon as
they are assigned and/or study for a test at least a week in advanced. According to Kelly,
“I am a really big anti-procrastinator. I work on assignments as soon as they are assigned,
otherwise, I don’t have peace of mind.” Elizabeth stated, “I will start studying about a
week before the test.” Similarly, Kristen said, “I also am constantly thinking about the
upcoming midterm or upcoming final even if it is weeks away.” Time management skills
appeared to be learned in high school and transferred over into college for these women.
Organizational skills also played a key role into these women’s academic success.
Almost all of the participants had daily “to-do lists”, while all of the participants had
weekly “planners.” Shannon stated, “I have a pretty detailed schedule of things. I make a
lot of lists. Whenever I think of something, I would write it down.” According to Jessica,
she is
So organized. I really like color coding things. I love making binders for all
39

of my classes. I have a lot of binders, especially for a lot of open note exams. I
maintain the fact that I get A’s is because I clearly have better organized binders
than anyone else in the class and I know where everything is. But yeah, I think
mostly my obsessive personality, color coding things, making sure that I am on
top of my to do lists, being very organized, and making sure that I know where
things are at and when things are and learning. I guess it is a learning process to
learning how much time you have because that is something that I think is very
hard to learn.

Time management and organizational skills play a synergistic role in contributing to
these women’s academic success.
Additionally, these women in SEM fields expressed a real continuing passion and
interest to learn their subject matter, which surfaced throughout the interviews. Many of
the participants stated that their major topic was “fun to learn.” Marissa “loves that ‘Ah
ha’ moment where it finally makes sense and why you spend all that time doing it.”
Brittney discussed the importance of doing extra problems or rereading something she
didn’t understand. She does her work “not just to get something checked off but to learn
and really understand the material.” Stephanie describes her excitement for problem sets
and exams and the fact that she “likes the process of solving problems and taking exams
and pushing my brain to the next level.” Paige stated,
I think the fact that I really love what I am doing means that I want to do it
whether or not it’s going to be graded. You know if a professor just gives out homework
that isn’t graded, I still want to do it. I still would do the extra problems and go in and ask
questions. So the fact that it is fun, that makes it a lot easier. If I hated it, that would take
a lot more motivation to get things done.

Renee’s passion for math was revealed through this passage,
I think the thing I like most is the fact that I love it even when I am stuck on it.
There are a lot of other subjects that I enjoy learning this or I enjoy learning that
40

but when you are stuck on something it just gets frustrating, but with math I can
spend hours on something and still want to be thinking about it. That’s for me. I
haven’t yet reached my tolerance level. The more I do, the more I enjoy.

Similarly, Molly exclaimed, “I’m not going to lie, I love studying and working really
hard.”
Carly stated,
I really want to understand. For example, my research, if I don’t understand, I will
go back and reread for two hours. Every class, I try and understand everything so
it stays with me longer. Also, when you have more complicated problems, it’s not
really how you do the problem but what are the concepts and how you apply
them.

Many of the participants explained that their good grades are just a byproduct of their
genuine interest in their topic of study. This passion in their major helps keep these
women in SEM fields focused in their schoolwork; allowing them to maintain academic
success.
Lastly, maintaining support networks were an important strategy for these
women’s academic success. Support networks can be separated into three categories:
professors, friends, and family. Only half of the participants mentioned professors as a
support network, but the ones that did emphasized their contribution to their success.
Jessica mentioned that her research professor is her biggest mentor and has not only
taught her about mechanical engineering but the importance of maintaining grades while
becoming involved in the field. Renee has a particularly close relationship with one of
her major professors who influenced her academic path and success. She stated that her
professor was “very influential” and “she’s really supportive.” Molly described one of
41

her engineer teachers as someone who was “very friendly and very reachable.” She
admired her as a woman in the field and looked up to her because of her strong support.
While not all the women expressed having a professor as a support network, the women
claimed their connection has made a tremendous impact on their higher educational
experience.
Another support network for these women was their close friends. Many revealed
that when they were overwhelmed with school, they would turn to their friends for
support, who were often their roommate. Stephanie stated, “when I need reassurance or
comfort I go to the friends I live with.” Ashley lives with seven girls who are all her
closest friends. She told this story about how she balances out grades with friends:
Half of the girls I live with are in science and the other half are in
communications and cinema majors. So I actually rely on my communication
majors more than my science friends because they don’t care as much about
grades as my science friends so they balance me out when I am freaking out about
getting a B on an Ochem test.

