University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Women in science and engineering: thriving or surviving?

(USC Thesis Other)

Women in science and engineering: thriving or surviving?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING:
THRIVING OR SURVIVING?

by

Kathleen B. Baxter

___________________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Kathleen B. Baxter
ii

Dedication

I dedicate this paper to my parents, Anthony and Margaret Baxter, who are
unfortunately not here to read it but are no doubt observing from above with pride. It
was the unwavering love, support and encouragement you showed me throughout
my life that inspired and motivated me to believe in myself enough to tackle and
accomplish such lofty goals. I am forever grateful and you are forever missed.

iii

Acknowledgements

There are so many people who have played such an instrumental role in
supporting me through this academic process. First off, I would like to thank my
committee chair, Kristan Venegas and committee members, Felicia Hunt, Adrianna
Kezar, and Tracy Tambascia, for their wisdom, guidance and support.
I would like to thank all of the women at the two institutions that participated
in the study. Your experiences are the heart of this work. I admire your strength,
perseverance and unwavering commitment to your fields and to yourselves.
To all of my friends and classmates in the EdD cohort, we did it! Most
especially to Anne - I am so thankful to have had you by my side the past three
years. We commiserated over coursework, we supported and encouraged each other
throughout our writing and we celebrated each other and our successes at every turn.
Your friendship will always be my favorite part of this experience.
Thank you to all of my friends who have supported me throughout this
journey. Tisha and Julie, since day one you have been a daily source of comfort and
encouragement. Rhonda, thank you for the much needed fun times that were critical
to my success. To my east coast crew, Bryan, Francesca, Susan, Anthony, Chris and
Sheila, regardless of distance you have been here with me every step of the way. I
feel so fortunate to have you as my “core.”
A special thank you to my amazing family. Ella, Scott, Sean, Meg and Nick,
spending time with you always rejuvenated my soul and lifted my spirit. Kim, you
iv

are so much more than a sister-in-law, but an amazing friend who always seems to
know just what to say or do to make me feel valued and inspired. Kevin, as my big
brother you are a wonderful friend and sounding board; as an educator you are a role
model; here’s to us, Dr. Baxter.
Lastly, to Mary, the world’s best editor, cheerleader, advocate, friend and
sister. Thank you for listening, supporting, encouraging and caring so
unconditionally. We have walked this road together and I am forever grateful for
your selflessness and generosity along the way. This just proves that together, we
can do anything!

v

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Figures vi

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: A Review of Literature 15

Chapter 3: Methodology 45

Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings 61
Table 4.1 Participant Profiles 68

Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications and Conclusion 111

References 145

Appendices
Appendix A: Student Focus Group Guide 150
Appendix B: Individual Interview Guide 151
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form 152
Appendix D: Recruitment Email 154

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: The influence of perceptions on the self-concept 71
Figure 2: The development of social identity in culture 123

vii

Abstract

As a result of the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering
programs, the culture is male-dominated and perpetuates an unsupportive and biased
climate that discourages undergraduate women from connecting to their gender.
Using a social identity framework, this study addresses how gender influences
undergraduate women’s perception of themselves, their role in the engineering
community and their decision to persist. By capturing the experiences of 16
undergraduate women who are enrolled at two elite technical universities in Southern
California, this qualitative study utilizes focus groups and individual interviews to
provide key insight and perspective on the role of gender in their experience.
Through the data, we learn perception has a significant impact on women, that
women are willing to acclimate to a masculine culture as a means to both prove
legitimacy and feel a sense of belonging and lastly, women manage their gender in
two primary ways, one by integrating within the culture through adopting more
masculine tendencies and second, by adapting to the environment as needed and
persevering in spite of the masculine undercurrent. The implications at the
conclusion of this study are two-fold. One focus is helping undergraduate women
understand gendered experiences and bringing gender to the forefront of their
experience and the second is studying the overall structure of this culture in an effort
to move from a masculine, gender-neutral philosophy to one that is gender-sensitive
and gender-inclusive.

Chapter 1: Introduction
The number of women in higher education has rapidly increased in the last
forty years, however the number of women in science, technology, engineering and
mathematic (STEM) disciplines is still significantly lower than their male
counterparts (Ramirez & Wotipka, 2001). In the year 2010, women will be the
recipients of the majority of degrees in higher education, including associate,
bachelor and masters degrees (Nixon, Meikle & Borman, 2007). However, even
with the surge of women attending higher education institutions, the STEM fields
remain heavily male dominated in all areas, including undergraduate, graduate and
faculty representation. This study focuses on collegiate women at two technical
universities in Southern California; specifically analyzing how being a female in this
male culture affects their experience and persistence. This research utilizes these
experiences as a lens into how universities can better support women in STEM
majors, with an emphasis on their gender awareness and development. It is critical
for engineering and science programs to make concentrated efforts in supporting the
undergraduate female population; this study will identify tangible ways universities
can implement future initiatives that will help institutions accomplish this goal.
Women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields begins at the elementary and
secondary levels, with research citing biased teaching towards boys in math and
science, poor modeling of women in STEM and a lack of recruiting girls to these
disciplines (Blickenstaff, 2005). At the collegiate and graduate levels, women face
2

isolation and marginalization from their peers and faculty, creating uncomfortable
and unsupportive learning environments. The “chilly” climate affects the
confidence and self-efficacy of women, creating internal conflict and self-doubt
(Morris & Daniel, 2008). Women are even more underrepresented in the STEM
workforce, with few women graduating with STEM degrees and those who do, often
choosing to work in other non STEM fields (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). With
pipeline barriers beginning as early as elementary school, there is a funnel effect that
narrows female interest and involvement with each educational tier, hence fewer
women engaged as the levels progress (Blickenstaff, 2005). Whereas there has been
significant progress addressing pipeline issues and a better understanding of
persistence factors, the role gender plays in these women’s experiences is an area
requiring further research. It is important that we understand why women choose to
leave their undergraduate STEM majors; however it is also crucial to study the
experiences of those women who persist and how their gender influences and affects
their overall experience.
A familiar acronym within the science arena, STEM encapsulates four
disciplines into one homogenous group; however all four areas have unique
differences and subsequent challenges for women. STEM fields consist of four
primary fields: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The physical
sciences are the most populated subject area for women and encompass disciplines
such as biology, agriculture and earth sciences. In 2006, women were 59.8% of the
biological science bachelor degree recipients and 41.2% of earth and atmosphere
3

science bachelor degree recipients in the United States (National Science
Foundation, 2009). Technology represents computer science within the STEM
cluster yet is often grouped with either mathematics or engineering in academic units
for reporting purposes. In 2006, women in the United States comprised 26.8% of the
bachelor degree recipients in computer science and mathematics (National Science
Foundation, 2009). In the technology and mathematics field, we begin to see the
sharp decline of female representation compared to the physical sciences. Even
more staggering is the low number of women who graduate with an engineering
degree. In 2006, only 19.5% of the bachelor degree recipients in engineering were
women (National Science Foundation, 2009). The number of women earning a
bachelor’s degree overall in 2006 was over 50% (National Science Foundation,
2009); clearly the engineering arena has the most substantial deficit. It is critical
that more women enroll, persist and work within the engineering arena. Whereas it
is important to assess women’s experiences in all STEM fields, the focus of this
study will concentrate primarily on women who are enrolled in engineering and the
more technical driven sciences. A narrowed focus will enable a more in depth
understanding and analysis of what contributes to undergraduate women’s
experiences in these male dominated disciplines. It is important to note that much of
the research discussing the underrepresentation of women includes all STEM areas.
This study will focus on heavily on engineering, however will capitalize on all
applicable past research to provide an in depth analysis.

4

In order to adequately study and assess the experiences of women at the
undergraduate level, we should begin with the challenges found in the pipeline
beginning with elementary and secondary schools. Much of the research on girls and
STEM focuses on poor primary and secondary preparation in math and science
(Blickenstaff, 2005). Pedagogy was found to skew towards a male orientated
approach with instruction strategies focused on male learning styles (Blickenstaff,
2005). Girls who showed interest or promise in science or math were often
dismissed or belittled by teachers who felt such subjects were more male appropriate.
Despite these findings, research has proven that girls’ intellect is equal, if not greater,
than their male classmates (Clewell & Campbell, 2002). Girls take the majority of
Advanced Placement (AP) exams at the secondary level, yet fewer female high
school students’ complete calculus, physics or computer science AP exams (College
Board, 2009). Girls only comprised 12% of those who took the Computer Science
AP exam and 26% of those who completed the Physics C AP exam (College Board,
2009). Girls are more likely to complete AP Biology, yet boys are the heavy
majority who complete AP Chemistry and AP Physics (College Board, 2009). Only
2% of the girls who completed the SAT or ACT in 2001 intended to major in
engineering at college as compared to 12% of boys (ACT, Inc., 2009). Whereas high
school girls are in the majority as compared to high school boys in preparing for and
attending college, they are in the minority in technical, engineering preparatory
classes. Why are girls who have demonstrated high intellectual competence shying
away from technically focused disciplines?
5

Research has indicated a variety of factors that have contributed to the
“leaky” pipeline at the primary and secondary level. The dearth of female role
models young girls see in the engineering field directly impacts a young girl’s
perception of science and engineering as a plausible career goal (Blickenstaff, 2005).
Specifically the low number of female engineering role models found in course
materials such as textbooks and instructional videos has been cited by girls as a
deterrent to pursue engineering (Blickenstaff, 2005). Seymour and Hewitt (1997)
found that women were twice as likely to pursue a science or engineering major if
they were personally influenced. In the absence of such influence, girls are often
subject to perceived gender roles that gear them towards nurture orientated fields and
away from technical areas such as science and engineering (Blickenstaff, 2005).
Social cues can discourage women, even unknowingly, away from male dominated
fields such as engineering (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). “Because of differential access;
choice; and even student, adult and societal views of what are appropriate activities
for girls and boys however, math and science experiences may be different for the
sexes, often leading to the building of different skill sets and preferences early on.”
(Clewell & Campbell, 2002). It is important to study and assess how predetermined
gender roles influence both girls’ decisions to pursue engineering, as well as in their
experiences once at the undergraduate college level.
The experiences that girls face in the K-12 system are heightened at the
collegiate level. Women are in the minority in their engineering classrooms, study
groups and learning centers, fostering an isolating and often “chilly” climate (Hall &
6

Sandler, 1982). Morris and Daniel (2008) used the Perceived Chilly Climate Scale
to determine the effect of climate for female dominated majors versus male
dominated majors. Their findings conclude that women indicated a chillier climate
than their male counterparts, hence creating both formal and informal barriers for
women in engineering. A perceived hostile environment impacts faculty-student
relationships, peer networks and the overall success of women (Morris & Daniel,
2008). Classroom experience is instrumental in student’s persistence (Colbeck,
Cabrera & Terenzini, 2001), as are relationships and networks (Hyde & Gess-
Newsome, 1999). In addition to environmental challenges, a chilly climate can
significantly hinder a woman’s self-efficacy and confidence (Zeldin & Pajares,
2000). Self-efficacy has a direct link to persistence; the greater an individual’s
efficacy, the more likely they will persist (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986)
identified four sources that influence self-efficacy, mastery experiences, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasions and physical and emotional states. Zeldin and Pajares
(2000) conducted a study assessing the self-efficacy beliefs of women in STEM
fields and women in non-STEM fields. Among Zeldin and Pajares’ (2000)
conclusions was the critical importance self-efficacy has on women in male
dominated fields as opposed to women in gender balanced fields. Additionally, the
study found verbal persuasions, such as verbal encouragement and support, and
vicarious experience, such as classroom and lab interactions, the most significant
sources of self-efficacy for women (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). With research
highlighting the problematic nature of the engineering environment for women,
7

educators should strive to implement practices that foster inclusive, supportive and
“warmer” climates for women.
Statement of Problem
There have been significant strides made in creating more opportunities for
women in STEM fields, as well as supporting their participation in these disciplines
(Ramirez & Wotipka, 2001). However, a critical juncture in the pipeline is at the
undergraduate level where many women will enroll in engineering programs, yet
leave the major at some point during their collegiate career (Seymour & Hewitt,
1997). Research shows that lack of academic competence is rarely the reason why
women chose to leave engineering, with many women earning higher scores and
testing at a higher aptitude than many male classmates (Brainard & Carlin, 1997).
Rather, it is the loss of self-confidence in their academic abilities, the feeling of
isolation within the academic environment, lack of female faculty as role models and
the overall marginalization women feel within these disciplines that are repeatedly
cited for women’s attrition from engineering (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). This
finding is in direct conflict with the previous school of thought that when women
withdrew from engineering, it was due to either poor academics or lack of interest
(Brainard & Carlin, 1997). The male dominated culture and subsequent
unsupportive and biased climate within science and engineering discourages
undergraduate women from connecting to their gender. It is imperative that
undergraduate engineering programs not only enroll and retain female students, but
8

that they also foster an environment that allows them to thrive both as an academic
and as a woman.
Female persistence to graduation at the undergraduate level is also important
for the livelihood of the engineering industry. It is projected that a quarter of the
engineering workforce will retire in the next five years and women currently only
comprise 12% of all engineering related jobs (National Girls Collaborative Project,
2009). With women representing 46% of the American workforce (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2009), there is a significant gap between women who are employed and
those working within the engineering sector. The technical revolution in the past 50
years has had significant impact on the engineering industry (Clewell & Campbell,
2002). In 2010, STEM fields are projected to grow three times more than any other
industry (Nixon, Meikle & Borman, 2007). There is a pressing need for more trained
technicians that are qualified to deal with technology, engineering and other science
related initiatives. In addition, the once white, male dominated mentality of the
engineering industry is suffering from lack of diversity, not only in numbers but in
thinking, creativity and overall mindset. It is critical that universities, including
staff, administrators and faculty, create environments that support women in
engineering so they are both prepared and interested in joining this workforce.
Purpose and Significance of Study
It is no longer acceptable to expect women to conform to the existing science
and engineering culture, but rather this field must recreate an environment that
allows all students and women specifically, to participate, thrive and succeed.
9

Without a cultural shift in undergraduate education within engineering and science
programs, women may continue to leave engineering programs for other disciplines
where they are more accepted, supported and valued. Dietz, Anderson and
Katzenmeyer (2002) discuss the need to change the institution of science and
engineering not to encompass women within the existing organization, but to revamp
the culture and create a universal, gender neutral perspective. Rather than studying
women within the context of the existing institution of science, the transition must
move to women and science. This shift would generate a greater female impact on
reshaping and molding a new science culture versus women merely assimilating to
the science culture that has been created historically by white males (Dietz,
Anderson & Katzenmeyer, 2002). Constantly faced with pipeline issues in the K-12
system and the growing shortage of prepared, trained engineers in today’s workforce,
the need for change is imminent. At the undergraduate collegiate level, the
traditional engineering culture must be investigated to assess and identify the
positive and negative factors that influence women’s experiences. This evaluation is
critical to begin shaping a new culture that is more inclusive.
This study will provide a lens into the undergraduate world of engineering
through studying women’s experiences, specifically how their perception and
association of being female impacts their involvement and persistence within the
science and engineering community. By capturing the experiences of undergraduate
women who are currently enrolled in an engineering program at two elite technical
universities in Southern California, the study identifies the role gender has played in
10

their overall experience. These students relay stories and share their perspectives on
barriers they have encountered and factors that have been instrumental in their
experience. Through their narratives as well as descriptive background information,
the study will assess the role gender has made on their participation and success in
the field. Using a social identity framework, the research will seek to account for
how gender influences undergraduate women’s perception of themselves in a male
dominated culture. Subsequently, it will be important to analyze how this
perception of being underrepresented as female impacts their role in the community
and their decision to persist.
This qualitative study will primarily utilize narrative inquiry for data
collection and analysis. Qualitative research provides a lens that places the
researcher into the lives of the participants, providing an analysis that is personal and
inclusive (Creswell, 2008). An in depth and comprehensive understanding will
generate intimate and applicable knowledge on what has contributed to these
women’s experiences. Ideally this research will create a template for successful
measures that can be shared with educators for implementation in both policy and
practice. The research question for this study is:
Utilizing a social identity lens, what role does gender play in undergraduate
engineering women’s perception of themselves, their role in the engineering
community and their decision to persist within the engineering field?

11

Background of Theoretical Framework
At the core of this study is the experience of undergraduate women in
technically oriented institutions that are heavily male dominated both in numbers and
mindset. It is important to understand and appreciate the role gender plays both
currently and historically within this culture. There are differences in terms that are
often interchanged yet have very different meanings and purposes. Woman is
defined as an individual; female represents the biological sex of a woman; feminine
refers to specific mannerisms and behaviors of women; feminist employs a political
outlook and lastly, gender “denotes power relations between the sexes and includes
men as much as it does women” (Schiebinger, 2000, p. 1173). It is gender that will
be a critical component of this study, specifically how social dynamics and
relationships influence a woman’s gender identity. With the male dominated
engineering culture as the broad context for shaping undergraduate women’s
experiences, power relations and social structure are skewed in support of men.
Therefore, the environment favors the male gender over female, impacting how
undergraduate women define and perceive their role as women in this culture.
This study analyzes specifically how undergraduate engineering women’s
understanding and perception of their gender influences their experience. There are
a plethora of theories focusing on the retention and persistence of students at the
collegiate level that discuss the need for involvement, integration and overall
university fit (Tinto, 1975; 1993). However, for the women in engineering
population, involvement and integration is not always a plausible solution in an
12

environment where women are often subject to discrimination and prejudice as result
of gender dynamics. As a result of this marginalization, many women may choose
not to engage in involvement opportunities, therefore isolating themselves even
further within the community and impacting their experience and possibly the
likelihood of their persistence (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).
At the core of their decisions to become involved socially or academically, is
their social identity (Murphy, Steele & Gross, 2007). Social identity is defined as
“the part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional
significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p.251). Social identity can
encompass many different identities, such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity and
religion. For the purpose of this study, the social identity will be gender and the
social group will be the science and engineering community. For women in these
fields, their membership is not within the core group, but outside, directly impacting
their self-perception and sense of belonging within the engineering community.
Within one’s social identity, is the presence of a perceived threat that they may be
marginalized or poorly treated as a result of their social identity (Murphy, Steele &
Gross, 2007). For traditional aged, undergraduate women studying engineering,
social identity actively influences their decisions both inside and outside of the
classroom. The concept of social identity is the key theoretical framework for this
study. In studying engineering women’s experiences, it will be critical to assess the
13

student’s understanding of their social identity and the degree gender influences their
experiences within this masculine culture.
Background of Methodology
The research will be qualitative, specifically using a narrative approach.
Qualitative data, as opposed to quantitative data will provide a more in depth
understanding of the challenges that are unique to the undergraduate women.
“Qualitative methods permit inquiry into selected issues in great depth with careful
attention to detail, context and nuance.” (Patton, 2002, p. 227). As we seek to
intimately and comprehensively understand the feelings women have as
undergraduate engineering students, and how their environment, values and thoughts
influence their decisions to continue within engineering, qualitative research
provides an ideal medium. The goal of this study is not to create broad, general
knowledge but to delve into the student experience for a heightened awareness and
analysis of individual women.
Narrative research allows for the participant’s experiences to be at the
forefront of the study. Through the lived experiences of these women, we will hear
their stories and personal accounts (Creswell, 2008). The study will interview 16
undergraduate women who are currently enrolled at two different elite technical
universities in Southern California. The women will be invited to participate through
email advertisements and by administrators at the institution. The interviews will be
conducted both in a focus group format as well as a smaller number of women will
be interviewed individually. Through these outlets, the study intends to generate
14

inclusive and purposeful research that will contribute to the success of undergraduate
women in science and engineering.
Organization of Study
This chapter serves as the introduction to the research study focusing on
undergraduate women studying science and engineering. Through background on
women in STEM, we have learned the myriad of challenges faced by women
throughout the pipeline. In Chapter 2, I delve further into the history of women in
engineering, as well as the specific issues commonly cited for their attrition. Chapter
2 also provides additional insight and understanding around gender roles and social
identity theory, creating context for how gender influences women’s experiences and
persistence decisions. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology for the study, including
an overview of the two institutions and subsequent student populations. An
overview of question topics is introduced. Chapter 4 presents the study’s findings by
compiling and presenting all data acquired through the inquiry process in a
synthesized, comprehensive format. Lastly, Chapter 5 links the data to the research
question, the theoretical framework and concludes with implications for practitioners
and researchers.
15