These women tended to gravitate to other women who were also academically successful
and involved in some of the same extracurricular activities. Carly lives with four of her
closest friends who are also on the same fellowship as her, so they “are really close.”
Although support from their professors and friends were important, support from
these women’s families appeared to be the most critical aspect in their academic success.
When asked “who they rely on for support,” most interviewees immediately replied, “My
parents.” Britney described this story about her parents:
I’d say my parents are really supportive in what I want to do, so that really helps.
They are supportive, some parents are really in your face about it but they are
more like we are just going to you know trust you to make the right decisions.
42

Which is probably more helpful than a lot of other people’s situations where they
are under a lot of pressure to like be successful.

Shannon has experienced a similar approach from her parents, stating, “They have been
really encouraging. They haven’t let me not have a goal ever. They don’t really push. It
doesn’t matter what my plan is as long as I have one.” In addition to their parents, other
family members, such as, siblings and grandparents also played important roles in
supporting these participants. A common thread in the support from family included the
fact that all of these women’s parents attended college and some even have advanced
degrees. Therefore, it was expected that these women attend college and be academically
successful.
Motivators
These women were motivated by numerous factors but three main themes
emerged to explain why these women in SEM fields were academically successful: an
internal drive, family satisfaction, and the desire to attend graduate school. All motivators
were derived from personal stories in interviews and/or through the coding process.
The first motivator, an internal drive to succeed was apparent in the majority of
the participants and explicitly stated from the questions, “What motivates you to
succeed?” Jamie described her internal drive as,
I think not necessarily to prove myself but I always want to get better at
something I always want to improve myself and learn more. I always want to do
something new. And I think just to be the best that I can be, which unfortunately
sometimes can be a fault because I can get myself so stressed out and set these
ridiculous goals that no one else holds me accountable for but I tend to. But I
think that is the biggest thing, I always want to be better and push myself.

43

This question, “Tell me what you think drives you,” was the most difficult to answer for
all of the participants. Many women took a moment to try to articulate their response.
While some women did not explicitly state they have an internal drive, others made
statements such as “there is an internal expectation for me to do well” or “I put pressure
on myself to do well” or “it’s one of those internal things.”
Family satisfaction can be described as doing academically well to make these
women’s families happy. Pleasing their family was mentioned by more than half of the
respondents. Kelly said, “Pressure from my parents to do well feeds through me and I put
pressure on myself.” According to Jessica, “coming from a family that has been very
driven to succeed, I want to do well.” Carly also mentioned that her family expects her to
do well. Ashley echoed these statements by stating,
Once you start getting those A’s, my parents expect it from me and I expect
it. And both of my sisters were really smart. They were both valedictorian in
high school. So getting good grades was always expected from my parents.

Pleasing their family was a key factor in their success. All of these women came from
families that were educated so their families all emphasized the importance of school and
academically doing well.
Lastly, the desire to attend graduate school was apparent in all of the interviews.
The majority of the seniors all had similar statements when asked “What are your
immediate plans after completing your degree?” They all plan to work for a couple years
and gain experience and hope that the company they will be working for will pay for their
master’s degree. Ashley explained her desire to further her education: “I think I want to
go into the industry for a little while and make some money. And then hopefully find a
44

company that will help me pay for a Ph.D. or graduate degree.” It is important to note
that many of the women stated they planned to get a master’s of business degree and not
a master’s in their current major. Also, only five of the participants said a Ph.D. could be
a possibility. The women did not intend to continue their education in their specific SEM
field is a vivid reflection of the “leaky pipeline” concept put forth by Cronin and Roger
(1999). This concept states that the farther down the pipeline, the less women you will
find.
Paradigm Success Model
A paradigm model can be used to explain the academic success of these women,
incorporating background, strategies, and motivators. Strauss and Corbin (1990) believe a
paradigm model is fundamental in a grounded theory study. A good paradigm is created
by creating a story line, connecting the themes that have emerged from the data (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). Therefore, the story line goes as follows: women’s background
established a foundation for academic success and self-awareness, they have the ability to
use strategies such as time management, organization, a love for learning, and support
networks and are motivated by internal drive, family satisfaction, and the desire to attend
graduate school; therefore, these women are able to be academically successful. The
paradigm success model visually displays this study’s theory and can be found in Table
2.

45

Table 2: Paradigm Success Model

Background
Prior Academic Success
Self-awareness
Strategies
Time management
Organization skills
Love to learn
Support networks
Motivators
Internal drive
Family satisfaction
Desire to attend
graduate school

Academically
Successful Women in a
SEM Field
46

Chapter 5
Conclusion
Women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields in education in the United States is
a repeated theme in current research. Attempts have been made to decrease the gender
gap and to increase the number of women in STEM fields (Vetter, 1996). However,
women remain in the minority and a disproportionate number do not pursue advance
degrees or employment in STEM fields. Research has focused on the negative aspects of
why women are unable to continue on in their STEM field, but little is known about the
women that are academically succeeding.
The present study has revealed some of the reasons why women are successful in
SEM fields academically in a research university in the West and the factors they have in
common. In addition to looking at a broad overview of the women by using a survey,
emphasis was placed on individual stories through interviews. This study aimed to
answer one main research question: What makes undergraduate women academically
successful in SEM fields at a private, research university in the West? This chapter
summarizes and discusses the findings of the study, offers practical recommendations to
higher educational professionals for women in STEM fields and makes recommendations
for further investigation related to women in STEM fields.
Summary of Study
This study examined why women in a SEM field were academically successful at
a private, research university in the West. Data was collected in Spring 2011 from women
students in a SEM field. Quantitative data was collected using a researcher-designed
47

survey (Appendix A). The short survey e-mailed to undergraduate women in science,
engineering and mathematics was used to obtain a brief overview and to select candidates
for interviews. Candidates for interviews were based on junior or senior standing, GPA
of 3.25 or above, and willingness to participate in a one-on-one semi-structured interview
(Appendix C). Specifically, the study explored their commonalities for academic success:
their personal backgrounds, their strategies for success, motivations, and future plans.
Implications for Practice in Higher Education
While there are many reasons for academically successful women in SEM fields,
this study focused on the three prevalent themes. The factors of these women’s
background combined with their strategies and motivation all contributed to their
academic success. There are three areas of major implication that should be considered
based on the findings of this study. Even though some of these findings occur before
entering college, STEM professors, academic advisors, and student affairs practitioners in
higher education can aid in the academic success of women in STEM fields.
Background Factors
The successful women in a SEM field came to this university with the preset
factors of academic success and self-awareness. Professionals in higher education can
influence the experiences of women in K-12 education because the K-12 teachers are
educated at colleges and universities. It is imperative that future teachers are equipped
with tools and strategies to overcome current stereotypes regarding women and their
abilities to be successful in STEM fields. Additionally, all of the participants stated they
had taken AP courses, were involved in extra-curricular activities, and valued grades.
48

Women should be encouraged to join organizations and clubs in college that pertain to
their respective STEM field. STEM professors can encourage these women to partake in
research. Expanded financial support in the form of scholarships for academic
achievements would be helpful; especially, if tied to a commitment by women for
advanced degrees and/or employment in STEM.
The second background factor that emerged as a theme was self-awareness.
STEM teachers, academic advisors, and student affairs practitioners can promote a
positive environment for these women to sustain their positive self-awareness. Ashley
mentioned that even though she does well academically, other classmates “think, great, I
get the dumb blonde in my group.” Additionally, Shannon stated that,
I won’t answer a question or say something because it is mostly males in my
classes. And I think that is part of the reason why I have really never connected in
my engineering classes. I mean I have friends who are guys but not really a lot of
them to work in groups with.