Chapter 2: A Review of Literature
As we have learned in Chapter 1, women remain underrepresented in
undergraduate engineering and science programs. In this chapter, there is a brief
overview of the history of women in higher education to provide an understanding of
the residual effects of discrimination and bias within academia towards women. This
historical perspective also highlights the significant progress made for women in
higher education and specifically, within the engineering and science arena. An in-
depth look into the engineering culture, including specifically studying the impact of
gender roles and dynamics will establish a strong sense of context for women’s
experiences in these communities. There will be a variety of studies presented that
explore women’s retention within engineering and science programs, providing
insight on how universities have been successful in retaining more women. The
chapter also addresses the gap in literature between the retention of women in these
fields and the development of their gender and overall identity. The concept of
social identity is presented and discussed as a theoretical framework for the study,
showcasing how the male dominating social group found in science and engineering
influences women’s gender identity.
Women in Higher Education
Access to higher education for women has historically been limited in
comparison to their male peers. Considering the first woman to enter an American
16

university was in 1833 at Oberlin College, there were centuries where women were
restricted access to higher education (Lucas, 2006). The emergence of women’s
colleges in the 19
th
century was a significant sign of progress for women’s access to
higher education (Harwarth, 1997). World War II brought the most significant
change around access and opportunity for women to both attend colleges and
universities originally closed to them, as well as employment positions that had
traditionally only been available to men (Dorn, 2008). As working men left for war,
there was a shortage of employees, especially in defense and technical areas that
were essential in producing war time necessities. Wartime labor shortages meant
women were being trained to fulfill roles in defense orientated factories, aviation
plants and other areas that required a technical skill set (Dorn, 2008). Suddenly
women were seen as instrumental in the workforce. Additionally, women’s colleges
began including technical courses in their curriculum such as electronics; they were
also seeing an increased number of women enrolled in physics, mathematics and
chemistry courses during World War II (Dorn, 2008). Women’s thirst for
knowledge and opportunity did not end with the war and the second half of the 20
th

century saw continued educational advancement.
After World War II, women continued attending college and universities,
with more women seeking opportunities in traditional male fields. Critical
legislation served as a catalyst for society to begin recognizing and accepting women
as productive, successful members of society. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 made it
17

illegal for employers to discriminate and pay employees less on the account of sex
(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009). The passing of Title IX in
1972 is often heralded as one of the most significant and monumental legislative acts
for the advancement of women. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex
in any federally funded project, program or activity (U.S. Department of Justice,
2009). We will learn later in this chapter how other federally funded science and
engineering programs emerged specifically to engage more women in these fields.
Amidst this legislation and key progress for women in higher education, there
were still gaps that existed. Although women were attending university at a higher
rate, they were often concentrated in certain fields. Over half the female
undergraduates majored in education, with 70% of the female students majoring in
six fields, education, fine arts, nursing, history, home economics and English
(Jacobs, 1996). Whereas today male dominated fields are typically relegated to the
science arena, forty years ago disciplines such as law, medicine and business were
also male dominated. Yet again, women persevered and today, business and law are
often leading majors for collegiate women (Jacobs, 1996). Chapter 1 noted the
increasing number of women in the physical sciences and mathematics entering and
graduating from college, yet the dearth of women entering and persisting in
engineering and science programs. There was a strong upswing in women’s
advancement in higher education in the latter half of the 20
th
century, however the
momentum lulled in the 1990’s, especially for women in engineering (Clewell &
18

Burger, 2002). This discipline has consistently been subject to underrepresentation
of women in both academia and the workforce.
History and Progress
As mentioned earlier, World War II was instrumental in engaging women in
the science and engineering field (Dorn, 2008). The war created opportunities for
women to explore areas of study and employment beyond the traditional realm of
teaching or nursing. Although women are still heavily underrepresented in
engineering, progress has been made in the 65 years since then. The increase has
been slow and incremental, yet through various programs, funding initiatives and
national movements, women’s role in science and engineering has grown.
At the forefront of this discussion, is the overall expansion of the education
system in the latter part of the 20
th
Century (Ramirez & Wotipka, 2001). In the
United States, as well as globally, the elementary and secondary school systems have
developed rapidly, as did higher education (Ramirez & Wotipka, 2001). More
women began attending college, increasing the overall enrollment numbers of
women in higher education. As a result, more women were introduced to science
and engineering than in previous years. This growth was tepid in comparison to
other disciplines. Between the years of 1972 and 1992, women’s enrollment in
science and engineering programs only grew at a rate of 1.2% per year (Ramirez &
Wotipka, 2001). This statistic is particularly relevant when recognizing the
increased number of women in other previously male dominated fields. In 1970,
19

psychologists were approximately 10% women and attorneys and judges were
approximately 5% female; in 1996 those numbers were 49% and 40% respectively.
Progress in engineering was being made, yet at a painfully slow rate.
After the small surge of the 1970’s and 1980’s, the number of women
enrolling in engineering programs stalled (Clewell & Burger, 2002). As progress
stagnated, the promotion of women in the sciences became more integrated into the
national dialogue. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was established by the
U.S. Congress in 1950 to promote and protect the progress of science, health and
national security (Clewell & Burger, 2002). The NSF stands as one of the premier
organizations in this field and is widely respected by academics and practitioners. In
the 1990’s the NSF focused significant attention and resources on the
underrepresentation of women and created a variety of programs and initiatives to
recruit and retain women in this field. The Program for Women and Girls (PSG),
now known as the Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering
and Technology, is an NSF funded program that supports studies and activities
geared towards increasing the number of women in science. The PSG distributed
their first grants in 1993 and have since funded over 250 projects (Clewell & Burger,
2002). Many of these initiatives have focused on K-12 education for girls, funding
for female faculty to conduct research and the implementation of support programs
for undergraduate women (Clewell & Burger, 2002). The 1990’s may not have seen
20

an enormous growth in female enrollment in engineering programs but the
conversation was growing and with it, a strong momentum for change.
In addition to the NSF, other educational organizations were reforming their
practices to address this issue. The American Association for the Advancement of
Science and the National Research Council both designed standards for teaching
mathematics and science (Clewell & Campbell, 2002). In 1993 and 1996
respectively, these two organizations publically called for teachers to use innovative
educational strategies that could be more beneficial for girls and women to learn
math and science. These tactics included small-groups, inquiry-based instruction
and hands on activities. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule (1986) conducted
an extensive study that documented at length how women tend to learn differently
than men, benefiting from more interactive and supportive environments. In contrast
to the primarily lecture based curriculum traditionally found in these classrooms, this
new way of teaching not only engaged more students but specifically created a
pedagogical approach that required teachers to recognize multiple ways of student
learning. This shift was important not only for the educational value it brought girls,
but also as a symbolic gesture.
In 2000, more women entered higher education than their male peers
however, less than 20% of undergraduate women attending college in 1999 were
engineering majors (Clewell & Campbell, 2002). In 2001, 2% of the girls who
completed the ACT or SAT indicated majoring in engineering, as opposed to 12% of
21

boys (ACT, Inc., 2001; The College Board, 2001). The number of women pursuing
a computer science degree dropped from 30% in 1990 to 27% in 1998 (Clewell &
Campbell, 2002). On the positive side, the new millennium saw progress in the
number of women in engineering fields however they were still significantly
underrepresented compared to their male counterparts.
In 1971, the largest compilation of biological information of American
scientists was titled, American Men in Science; today, that same body of work is
titled American Men & Women of Science (Dietz, Anderson & Katzenmeyer, 2002).
Although a seemly small sign of progress, this shift is indicative of the gradual
inclusion and recognition of women in engineering. Before World War II, women
were rarely found in college classrooms, with even less in science labs. Progress for
women has been made and continued growth is critical for women to be equally
represented. Engineering especially is a discipline that has significant trouble
recruiting and retaining women; this study will bring insight and perspective into the
engineering culture at the undergraduate level so progress can continue and the next
wave of engineering women can enroll, graduate and thrive.
Women and the Science and Engineering Culture
While the number of women entering the science and engineering discipline
has increased, one might argue that it is as a result of the perseverance and resiliency
of women rather than an environmental culture shift. Wyer (2003) cites four specific
levels of barriers that women face within science and engineering. System barriers
22

represent the broad, overarching biases embedded within politics, economics and
society as a whole. Institutional barriers include injustices found within the
education and the workplace. Interpersonal barriers involve the interactions with
others and lastly, self barriers, the values and beliefs of individuals. It is
overwhelming to grasp how far reaching and influential these barriers can be for
women, especially those who are traditional college aged students. It will be
especially important to focus on the interpersonal and self barriers undergraduate
women face and through this study, determine ways to remove these obstacles.
Chilly Climate
Women studying engineering often encounter unwelcoming and unsupportive
attitudes within their programs. Hall and Sandler (1982) coined the term “chilly
climate” to describe this culture. A chilly climate not only negatively impacts
women’s performance but places them at an overall educational disadvantage (Hall
& Sandler, 1982). A chilly climate includes both subtle and overt examples of biases
towards women, such as unfavorable comments towards and about women, actively
not calling on women in class, using patronizing tones when talking with women and
calling on male students more than females (Hall & Sandler, 1982). Research has
shown that due to the chilly climate within fields that are male-dominated, women
may choose not to pursue or persist in these fields (Morris & Daniel, 2008). Morris
and Daniel (2008) used the Perceived Chilly Climate Scale (PCCS) to determine the
varying perceptions of climate in male-dominated and female-dominated fields. The
23

researchers found that women and ethnic minority students found climates chillier
overall than male and white students. In Wyer’s (2003) study with undergraduate
engineers, she concluded that student’s degree aspirations stemmed from “direct
effects from all of the social variables, including images of scientists and engineers;
attitudes towards gender equality in society; and for women, perceptions of the
classroom climate” (p.10). Women, especially those in the male-dominated fields of
science and engineering, are keenly aware, sensitive and highly influenced by the
culture and climate found in their academic community.
Heyman, Martyna and Bhatia (2002) conducted a study of male and female
engineering and non-engineering majors to determine their beliefs about their nature
of abilities, treatment of male and female engineering students and the values and
interests of engineering students. A key conclusion was the variation in treatment for
males and females in the different areas. Over half the women in engineering majors
perceived differential treatment from their male counterparts, yet only a quarter of
the men reported perceived differences. In the same study with the non-engineering
majors, only 12% of women perceived any differential treatment within their
discipline (Heyman, Martyna & Bhatia, 2002). Clearly gender differences and
subsequent treatment are more prevalent within engineering than other fields.
Climate impacts the perceptions of all those within these communities, including
students, faculty, staff and administrators. Understanding and recognizing the
24

embedded perceptions and biases of this culture is an important factor that must be
considered in studying the persistence of women in this discipline.
The isolating climate for women not only impacts their involvement and
integration within the community, but their personal beliefs and mind-sets. In a
study by Meinholdt and Murray (1999), men held more negative attitudes about
women and felt strongly that men were better equipped to be engineers than women.
These opinions permeate throughout the engineering environment impacting
women’s self-efficacy and sense of belonging within the field. Heyman, Martyna
and Bhatia (2002) reported women felt engineering aptitude was a fixed ability, and
those who held that belief, were more likely than their male counterparts to withdraw
from a class when faced with challenge and difficulty. Women are positioned to
view engineering from a male perspective, in culture, practice and mindset. It is
essential for science and engineering programs to engage women in a positive,
affirming manner that confirms their belonging within the field, their aptitude and
capability and their feminine identity.
Student persistence is heavily influenced by the campus environment and a
student’s involvement and engagement within the community (Tinto, 1975). This
integration is even more critical for women in engineering disciplines. Engineering
is conditioned from a male gendered perspective, impacting women’s sense of
belonging, self-concept and overall perception of themselves as a member of this
culture. It is critical to understand how the male dominated environment shapes
25

women’s view of their gender, their sense of belonging within the field and how
these perceptions impact their overall experience.
The Role of Gender
Gender has been defined as the socialization of the sexes, creating a schism
between men and women (Rolin, 2008). West and Zimmerman (1987) claim gender
involves a “complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical
activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine or feminine
‘nature’” (p. 126). Gender is constructed rather than fixed, accepted naturally and
often without argument or objection (Pillow, 2002). Due to the entrenched nature of
gender within everyday life, it is not easily recognized or overtly apparent. Women
and men do not choose their gender, but rather the worlds in which they live create
their understanding and perception of how their gender positions them. “In gender
ideologies regulative rules tell what behaviors are appropriate for women as women
and men as men (Rolin, 2008, p.1113). Society determines how gender influences
our lives; individuals are born with a biological sex yet gender is created through the
culture and traditions found within society (Pillow, 2002).
According to Hughes (2002) gender schemas are developed in early
childhood, identifying certain objects and information as belonging to one of the two
sexes. Gender schema is promoted and further reinforced throughout children and
young adult’s socialization and educational experiences. Within this framework, it
can explain why certain activities, subjects and jobs are identified as either male-
26

appropriate or female-appropriate (Hughes, 2002). In a study conducted of both
males and females, both groups responded that the typical scientist was more
masculine than feminine. Additionally, the study found men had stronger course,
major and career confidence than the female respondents, creating an “academic
environment in which a visible subset of students in gender-incongruent majors
experiences and expresses less confidence than a visible subset of students in gender-
congruent majors.” (Hughes, 2002, p. 63). Science and engineering are perceived
as a masculine profession, therefore prescribing gender and all associated with the
male gender to the field of study. As a result, the female gender is not readily
accepted or valued in the engineering culture, creating feelings of marginalization,
isolation and inferiority among women in this field. Engineering has not been
historically portrayed or deemed a female-appropriate discipline and therefore
women naturally feel alienated and disconnected in the masculine culture. In the
context of this study, it is important to understand how gender roles impact women’s
perceptions, their sense of belonging and their decision to persist.
Gender and Stereotype Threat
A specific role gender plays in the science and engineering culture is through
stereotype threat, the degree to which a perceived stereotype can negatively
influence an individual’s performance (Steele, 1997). Through prescribed
stereotypes and biases that exist towards females in these communities, women are
faced with trying to mask their gender so it is not seen as a barrier. Many female
27

students will underperform, not ask questions or actively engage in the community
for fear they will be judged by others in the environment according to the pre-
determined stereotype (Steele, 1997).
Stereotype threat is a byproduct of the social context that defines and shapes
the perceptions one draws from their self-concept (McGlone & Aronson, 2006).
Even women with strong intellect, academic self confidence and supportive peer
networks show signs of concern about being identified with the perceived stereotype
of women in engineering. The more in tune they are with their gender, the more
likely they are to have a heightened awareness of perceived stereotype threat. As a
result of this embedded stereotype, many women constantly feel compelled to
disprove the stereotype as they immerse themselves in the engineering domain
(Heyman, Martyna & Bhatia, 2002). In a study of male and female science and
engineering students, men answered with negative feelings around women as
engineers, perceiving it as more of a male discipline (Meinholdt & Murray, 1999).
Within such environments, these sentiments will resonate and women will feel
discounted and undervalued. Consequently, women are likely to either retreat and
possibly withdraw from engineering or prove their male classmates wrong by
assimilating to the male-dominated culture and compromising female attributes that
could be linked to the stereotype.
As we have learned, gender is not born but constructed through society and
“societal stereotypes about groups can influence the intellectual functioning and
28

identity development of individual group members” (Steele, 1997, p. 613). Through
both a broader societal context as well as the smaller world of engineering, women
learn the stereotypes associated with gender through situational cues. Situational
cues “alert people to the possibility of psychological threat, such as isolation or
ostracism.” (Murphy, Steele & Gross, 2007). An individual will become vulnerable
to the female stereotype when they are in an environment that is sending situational
cues which can be construed as threatening. Murphy, Steele and Gross (2007)
conducted a study with upper division, undergraduate engineering students to test
how situational cues affect their behavior. Two groups were shown a conference
video, one with an equal number of women in the video and another with
significantly more men in the video. Among the study’s findings, women who
viewed the male dominated video reported significantly less belonging than women
who saw a video with equal representation. Gender representation is one situational
cue that women receive within their engineering programs that impact their sense of
self, sense of community and overall place within their academic program. Other
cues might include being called on less frequently than male students, activities that
are more of interest to male students and a lack of female faculty role models
(Murphy, Steele & Gross, 2007). Whether overt or subtle, these cues deeply
penetrate the engineering community and impact women’s perceptions and self-
concept, often creating the impression that being female disadvantages them.
29