These women need to be encouraged, especially in these male dominated STEM
fields. Outreach by colligate women support groups could be helpful.
Strategies for Success
STEM professors, advisors, and student affairs professionals can better serve
these women in STEM fields in several ways, reinforcing or complementing existing
strategies such as organizational and time management, passion for their field of study, or
support networks. Time management and organizational skills were two key components
for success repeatedly mentioned during interviews. Workshops targeted at women in
STEM fields to enhance and/or teach these skills would be beneficial. Several of the
participants noted that the busier their schedule, they are more academically productive
49

and successful. Noted by other women in the study, being extremely busy helped to keep
these women focused. Student affairs professionals and advisors should be available to
help these women in STEM fields when they need support on how to effectively manage
their time and allot enough time to understand the homework and time to study for
exams.
Continued support from professors and advisors for these women’s interest in
their respective fields would be beneficial. Advisors need to encourage women to major
in something they are passionate about even though they may feel outnumbered by the
high number of males. The women need to be happy in their major and if they struggle,
they should have places to go to get help, such as counselors or a tutoring center.
Another strategy mentioned by participants was having strong support networks
to help them academically succeed. They mainly relied on family members but also relied
on professors and friends. The most important support network was their parents and
extended families, in terms of emotional support. Some of these women succeeded in
college because of their family encouragement and assistance. All of the women
interviewed had parents that attended college. Many had older siblings who obtained a
higher education, as well. It is important that advisors and student affairs professionals
are aware that not all of women in STEM fields will come from this type of background,
but women in STEM fields come from varying, diverse backgrounds. Advisors need to
be mindful that women from different upbringings should have the opportunity through
mentoring or other similar programs to substitute for a social support network.
50

Another important facet of the participants’ support network was their professor.
Advisors can help ensure academic success by working closely with professors to foster a
supportive environment. A few women said their professors expected academic
excellence and others relied on their professors for personal and emotional support. Both
cases promote a supportive network for these women that may play a critical role to their
academic success.
Motivational Implications
It is important for higher educational professionals to understand the various
factors that motivate women in STEM fields to academically succeed. All participants
cited an internal drive to succeed, family satisfaction, and/or the desire to attend graduate
school as a reason to do well in school. An individual’s internal drive to succeed can be
nurtured by college. It is important that the individual is supported by staff, advisors, and
professors by positive reinforcement and making these women well informed about
college expectations.
Each woman, coming from a broken family or not, stated pleasing their family
was a motivator – doing well in school was expected from these women. The pressure
these women placed on themselves, whether explicitly stated or not, played a factor in the
internal drive of these women to academically succeed. Similarly, all the women had at
least one parent with an advanced degree, which has motivated them to follow in the
footsteps of their parent(s). Advisors and student affairs professionals need to fully
understand why women succeed in SEM majors and try to stimulate more academically
successful women in these areas.
51

Attending graduate school and having a good job was apparent in all of the
women’s interviews. Some participants noted that they planned on a graduate degree in
their current field early on in their college career but changed as they progressed. While
they all had the drive to go to graduate school, the majority of the women did not plan to
get an advanced degree in their current SEM field. Most of the women in the hard
sciences stated they wanted to obtain a master’s of business. Advisors need to make all
women aware of the career and financial opportunities available to those individuals with
advanced degrees in the STEM fields. Most planned on attending graduate school but
wanted to gain work experience in the field before pursing an advanced degree.
Although work experience can be helpful, advisors need to make the women aware that if
an advanced education is postponed, it is sometimes never achieved. An event that could
help is having women professors in STEM fields hold lectures regarding their experience
as a graduate woman in a STEM field.
Future Research
The present study has provided a detailed look at the perceptions of women in
SEM fields on why they believe they are academically successful. Yet, this research is
still clearly only a beginning point. There is a need to differentiate why some women
succeed and others fail in STEM fields, an understanding of the confluence of factors that
lead to their success. A number of other studies could follow from the present study. It
would be highly valuable to have some longitudinal studies conducted following women
in different STEM fields over a period of years to see if and/or why they leave their area
of study or leak through the pipeline. The women that remained could be further
52

investigated. Quantitative studies could be implemented regarding women in STEM
fields in higher education. Additionally, a more elaborate breakdown of ethnicity and
GPA could be explored. Given the sample population of this study, few women of color
were surveyed. Finally, some qualitative research could be done by interviewing women
who have persisted in a STEM field. Interviewing these women would be a useful way to
obtain deeper insight into how and why they decided to stay in their field of choice. Also,
a comparative study between academically under-performing and high-achieving women
in STEM fields could uncover the specific factors that separate these two groups.
Women’s participation in STEM fields remains a topic for study. Recognizing the
negative influences that limit the number of women in STEM fields is important, but it is
essential to understand the women that succeed and defy the negative influences. In this
study, the academically successful women usually came from quality high schools, took
many AP courses, participated in extra-curricular activities, enjoyed learning and
academic success, had parents with advanced degrees, and expressed a desire to attend
graduate school. Based on these findings, it is apparent that many of the important
factors: personal background, strategies for success, interest in entering a STEM field of
study, and motivation to academically succeed occurred prior to college in high school,
or even earlier. All of the participants in the interviews came to college prepared with the
tools needed to academically perform well. These factors did not differentiate them from
other successful students; the key point is that these women came to college with a preset
passion for a SEM field. What differentiated them was that they were women, studying in
areas that are dominated by men. Despite the preparations by these women, STEM
53

professors, advisors, and student affairs practitioners must be aware that, as an institution,
they can still play an increasingly important role in fostering the academic growth and
success of these women in STEM majors.

54

References

Alper, J. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, 409-411.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2007). Behind the pay gap.
AAUW Educational Foundation. Retrieved from www.aauw.org.

Anonymous. (2011). Women in STEM fields. Expanded Academic ASAP. 24, 5-8.

Blickenstaff, C. J. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender
filter? Gender and education, 17(4), 369-386.

Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science,
mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1-2), 92-
111.

Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (2001). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate
women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 369-
375.

Bystydzienski, J. M. & Bird, S. R. (2006). Removing barriers: Women in academic
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Campbell, M. (2011). Researchers look at ways to bridge the gender gap in STEM fields.
The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 21(10), 26-27.

Cavanagh, S. (2008). Stereotype of mathematics inferiority still plagues girls:
Recent studies find females have caught up with the other gender. Education
Week, 28(1), 9. Retrieved form http://proquest-.umi-.com/pqdweb-?did
1555452511-&sid=4-&Fmt=3-&clientId=5239-&RQT=309-&VName=PQD.

Cho, I. & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Clark, S. M., & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of
women faculty: A case of accumulative disadvantage. Journal of Higher
Education 57, 20-43.

Cole, D. & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of
College Student Development, 49(4). 56-64.

55

Collier, W. (2007). Empty Promises in the STEM Fields. Diverse Issues in Higher
Education, 24(17), 29. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from Education Module.
(Document ID: 1364055671).

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Cronin, C. & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering,
and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
36(6), 639-661. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
(SICI)1098-2736(199908)36:6%3C637::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-9/abstract;
jsessionid=E72C6339B 21AC7995B808ABF981CDD38.d02t01.

Davis, C., Ginorio, A. B., Hollenshead, C. S., Larazus, B. B., Rayman, P., & Associates
(1996). The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the
sciences, mathematics, and engineering. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

De Welde, K., Laursen, S., & Thiry, H. (2008). Women in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM). Retrieved from http://www.socwomen.org
/socactivism/stem_fact_sheet.pdf.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research: Second
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dresselhaus, M, Franz, J., & Clark, B. (1995). Update on the chilly climate for women in
physics. The American Physical Society Committee on the Status of Women in
Physics Gazette, 14, 4-9.

Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. C. (1991). Doing
qualitative research: Circles within in circles. New York: Falmer.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Uzzi, B., & Neushatz, M. (2000). Athena unbound: The
advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.

Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science
departments. International Journal of Science Education 25(8), 969-989.

56

Geiger, R. (1992). The historical matrix of American higher education. History of
Higher Education Annual, 12, 7-28.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.

Gribbs, G. R. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Handelsman, J. Cantor, N., Carnes, M., Denton, D., Fine, E., Grosz, B., Hinshaw, V.,
Marrett, C., Rosser, S., Shalala, D., & Sheridan, J. (2003). Women in science.
AAAS, 309, 1190-1191. Retrieved from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ibwis/
documents/Aug18_2008_IBWIS_material/WIS%20PAPERS%2007-08/Hande
lsman%20et%20al.%202005%20Science.pdf

Hansen, J. F. (1979). Sociocultural perspectives on human learning: An introduction to
educational anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hassen, P. F. (2007). College presidents aging and holding jobs longer, according to a
new report on the college presidency. The American Council on Education.
Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&
CONTENTID=20430&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm.

Howes, R. H. &Herzenberg, C. L. (1999). Their day in the sun: Women of the Manhattan
project. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and
minorities in college science and engineering education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kahveci, A., Southerland, S. A., & Gilmer, P. J. (2006). Retaining undergraduate women
in science, mathematics, and engineering. Journal of College Science Teaching,
36(3), 34-35.

Kantrowitz, M. (2007). College admissions: Number of international students.
Retrieved from http://www.edupass.org/admissions/numstud.phtmo.

Koehler, E. (2008). Women in STEM fields still need support. Laser Focus
World, 44(1), 68-70.

57

Kohlstedt, S. G. (2006). Sustaining gains: Reflections on women in science and
technology in the twentieth-century United States. In J. M. Bystydzienski & S. R.
Bird (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (pp. 24-45). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.

Kramer, E. (1951). The main stream of mathematics. New York: Fawcett Publishing.

Kvale, S. (1998). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lamont, B. J. (2005). East meets west - Bridging the academic advising divide.
Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/Advisingissues/East-
Meets-West.htm.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in
ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 31-60.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of
doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research methods (4
th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Matyas, M. L. (1992). Promoting undergraduate studies in science and
engineering. In M. L. Matyas and L. S. Dix (Eds.), Science and engineering
programs: On target for women? Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001). Postsecondary institutions in
the United States: Fall 2000 and degrees and other awards conferred 1999-2000.
Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Board (NSB). (2002). Science & engineering indicators - 2002.
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm.

58

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Retrieved from http://www.nsf
.gove/sbe/srs/nsf00327.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2003). New formulas for America’s workforce:
Girls in science and engineering. Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004a). Science and engineering degrees: 1996-
2001. Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004b). Women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2009). A survey of doctorate recipients. Retrieved
from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctoratework.

Nelson, D. J. (2004). Nelson diversity surveys. Norman, OK: Diversity in Science
Association. Retrieved from http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/~djn/diversity/top50.
html.

Nelson, D. J., Brammer, C. N., & Rhoads, H. (2007). A national analysis of minorities in
science and engineering faculties at research universities. Association of
American Colleges and Universities, 37(1). Retrieved from http://cheminfo.chem.
ou.edu/ faculty/djn/diversity/Faculty_ Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf.

Niemeier, D. & Gonzales, C. (2004). Breaking into the guildmasters’ club: What we
know about women science and engineering department chairs at AAU
universities. NWSA Journal 16(1): 157-171.

Peterson, M. R., Kraus, B. E., & Windham, T. L. (2005). Striving toward equity:
Underrepresented minorities and mathematics. SIAM News, 38(2). Retrieved from
http://www.siam.org/pdf/news/29.pdf

Rossiter, M. W. (1995). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940-
1972. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.

Santovec, M. (2010). Use student affairs strategies to retain women in STEM. Women in
Higher Education, 20(1), 24-25.