Retaining Women in Engineering
Despite the climate described above, research conducted on the retention and
attrition of women in science and engineering has identified resources and outlets
that that can be positively attributed to the persistence of women in these fields. Peer
networks, a strong sense of self-efficacy and an overall more supportive climate have
all been cited as significant factors in undergraduate women’s experiences in science
and engineering.
Peer Networks and Support Programs
Literature discussing retention in engineering recognizes the challenges for
both men and women to successfully persist in these disciplines. Seymour and
Hewitt (1997) conducted a three-year study that engaged in an in-depth analysis of
why undergraduate students changed their major from STEM fields or withdrew
completely from college. In over 600 interviews with undergraduate students, a
plethora of issues surfaced, including rigorous content, inadequate teaching and
competition between peers and lack of preparation (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). This
study provides excellent insight into the myriad of challenges that face all students in
the STEM fields.
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) document the specific barriers and obstacles for
women beyond the general student issues. The study recounts stories of isolation
and alienation from faculty, administrators and peers impeding women from asking
for help, making friends and connecting to a community. Those who did persist
30

discussed how socialization with other women in STEM fields was influential in
their success. Socialization included mentoring programs, advising relationships and
all female study groups, and was substantially more significant for women than the
male students interviewed. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) concluded that the inclusion
of female orientated STEM services, such as women in science and/or engineering
offices, would greatly benefit women as an outlet for involvement and integration.
Women are an underrepresented group within the engineering discipline and need
the opportunity to find a subgroup where they can interact, engage and ultimately,
thrive. Without these outlets, women are forced to attempt involvement and
integration within the dominant male culture negatively impacting their potential for
persistence.
Beyond general socialization, an additional factor identified as particularly
beneficial for women in academic and social integration is connections and
relationships with their peers. As Pascarella & Terenzini (1980) highlighted in their
study of Tinto’s (1975) work, female students tend to persist more as a result of
positive peer interactions. In a study conducted by Hyde and Gess-Newsome (1999),
women spoke at length about how Project Access, a program designed for women in
STEM at their university, positively enhanced their experience. The support they
found in the relationships developed with their female peers encouraged and inspired
them the most (Hyde & Gess-Newsome, 1999). They not only mention the
academic support they received from friends and colleagues within this program, but
31

also the ability to identify socially with women who were in similar situations. In
the Project Access program, women lived together during an eight week seminar
program. The women discussed how this living situation fostered academic and
social connections that created a community of support and a fully integrated
network of women. As discussed in Astin’s (1985) model, residential communities
are a key channel for student involvement; this study affirms this finding. In
interviews with all 32 student participants in the Project Access program, each one
identified the community, support and dedication they felt from their peers in the
program as a meaningful contributor to their success (Hyde & Gess-Newsome,
1999). Creating outlets for women that foster these relationships and promote
opportunities for community building are necessary for women to integrate and
succeed within the engineering environment.
The establishment of the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE)
learning community at a four year public institution in the Midwest was created in an
effort to support women in non-traditional majors. Again, this type of program
proves how a community, residential environment can be productive and influential
for engineering women. The program consisted of female students grouped together
within a living learning environment, with female faculty and alumnae role modeling
and mentoring (Pace, Witucki and Blumreich, 2008). In one year, the women who
participated in WISE had a higher GPA (2.87) than other female students in these
majors who were not part of WISE (2.76). Additionally, retention rates for WISE
32

students after the first year was 93.6%, significantly higher than the university’s 82%
return rate for all freshmen. The female students in the WISE program relayed
anecdotes that further emphasized how beneficial WISE was in their persistence;
specifically discussing having peers to relate to throughout the first year experience
as a key factor in their success.
In a six year longitudinal study at the University of Washington, Brainard and
Carlin (1998) studied undergraduate women in science and engineering majors. The
purpose of the study was to improve tracking measures, increase retention of women,
identify factors that affected retention of women in science and engineering at the
university and finally, report these findings to administration for policy development.
The study reported differing persistence factors for each academic year, from
personal enjoyment of the coursework in the freshmen year to acceptance of the
department, faculty and peers in upper division years (Brainard & Carlin, 1998).
Positive influences were the Women in Engineering (WIE) Big Sister program,
mentorship, conference attendance, advisors, and the overall influence of a WIE
program on campus. When the women were asked about perceived barriers, they
cited lack of self-confidence, feelings of intimidation, isolation, poor advising and
inadequate teaching. Overall the study concludes that the retention of undergraduate
women in science and engineering programs at the University of Washington has
significantly increased as a result of the implementation of the WIE Program.
Similar to the women in Project Access, the support structure and peer networks
33

created outlets and opportunities for them to engage and integrate despite a male
dominated, marginalizing culture.
Importance of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the cornerstone of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory.
Self- efficacy can be defined as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to produce
designated levels of performance.” (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000, p. 216). People are
more likely to complete tasks they feel they can successfully accomplish and less
likely to finish tasks they do not feel they are adequately capable of completing
(Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Students, namely women, who perceive their faculty are
doubtful and skeptical about their academic ability, are more likely to have a lower
degree of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). The importance of women’s self-efficacy in
engineering has been studied extensively in identifying how their perception of their
capabilities are shaped and molded by a male-dominated engineering culture.
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory posits that one’s self-efficacy stems
from four primary sources. Mastery experience is drawn from an individual’s past
performance. If an individual performs well and is successful, their self efficacy will
be stronger as a result; if they are not high-achieving, their self-efficacy will suffer.
Vicarious experience occurs by observing the performance of others with perceived
similar capabilities. The success and failures of those like individuals fuels one’s
own self-efficacy. Verbal persuasions include the verbal messages, encouragement
and support individuals receive while engaged in completing a task. The more
34

positive and affirming messages yield a higher sense of self-efficacy. Lastly,
physical and emotional state is the fourth source. Optimism and confidence can be
interpreted as encouraging and supportive, creating stronger self-efficacy. Self-
efficacy influences choices people make, their confidence, resilience and fortitude.
“Individuals with strong self-efficacy beliefs work harder and persist longer when
they encounter difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities.” (Zeldin &
Pajares, 2000, pg. 218). Self-efficacy not only influences a person’s self-concept but
is paramount in the accomplishment and success of their tasks.
In studying the persistence of undergraduate women in engineering, their
degree of self-efficacy is found to be instrumental in their success (Zeldin & Pajares,
2000). In a study of women who were currently employed in mathematically related
fields, the role of self-efficacy was assessed. Since these women were actively
employed in these domains, they had demonstrated persistence within male
dominated fields. The findings were two-fold; women strongly responded to
vicarious experience and verbal persuasions in forming their self-efficacy and the
beliefs and self-concept developed as a result of high self-efficacy were important in
women’s persistence in male dominated fields (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Women
identified family, teachers, peers and supervisors as the four primary sources of their
self-efficacy development, namely through verbal persuasion and vicarious
experience. Support, encouragement and positive role modeling are all factors in
these women’s self-efficacy development and ultimately, their success.
35

Additionally, women identified academic and social resiliency as instrumental in
their success; both of which were a result of high degrees of self-efficacy (Zeldin &
Pajares, 2000). It is important to create outlets for undergraduate women to be
supported and encouraged through verbal persuasion and vicarious experience, as
well as create environments that develop and promote their capabilities and aptitude
for the benefit of their efficacy development. In studying the success of female
professionals in male dominated cultures, we are equipped with a strong
understanding of how self-efficacy is shaped and its role in women’s persistence.
Interactions with faculty can significantly affect the experiences of
undergraduate women in engineering. Effective teaching practices that include
dynamic and interactive content will yield more enthusiasm for the material and
content (Colbeck, Cabrera & Terenzini, 2001). Research shows that many students
identify the primary reason they leave the sciences is due to poor teaching (Seymour
& Hewitt, 1997). Beyond pedagogy, faculty play a critical role influencing the
degree of involvement and integration by women in engineering. Students who have
positive interactions with faculty are more likely to have increased confidence,
motivation and intent to persist than those who have poor faculty encounters
(Colbeck, Cabrera & Terenzini, 2001). For women in engineering, the positive
reinforcement provided by faculty around their work can negate the unsettling
environment women encounter in a male dominated classroom, as well as contribute
to their self-efficacy through verbal persuasion. The more gender neutral the teacher
36

acts in the classroom, the more influence they can have in the overall climate of
acceptance for women (Colbeck, Cabrera & Terenzini, 2001). If male faculty are
equally as supportive of male and female students, there is often less hostility from
males to their female classmates. Faculty significantly influences the confidence and
motivation of women which affects their integration; if women do not perceive they
will be accepted, they are less likely to attempt involvement at any level. The
faculty role encompasses more than curriculum, including the capacity to influence
both student achievement and the institutional environment.
Another significant source of self-efficacy for women in the classroom is the
level of active and perceived discrimination. Interactions that lessen women’s
confidence and sense of belonging will impact their self-efficacy which may lead to
attrition. Vogt, Hocevar and Hagedorn (2007) conducted a study to measure the role
of environment on student’s self-efficacy and academic self-confidence. Again,
using Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive model of environment influencing one’s
behavior and self-perception, the study tested what environmental factors influenced
women’s self-efficacy and academic self-concept. The findings concluded GPA was
the most significant contributor to self-efficacy. However, the study also found that
women felt greater discrimination than their male peers citing lack of respect, more
discouraging interactions with faculty and an overarching feeling of being
disadvantaged as a female. Women reported lower self-efficacy in engineering and
critical thinking, highlighting the significance the environment has over women’s
37

self-efficacy and academic self-concept. It is important to note that this study found
women to be more academically and socially integrated through student
organizations, mentoring programs and research opportunities (Vogt, Hocevar &
Hagedorn, 2007). This conclusion can be linked to Tinto’s (1993) theory, further
emphasizing that women’s integration is essential in their persistence.
Gap in Literature
As seen through research about the engineering and science culture, women
are faced with significant challenges as the underrepresented gender within these
communities. As a result, women were often found to leave the science and
engineering field prior to graduation. Through a myriad of research conducted on
women’s attrition, the importance of peer networks, support groups, role models and
self-efficacy were discovered. With this newfound information, universities and
administrators were able to design and implement constructive outlets that
encouraged more women to remain in these fields and persist to graduation. This
progress has been significant and promising for increasing women in the science and
engineering pipeline at the undergraduate level.
One area that has not been as extensively studied is the role gender plays in
the experiences of undergraduate women who are currently persisting in these
disciplines. As we learned through Hall and Sandler’s (1982) description of the
“chilly climate,” women are at a disadvantage as a result of their gender, both in
terms of physical representation as well as underlying philosophy and attitude.
38

Through research on retention and persistence of women in these fields, resources
have been identified in helping women manage this environment. However, the
overarching goal of many retention programs for women in these fields has been
aimed to integrate them into the existing masculine culture with little emphasis on
their gender awareness or development. Therefore, the women who are persisting
are often faced with having to compromise or negotiate their gender despite
participation in any specific retention programs. Research has shown that
involvement in these programs do increase women’s retention; however, what this
study aims to assess is how gender influences women’s perceptions, their sense of
belonging in the community and their overall experience and persistence. It is not a
study on program purpose and evaluation, but rather focuses on the role of gender
and identity development of women who are persisting in these fields.
Theoretical Framework
In designing the research plan for this study, it is important to have an
informed, comprehensive framework. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study will
utilize social identity theory as a framework, specifically analyzing how gender
influences undergraduate women’s experiences. This theoretical framework will
provide a lens into women’s gender understanding and development while part of a
dominant, masculine social group.

39

Social Identity Theory
Social identity involves the development of one’s identity within the context
of a social group. In this study, social identity will be gender and the engineering
community will be the group context. “Social identity provides a link between the
psychology of the individual – the representation of self - and the structure and
process of social groups within which the self is embedded.” (Brewer, 2001, p.115).
An individual’s social identity is heavily shaped by the dominant group they
associate with or strive to be included in; the subsequent inclusion or exclusion
within this group greatly influences one’s self-perception and their behavior (Swan
& Wyer, 1997). A study where women were made aware of their female identity
found they tried to dissociate with being female and identified as more masculine
(Swan & Wyer, 1997). As research has proved, factors such as strong peer
networks, high self-efficacy and supportive climates all contribute to a positive
experience for engineering women. In many engineering schools, these aspects are
not found. Women are left to develop their own perceptions within a social group
that is both numerically and philosophically masculine. Some women will thrive,
having strong social identities as a result of supportive families, teachers and
mentors, as well as a community of encouragement. Others will rely on the
dominant social group to influence their perceptions, which may lead to poor self
concept, discrimination and an uncomfortable and isolated feeling. Many of these
women will often switch out of engineering majors and many will “stick it out” in
40

spite of the culture. The complexities for women’s social identity development
within a male dominated group culture must be studied and understood as key factors
in women’s involvement, integration and persistence within science and engineering.
For the purpose of this study Brewer’s (2001) social identity theory model
will provide a holistic framework for examining these women’s experiences. This
perspective includes a culmination of various aspects of earlier social identity
theories. Brewer (2001) begins “from the assumption that all conceptualizations of
social identity refer in some way to the idea that an individual’s self-concept is
derived, to some extent and in some sense, from the social relationships and social
groups he or she participates in” (p.117). The individual experiences within the
context of a social group will define and shape one’s self-concept. However,
“conceptualizations differ significantly in what this derivation process refers to”
(Brewer, 2001, p.117). Brewer (2001) identified four themes that impact and give
meaning to one’s overall social identity, including person-based, relational, group-
based and collective identity.
Person-Based Social Identity
Person-based social identities can be found within the individual self-
concept, specifically around the notion that identity is influenced by membership in
specific social groups. One’s self-concept and meaning is defined by their
membership within a specific group. If an individual is part of a group that promotes
their social identity, then the person will have a strong person-based identity and
41

self-concept. A female engineering student might have a higher degree of person-
based social identity and self-concept of being female if she is part of female
orientated organizations on campus. Women who perceive being female negatively
influences their membership or sense of belonging in a group will have a much lower
social identity and self-concept.
Relational Social Identity
Relational social identities, or role-based identities, stem from how one
defines themselves in relation to others. Family relationships, teacher-student
relationships or personal relationships and other interpersonal connections shape
one’s relational social identity. These relationships may be individually based
(mother-daughter) or group based (network of extended family) but they all impact
the formation of one’s social identity. Relational identities “reflect the influence on
the self-concept of societal norms and expectations associated with occupying
particular roles or social positions” (Brewer, 2001, p. 118). If a female engineering
student comes from a lineage of women who are successful and celebrated engineers,
they will likely have a stronger self-concept versus a student whose family feels the
field is too masculine.
Group-Based Identity
Group-based social identities grow from one’s self-identification within the
group membership. This identity is not a result of the interpersonal relationships
with group members but from the common bond shared by group membership.
42

Involvement within the social group could positively enhance one’s social identity if
they are an integral member who is strongly connected to the group. However, if one
is a peripheral group member or does not align as closely with the group, it can
negatively affect their social identity and self-concept. Women in male dominated
cultures often feel marginalized in the group, impacting their self concept and social
identity. The importance of gendered peer networks and support mechanisms
specifically for female students can be particularly instrumental in this context.
Collective Identity
Collective identity “involves shared representations of the group based on
common interests and experiences, but it also refers to an active process of shaping
and forging an image of what the group stands for and how it wishes to be viewed by
others” (Brewer, 2001, p.119). For women in engineering, collective identity may be
strong around the concept of engineering. In terms of group membership, women’s
feelings of marginality and inferiority from a larger male dominated group
membership can negatively influence their identity and self-concept. These feelings
may also encourage women to compromise their female identity to assimilate to the
group, yielding strong group membership but a low social identity and self concept.
These four areas that impact one’s social identity will be used to analyze
undergraduate women’s perception of their gender within the engineering
community and the subsequent impact it has on their experience. It will be important
to understand the role specific identities play on female engineering students’ overall
43

social identity development and how engineering communities can enhance and
promote all aspects of women’s social identity and gender development.
Framework and Study
If women in science and engineering are uncertain of their gender’s value and
their sense of belonging within their academic discipline, will they capitalize on
involvement opportunities within the university community? Progress has been made
in recruiting and retaining women in these academic disciplines, however much of
these tools have been about women existing in the current culture, often encouraging
or requiring them to compromise their feminine selves. Using Brewer’s (2001) four
aspects of social identity, this study will examine undergraduate female engineering
student’s social identity and the impact perception of their gender has on their
experience and persistence. Do women seek to develop and maintain strong social
identities or do they compromise their femaleness in order to be accepted and
included in the group? Do women who become involved and integrated within
community life identify with their gender or dismiss it? How does the perceived
stereotype threat of being a woman in engineering affect female students’ decisions
to engage and participate in the engineering community? This study will address
these questions and begin to identify the role of gender in an undergraduate women’s
experience while persisting in science and engineering. Retention efforts have
44

assisted women in integrating within these communities however this study will
explore how their gender and social identity develops as a result of this assimilation.
Methodology for Study
In Chapter 3, the methodology for the study is presented and discussed. I
employ a qualitative, narrative approach that allows the in-depth and intimate
experiences of the undergraduate women to be at the forefront of the research.
Additionally, descriptions of the institutional sites and student populations will be
presented. Description of instrumentation and researcher capability will be
discussed, as well as a timeline and data collection plan. Finally, limitations to the
study will be identified.
45

Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this research is to study the experiences of undergraduate
women currently enrolled in engineering or science programs at two technical
universities in southern California. As noted in earlier chapters, women are
underrepresented in these fields and therefore subjected to a culture that has been
historically male dominated numerically and philosophically. The objective of my
dissertation is to study how being female in a male dominated environment impacts
undergraduate women’s experiences. A particular focus is on their social identity
development and understanding how perceptions of their ability and sense of
belonging within this elite academic community influence their success.
This research will be qualitative, specifically a narrative approach, that
utilizes focus groups and one-on-one interviews in learning about the shared
experiences of undergraduate female students. Qualitative data allows for a large
amount of detailed information to be studied around a specific, smaller sample
(Patton, 2002). In studying undergraduate women, I want to best understand and
appreciate their experiences from each individual student’s perspective. Not every
female within this field will have similar experiences or perceptions, and they will
have had different experiences that led them to their personal and professional view
of being female. It is not merely the content that qualitative data produces but the
feeling and emotion that also yields substantial results.
46

As opposed to quantitative research, qualitative research “seeks depth rather
than breadth. Instead of drawing from a large, representative sample of an entire
population of interest, qualitative researchers seek to acquire in-depth and intimate
information about a smaller group of persons” (Ambert, Adler, Adler & Detzner,
1995, p.880). Creswell (2007) identifies key aspects of qualitative research that
distinguishes this approach from other methodologies. Qualitative research is
conducted in a natural setting, the site where the participants are currently
experiencing the issue of study. The researcher is a key instrument in qualitative
research as the channel for collecting the research rather than through a survey or
other similar protocol. Through multiple sources of data, themes and patterns are
built from the interpretive lens of the researcher. Qualitative research allows for
more flexibility around the design, enabling the researcher to shift or tweak their
approach dependent on the response of the participants. Lastly, a comprehensive
and holistic account is presented through qualitative research, accepting multiple
perspectives and a variety of factors to culminate into a larger overall picture.
Qualitative research is conducted when “we want to empower individuals to share
their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist
between a researcher and the participants in the study” (Creswell, 2007, p.40). In
studying undergraduate engineering women, a qualitative approach engages the
individual student accounts, as well as the environmental and cultural context in
assessing what contributes to their experience.
47

The research question for this study is designed to gather in-depth data that
yields key insight into the experience and the perception of undergraduate women
studying engineering and science. As we begin to discuss design and data collection,
it is important to revisit the research question guiding the study:
Utilizing a social identity lens, what role does gender play in undergraduate
engineering women’s perception of themselves, their role in the engineering
community and their decision to persist within the engineering field?
Relevant Research
There is a significant amount of research dedicated to pipeline issues
addressing the underrepresentation of women in engineering and science. While
many studies targeted pre-college programs, “only a few gender studies have focused
on retention at the college level” (Hyde & Gess-Newsome, 1999). Often the
research found around collegiate women in STEM fields focuses on why the female
students chose to leave engineering rather than why and how they have persisted
(Hyde & Gess-Newsome, 1999). It is important to understand not only why women
choose to leave but also why they decide to stay in male dominated fields and what
experiences, outlets and support structures contributed to their persistence. In
identifying these factors, universities can create mechanisms that have been proven
to support women’s persistence and experience within these cultures.
The majority of studies focusing on the experiences of women in STEM
fields have been quantitative (Hyde & Gess-Newsome, 1999). Although quantitative
methods can provide substantial data, it is much more difficult to find linkages and
48

deeper insight into the perceptions and experience of women in these fields. For
example, in Wasburn and Miller’s (2004) study, they employ a survey for data
collection however also conduct interviews in order to supplement their data. The
study recognizes the limited inferences researchers can draw from survey data and
through the interviews and focus groups the women’s voices are heard. There are
significant findings that resulted from the interviews and focus groups conducted in
this study that highlighted the students’ emotion around their experience. A
qualitative approach will be more effective in uncovering the embedded influences
that affect women’s perceptions, self-concept and overall identity.
Sample and Population
This study is conducted at two elite technical schools in the Southern
California area. The first institution, Polytechnic Institute of Los Angeles (PILA)
was chosen for a variety of reasons. The university is rich with history, founded over
100 years ago and today still serves as an academic leader in science and
engineering. The culture of this institution is as progressive as it is traditional.
Although women have been receiving degrees at PILA for over fifty years, the
masculine nature of the science and engineering fields permeate the classrooms, the
mentality and the overall environment. PILA provides the context of the traditional
engineering culture as well as an environment that strives to be an academic leader
both in the classroom as well as in the larger academic and global community.
PILA is a microcosm of the larger engineering world that has strived to become
more inclusive of women yet is still bound to the traditions and customs that
49

consistently perpetuate exclusivity.