Scafidi, T. & Khanh, B. (2010). Gender similarities in math performance from middle
school through high school. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 252-256.
59

Sax, L. J. & Harper, C. E. (2007). Origins of the gender gap: Pre-college and college
influences on differences between men and women. Research in Higher
Education, 48(6), 669-694.

Sax, L. J., Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (2002). The
American freshman: National norms for Fall 2002. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering
undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437-
473.

Seymour, E. (2006). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and
engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science
Education, 79(4), 437-473. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730790406

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Simon, R. (2006). Closing the gender gap. ASEE Prism, 16(1), 92.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). Locating an informant. New York: Holt, Rinchart, and Winston.

Sonnert, G. and Holton, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers: The
project access study. New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers University Press.

Sonnert, G. & Holton, G. (1996). Gender differences in science careers. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Stern, P. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and processes. Image, 1(12), 20-
23.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

The American Council on Education. (2010). Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http
://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home.

60

Towns, M. (2010). Where are the women of color? Data on African American, Hispanic,
and Native American faculty in STEM. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 39(4), 8-9.

Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Vetter, B. M. (1996). Myths and realities of women’s progress in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. In C. Davis, A. B. Ginorio, C. S. Hollenshead, B.
B. Lazarus, P. M. Rayman, & Associates (Eds.), The equity equation (pp. 29-56).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principle’s office: An ethnography. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Woodard, D. B., Love, P., & Komives, S. R. (2000). Leadership and management issues
for a new century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wyer, M., Barbercheck, M., Giesman, D., Ozturl, H. O., & Wayne, M. (2009). A reader
in feminist studies: Women, science, and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.

61

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
1. What year are you currently in?
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
2. What degree are you obtaining?
a. Bachelor’s of Arts
b. Bachelor’s of Science
c. Text Box
3. What ethnicity are you?
a. Caucasian
b. African-American
c. Hispanic
d. Pacific Islander
e. Asian
f. Native American
g. Other
4. Where were you born?
a. In USA
b. Not in USA
5. Select your cumulative GPA
62

a. 3.80 and above
b. 3.60-3.79
c. 3.40-3.59
d. 3.25-3.39
e. 3.0-3.24
f. 3.0 and below
6. Would you like to participate in an interview?
a. Yes
b. No
7. If yes, what is the best way to contact you?
a. Email – Text box
b. Phone Number – Text box

63

Appendix B: Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

A Grounded Theory Study on the Academic Success of
Women in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
(Information Sheet)

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Amber Hroch, a master’s
degree student from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. This research is being done for a master’s thesis. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you are a woman in science, engineering, and/or
mathematics with a GPA of a 3.25 or above, are a junior or senior, and are age 18 or
older. A total of 15 subjects will be selected from USC’s women in science, engineering,
and/or mathematics population to participate. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about how and why women in science, engineering, and/or mathematics academically
succeed in a male dominated area. Additionally, the efforts to increase women in
science, technology, and engineering (STEM) fields are increasing because fewer women
are graduating with these degrees. (There is however, a need to discover what makes
them succeed).

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in one, 40 to 90 minute individual interview to be held at
the USC campus. The interview will be audio-taped. You can continue with your
participation should you decline to be audio-taped. Questions during the interview will
be about motivation and success strategies. Your participation will be during the
beginning of Spring 2011 semester and will not go past May 2011.
64

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the interview or you may feel uncomfortable
when being audio-taped and/or when the researcher is typing notes during the interview.
Any questions during interviews that make you uncomfortable may be skipped and not
answered.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. As this is a
research study, the benefits are contingent upon the results. However, given the decline
of women in STEM fields, the results of this study may help future women in STEM
fields, both at USC and other institutions.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name
(pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information, which
has your identifiable information, will be kept separately from the rest of your data.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s home in a locked file cabinet and
password-protected computer. The data will be stored for three years after the study has
been completed and then destroyed.