PILA awards undergraduate and graduate degrees in disciplines that are
orientated in science or engineering. It is a research-driven institution with academic
programs that include science majors such as biology and chemistry programs and
traditional engineering majors, such as electrical and mechanical engineering. PILA
is approximately 33% female (PILA website, 2009), including women who are
science majors as well as women who are in engineering. For the purpose of this
research, I work primarily with undergraduate women who are engineering, physics,
business or neuroscience majors.
Research is also conducted at Simmons Science and Technology (SST), a
premier science, math and engineering college that also places a strong emphasis on
the arts and humanities. Located approximately 40 miles east of Los Angeles, it
differs from PILA as a more teaching focused institution with less emphasis on
research. Recently named one of the top 15 liberal arts programs and second best
undergraduate engineering program in the nation (SST website, 2009), SST
encourages students to have a strong technical foundation while simultaneously
exploring liberal arts curriculum offered at SST and neighboring partner institutions.
The demographics at SST are similar to PILA, with approximately 35% of
the undergraduate student body being women (SST website, 2009). Both institutions
have undergraduate enrollment under 1,000 students, with PILA enrolling
approximately 900 students (PILA, 2009) each academic year and SST 750 students
50

(SST website, 2009). All of the undergraduate women who participate in the study
from SST were either engineering or computer science majors. With such small
undergraduate student bodies, and similar male to female ratios, these institutions
were chosen to provide both a diverse yet comprehensive understanding of
undergraduate women’s experiences in this community. The multi-site approach
highlights the universal and expansive effect male laden cultures have on the various
perceptions and experiences of undergraduate women in these disciplines.
Participants were identified through a working partnership with
administrators at SST and PILA, including the Faculty Advisor for the Society of
Women Engineers at SST and the Assistant Director of the Center for Diversity at
PILA. These gatekeepers (Creswell, 2007) helped me generate interest and
participation from female students. Participants were solicited via email, targeting
specifically women who currently are enrolled in engineering majors, however
inviting all undergraduate women who are interested to participate. The results
yielded 16 students total, eight from PILA and eight from SST. The majority of the
women were engineering or computer science majors, with one neuroscience, one
physics and one business major (who was originally an engineering major). All
women participated in focus groups and four women, two from SST and two from
PILA, participated in individual interviews.
Research Design
This qualitative study is designed to emphasize the stories of the
undergraduate women at PILA and SST. These women are the lens for studying the
51

influence of gender on the perception, choices and experiences of undergraduate
engineering women; it is through their personal narratives that the study is best
positioned to capture this information. Narratives explore the life of particular
individuals who serve as the primary unit of analysis (Creswell, 2007). It is through
the stories of the individuals that the research is channeled, creating a personal,
intimate lens for which to study and collect data. Narratives showcase the
undergraduate women through their eyes, allowing for their tangible experiences as
well as their perceptions and assumptions to be part of the data. Through their
stories, the study has keen insight into the vast influences that impact their
experience.
Narratives utilize two primary forms of data, interviews and document
analysis (Creswell, 2007). After the data has been collected, researchers then
“restory” (Creswell, 2007) the data, culminating the stories and capturing key
elements and overall themes. Through restorying, the researcher is charged with
delivering data that is true to the individual stories while packaged as formative and
tangible data than can be used by other researchers and practitioners. Narratives are
utilized for this study so women’s individual voices can be heard while identifying
and capturing the role gender has played thus far in their collegiate life.
Instrumentation
Interviews, unlike surveys, are a medium the respondents use an outlet for
their personal feelings and perspectives. There are a number of interview techniques
used in qualitative research. This study will use interview guides that outline specific
52

topic areas and concrete themes but also allow for flexibility for the researcher given
the nature of the interview (Patton, 2002). In designing interview questions, it is
important to frame them in the appropriate context. Interview guides are tools used
by researchers to guarantee the same lines of inquiry are asked of each participant
(Patton, 2002). Additionally, interview guides provide thematic areas that are
covered in the interview but also allows the researcher freedom to ask follow up and
probing questions to particular participants. Interview guides are beneficial for time
management, efficiency and procedural purposes, enabling the interviewer to focus
on the participant responses rather than other operational issues (Patton, 2002).
Prior to administering focus groups or individual interviews for this study, I
conducted four pilot interviews to help me select the questions for the interview
guide. The four women were all engineering undergraduate students at a local
university. This type of testing allows the researcher to “refine and develop research
instruments, assess the degrees of observer bias, frame questions, collect background
information, and adapt research procedures” (Creswell, 2007, p. 133). As a result of
these pilot interviews, I revised as well as restructured the order of questions. Pilot
testing was a useful and productive tool in my instrument creation.
As discussed in Chapter 2, a social identity framework was the basis for this
study. “Theoretical frameworks which undergird education research projects greatly
influence what questions are investigated, what data is collected from whom, and
how the data is analyzed, interpreted, and reported” (Waller, 2005). A feminist
perspective introduces gender into the methodology; in this study, how being female
53

influences undergraduate women’s experience in engineering. A feminist lens
recognizes how gender actively shapes people’s lives and experiences (Creswell,
2007). Furthermore, social identity theory will provide insight into how the male
dominated engineering group influences women socially, including their self-
concept, their perception of belonging in the group and their overall behavior that
influences their experience. Social identity recognizes the importance of the
masculine nature of engineering and how gender roles and overall socialization
influences how undergraduate women perceive themselves and their role within the
engineering and science community.
For the Student Focus Group Guide (Appendix A), the questions begin with
more comfortable background questions, asking about their decisions to study
engineering and enrolling at SST and PILA. Knowledge and background questions
allowed the participant to share demographic and content information as they
become more comfortable with the researcher and the interview process. After this
line of inquiry, the questions are framed in the four areas of social identity defined in
Brewer’s (2001) model. I order the questions intentionally structuring them first in
the group identity context, followed by collective, relational and person-based. The
feeling, opinion and value questions were placed in the middle and the end when the
participant will ideally feel more at ease and trusting of the interviewer. This strategy
is employed to continue easing the student into the interview process and engaging
them in conversation that was straightforward. The participants feel increasingly
54

more comfortable and disclose personal feelings and perceptions around their
experience as women in the male dominated field of engineering.
The Individual Interview Guide (Appendix B) is designed for follow up
questions to be conducted with individual participants. Through more specific
questions regarding gender and their own gender awareness, the participants are
urged to be more introspective in their responses. Questions are designed to gauge
the participant’s concept of their gender at the beginning of college and therefore,
how being in a male dominated collegiate environment has influenced their gender
awareness and overall development. Whereas the questions for the focus group are
more universal, the individual questions are more personal. The one-on-one
interviews followed the Individual Interview Guide, however the participants often
share more detailed accounts of their experiences in this forum as opposed to the
focus group.
Data Collection
I completed the Human Subjects Education online tutorial (CITI) required by
the University of Southern California Office for the Protection of Research Subjects
(OPRS) and was granted Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval in August 2009.
All participants were given a copy of the Informed Consent Sheet (Appendix C)
prior to the focus group and interview and offered an opportunity to ask questions or
for clarification regarding the study.
The first phase of the research was conducted via focus groups. In emailing
the women at these institutions, I offered them the option of meeting individually or
55

as a group. Most preferred a group setting and it is evident that the participants feel
more comfortable with peers and classmates who could relate and identify with each
other’s experiences. Focus groups are best utilized when shared experiences will be
beneficial for yielding the most rich, comprehensive data (Creswell, 2007). The
focus groups ranged in size from three participants to five participants. At SST,
there is a strong sense of camaraderie among the women. The women tend to know
each other and there is a bond between them all as women studying at SST. There
was a different group feeling at PILA. Women do not seem at all bonded by their
gender or subsequent underrepresentation, but instead there is more of a competitive
undercurrent. That being said, at both institutions women are extremely forthcoming
and eager to participate in the study.
After the completion of the focus groups, individual interviews were
conducted to supplement the focus group content and to identify individual voices.
There are four individual interviews in total, two from each institution. Through
individual interviews, the researcher aims to uncover both the concrete content as
well as the underlying meaning in the responses given by the participant (Creswell,
2007). I chose the individuals strategically for these interviews. At SST, Jen is a
senior who is as interested in the humanities as she is in engineering. Rae has a
unique family background that has significant influence on her experience. At PILA,
Sheila is part of a focus group where the two other participants know each other. It
is my intention that the individual interview allows her an additional opportunity to
share her insight. Pam was very open about her preference to the masculine culture
56

in the focus group, an area I was interested in further exploring. All women were
chosen because they represent a diverse snapshot of the larger group that participated
in the study.
My research formally began in September 2009 with participant outreach.
Through an email (Appendix D), all undergraduate women were informed of the
study and asked if they were interested in participating in the research. At both SST
and PILA, emails were sent to undergraduate women several times. Additionally, at
the first focus group at each institution, I ask the participants to help recruit their
friends and classmates for the study. I conducted two focus groups at PILA and two
focus groups at SST in October 2009. All focus groups were held on campus, three
were held in a conference room and one was conducted in a student lounge. After
completion of the focus groups, I reached out to four participants, two from each
institution, for individual interviews. These students were chosen to represent
different backgrounds and perspectives and to enhance earlier information disclosed
through the focus groups. The individual interviews were held via phone for two
participants and on campus for two participants; all were conducted in October 2009.
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, the potential for bias is significant since the researcher
acts as the primary instrument (Creswell, 2007). Although interview guides are
designed for this study, researcher bias can appear through interpretation. An
important tool to minimize this bias is reflexivity, which stresses the researcher’s
“self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one’s
57

perspective” (Patton, 2002, p.64). As the researcher, I continuously examine my
interpretations for any potential partiality. Additionally, through reflexive
triangulation (Patton, 2002) I recognize not only my own perspective but also that of
the participants who were interviewed and the audience that will study my work. I
conducted this exercise at the conclusion of every interview and wrote detailed field
notes that speak to each of the three perspectives.
In addition, while reviewing and analyzing the content of the focus groups and
interviews, it is critical to have a guiding framework. Berkowitz (1997) suggests
considering six questions when coding and analyzing qualitative data; I utilize these
questions in my data analysis:
• What common themes emerge in responses about specific topics? How do
these patterns (or lack thereof) help to illuminate the broader central
question(s)?
• Are there deviations from these patterns? If so, are there any factors that
might explain these deviations?
• How are participants' environments or past experiences related to their
behavior and attitudes?
• What interesting stories emerge from the responses? How do they help
illuminate the central question(s)?
• Do any of these patterns suggest that additional data may be needed? Do any
of the central questions need to be revised?
• Are the patterns that emerge similar to the findings of other studies on the
same topic? If not, what might explain these discrepancies?

Limitations and Delimitations
The sample for this study will include all undergraduate women at PILA and
SST. Since both institutions offer programs in science and engineering, it was not
58

productive to limit the scope to only engineering students. All women in these
technically driven cultures are underrepresented in their field. Therefore it was
insightful to hear from women both in engineering, as well as science majors. As
this is a qualitative, multi-site study, it allows the richness of the data collected
through personal accounts and the analytical capabilities of the researcher to
strengthen validity beyond the sample size (Patton, 2002).
It should also be noted that both SST and PILA are technical schools that
only award degrees in science and engineering. Therefore, the culture, as well as the
students, is limited in the exposure to other disciplines outside these fields. As a
result, they are not privy to the influences that female undergraduate engineering
students encounter at other universities with multiple professional schools or degree
programs. PILA and SST are technical focused institutions that attract and educate a
dedicated, drive group of technical students. There is an intensity and extreme nature
found in technical schools that may heighten the experiences of these women.
As a university administrator who works closely with undergraduate
engineering women, I recognize my professional connection to the topic might create
a higher degree of sensitivity towards inequities or lack of support provided for these
students. I believe my intimate knowledge of the subject yields a greater insight for
lines of inquiry and overall analysis. My professional background provides context
around the topic, as well as tools for establishing trusting, open relationships with
students. It is important for me to serve in a researcher capacity and not as a student
affairs professional. Although it is a challenge to distance myself from the
59

participants as an advisor, I am confident my ease in working with students provided
a comfortable and safe setting for the focus groups and interviews.
It is important for me to discuss my perspective on femininity before moving
forward to Chapter 4. Throughout the presentation of my findings in the next
chapter, I discuss varying degrees and aspects of femininity. My definition of
femininity is the level of awareness women have of gender and how they chose to
display and embrace their own gender. Femininity is a historically and traditionally
a behavior, a trait, a set of attributes that are aligned with what is perceived as female
or feminine. In this study, femininity is used as a gauge to assess the degree women
choose to associate with being a female within this culture.
Connections of Methods and Data
A qualitative approach is employed for studying how gender influences the
experience of undergraduate women at Simmons Science and Technology (SST) and
Polytechnic Institute of Los Angeles (PILA). Through focus groups and individual
interviews, I gained a background understanding of the SST and PILA culture and an
intimate look at the individual experiences of undergraduate women in these
communities. The study includes a total of 16 undergraduate women currently
enrolled in an engineering or science degree program at PILA and SST. These
narratives allow the women’s voice to be heard and share how being a female in a
male dominated culture shapes and molds their experience. Next, in Chapter 4, the
60

restorying of the women’s narratives yields comprehensive findings that shed
incredible insight into their perceptions and experiences as women in these fields.

61

Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings
As noted in earlier chapters, the experiences and social identities of
undergraduate women in science and engineering cultures are shaped and molded
through a masculine lens. In this chapter, the results of qualitative research that
focused on social identity development within this context are presented and
discussed. The chapter begins by providing a brief profile on each participant,
including information on why she chose to pursue science or engineering, forms of
support and encouragement prior to college and background on why she attended her
given institution. Secondly, three primary themes are discussed, presenting key
findings from the research that grants insight and perspective into these women’s
experiences. Themes include women’s concern of other’s perceptions of their
academic competency, women’s willingness to adapt to the masculine culture and
lastly, descriptions of prominent traits constructed and enhanced as a result of being
a part of a male dominated environment.
Throughout this research, we are reminded of the subtle yet distinct process
of women ages 18-22 developing their self-concept, perception and identity as a
female. Although there has been significant progress made in the development and
utilization of support networks, increasing role models and mentors and other such
initiatives supporting women in these fields, it is apparent the individual and
personal development of these women in the context of their gender has been
secondary at best. Research shows that gender is constructed and the dominant
social group in which this construction occurs has significant bearing on the
62

outcome. Brewer’s (2001) model of social identity development highlights that
these influences happen through a myriad of relationships, dynamics and group
contexts. Throughout this chapter, we see that even with an increase in women in
these fields, the overall science and engineering culture permeates masculinity and
anti-female undertones. This notion prompts the female students to become
complacent, dismissive or hyper-aware of their gender and increasingly defensive
and protective of their perceived academic competency and sense of belonging
within this community.
In an effort to provide background information on the participants, I share
their responses to questions inquiring about the origin of their science and
engineering interest, as well as any key influences that impacted their decision. It is
important to note that at Simmons Science and Technology (SST), there is only the
general major of Engineering, whereas at the Polytechnic Institute of Los Angeles
(PILA) there are a variety of engineering and science majors. Ultimately, all 16
participants enrolled in either PILA or SST to pursue a science or engineering
degree; however only 15 students remain in an engineering or science major at the
time of the interviews, with one participant having switched from engineering to
business. Pseudonyms’ are given to all students to protect confidentiality.
Participant Profiles
Simmons Science & Technology (SST)
Ashley excelled in math during high school, taking BC Calculus in her junior
year. A negative experience with her chemistry professor her sophomore year left
63

her feeling disengaged and uninterested in science. However in her junior year she
had a positive, encouraging physics teacher and she quickly realized her love of
hands on activities and problem solving. One of the primary reasons she chose SST
was for the general engineering degree since she was only loosely committed to the
idea of engineering, SST provided both breadth and depth.
Corey was interested in astronomy from a young age, fascinated by the
concept of rockets, satellites and various aspects of space. Her father, a chemical
engineer encouraged her to pursue engineering as a more plausible career choice as
opposed to astronomy. Corey was deciding between SST and a larger, state
university but felt the small, tight-knit community at SST, was a better fit for her
both academically and socially.
Jen had a strong interest in the sciences as well as the humanities. One of her
teachers, who also served as a mentor, encouraged her to pursue the humanities.
However Jen’s love of physics pulled her towards engineering and her decision to
attend SST was a result of the strong humanities program within a technically driven
institution. She knew that engineering would be an excellent starting point for her
professionally, providing a comprehensive technical skill set along with a strong
background in problem solving. Jen knew she could pursue other interests outside of
engineering post-college, however would find it much more difficult to practice
engineering without a specified degree or necessary qualifications.
Leigh’s father is a computer scientist, something she greatly attributes to her
decision to study computer science at SST. She remembers her affection for math,
64

puzzles and problem solving at a young age, which is what impelled her father to
urge her to take a computer science class in high school. Leigh was adamant about
not taking the class or studying computer science due to her fear of being “labeled a
geek.” Her father “literally forced [her]” to take the class, which she subsequently
loved and knew upon admission to SST she wanted to study computer science.
Molly had limited family exposure to science and engineering, with her
mother an English teacher/educational administrator and her father a musician.
Molly was heavily involved in theater during high school, working as a “techie” in
lighting and sound production. When she was touring SST, she was considering a
major in biology but after a meeting with an admission representative, reconsidered
and began researching engineering. During that meeting, Molly shared her love of
technical design in her high school theater program and the various components that
come together to produce a positive, successful show. The idea of merging her
technical interest with being part of a team that design and implement pieces that
create a complete product was the incentive for Molly to ultimately pursue
engineering.
Margie always wanted to study international relations at college, attend law
school and eventually work with the United Nations. However through various
experiences, Margie learned she was not interested in politics and felt she was “BS-
ing my way through it” and sought more of a challenge. She always enjoyed
chemistry but was skeptical at the thought of teaching and pursing a PhD as a career
option. Her interest in the application of science led her to the idea of engineering.
65

Her father is a civil engineer and her sister has since begun studying mechanical
engineering.
Cara was always committed to science and interested in both biology and
chemistry, a dual major she hoped to pursue at college. However the summer before
her senior year in high school, she attended a science camp. She had applied to the
joint biology-chemistry section but was not accepted and placed in the structural
engineering section. Initially disappointed by the switch, Cara ended up having an
excellent experience, winning an award for her base isolator and encouraged by the
camp staff to pursue engineering. Cara was drawn to SST due to the small size,
strong sense of community and overall support.
Rae was interested in politics in the beginning of high school, but at the
prompting of her basketball coach/calculus teacher, she shifted in the math and
science direction. He emphasized her strong problem-solving skills and ability to
work with groups as great skill sets for engineering. Rae attended math and science
orientated camps and quickly realized she enjoyed the hands-on projects and the
application of math found in engineering. Although her father dismissed her interest
in engineering because “he doesn’t think I am the most technically inclined person.”
Rae’s mother, an investment banker, actively encourages and supports her studies.
Polytechnic Institute of Los Angeles (PILA)
Dina always found herself identifying with her father’s work of architecture,
intrigued by the blueprints he brought home. Her mom’s background in financial
services however also resonated with her, prompting her to pursue a dual degree at
66

PILA of mechanical engineering and business. It was her physics and calculus
teacher, who held a master’s degree in engineering that really encouraged and guided
her towards engineering. He was her science/math teacher for three out of the four
years of high school, serving as key role model and mentor. Dina was particularly
drawn to PILA because of its blind admission policy, which did not recognize
gender, ethnicity or any affirmative action in their admission process.
Dhara’s high school did not have a strong math and science program, often
eliminating advanced science courses due to budgetary constraints. Her high school
overall was more art focused and Dhara was interested in attending art school as a
result. However, she “found out that I was not good enough, so the next choice was
pretty much engineering, math and science.” She liked the idea of being able to use
her creativity in engineering design and was drawn to the small, technically focused
PILA community.
Pam took Advanced Placement (AP) classes throughout high school, both in
math and the sciences, as well as the humanities. It was when she took her AP
physics class that her decision to study math and science at college was solidified.
Her brother studied engineering at SST, her mother worked in the engineering field
and her father is a scientist. Pam was not certain which discipline she was most
interested in and chose PILA because of the variety of majors offered in math,
science and engineering.
Kelly “knew from a pretty early age that I wanted to go into some form of
science.” While also very interested in math, her focus became primarily
67

neuroscience once she began at PILA. Kelly was drawn to understanding the inner
workings of the conscience and chose PILA because of its intent focus on research.
She wanted a small, research-driven community that would allow her to be involved
in various research projects. Kelly also cited the blind admission policy at PILA as
one of the primary factors in choosing the school.
Ryan excelled in math and science throughout middle school and her
freshmen year in high school. This early success prompted her to attend a math and
science charter high school for her sophomore-senior high school years. She
attributes the math and science intensive focus at the charter high school to directing
her towards PILA and continuing on a technical, research driven path. Ryan came to
PILA to study computer science, however has subsequently realized she does not
want to be pursue this field as a career. She has completed her culinary degree and is
currently working as a pastry chef, yet is still committed to completing her degree
and is currently finishing her coursework for graduation.
Sheila attended elite magnet schools throughout her middle and high school
career. Initially wavering between math and English in middle school, she chose to
actively pursue math in part because of a teacher who did not think she had the
aptitude. He “wasn’t impressed with me [which] made me work my butt off at math
and made me want to do it.” Sheila excelled in high school, finding support from her
physics teacher as well as a mentor she worked with while doing research with him
at a local company. Sheila decided to attend PILA after receiving financial
scholarships, however was also motivated by the blind admission policy.
68