Interviews may be audio-taped with your permission. You have the right to review these
audiotapes. No other person besides the researcher will have access to the audiotapes, or
will listen to the audiotapes. You may decline to be audio-taped, and still participate in
the study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

ALTERNATIVE TO PARICIPATION
65

The only alternative is to not participate.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Randolph W. Hall, 3720 South Flower Street, Third
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0706, (213) 740-6709 oprs@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amber Hroch, the principal investigator at (559) 260-7445 or hroch@usc.edu.

66

Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Students
1. Briefly, tell me about yourself and your background.
a. Where are you from?
b. What year are you in school?
c. What is your family background?
2. Tell me about your academic history.
a. High school (and earlier)
b. College/USC history – USC GPA?
3. Do you have any academic awards, specifically in your field of study?
4. Are you involved in any extracurricular events that involve
science/engineering/mathematics?
a. i.e. Tutor, WISE group, volunteer work, internship, etc.
5. What do you like most about science/engineering/mathematics?
6. Explain how and when you decided on your current major.
7. How would you describe a successful day in terms of schoolwork?
8. What do you perceive as key factors to your success?
a. Specific personality traits
b. When did you develop these traits?
c. Did any one person help you in this area?
d. Other?
9. What influence does previous education have on your success?
10. What is your STEM teachers’ role in your success?
67

a. What is your parents’ role in your success?
b. What influence does family background have on you and your success?
11. Who and/or what do you rely on for support (support networks)?
a. Do you have a mentor?
i. Specifically another woman in a STEM field?
12. Have you experienced gender discrimination in your
science/engineering/mathematics classes?
a. How, if at all, are you discriminated against by peers, professors, or
others?
b. How has the gender discrimination changed, if at all, in your
science/engineering/mathematics courses throughout your college
education?
13. Tell me about what you think drives you. (What motivates you to succeed
academically?)
14. What strategies do you use for maintaining academic success?
15. What differentiates you from your less academically successful classmates?
16. What are your immediate plans after completing your degree?
a. Do you plan to get a job in a STEM field?
b. Do you plan to further your education in a STEM field?
17. What are your long-term goals?
a. Where do you see yourself in ten years?
18. Is there anything else you think I should know about you?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This grounded theory study revealed the common factors of backgrounds, strategies, and motivators in academically successful undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM) fields at a private, research university in the West. Data from interviews with 15 women with 3.25 or better grade point averages indicated that current academic achievement in their college SEM fields can be attributed to previous academic success, self awareness, time management and organizational skills, and maintaining a strong support network. Participants were motivated by an internal drive to academically succeed and attend graduate school. Recommendations are provided for professors, advisors, and student affairs professionals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic and athletic success of female student-athletes at a private, research, Division I university

PDF

Preparing for the field of student affairs: White graduate students and the social justice and inclusion competency

PDF

Latino and Latina faculty members’ funds of knowledge: a qualitative study of empowerment agents’ experiences and practices

PDF

Beyond the binary: a phenomenological study of the campus experiences and social identities of bisexual, pansexual, fluid, and queer students at a public university

PDF

Visibly invisible: the experiences of black queer women on campus

PDF

Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study

PDF

Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Academic success of students who come from highly stressful homes

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

PDF

Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

PDF

A longitudinal study on the opportunities to learn science and success in science in the California community college system

PDF

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

A LatCrit analysis of the educational access, attainment, and life outcomes of Mexican origin people

PDF

Undocumented college students: pursuing academic goals against the odds

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education

PDF

Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

Asset Metadata

Creator Hroch, Amber Michelle (author)

Core Title A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs

Degree Conferral Date 2011-08

Publication Date 07/22/2011

Defense Date 08/01/2011

Tag academic success,engineering,mathematics,OAI-PMH Harvest,science,women

Advisor Keim, Robert G. (committee chair), Colaner, Kevin (committee member), Corwin, Zoe (committee member)

Creator Email hroch@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1412604; http://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c127-635923

Unique identifier UC1412604

Legacy Identifier etd-HrochAmber-153

Dmrecord 635923

Document Type Thesis