Mackenzie began taking higher level math and science classes in middle
school. She applied and was accepted to a magnet school that supported her pursuit
of these disciplines. She knew she wanted to study engineering and attend a
technically focused university. She ultimately chose PILA because of the unique
housing system, offering her a small, supportive community that she could be a part
of throughout her college experience.
Karly excelled in high school, taking all AP classes and graduating at the top
of her class. She was mentored by her high school calculus teacher who urged her to
look outside of the state college system and to elite, technical schools that would
better suit her academic interests and capabilities. Karly ultimately chose to attend
PILA because of the small school size and community feel she found on campus.
While Karly intended to pursue mechanical engineering at PILA, she switched her
major to business after her freshmen year.
Table 4.1 Participant Profiles
Name School Major Year
Jen* SST Engineering Senior
Ashley SST Engineering Junior
Corey SST Engineering Senior
Cara SST Engineering Sophomore
Leigh SST Computer Science Sophomore
Margie SST Engineering Junior
Rae* SST Engineering Sophomore
Molly SST Engineering Senior
Dina PILA Mechanical
Engineering/Business
Senior
69

Table 4.1 Participant Profiles (continued)
Dhara PILA Mechanical Engineering Junior
Pam* PILA Mechanical Engineering Junior
Kelly PILA Neuroscience Senior
Ryan PILA Computer Science 5
th
Year
Sheila* PILA Physics Junior
Mackenzie PILA Bio Engineering Sophomore
Karly PILA Business Junior
*participated in both focus groups and individual interview
Themes and Findings
Throughout the conversations with the undergraduate women from SST and
PILA, specific themes emerge that can be credited to their experiences as
undergraduate women at technical driven institutions. This research provides insight
and perspective into how these cultures shape undergraduate women as a result of
the masculine influences found in this environment. In this section, three global
themes are presented with data from the focus groups and individual interviews
supporting the findings.
Theme One: Undergraduate women in science and engineering are largely
concerned with perceptions of their academic ability and belonging in this academic,
elite community.
Imagine working on something, succeeding and then doubting your talent,
aptitude and right to that success. This feeling is a shared sentiment of
undergraduate women who have chosen to pursue science or engineering at the
college level. From a young age, many were one of the few girls who were in the
70

upper level math classes or playing with robots and legos, striving to find a comfort
zone that allowed them to continue with these interests. As they grew older, their
naiveté weakened and the realization of being “different” than the other girls became
more apparent. Some girls relished in that difference, being a “tomboy or geek” and
others would attempt to hide their straight A’s or extra math homework from their
friends. Some teachers or parents placated them with words of encouragement
waiting for the interest to wane, others saw their ability and “pushed” or “forced”
them to the next level of studying these disciplines. Many of the women in this
study recount stories of resiliency and perseverance despite stereotypes and stigmas;
they are all proud of their accomplishments. Some knowingly, most unknowingly,
however harbor an intense fear of being perceived as academically unqualified and
incompetent. Whether this began from an early age or is a recent development as
their eyes were widened by the gender ratio at their institution, it ultimately stems
from the fact that they are female. As a result, they strive to manage, control and
dictate the perception of those in their world in order to prove their worth, their talent
and their right to be a part of the academic elite. This theme is constructed from the
stories these women shared with me about their experiences both in childhood and
now as an undergraduate, and how various perceptions are found at the forefront of
their personal and academic self-concept.

71

Figure 4.1 The influence of perceptions on the self-concept.

Perception of male peers
“For me, I know [guys] treat me completely differently because I’m very—I do not
let people carry things for me. I do not let people hammer nails for me. I will do it
myself. And I think that has partially to do with I am worried that people will think
I’m an airhead if I let some guy do manual labor things for me. So I am very
conscious of that, I think, I’m very whatever, I can do everything myself, I don’t
need your help just because you’re some big strong guy.” - Jen

One of the most significant perceptions the undergraduate women are
concerned with are those of their male classmates. Much of women’s insecurity
about their male peers’ perception of them stems from their impression of how they
made it to this point in their academic career. Amanda discusses how prospective
female students are given free plane tickets to visit SST as a recruiting tactic,
“it’s hard to see that sort of thing happen as student on campus and not think,
oh they just let me in because I am girl or they’re giving the girls an unfair
advantage if you’re a guy going into it you know. Maybe you [a male peer]
were put on the wait list or you barely scraped in and you’re watching girls
being flown into campus—and you know oh, my spot was lessened because
Self‐
Concept 
Percep/on 
of Male 
Peers 
Percep/on 
of 
Outsiders 
Percep/on 
of Self 
Percep/on 
of Faculty 
72

they are trying to peak interest in women. Like it’s just kind of difficult to try
and change that and then watch the school do that.”

Corey remembers her sophomore year when she was struggling academically that
she “fell into a moment of self-doubt.” As she doubted her academic talent, she
recalls, “not only did I feel like I’m not even sure I should be here on some days but
maybe I am only here because I am a girl. It gave me a reason for it and its like---it
was kind of hard to pull myself out of that but I think I did---I did eventually.”
At PILA, women discuss challenges they have had studying and interacting
with their male peers. Dhara relates how she thinks some of her male study partners
“think that I am taking advantage of them because I am a girl and I don’t know how
things work but honestly, I was just asking questions.” Now, she “acts snobbish and
pretends to know everything” for fear her male classmates will perceive her as
inferior. Dina admits “I’ve become harder in a way. I have a shorter fuse. I have
less tolerance for people and it is not a good thing but I do it to protect myself. I
don’t want to end up in a situation where I feel undervalued.” As a result of the
stigma and perception that women are not as academically qualified or capable in
these fields, the undergraduate women are constantly seeking ways to manage their
behavior, approach and personality to position themselves more favorably in the eyes
of their male counterparts.
Many males share the attitude that women are only accepted because of their
gender so when they leave or fail, it was because they were never qualified to be
there. The women who leave for the soft sciences such as biology are considered
“wimps.” Even though some women say that many of their male friends make these
73

comments “jokingly,” it contributes to women’s fear of perceived inadequacy.
Molly remembers one of her design projects when she was the only female in the
group, also serving as the team leader. As the only female, she “had to be really
conscious not to just let the guys in my group do all the circuitry stuff, I didn’t want
it to seem like I just wasn’t trying or clueless.” Karly feels as the captain of the
PILA volleyball team “guys take me more seriously because I am a leader on the
team and I am good at what I do so they kind of know I am not to be messed with in
that respect.” Rae notices that she “talks to guys less when she is having a hard time
with schoolwork. They get frustrated when I don’t understand something [so] we
actually have an all girls suite that I’ll sometimes work with on homework instead.”
Women are finding ways to correct or navigate perceptions of their legitimacy and
validity within these fields.
All of the women interviewed attest to the rigorous, demanding nature of
studying science and engineering at the college level. It was a shared response that
women are “harder on themselves” about doing poorly than their male peers.
Admittedly, most of these women have failed tests or done poorly on projects but
Amanda explains how these failures affect women; “I think women have a harder
time accepting [failure], especially since it is a male dominated field because you
think, oh these guys can do it, I don’t hear them complaining.”
Women tend to exonerate their male peers and classmates from various sexist
comments or acts, often feeling they “don’t really mean it.” When Leigh was
offered a summer internship position at Google, her friends, “mostly jokingly, will
74

be like oh you only got that job because Google needs girls.” Leigh admits that she
has to decipher what comments are meant innocently and those that are truly
disparaging; “you learn to like kind of figure out what they’re trying to say versus
what they actually say.” She says she’s “used to it” when asked if it frustrates her to
have to listen to the remarks, even if they are not malicious in nature. There is an
overwhelming feeling among all women at both institutions to excuse the men’s
“dumb boy” behavior, often attributing it to being made in a social or casual context.
Yet in actuality, these remarks are not comical, but rather are perpetuating embedded
stereotypes and stigmas throughout the culture.
Perception of outsiders
“I am here because it is the furthest thing that anyone could have imagined me to be.
And I think that empowers me….I want to prove myself.” – Dina

The undergraduate women in this study are all aware they are perceived as
distinctive for being a female within their field. In addition to being unique, they
recognize they are elevated intellectually in the minds of “outsiders,” those who are
not within these fields. They are prideful and proud of this elite status. People are
“blown away” when Pam tells them she is studying mechanical engineering; she
likens the response to when they “would meet, like a football star or something.”
She admits these reactions are “kind of an ego boost,” feeding her motivation and
providing affirmation in an otherwise “merit obsessed, praise neutral environment.”
It is evident women are conditioned to prove themselves as a means to confirming
their legitimacy in the field; the awe and amazement from outsiders helps provide
that verification.
75

One way we see how the perception of others influences these women is in
their decision to attend their respective institutions. Many of the women interviewed
from PILA mentioned the blind admission policy as a primary factor in their
enrollment decision; “I like the fact that when we admit, we don’t admit based on
gender and ethnicity.” The participants cite other peer institutions where it was
“well-known” that women are admitted in order to boost the gender ratio and
statistics. It is important to the women that they attend a school that no one would
ever doubt their qualifications and reason for admission. It is validation that their
academic merit is both legitimate and heralded as an asset to the institution. As one
student shared, “it wasn’t the first thing that caught my eye but it was something
when I heard about it, I couldn’t let it go.” Sheila shared how at her high school, the
newspaper publishes where the seniors go to college and when you see PILA,
“people take it more seriously.” The perception others hold of these women are
extremely critical in their academic self-concept and overall confidence.
The women at SST are a key example to why the women at PILA cherish the
blind-admission policy. In an effort to increase female representation, SST
implemented a variety of recruiting initiatives geared towards women, including
hand written notes from the university president and hiring female admission
representatives. One strategy, as mentioned earlier, was to provide newly admitted
prospective female students free plane tickets and accommodations to visit the
school. Whereas some of the participants admitted without that incentive they would
have most likely not attended SST, all of the women recognized the damage it had
76

on women’s validity and sense of belonging. The women agree “it is hard to
establish yourself” when there is such an open “push for more girls” because it
makes them “seem less qualified to be there.” However SST is highly ranked and
the “prestige and the ratings” is why Jen chose SST over other schools. It is
recognized and regarded as a top technical school however the women feel strides to
attract and enroll more women potentially underestimate their value in the eyes of
others. In reality, they have demonstrated great achievement to be admitted to this
institution, but the perception and stigma perpetuated by these efforts makes them
feel as if they are not as legitimate as their male counterparts.
Family is another ‘outsider’ constituency whose perception is important to
undergraduate women in these fields. Dina boasts “I know my parents always tell
people that I got into PILA and they’re always very impressed.” Amanda
remembers when she first realized her parents could no longer help her with her
homework and the sense of pride that came with it. Many of the women interviewed
at both schools have family members, namely fathers, who are engineers; this
connection only strengthens the positive perception undergraduate women want their
family to have of their chosen field. Sheila understands that “you can set a precedent
of yourself, your family, being good at math and science. And you can also set a
precedent of like girls can be good at math and science.” When she was on the elite
math team in high school, an older woman congratulated her for being the only girl
on the team during a competition. Sheila still remembers the overwhelming pride
77

her father had upon hearing this comment adding “I think I set a precedent and then
continued it.”
Unfortunately for Rae, her father was not supportive of her decision to study
engineering, claiming she was not technically savvy, feeling engineering would be a
“better fit for her brother, even though he wasn’t even good at math or science.”
Rae, the oldest of five children, feels a strong obligation to be a role model for all of
her siblings, especially her sisters, so she can correct that misperception held by her
father. Sheila’s mother subscribes to the notion that women were innately less
capable than men in math and the hard sciences.” Sheila remembers how that
“pissed her off” to the point of motivation. Mackenzie remembers her grandfather’s
comment upon learning of her interest in math and science saying “it was a waste of
time because you are going to be a secretary.” Whether it was positive or negative
reinforcement that these women received from their family members, their
perception was instrumental in the women’s experiences.
Perception of faculty and industry
“So what I’m hoping, kind of secretly, is that he [the professor] tattoos my face to
the problem sets at some point. He like shifts his paradigm and he sees that – it will
be like a Susan Boyle moment. When she got up on stage, everybody thought she
was so ugly or she can’t sing. And then, oh shit. She actually can sing. I’m just
hoping to create those kinds of moments.” – Sheila

As for most students, the feedback received from teachers and mentors are
instrumental in their self-concept, their confidence and overall academic success.
Women, from a young age, are vulnerable to the perception teachers have of their
ability and many are constantly striving to make a positive impression. For many
women, they benefited from encouraging teachers who continually pushed them
78

towards the math and science arena. Others however were not as fortunate and were
faced with the challenge of dismissive teachers who did not acknowledge their talent
or interest in these fields. The experiences they had when they were young continue
with them throughout their academic lives; positive or negative, they often fuel their
interest to pursue these fields. It is important to recognize the critical role these
professionals play in the experiences of women in these fields.
As discussed in the participant profiles earlier in this chapter, many students
attribute their decision to study science and engineering to teachers from high school.
For some it was a calculus teacher, others perhaps physics or chemistry, but many of
the women interviewed recall being encouraged by their teachers to research this
“field of engineering.” Rae fondly remembers her calculus teacher, who was also
her basketball coach, talking with her at length about studying engineering. It was
Karly’s calculus teacher who urged her to look outside her home state of Arizona at a
more elite technical school such as PILA. It is significant that many of these women
can remember the personal outreach of teachers in providing them guidance and
direction. Whereas all students benefit from this support, girls who are more
interested in math and science at a young age often require it to pursue the daunting,
overwhelming “male” disciplines.
Unfortunately not all young girls have had positive experiences like Rae and
Karly. Sheila is a prime example of a student who received unsupportive feedback
from a teacher. For many this would have impeded their interest, however for
Sheila, it served as incentive. She remembers her middle school teacher was not
79

“very impressed with me” and thought she “was one of those people that worked
really hard and did well, but didn’t have much actual talent.” It was his
unimpressed, dismissive attitude and her feeling “he just didn’t like me” that made
Sheila “work my butt off at math…and I stuck with it.” Sheila sought to succeed in
spite of her teacher’s unhelpful behavior, using it as a catalyst rather than a
detriment. Sheila also remembers this math teacher “tended to tell stories about all
the guys who had done really well but not about the girls. I was really conscious of
the fact that he never talked about girls.” Sheila was equally interested in math and
English in middle school but it was largely these experiences that directed her
towards math.
At the college level, professors continue to influence women’s experiences.
At SST, there is a substantial number of female faculty that the students feel are
strong resources and mentors. These female faculty are all involved at the
undergraduate level, some acting as advisors to student organizations and others as
academic advisors. In discussing the various female faculty, Corey adds “they’re
always so willing to be advisors for all the women because they know – they get it.”
Amanda marvels how many of the female faculty are young, balancing families with
their careers. She was amazed in retrospect that she “can name like four young
women engineering professors off the top of her head.” The students find the
female faculty “impressive,” promoting the perception of professional females in this
discipline as strong, dynamic and capable.
80

At PILA, there is a stark difference in female faculty representation. Only
one of the women interviewed had taken a class with a female professor; that
professor’s discipline was English and not science or engineering. Mackenzie
excuses the biased tendencies of some of her male professors because during
affirmative action they had to “let in women who weren’t talented.” Now, she thinks
that “a lot of white males in the all boys club are happy to let women in that they
think are really talented.” It is the “older” professors who have more of the issue of
recognizing women’s talent and contribution to the field, but the younger more
innovative faculty are more open to it. In condoning this behavior and mindset, it
highlights how Mackenzie has been conditioned by her perception that women have
to prove their academic worth before being accepted.
Sheila is not as forgiving, instead still struggling with the perception of her
middle school math teacher as she interacts with faculty at the college level. She
feels alienated and marginalized as a female studying physics at PILA. In one class,
she is the only female out of approximately 20 students and feels targeted as the one
likely to be “lost or confused.” She discusses how during class when the professor is
explaining a “point that he thinks is remotely difficult, he’ll look straight at me and
then say, ‘Was that okay’ or something like that.” Sheila senses the professor has a
lesser perception of her academic ability as a female than her male peers.
In addition, Sheila feels any feminine overtures weaken the perception. For
example, Sheila has become increasingly more feminine, and “colorful” in her
appearance since she started at PILA. On the day of our interview she was wearing a
81

blue scarf. This scarf represents her attempt at self-expression, a common practice of
most traditional age college students. However, in her physics class she “feels like
the professor looks at me, sees the girl wearing a bright blue scarf, and decides that
I’m the one who’s most likely to be confused in the class.” When asked if this has
deterred her, either from her studies or wearing such feminine clothing, she responds
with a proud, large grin saying “No because – so I’m doing really well in the class.”
She adds, “I definitely got into this [physics] instead of other things that I could have
done because I wanted to prove something to somebody. Mainly that middle school
teacher that didn’t think girls were any good.” Perceptions of teachers, faculty and
mentors can serve as forms of encouragement, praise and recognition; yet also as
belittling, condescending and dismissive. It is critical to recognize how these
perceptions influence and shape women’s experiences.
It is important to understand how these interactions with teachers and faculty
are shaping the women’s perceptions and sense of belonging in industry and/or
academia upon graduation. Jen from SST has no trepidation about entering the
engineering workforce as a woman. She admits to having “more apprehension going
in and not being competent, not knowing what I need to know. I mean, my fear of
failure at this point has everything to do with my technical ability and nothing to do
with my gender.” Jen worked at a woman-owned engineering firm in Las Vegas as
an intern and had a positive experience. The company “had proven themselves to the
industry” so she did not feel a disadvantage being part of it, or as a female. Dina at
PILA felt the experience as an undergraduate at such a male, technical driven
82

institution is good “practice” for the engineering industry. Dina feels she “needs to
get used to” having to prove herself like she does to her male peers and faculty,
expecting a similar dynamic in industry.
Ryan recognized the foreshadowing that her career environment would be
similar to the culture of PILA. As a result, Ryan intends to pursue a completely
different career in the culinary arts. Ryan did not identify specifically gender bias as
her reason for leaving the field, but that she was not comfortable with the overall
culture. She explains, “it wasn’t a matter of whether or not my interests were there,
just something, the characteristics of the community didn’t quite vibe right with me.
And it kind of put me off to find another career.” Clearly the experiences Ryan had
during her time at PILA and the perceptions she felt others had of her, as well as
those she had of this community, prompted her to chose a different career path.
Sheila’s experience at PILA has reaffirmed her interest in a career in
academia rather than industry. In discussing industry, she thinks “more is based on
presentation. Like if you are the charismatic stud, you get farther.” Whereas in
academia, “if you publish a paper, you’ve published your paper, your first author.
Nobody can take that away from you.” Sheila has experienced her male peers who
may or may not have been as qualified, receive credit or additional praise because of
personality; Sheila admits to succumbing to this type of behavior at times, but that
merit is the factor that she wants to be positioned to rely on the most.
Kelly also envisions a career in academia. She is passionate about her field
of neuroscience, admitting “what was keeping me up at night was how are we
83

conscious?” Kelly choose PILA because “it’s just a place that focuses entirely on
science and I thought that was very appealing, being in a small community where
you know all the research going on in your department.” Kelly admits that the
culture may not always be ideal and that there are people “who are willing to choose
a career based not only what the research questions are, but what the culture is, how
it affects your personality and what sort of interpersonal communication you deal
with.” Kelly is not one of those people. For one, she enjoys the culture and feels it
is a “good fit for her.” She also recognizes that in addition to the type of people
mentioned above,
“there’s this one group of people who really, absolutely want to devote their
life to certain questions, and they’ll put up with whatever they have to in that, for
those people it really shouldn’t matter that, you know, you are going into a field
where there are a lot of men, it really doesn’t make much difference at that point, I
think. And PILA is where we get a lot of those people.”

Kelly appreciates and values the culture for the “integrity” it gives to the science
community; she feels that this is “how science should be done.” Although she would
argue for more women in the field, she does not feel compromising the current value
system is a good alternative.

Perception of self
“I don’t think guys attach themselves – attach their personal value system the same
way girls do. I think that it might be that – I think they have more options. They can
be funny or they can be good at videogames or good at – for girls, you pretty much
have to be smart or pretty.” - Cara

Often as a result of the perceptions listed above, those of male peers,
outsiders and faculty, women shape perceptions of themselves through the lens of
others. Many of these perceptions began forming at an early age, some have been
84

dictated by the relationships they have had, both positive and negative, throughout
their lives. As we have learned throughout this section, the perception of male peers,
outsiders and faculty are instrumental in the confidence, self-concept and social
identity development of these women. These factors also contribute to the women’s
self-perception, along with their own understanding and judgment of their merit as it
compares to others.
All of these women discussed how being one of the “smart girls” their whole
life has forced them to place their intelligence at the forefront of their identity.
Molly discusses how “girls here put a lot of stock in their intelligence” and admits
“we all do it.” As a result of using their intellect as a primary component of their
identity, many women feel they have to compromise other aspects of being feminine.
For example, as Margie explained it, “in high school there were the dumb, ditzy
pretty, popular girls and then there were the smart girls; you weren’t both.” Women
therefore reaching the undergraduate level in these disciplines have formulated in
their minds it is one or the other; therefore if they do not succeed academically, they
are by extension, the “dumb, ditzy girl.”
This attitude is evident in many of the student’s choices to attend either SST
or PILA. Both are academically strong schools, complete with high ratings and solid
reputations. Jen admits choosing SST after learning of the “the reputation.” Pam
remembers being “slightly angry” about her decision because she “didn’t really want
to go to PILA very much but knew like you know it was the best choice when you
wanted to go into science.” Dina remembers her friends in high school telling her
85

not to attend PILA because it would be all “boys and nerds.” However, Dina relayed
“to some extent they were right, but I wasn’t going to sacrifice my education to go to
another school that would [just] make me more comfortable.” Others admit the pride
they feel when people react in amazement to where they are going to college and
what they are studying. It is important to recognize that rather than making a
decision based on personal choice these women felt it was more important to use
rankings and reputations as the benchmark for their decision because it offers
validity and weight to their intelligence.
Upon arriving at their respective institutions, women were faced with
continuing this cycle of proving themselves and their belonging. At both
institutions, the students remember the challenges transitioning to the collegiate
workload as overwhelming and daunting. In addition to the traditional acclimation
college students are faced with, these women were also faced with the perception
that as women they need to prove their right to be there. As Leigh discusses how all
the engineers fail tests their first year she says, “I think girls tend to take it harder.
They feel they have something to prove.” Cara adds “they tend to link their
intelligence to who they are more.” For the women who are not excelling, the
perception of who they are as a smart, capable female is being questioned. Margie
explains, “so when that’s challenged, that becomes a big personal identity crisis.” If
the women are not succeeding in proving themselves as intelligent, then they may be
the “dumb, ditzy girl” after all. Karly chose to pursue a business major after a
dismal performance her freshmen year. She is not proud of her major saying, “it’s
86

kind of a copout major. It has very few requirements and lots of easy business
classes.” She hopes it is a “fine enough” major but recognizes that it is seen as
secondary to science and engineering. Karly’s disappointment and embarrassment is
overtly evident, clearly feeling she had somehow compromised the perception people
have of her intelligence.
Much of this fear of being inadequate influences these women’s perception of
themselves. Corey thinks that women “here are more scared of being weak because
they are all around men. They don’t want to be seen as weak.” She continues saying
“women put themselves down more a little bit [because] it is how we internalize it.”
Rae agrees, “yeah we internalize things differently….like when we have a huge
assignment coming up or something, I watch some of my girlfriends who are trying
to work just freaking out, ‘I am so bad at this, I am so bad at this’, and she hasn’t
necessarily sat down to try it yet on her own but she’s already afraid she is going to
need help.” If these women perceive themselves as unintelligent by failing tests and
not understanding concepts, they will then lose what many of them feels is the most
valuable, significant piece of their identity.
The first theme emphasizes the significance perceptions have on women’s
belief in themselves and their capability to excel within their respective academic
communities. The second theme showcases how women’s sensitivity to these
perceptions encourages them to adapt to the cultural and philosophical masculine
undertones within this environment. Years of socializing and studying with male
peers has conditioned them to a norm that is traditionally male; being an outlier as a
87

“nerd” or “geek” throughout middle and high school makes them thirsty for a sense
of belonging in a social community; and lastly, as they prepare for their futures,
either in industry or academia, they see college as a training ground for learning how
to best navigate this male culture. All of these factors encourage women to
assimilate, adapt and incorporate themselves into this masculine environment.
Theme Two: Undergraduate women studying science and engineering are willing to
adapt to and integrate with the maleness of the culture and the masculine traditions
found within the engineering and science community.
This theme is constructed through an apparent universal willingness by
women to accept the masculine institutional and academic cultures. For example, we
see the ease in which women overlook their male peer’s comments. Leigh recalls as
a freshmen in her very masculine, “jock-like” residence hall at SST the first time she
heard the insult, “get the sand out of your vagina” being said from one male student
to another. At first she was shocked, now she says it does not bother her. As a result
of perceptions being so influential in women’s sense of belonging in the community,
as well as their own self-worth, women adapt to the culture and these comments
because they see acclimating as a sign of legitimacy. Leigh admits, “she wants to
prove she can hang” and condoning these types of comments allows her that
opportunity. Women, some knowingly but not all, embrace or conform to the
culture despite the gender bias, positioning them to ignore, condone or accept
sentiments that degrade and belittle their gender.
88

The seeming ease in which women accept this culture stems from years of
being conditioned by a male norm. Through participation in male dominated math
and science classes in high school, or as members of groups or clubs that were
mostly male or by choice through activities such as little league where they began
feeling more natural around their male peers, these women have long been part of a
world that favors a masculine approach. Additionally, many women are eager to fit
in and feel like a part of their peer group after being marginalized during middle and
high school as a result of their interest in these subjects. It is important to remember
that these women are traditional age college students, ranging from 17-23 and want
to feel part of a peer community. They enjoy finally being surrounded by like-
minded peers, “we’re all geeks here.” Lastly, there is a pragmatism that coping with
these cultures now, accepting and adapting to them will only help as they further
their career either in industry or academia.

Conditioned by a male norm
“When I was in elementary and middle school I took the higher level math classes
and was surrounded by boys. Then I went to a magnet school and I was surrounded
by boys and now I am here and I am surrounded by boys. It’s okay, I work better
with boys so I really don’t mind. I’ve always been surrounded by boys and now it’s
just something that I’m used to.” -Mackenzie

A primary reason women are so willing to assimilate to the male culture
found within these disciplines is because it is what they know as normal. For most
of these women, they have been excelling in math and science from a young age and
therefore have been “surrounded by boys” their entire academic lives. By the time
89

these women reach college, most of them have spent years conditioning themselves
academically and socially through a male lens.
Some of the participants have navigated the reality of this culture by being
practical, realistic and often, becoming “one of the guys.” Mackenzie recalls her
parents talking to her at a young age about the reality that there would not be many
girls in her classes. “From a young age my parents were like you’re good at math
and there aren’t a whole lot of girls who are good at math so you’re going to have to
get used to that.” Leigh has been “one of the guys” since high school.

“I was really into sports” and she remembers “going with my guy friends
and watching football on the weekends or whatever and trash-talk with them.
For me, most of my close friends in high school were guys so it was like-I
guess I didn’t have the –I don’t want to say ‘prissy’ because that sounds like
stereotyping – it’s like I don’t feel that I have to put makeup on before I go to
class and stuff like that, if that makes sense.”

Pam does not feel disadvantaged by the mostly male environment and admits she is
“not used to dealing with women.” She is careful to make the distinction that she
does not “feel like I’ve ever been really dominated by men. I’ve been around them
for so long in a minority position that I’ve learned how to assert myself in that type
of environment.” It is evident that for many women they have accepted the realities
of this male world and acclimated, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Some women recognize how the overwhelming majority of men in their
fields have influenced both their academic and social worlds. Sheila remembers that
in high school her math team was “like 70 guys and 5 girls.” She recalls how the
few girls would “cluster together” and then since it would be so “socially awkward,
90

they would leave.” She remembers how the males in the group, “even those who
weren’t good” stayed in the club because their friends were there. She and other
women in similar scenarios were faced with then befriending the boys and finding
ways to connect with them. Leigh feels she has “always been in a male dominated
social bubble but because I have been in it so long, since I was a kid, it’s just how I
function.” Like many of her peers, she has become numb to the reality. Although
she does not “really notice it being a bad thing in the sense that it doesn’t bother
me,” she feels strongly that “it doesn’t mean I don’t want it to change.” Regardless
of whether these women feel these fields should be more equal with greater female
representation, their experiences have constructed a world that makes them more
willing and inclined to assimilate to a masculine culture.
Many participants argue the male approach to science and engineering is
more “efficient” and appreciates that there is “no room for the catty, emotional
behavior” stereotypically associated with women. This sentiment is another
indication that women in these fields have been conditioned and shaped to accept the
male approach as the right approach. Kelly feels it is important to,
“distinguish between a male dominated culture, like one that is dominated by
men and they’re somehow excluding women and a culture that is simply
dominated by traits and a way of communication that are stereotypically
male.” She continues “the fact that you can just have a conversation like that
and not worry about the other person’s feelings towards it, it’s very efficient.
It’s how you want science to be done, and the fact that it happens not to be
helping those stereotypically [female] communicators is not really that
relevant.”

91

The field of science and engineering, both in teaching and practice, has traditionally
and historically been dominated by a male style, which allows minimal room for
emotions, opinions or sensitivities. Women in the field therefore are trained to
subscribe to a linear, narrow and constricted academic lens.
Much of this attitude stems from the entrenched notion of the “dumb, ditzy
girls,” a categorization given to women who are perceived as weak because they are
emotional and sensitive. This female stigma is one the women in these fields strive
hard to fight. Amanda prefers to be “one of the guys” because they “don’t get caddy
or offended easily.” These women socialize in a culture where “straight-shooting”
corresponds with practicality and emotion is weak, establishing a norm that both
conditions them through a masculine lens and further belittles what is traditionally
known as a feminine style. Leigh
“always kind of had some disdain for the super-prissy girls who just got by
on being cute and ditzy or whatever. So to me the idea of being stupid is the
worst thing that could ever possibly happen. That puts me in the same
category as them. The last thing I want to be is just a ditsy, dumb girl.” She
continued, “at my high school, being popular went along with being pretty,
and pretty went along with being stupid.”

It has been an either or for these women; the ones who are in these disciplines at
elite, technical institutions are continually faced with adapting to the male culture to
prove their intelligence and not be one of the “dumb, ditzy girls.”
Looking to fit in
“I think some of the girls [in high school] didn’t fit in as much -- as well with other
girls in their school. So in order to work in that social environment, they learned to
be more like a guy.” – Sheila

92

As a result of being “different” in middle and high school, whether it was
having all male friends, being a “nerd” or liking math, many of these women
struggled as a social outlier. As Leigh described earlier, “popular went along with
being pretty and pretty went along with being stupid.” Therefore, many of these
women did not feel they “fit in” at their high schools and so upon arriving at college,
they were eager to find a way to conform.
For most, SST and PILA represent a world where they finally feel connected
intellectually and socially with their peers. Kelly remembers being “much more
timid” before attending PILA. She attaches her increased confidence to “being
around people who are much more like anyone I knew in high school.” Molly had a
similar experience, feeling she has “gotten a lot more confident.” She remembers “in
high school I was someone who was really into math and science and one of the few
geeks in the school. Then here it’s like you don’t have the ‘oh you’re a geek’
because we’re all geeks.” These women have been stigmatized as an outcast, mostly
as a result of their interest in math and science, seen by their peers as “geeky” and
“nerdy.” Both SST and PILA are technical schools that will attract and enroll like-
minded students, many of which have had similar experiences in high school. The
women are anxious to be seen as a social equal and feel part of the community, they
are more willing to adapt to a culture regardless of the male undertones.
As women began feeling more accepted and comfortable in their new college
communities, many sought to blend in and not “rock the boat.” At PILA, “women
here roll with the punches; they are pretty passive.” Dhara admits to “limiting my
93

behaviors. I need to stay more quiet most of the time so I won’t blurt out things that
will shock them [men].” Dina adds, “because we’re a minority you don’t really want
to stick out as oh look at me…you want to fit in while still maintaining your identity.
You want to be cool with everybody so you sacrifice some kind of dignity for that.”
Amanda recalls hearing some of the more sexist jokes in her dorm when she first
arrived, “you can’t be more sexist then some of the stuff that goes on in my dorm.”
But rather than voicing an opinion or disagreeing she “just deals with it because you
want to show you can hang.” Learning the “jargon” as Jen describes it positions
women as members of the community, something they have been striving for and
have finally found. Unfortunately, it also makes them much more at ease with
accepting and tolerating a male culture and philosophy regardless of their own
personal opinion or comfort level.
This sense of adaption is evident in the academic realm as well. Rae admits
that when she is the only female in work groups, she is often tasked with taking care
of the “housekeeping” for the team. She was the “one making sure everything got
done and we had a good presentation and I [also] wrote the paper.” She admits it was
“frustrating” and a “very female thing to do” but said she “just did it” so the group
would do well. Sheila admits to having to “adapt to every work group in some way,
either because of gender or because of personality.” In working with a male
classmate, she had to manage his “stubborn, abrasive, obnoxious behavior” by
flirting with him. “He had a crush on me so I had to play into that. Like wear
prettier clothes so that he wouldn’t notice I was taking over a little bit more. That
94

was not my proudest moment, but it worked.” Women utilize a myriad of tools to
adapt to the culture; finding a way to integrate is another form of success.
As an outsider in high school, many women compromised or ignored their
femininity. Often being “pretty” or “girly” was construed as being unintelligent,
unmotivated and weak. Therefore, they would dissociate themselves from the more
feminine girls in their high schools. Yet at college, many begin embracing their
feminine side as a draw for their male classmates. Additionally, there were new
rules around what was considered feminine and “girly.” As Kelly explains,
“not having as many women at PILA makes it easier to be legitimately
female. If you don’t have any idea how to do makeup or your hair or
anything, it can be part of your identity or you can make it part of your
identity. You don’t have to fit it with a whole lot of other women who know
what they’re doing about being girly girls. When you’re in the minority you
get more freedom about how you can express that trait or that characteristic it
becomes more yours.”

Suddenly, these women are allowed to demonstrate their femininity as a result of
feeling more accepted in the community as an individual regardless of their
academic interests. For some it is the first time ever being noticed in this context.
Karly describes being a female in this environment, “you don’t walk on PILA’s
campus as a man and have people look at you and go who’s that guy. But you walk
on to PILA’s campus as a girl and people go who’s that girl.” Sheila adds, “being a
girl [here] that looks halfway decent always means that you’ll be treated differently
in any social situation.” This newfound attention is exciting and women are very
eager and comfortable assimilating to a culture that feeds this attitude.
95

Preparing for the future
“They should get used to the male culture because that will be what industry is so
why should it be any different in college. They need to build the tough skin
now.” – Dina

For many women, they feel the need to assimilate with the maleness of the
culture as preparation for their futures either in industry or academia. It is apparent
to all of the women that as they progress professionally, there will likely be even less
women, especially in leadership roles. For some it is an opportunity to prove the
merit of women and take it on as a challenge; others feel it is inconsequential and
just needs to be accepted. Either way, women know that as they enter the next phase
of their career, they will continue to be faced with a male laden culture.
For some women, they find the reality of working within this male
environment an “opportunity.” Jen “knew there weren’t very many women and I
knew that would make it a lot easier for me to really make a difference in the field as
a woman.” She was not deterred by the culture but saw it as a challenge to
overcome. “I think if you work with younger men that they accept you a lot more
than older men that you’ll be working with. So it’s definitely a hardship you have to
endure but I take it more as a challenge to you know, prove who I am and that I
deserve to be there.” Cara admits that “being self-directed is one of the things that
gets you here because you have to be motivated personally.” It is that internal drive
that fuels these women’s mindset, often making the culture and the environment a
mere hurdle.

96

When discussing a career in the engineering industry, Dina says
“you have to build a tough skin in this industry. I’m in mechanical
engineering and I’ve worked at companies before and I’m the only girl in the
entire group and you have to be really sure of yourself because it will break
you down. It will break you down when you realize you are the only girl and
you’ll feel self-conscious and you’ll feel like I don’t know if I can do this. Or
they might treat you badly or differently. I just really think you need to build
a tough skin and be certain of yourself if you’re going to go into this industry
as a woman.”

Dhara adds that “you need to learn to be confident, you know, even when you don’t
know what you’re talking about.” As the case in their collegiate worlds, these
women are preparing to adapt their personalities and social identities so they fit best
within the dominant male group. Whether it is “sticking up for yourself” or “being a
little tough at times,” women are conditioning themselves and “gearing up” for a
continued male dominated culture in industry.
It is interesting to note Ryan’s experience in the male heavy culture at PILA
was one of the factors that urged her to look outside engineering, yet it subsequently
served as a good preparation for the male dominated world of pastry chefs.
Admittedly, Ryan felt the “characteristics of the [PILA] community just didn’t vibe
quite right with me and it kind of put me off to another career.” Ironically it was the
engineering world at PILA that “helped her become tough” and primed her for the
competitive, aggressive and masculine culture found in the culinary arts.
For women considering a career in academia, they are also willing to accept
and adapt to the male culture they find in college. As Kelly explains, “there is this
one group of people who really, absolutely want to devote their life to certain
questions, and they’ll put up with whatever they have to.” At PILA, the group of
97

students who are planning to pursue a post-graduate degree and a career in research
are held in higher esteem than those that are planning to work in industry. They are
seen as “elite.” Therefore, the women within this subgroup are committed and
dedicated to the pursuit of their academic field. As a result, Kelly feels “it really
shouldn’t matter that you know going into a field where they’re a lot of men, it really
doesn’t make much difference at that point I think.” She adds that “PILA is a place
where we get a lot of those people.”
As discussed through the first two themes, women are vulnerable to the
perceptions about their ability and belonging within this academic community. In
addition, years spent working and socializing with males, feeling like an outcast with
their peers and mentally and emotionally preparing for a future in their respective
fields, women have become willing to adapt to the male culture found in these
disciplines. The last theme discusses the social identities women construct as a
result of being immersed in such a masculine world.
Theme Three: Due to a heightened concern over perceived inferiority status, women
are more susceptible and willing to embrace the male culture. As a result, women
develop two prominent traits, masculinity (integrate) and resiliency (adapt), as a
means of managing this culture.
As women acclimate to this culture, there are two primary strategies that they
tend to develop as a means of managing this environment. One is to adopt a more
masculine philosophy and/or establish masculine behaviors that help women
integrate into the male dominated culture. For example, some women strive to be
98

“one of the boys”, to be more vocal, direct and competitive so they appear to fit in
more with their male peers. The second approach is to persevere in spite of the
masculine culture and to adapt to the environment as necessary. This sense of
resiliency stems from being aware of the gender bias and the disadvantage gender
can have on women’s experiences but persisting despite the culture. Therefore,
some women do not seek to integrate into the culture but rather adapt accordingly as
a means to persist and prove their merit and belonging within the community.
It is important to note that these traits are not meant to be mutually exclusive
of each other but rather envision them on a spectrum. Some women are more
inclined to manage by integrating through a masculine approach (Pam) whereas
others do not strive to integrate but to adapt, and find ways to be resilient to the
masculine overtures and persevere despite the male laden culture (Sheila). Some
women use a combined approach depending on audience and situation. Neither trait
is meant to be more favorable or ideal, but rather symbolize how women are
positioned, knowingly or unknowingly, to manage this culture as a result of being
underrepresented.
As we will learn through the narratives below, these behaviors are not a
specific result of the science and engineering culture, but have stemmed from
personal, social and academic experiences when these women were younger.
However, as these women are situated as a minority in this community and in their
respective institution, they are faced with managing that underrepresented status.
Although past experiences can help explain women’s inclinations towards a specific
99

approach, it is imperative to recognize that when underrepresented, it is not if you
have to manage but how you choose to manage your role within the community that
shapes your experience.

Masculine
“(I’m) a lot less movies and manicures and much more like, let’s blow stuff up.”
–Pam

Since a young age, Pam has always felt more natural with her male peers.
She grew up “playing video games and kickball.” She recalls a story from middle
school when she was a member of an all boys baseball team in her town. For years
she was part of the boys little league without issue, until she tried out for an
advanced level at age 12. Although she showed skill and talent at try-outs, she was
cut from the next level, blatantly rejected because she was a girl. This situation
escalated, involving her parents, her town and eventually new policies regarding the
selection process. Throughout the situation, a few of the parents and coaches urged
Pam’s parents to “just have her play softball” but they refused, as did Pam, wanting
to play baseball like she had been for years. Ultimately she became part of an all-
boys team in a different community however the lesson she learned was poignant
and long lasting. She remembers “that was the first time I actually became aware
that, like, girls and boys are different and other people see girls and boys as different
because they’re just girls and boys.” Eventually she made the switch to softball
however she says it “was the first time I became aware of – that I don’t fit in with
girls.” She didn’t know “how to braid hair or who Josh Hartnett was and just felt out
100

of place….but I can talk about the World Series and the Super Bowl - that was stuff I
knew.” Since this young age, Pam has been identifying and connecting with
traditionally masculine interests and activities. These early experiences contributed
to Pam’s identity construction, with her individual self-concept and personal
perception identifying and relating with her male peers.
Pam has always been drawn to working with her hands, from construction to
being the technical director for her high school theater program. Her role model and
one of the most influential people in her life is her grandfather. He is also a
mechanical engineer, serving in the Navy during World War II and eventually using
the GI Bill to become an engineer. Pam would hear his “stories about working in the
industry and like, it just always sounded fun.” Pam is currently in the midst of
completing the application to the Navy in the hope of working with the nuclear
reactive engineer division. She admits “beyond the engineering part of it….it’s also
like an energy…it’s dominantly male which is something that is good for me. I’m
actively seeking a place [like that].” Pam admits she “definitely has more guy
friends than I do friends who are girls.” She feels this is “slightly because of choice,
also because the environment allows that, which was a personal preference.” One of
the draws to studying mechanical engineering at PILA was that she would be part of
a more male environment.
Pam “finds the lower number of girls in the school to be a positive thing.”
She “enjoys” the more male culture, admitting she has “a hard time dealing with
girls. I don’t interact with girls well.” When asked why she feels this way, she
101

explains that her female peers care too much about “the little things.” She shares a
story about her roommate and how she “didn’t notice she was upset and didn’t talk to
me for a week and I had no idea. I’m really bad at that. I enjoy being around the
men because guys don’t do that.” She has “always been like that,” perhaps as a
result of being integrated within other male cultures in her youth.
The direct communication approach Pam affiliates with is a traditional male
style. It allows for little emotion or inference, depending on substance and merit
rather than flowery language and delicate delivery. This style resonates with Pam.
She feels “I can tell a guy your science is wrong. I can just say what you did is
wrong. Whereas like a girl, I feel like I have to do a more roundabout way because
you might hurt their feelings.” One of the primary reasons she chose her specific
“house” at PILA is that their motto translates to “take me as I am.” She feels she can
be direct there “like if someone is pissing me off I can just tell them, like, you are
being a jerk leave me alone and we don’t get hurt feelings.” Her house is also well
known for not accepting a large number of girls, her year there were “like 30 guys
and five girls.” Again, this was a primary draw for Pam. Her primary support
network is male, between men who live in her house and other male classmates and
friends. She finds much emotional and personal support from her Resident Advisor
in her house, a male graduate student who lives in the house. These influences are
contributing to and strengthening Pam’s self-concept and masculine social identity.
Pam is not very inclined to interact with her female classmates. She feels the
need to be “much more cautious in what I say when I’m around girls….I won’t make
102

the same jokes I’ll make in front of a guy.” She knows there are some girls “who are
really insecure about being around a lot of guys” so she makes an effort to reach out
and “look out for them.” However, as was the case when she was on the softball
team, she does not feel she has much in common with them. She dismisses “girly
shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Sex in the City” in favor of “Mythbusters and
Junkyard Wars.” When asked if Pam considered joining the Society for Women
Engineers (SWE) student organization, she felt it was “too aggressive” to participate
in a group dedicated just to women. She continued, “it just seemed a little too
feminist or proactive to just hang out with women because there are other people
who can contribute [to career development] and if they happen to be men, then that’s
all for the better.” When it comes to her building and managing relationships, she
makes a strategic choice to associate with her male peers.
It is interesting to note that Pam feels she has become more in touch with her
femininity since arriving at PILA. She has exhibited this feminine side through a
change in her fashion and style. “I am definitely much more aware of my femininity
and you know clothes and style and stuff now than I was [in high school].” She has
since begun to wear makeup, put on jewelry and style her hair. In high school, she
“was much more-like I’d wear jeans and a baggy sweatshirt and tennis shoes.” Pam
also describes being “socially much more laid-back” and acting “more flirty and
much more teasing” socially with her male peers. She likes being “one of the guys”
because it means there is less competition with females for their attention. However
Pam is quick to establish that “when I’m working, [I’m] much more, not the
103

dominant one, but like I definitely have a stronger personality.” Clearly Pam is
eager to make the distinction between her behaviors academically and socially.
Resilient
“I think my favorite comment that I’ve heard about myself….was ‘She’s a Beast!’
Like when I was a senior in high school and the freshmen on the math team were
like, holy shit, she’s really good….you give her any problem and she can solve it, or
she can at least make way more progress that you can, and you don’t even
understand how she does it.”- Sheila

When I first met Sheila it was at a focus group at PILA with two other
students. Sheila seemed more reserved, quieter than the other women, but very
astute in her perspective. Throughout the group interview, as well as the individual
interview, Sheila unveiled a character that is wedded to perseverance and resiliency.
Her experiences at elite schools and as a top student fostered a sense of confidence
that encouraged her to persist and succeed in her studies. Yet she knew with each
step, the stereotypes, the stigmas and the competition would always be present. She
constructed an identity and an approach that was sensible and practical, adapting
when necessary to whatever the scenario or situation dictated in order to succeed.
As we learned earlier in this chapter, Sheila decided to study science as a
result of a dismissive and sexist middle school teacher that thought she “didn’t have
real talent.” She very much wanted to “prove” herself and her gender worthy of such
elite academic pursuits; a sentiment she also felt at home. Sheila’s parents are both
successful, Harvard-educated lawyers. However they were each raised in poverty;
Sheila’s mom was “really shit poor.” They always emphasized “hard work” and “if I
wasn’t working hard, then they weren’t supportive.” This family background
104

certainly contributes to a determination and ambition that becomes the cornerstone of
Sheila’s identity.
Sheila attended a public magnet system on the east coast that “happens to be
really good. I’m not bragging when I say its number one in the nation.” Sheila was
accepted to this school as a result of her high academic ability and talent. In high
school, she focused much of her academic pursuits on science and math. Sheila
found resistance to this decision at home. Sheila’s mom was particularly skeptical of
female’s ability in math and science.

“Actually my mom has this theory that girls are worse at really high level
math than guys just naturally because girls and guys are on average about the
same, but girls have a tighter distribution so they have less bad people and
less good people [so more average people] but guys have a wider distribution.
It was pretty hammered into me.”

Sheila’s mom also was not supportive of the all-girls math and science club she was
a part of in high school, feeling affirmative action “would reign supreme” rather than
intellect and aptitude. Sheila feels “the only reason she put up with it was because it
would look good on my college applications.” Sheila’s mom was actively against
affirmative action and would press upon Sheila that her academic ability must be the
only determining factor used to benchmark her success. In spite of her mother’s
hesitation and cynicism, Sheila adopted an “advocate role” in striving to persuade
her mother that she had true talent in these areas, eventually winning her approval
when she won national awards and recognition.
Sheila is acutely aware of the role her gender plays in her academic and
social world. Even with this understanding, Sheila has demonstrated fortitude,
105

resiliency and perseverance. For example, Sheila relayed a story from high school
when she would be in a study group with friends and classmates, “people that I like
respected and they respected me” would make disparaging comments and “jokes”
about women not being strong in math and science. She would try not to take it
personally “they would be kind of making fun of a stereotype, but they would be
like-kind of believing in it because if you look at the empirical evidence, they could
kind of back it up.” When asked to explain her thoughts further, she said “if you
look at the people at [my high school] who excel in math and science, like win math
and science awards, it’s not usually women. If it is ever women, they are winning
the biology awards.” Although Sheila told this story with a sense of understated
resolve, there was also a clear annoyance and frustration that was present. When
asking about how she felt about these comments and the embedded stereotypes that
persisted she admitted, “it pissed me off…that’s the reason I came to PILA.”
Through her experiences at home and in school, Sheila knows proving herself
will always be a condition of studying science. Since PILA is an elite, prominent
institution that does not have affirmative action, Sheila was confident that she would
be recognized as an equal at the start of her collegiate career. However at this type
of institution, it would require constantly adopting a sense of certainty and
confidence. “I definitely have to pretend to be different than I am [here]. If I were
to be myself, I would be a lot less certain about a lot of my answers. And I wouldn’t
be so vocal. And I would be a lot more questioning. And I’d sound a lot stupider.
But I can’t do that because I can’t. Not at this school.” She knew if “I went to
106

another school and joined the physics program, guys would probably automatically
assume that I got in because I was a girl.” She chose to attend PILA “because they
wouldn’t assume things like that. I’d start on even footing and then be able to show
that I was just good.”
Sheila feels in this field there are “two ways of approaching this [male
dominated culture].” She outlined “one, is you can establish a reputation that you
are really, really, really smart. And then people will listen to you even if you speak
quietly.” Earning the reputation is completely based on awards, test scores and other
quantifiable measures, not at all left to perception. Sheila added “the other way is
that you can be loud, so that you-maybe you don’t have the reputation of being really
smart, but you can contribute in guy’s minds to any kind of study group.” Sheila
thinks “that a lot of women here [at PILA] not only are really, really smart but at
some point in their high school career, or some point in their college career, learned
to be loud because here it’s hard to be like so smart that you have a reputation.”
Sheila equates the “loudness” with females attempting to be male-like and acting
“more like a guy.” When I asked her what approach she took, she replied “I learned
how to be a little bit more like a guy. But I really learned how to earn the
reputation.”
This concept of not having to be loud to prove yourself is very important to
Sheila and an integral part of her identity. Sheila is reserved by nature and feared
having to be more loud and abrasive to demonstrate her ability. She has seen other
107

female classmates adopt this masculine identity, like Pam who is more abrasive and
assertive in her communication. Sheila knew she would have to make her presence
known and rather chose to establish a more merit-based approach that did not require
her to be loud.
As an example of this scenario, Sheila shared the story of a female friend of
hers who was secluded from a study group because “they didn’t think that she was
up to their level.” The study group, of mostly men, “would all be shouting out
answers and going up to the blackboard.” The friend had confided in Sheila that
“she did not like to shout out answers that she wasn’t sure were right. She was very
cautious. If she was sure something was right, she’d say it. But she’d say it quietly.”
Sheila “understood both sides of the story”; the study group felt that she “wasn’t
contributing and using them to help her pass the class…and she felt like they were
passing judgment on her for not being very open [and vocal] about exactly what she
was thinking all the time.” Her friend had not established the reputation so
therefore, was penalized for not being loud and acting in a similar manner as her
male peers.
Sheila admits to “being more quiet and cautious versus loud.” Even with this
reserved, cautious style, there is an underlying confidence in Sheila that clearly
stems from being a competitor and very successful academically. Interestingly
however, she admits that if she had chosen a different school or had not earned the
reputation, “she would have been a very different person.” She does not think “she
would have been comfortable [being loud] and it would have required her to change
108

her personality.” When asked if she thought that would have been necessary, to
change her personality in order to succeed, she agreed saying “Yeah….you’d have to
reshape your personality. And you have to adapt to environments, it’s unfortunate.”
It is apparent that Sheila approaches all situations with a resiliency to succeed,
despite obstacles; she adopts a sensibility that dictates doing whatever necessary to
fit in, prove one’s self and succeed.
Sheila is planning to pursue a post-graduate degree in physics and intends to
research and teach at the university level. In discussing with her the decision to
chose academia over industry, she replied, “I definitely don’t want to do industry.”
In her opinion, when she “thinks of how much of industry is based on merit and how
much is based on presentation, I think more is based on presentation.” For Sheila
whose practically only allows for merit to be truly achieved success, she dismissed
industry as more flowery. “If you’re the charismatic stud [in industry], you get
farther.” However in academia, there is opportunity to be successful based on merit,
not personality. “In academia, if you publish a paper, okay, you’ve published a
paper. You’re first author. Nobody can take that away from you.” Academia
provides Sheila the outlet to “earn the reputation” whereas industry rewards
appearance, charm and perception.
Sheila’s resiliency is seen through her social and personal interactions, in
addition to her academic life. She admits her approach to working with male peers
“depends on what males I’m around.” When she is interfacing with the “more
abrasive, louder guys” she “deliberately makes herself more feminine [which]
109

probably has something to do with the fact that I don’t want to be like them.” These
male classmates are the “ones that you earn their respect by being just as loud as
them.” Sheila is not looking to “attract their attention” but as her way of “separating
herself from them.” Yet Sheila admits to “playing the game” and that “every so
often there’s something really important that you must get done.” As discussed
earlier in the chapter, Sheila flirted and capitalized on a male co-worker’s crush on
her “so he wouldn’t notice I was taking over a little bit more.” However, whenever
possible Sheila tries to dissociate with the “loud, abrasive, smelly boys.” When
asked about her thoughts on the loud, abrasive female classmates, she responded
“I’m fine with them. I mean, they have no problems accepting me for a girl physics
major.” Success is always the end goal for Sheila and she exhibits a resiliency that
helps her compete in this male dominated culture.
Sheila displays a great amount of perseverance in how she approaches her
role as a female within this field. She knows she is gifted and talented and without
her many achievements, she would likely not have the confidence and the successes
she has earned over the years. One of Sheila’s greatest attributes is her sense of
empowerment as a smart woman in this field. It provides her a credibility and
validity that she can utilize to change perceptions and stereotypes. Sheila wants to
help shift the paradigm, “if I have the power to change it, I want to change it.”
Although she is “disgusted” when she hears about women succeeding only because
of their gender and not their aptitude, she recognizes there is a place for femininity to
help alter perception. “Use your womanly wiles to overcome people’s prejudices.
110

But don’t use it to blind people to the fact that you don’t have merit and credibility
for your own talents.” Sheila is not naïve and is fully aware of the biases and
stigmas that exist; she approaches this culture using merit, achievement and
resiliency to prove her capability, both intellectually and as a woman.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have presented three themes that emerge from the research
conducted at PILA and SST with undergraduate women studying science and
engineering. Through the data, we learn the significant impact perception has on
women’s experience, ranging from those of their male peers to those of faculty and
family. We see women willing to acclimate to a masculine culture, even condoning
and overlooking sexist and biased remarks, as a means to both prove legitimacy
within the community and feel a sense of belonging. In being positioned as an
underrepresented group within this larger community, women are forced to manage
their gender in different ways. Two primary approaches as seen through Pam and
Sheila’s story, are by way of integrating with the culture by adopting more masculine
tendencies and by adapting to the environment as needed and persevering in spite of
the masculine undercurrent. In Chapter 5, I more closely address the research
question and link these findings to Brewer’s (2001) social identity framework. I
conclude by using the data to identify two main areas that practitioners should
address in order to move from a passive, gender-neutral approach within this culture
to a more gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive philosophy.
111

Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications & Conclusion

As discussed throughout this paper, women have historically been
underrepresented in the field of science and engineering. In the past thirty years,
there has been significant research conducted on factors that contribute to this
underrepresentation, ranging from teaching style to the importance of role models.
Such insight has positively impacted the field, with more women enrolling,
graduating and succeeding in these majors. Although an increasing number of
women are persisting, many women are faced with compromising or negotiating
their gender in order to succeed within these environments. This study focuses on
how undergraduate women are greatly influenced by the perceptions of people, as
well as themselves, which in turn has significant impact on their overall
postsecondary experience. By utilizing these women’s experiences as a lens into the
undergraduate world of science and engineering, we have a better understanding of
how being female effects their participation, persistence and success within the
science and engineering community.
In this chapter, I revisit the research question that has served as the overall
guide for this study. Using the findings presented in Chapter 4, I connect the data
discovered through my research to address and respond to the research question.
Additionally, I discuss Brewer’s (2001) social identity model used as a framework
for my research. This theory provides even greater insight into the role gender plays
in these women’s experiences and development. Using the data as a guide, I outline
112

suggested implications that can serve as a catalyst for practitioners to brainstorm,
create and implement tangible and beneficial change. Lastly, I conclude the paper
with my final thoughts and a summation of all of five chapters.
Research Question and Findings
RQ: Utilizing a social identity lens, what role does gender play in
undergraduate engineering women’s perception of themselves, their role in the
engineering community and their decision to persist within the engineering field?
As presented in Chapter 4, there are three primary findings concluded from
the research conducted at two technical universities, PILA and SST. The themes that
emerged address the research question above by offering insight into undergraduate
women’s perceptions, sense of belonging in the community and overall approach to
navigating this environment. The findings include the significance the perceptions
of male peers, outsiders, faculty and self have on women’s self-concept; a
willingness to adapt to the masculine traditions and culture as a means to fit in
socially and prepare for a future in these fields; and lastly, the materialization of two
primary behaviors, masculine and resilient, as a means of managing and persisting in
the field.
Research Question - Part One
In addressing the first part of the research question, what role does gender
play in the undergraduate engineering women’s perception of themselves, the
research suggests there are four key influencers on women’s perceptions, those of
outsiders, male peers and faculty, as well as their own. All of these perceptions
113

influence women’s experience and can have both a positive and negative effect on
their success. Therefore it has been concluded through this study that gender has a
significant impact on women’s perception of themselves.
The perception of male peers has the most significant bearing on women’s
self-perception and gender development. Often, it persuades women to shy away
from their femininity for fear of being seen as a “dumb, ditzy girl.” As Margie
explains, girls could not be both smart and popular/pretty in high school; it was one
or the other. Women in these disciplines were conditioned within this context,
severely influencing their gender awareness and development. These women never
want to be seen as “dumb and ditzy” or “weak,” so they internalize their feminine
side in an effort to be taken more seriously by their male peers. Corey admits she
does not want to be seen “as weak” because that would “lessen her” in the eyes of
her male peers. Although some women admit to becoming more feminine at college,
they all still struggle with how their appearance and other feminine overtures
contribute to perceptions their male classmates have of their intellect and their place
within the culture and overall structure of the community.
The perception male peers have of women contributes to women’s view of
their belonging in these disciplines. Rather than seen as a contribution to the
diversity of thought and perspective, often gender is seen as a handicap by many
male peers. There is a sentiment that women are often not as qualified as men in
these fields and are recruited and admitted only to provide more balance in gender
representation. Whereas some women interviewed feel this opinion is often held
114

more by “older men,” this notion permeates throughout the community. The women
interviewed in this study often referred to the seemingly harmless “joking”
comments made by their male peers about their gender; however it certainly impacts
women’s sense of self and feeling of belonging. For one, it forces women to develop
a shield that rejects these comments, as well as a mechanism to decipher the “real
meaning” as unintentional and harmless. Often this approach is adopted so the
women can still maintain positive, successful relationships with their male peers.
Additionally, women are eager to “fit in” with their male peers, integrating into the
culture so their male classmates see them as legitimate and valid.
The perception outsiders have of women in science and engineering can often
serve as a source of pride. For example, several of the women interviewed
mentioned how they felt people were “in awe” of them and saw them as “really
smart.” This outsider perception of these women’s high academic intellect in subject
areas most find overwhelming and impossible fuels these women’s perseverance and
self-concept. Both Pam and Dina mentioned how they felt elevated in the eyes of
many when they shared what they were studying at college. Even though Dina’s
friends told her not to attend PILA because she would be surrounded by “boys and
geeks,” she dismissed their advice and refused to compromise her academics. Now
Dina is full of pride and boasts with enthusiasm that her friends “are really
impressed” when she talks about her double major and plans for post-college.
The perception of outsiders is not always positive and supportive, often
having a more adverse affect on women’s self-concept and sense of belonging.
115

However, this negative perception can act as a catalyst for some women. As we
learned in Chapter 4, Rae’s father actively discouraged her to pursue engineering.
He did however, encourage her brother, who had yet to show any signs of interest or
aptitude in math and science. Rae persevered despite of her father’s opposition and
is now in her second year studying engineering at SST. Sheila constantly felt the
need to prove herself to her mother, striving to demonstrate her ability in spite of her
mother’s concern women only excelled in these fields as a result of affirmative
action or special consideration. Rae and Sheila admirably embrace these
perspectives as challenges rather than obstacles. However it still greatly influences
how they feel they are perceived by their parents. These women succeeded. Yet
how many other women subscribe to similar negative perceptions, allowing their
self-concept to be shaped as a result of how their gender has been traditionally
viewed in these fields? The embedded biases towards women and gender roles
within these communities must change so future generations of women are not faced
with either having to subscribe to or actively fight against such perceptions.
Research proves the integral role faculty play on women’s self-concept and
overall success. Bandura (1986) found that women who perceive faculty have lower
expectations or are skeptical of their capability develop a lesser degree of self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy is identified as critical in women’s self-perception of their
ability within the engineering community (Zeldin and Pajares, 2000). This study
further enforces this research, as well as highlights how women tend to manage their
116

gender so it does not contribute to a poor perception by faculty.

For students such as Karly, Rae and Corey, positive teacher relationships
throughout middle and high school encouraged them to pursue and study their
respective fields. The support received from a teacher empowered these women to
persevere even when they were skeptical or hesitant of pursuing these subject areas.
The fact a teacher, a respected authority figure, believed in them and their ability,
allowed these female students to move past the historical perceptions that girls do not
belong in these fields. These teachers perceptions’ were that they were capable and
talented, contributing to the students own self-perception that they belonged and
could be successful in these disciplines.
Unfortunately, many women have had negative experiences with faculty
which created an obstacle and barrier in these women’s self-concept. Sheila’s story
about a faculty member who she felt perceived her as inferior to her male classmates
is a prime example. Sheila was excelling in the class however she asserts that as a
female she was automatically seen as the weak link in the class. Additionally, she
feels her feminine style in appearance disadvantages her even further. Although
Sheila has demonstrated great fortitude and resilience in her studies, the fact that she
sensed her faculty member’s perception of her is lesser merely because of her gender
significantly influences her experience. Perceived negative perceptions of faculty
foster feelings of isolation and inadequacy. Women become angry and frustrated by
this double standard, furthering their resentment of their gender in a culture where
117

being male provides a superior status.

Lastly, women’s perception of themselves is instrumental in the development
of their self-concept. The perceptions of those already mentioned including
outsiders, male peers and faculty, have significant bearing on women’s own
perception of self. In addition, the perception women have about their sense of
belonging academically and socially is key. For many women, such as Dina and
Kelly, they chose PILA because of a blind admission policy that would color the
perception others had of their right to be there; essentially proving to themselves and
others they were smart and talented enough to be there. What is clearly evident
through all of these findings, is that women in these cultures, especially at this age
and stage of their personal development, are extremely susceptible to using others
perceptions to shape their own. This notion is extremely dangerous, not to mention
unfair, for women who are trying to grow and develop as individuals within a culture
that historically and traditionally perceives them as secondary.
Research Question - Part Two
The second component of the research question asks: what role does gender
play in undergraduate engineering women’s role in the engineering community. We
learn through the data that women feel their primary role in the community is to
establish themselves as an intellectual equal and meet community expectations. In
an effort to assert themselves in this capacity, they often negotiate and compromise
their gender. Women have come to recognize their gender as a questionable and
118

potentially problematic component of their identity within this community and
therefore they are continuously trying to separate themselves from their gender.
Women in these disciplines push their gender to a secondary or even tertiary
component of their identity, therefore allowing it to have only a minimal role within
this culture. As seen in the second finding presented in Chapter 4, women willingly
adapt to the science and engineering culture as a means to better acclimate and
assimilate by downgrading the role gender plays in the overall community.
As the data uncovered, undergraduate women in these fields are willing to
adapt to the dominant masculine culture. By the time most of these women reach the
undergraduate level, they have been studying, working and socializing with mostly
males throughout their lives. Therefore they have been conditioned through a
masculine lens, fostering a complacency and acceptance about the maleness of their
undergraduate environments. Pam remembers being “one of the boys” from an early
age during the days of little league; now Pam has mostly male friends and feels most
comfortable with her male peers. Although Pam is very comfortable male-
identifying, she still carries a poor perception of overtly feminine women as a result
of being within this culture. Mackenzie and Leigh have accepted this reality of
majority of their peers and classmates being men. Mackenzie has “always been
surrounded by boys and it is just something [she] is used to.” By being a part of this
underrepresentation for so long, they only see their gender through a male lens,
which encourages them to negotiate their gender as part of their identity.
Academic competence is the priority within this culture, where the default has
119

historically assumed men are smart and capable and women are required to prove
their competence before being accepted. Not only are women striving to gain the
respect of this academic community, but they are doing it at the cost of their personal
gender awareness and development.
In part, many women are eager to accommodate the masculine nature of their
world because they are thirsty for finally feeling part of a peer community. As
students, especially as females, studying science, math and similar subjects in high
school, many of these women were marginalized as “geeks” or “nerds.” Upon
arrival at technical schools such as PILA and SST, these women were finally
surrounded by like-minded students who they felt more aligned with academically
and socially. As a result, these women were more readily accepting of the male
tendencies and traditions within this culture. Never wanting to “rock the boat”
women often negotiated their gender for the sake of conformity. Unfortunately, for
many women this meant forsaking the unique, special and distinct attributes of being
a woman. For those who tried to assert their femaleness through appearance or
communication style, they often felt targeted as a result. For example, Sheila
worried her blue scarf only furthered her faculty’s inferior perception of her. For
others, such as Dhara, the goal is “to limit [her] behaviors, stay[ing] more quiet most
of the time so [she] won’t shock [the men].” Like most 18-22 year old women, they
are trying to establish an identity as they mature and develop into young adults;
however through membership within the science and engineering community, most
women are negotiating their gender as a factor in this development process.
120

As women in this field, many see their gender as an attribute they will have
to manage throughout their careers. Their role in the community will always be
distinct by being female and therefore many women see their undergraduate
experiences as a springboard that prepares them for their future. Whether they are
like Dina who is preparing for industry or Kelly who plans to stay in academia, being
underrepresented will likely only continue in their professional lives. All women,
knowingly or unknowingly, demonstrate a willingness to accept and adjust to both
the masculine philosophy as well as the numerical domination as part of the ethos of
their chosen discipline. In doing so, women see their gender as peripheral and it has
a secondary or even tertiary role.
Research Question – Part Three
The last piece of the research question asks: what role does gender play in
undergraduate engineering women’s decision to persist within the engineering field?
As evident through the 16 women interviewed in this study, gender does not
necessarily deter women from pursuing and persisting within science and
engineering. Even Ryan, who has decided to enter the profession of culinary arts, is
committed to finishing her engineering degree. Gender does not always have an
impact on women’s decision to persist within science and engineering, however
gender does influence the way in which these women behave as they persist within
this culture.
Swan and Wyer (1997) conducted a study that found women who were more
hyper aware and sensitive to their gender often tried to dissociate with being female
121

by identifying as more male. This behavior can be seen in some of the women
interviewed for this study. Pam was the example showcased in Chapter 4 of a
female engineering student who had become so entrenched in the masculine nature
of this culture that she identified and associated more with her male peers. In Pam’s
interview, she reveals her inclination towards socializing with males from a young
age and still feels more at ease with them as an undergraduate student. So although
being female does not impede her from persisting within engineering, years of being
conditioned through a male lens has influenced her behaviors. As research
indicates, academic and social integration is essential to persistence (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980). Ironically, the connection Pam has with her male peers helps her
integrate within this community, therefore contributing to her persistence. It was her
actively becoming more aligned with male tendencies, philosophies and interests that
likely influenced her (by choice) to compromise her femininity. However if Pam
would have had an opportunity to integrate with a more balanced student population,
would gender have become more of a component in her identity?
As we read in Chapter 4, Sheila espouses a powerful resilience in her
behavior that impacts her experience and success. She does not subscribe to the
masculine identity to the degree Pam does but instead has adopted behaviors such as
resilience and fortitude that help her strategically navigate the masculine nuances of
this culture. Sheila possesses a high degree of self-efficacy, having enjoyed
significant accomplishments and achievements academically throughout her young
career. It is this confidence and self-assurance that fueled her resiliency, not only
122

permitting her to persist but excel in the field. The study conducted by Zeldin and
Pajares (2000) found that academic and social resiliency were key factors in
developing self-efficacy and contributing to persistence. As a female in this
environment, Sheila is keenly aware of the inequities, however utilizes her
intellectual merit as a mechanism to maneuver through the culture. Sheila is
determined to create more opportunity for women in these fields, hoping to change
many of the dynamics she has had to face in her academic life. Both Pam and Sheila
are demonstrating persistence, yet they have done so through adopting behaviors that
either have required they negotiate the role of their gender.
Social Identity Framework
Social identity establishes a link between “the psychology of the individual –
the representation of self - and the structure and process of social groups within
which the self is embedded” (Brewer, 2001, p.115). As this theory states, social
groups have significant bearing on the shaping and modeling of member’s social
identity. For the women in this study, they have been members in a male dominated
social group for most of their lives, but most especially now as female students at
technically driven institutions. Swan and Wyer (1997) found that the inclusion or
exclusion of group members would be instrumental in determining their self-
perception and their overall behavior. As seen through the emergence of the
masculine and resilient identities of Pam and Sheila, respectively, the male social
group (the science and engineering community) has had significant influence on the
role of gender for these women and their overall experience.
123

Brewer’s (2001) model identified four specific areas that influenced the
development of one’s social identity. The four identities, person-based, relational,
group and collective, have varying affects on different individuals. These four
identities do not comprise a quarter of each woman’s social identity, but rather they
overlap, with some having more significance than others. As seen in Figure 5.1, it is
the integration of all women’s experiences within a culture of minority status and
underrepresentation that influences how their social identity develops. This graphic
illustrates the four sub-identities within the male-dominate social group, seen by the
confined funnel, representing how these identities are shaped by this culture.
Figure 5.1 The development of social identity within culture.

Person-Based Identity
Brewer explains that person-based identity involves the “aspects of the self
that have been particularly influenced by the fact of membership in specific social
groups or categories and the shared socialization experiences that such membership
implies” (p.117). A primary component of one’s social identity is the perception and
Social Identity
Collective
& Group
Relational
Person-
based
124

belief that has been fostered within their self-concept as a member of the social
group.
The study finds that the development of the person-based identity differs
between women within this community. Sheila is not as strongly tied to this social
group, resenting the unbalanced ratio of men and women, but committed to her
studies and her scholarly pursuits. Sheila’s self-concept stems from her perseverance
despite being acutely aware of her place as an “outsider” within the dominant social
group. However Pam has long been a member within this masculine social group.
Since Pam has been part of a male dominant social group from a young age, it is
likely that has influenced this identity development. As Swan and Wyer (1997)
found, “people’s status in a social group can affect not only how they are perceived
by others but also how they perceive themselves and the behavior they actually
manifest” (p.1). The centrality of the person within the particular social group and
the content derived from their membership, such as traditions, beliefs and specific
traits and characteristics, impact the identity development (Brewer, 2001).
Relational Identity
As opposed to person-based identity, relational social identities stem from the
“identifications of the self as a certain kind of person….[and] define the self in
relation to others” (Brewer, 2001, p.118). For example, Sheila comes from a very
high-achieving, high expectations family. As we see through Sheila’s relationship
with her mother, she is always working to prove her academic ability and talent in
math and science. Sheila succeeded and is well-known for her high intellect and
125

aptitude. Interestingly, this merit-based approach has become integral in Sheila’s
identity, having learned from an early age that in her family, her role was to be
smart, driven and accomplished. Sheila sees herself as a member of the academic
elite which allows her the confidence to navigate the male culture. Sheila’s
membership in her family of ambitious, highly intellectual, hard-workers has
fostered a belief that she too is aligned with these values.
Rae’s experience is different than Sheila’s, but the membership in her family
also helped shape her self-concept and social identity. Rae has a very strong
relationship with her mother who is the primary breadwinner of the family, also a
member in the male dominant professional world of investment banking. Rae is the
oldest of five children and admits with her mother’s work demands, she has “had to
help out with the kids a lot.” She enjoys serving in this role, feeling it has “given
[her] a really strong female perspective.” It is clear in speaking with Rae the
affection and respect she has for her mother. However, she has a more challenging
relationship with her father, who discouraged Rae from pursuing engineering. Yet
Rae’s relationship with her mother, as well as being a role model for her siblings, has
molded her to be a driven, successful engineering student as well as a strong woman.
One area that was discovered to be consistent among women was how they
saw their role as women in these fields in relation to younger females potentially
pursuing science and engineering. Many of the participants, including Dina and
Sheila, discuss how they want to make a difference so that more girls in middle and
high school would continue in the pipeline. The importance of role modeling is also
126

seen at the college level. Mackenzie and Karly are both part of the same house at
PILA and discuss how they reach out to the freshmen women in their house to serve
as mentors and provide support. Pam’s house also does similar programs for the
younger women in her house. All of these women want to see more women
participate and succeed in science and engineering and feel a duty as they advance in
these disciplines to model for younger female students. However, the primary
driver that motivates the quest for more equal representation is that there will be
more women to disprove and combat the stereotype that women in these disciplines
are not as smart and capable. I will discuss later in this chapter how we can
capitalize on this momentum and integrate a component that will encourage these
women to recognize and further embrace their gender.
Group-based
Brewer (2001) refers to group-based identity to reflect how the self-concept
is constructed “beyond the individual to a more inclusive social unit” as well as how
the “behaviors of the individual self are assimilated to the representation of the group
as a whole” (p.119). As evident through the data, women tend to have a strong
group-based social identity, likely fueled by their membership within what is seen
and perceived as an elite academic community of both engineering as well as at these
two institutions. As seen in the first finding in Chapter 4, the perceptions of
outsiders has significant bearing on these women’s self-concept. Dina remembers
the sense of pride when sharing her experiences with friends and family at home.
Pam likens the reaction many have when they learn she is studying engineering to
127

that of a “football star or something.” Women are also proud to be at these
institutions, which are both highly ranked and seen as extremely competitive. Jen
recalls her mother’s urging her to attend SST because it was well-known and
reputable. PILA is seen as one of the premier technical institutions in the world;
some women, including Sheila and Dhara, came here not necessarily by personal
choice but by the practical realization that this community and education would
provide greater opportunity. These women’s group-based identity is closely linked
to being a part of a community that is seen by many as academically strong.
Additionally, this group identity is yet another catalyst for why so many
women are willing to acclimate and adapt to the masculine culture within science
and engineering. Often, as members of this social group, women will “enhance
those features that might make the group distinctive from other social categories and
at the same time enhance uniformity and cohesion with the group” (Brewer, 2001,
p.119). Therefore, women are adopting and promoting characteristics of the culture
as a symbol of unity. This behavior can be seen through the women who condone
and overlook the “harmless” comments made by their male peers about their gender
being inferior. These women are trying to assimilate within the dominant social
group, which is male, and therefore not willing to “rock the boat,” potentially
disrupting their sense of belonging and their overall membership in the group.
Collective Identity
In collective identity, Brewer (2001) makes both the linkage and the
distinction between group-based and collective identity. Collective identity involves
128

the “shared representations of the group based on common interests and experiences”
as seen with group-based identity; however “it also refers to an active process of
shaping and forging an image of what the group stands for and how it wishes to be
viewed by others” (Brewer, 2001, p.119).
The study participants see themselves first as scientists and engineers, part of
the academic elite. They enjoy being affiliated with this strong reputation however
they differ in terms of “shaping and forging an image of what the group stands for
and how it wishes to be viewed by others” (Brewer, 2001, p.119). Whereas Pam is
vested within the group image as masculine, Sheila wants nothing more than to
separate herself from the “loud, abrasive smelly guys.” Kelly talks openly about
how science should remain intact, that the characteristics often ascribed as
masculine, such as direct communication and stringent accountability, are “how you
want science to be done.” She worries that with feminine influences, science and
engineering will become “soft.” Leigh is worried about being perceived as one of
the “dumb, ditzy girls” and therefore more than willing to promote a community that
values merit and achievement as the primary benchmark, even if it means
compromising her female gender. It is important to all of these women to represent
high academic intellect and standards as members of this academic community
however they differ in how they participate in shaping and molding the image.
Key insights and recommendations
As we conclude this study, it is important to use the data to inform
implications for practice. Through the generous time and forthcoming, honest
129

feedback from the 16 women who were interviewed, I was able to study, reflect and
analyze their experiences through the lens of a researcher. As a result of a new
increased awareness, practitioners have more constructive, tangible ways to support
the students as well as increased insight into the overall culture. I propose two
different realms that need to be addressed; the issue of gender in the development
and experience of women in these fields and the overall structure that has historically
favored men and adopted a masculine undercurrent embedded within this culture.
Looking at Gender
The female gender does not have an active role in either of these institutional
cultures or in the overall science and engineering community. As a result of this
culture historically being male-dominated, the default favors and values men
differently and more favorably than women. Although strides have been made in
recruiting and retaining women in these fields, the female gender has still not
become an integral part of the culture. Support mechanisms have been instituted in
an effort to support women in a masculine culture, however it has not brought their
gender to the forefront of their experience but rather helped them negotiate their
gender in order to assimilate to the already existing culture.
Society determines how gender influences our lives; individuals are born
with a biological sex yet gender is created through the culture and traditions found
within society (Pillow, 2002). Gender is constructed through experience and is often
accepted willingly and often without argument or objection (Pillow, 2002). Gender
“denotes power relations between the sexes and includes men as much as it does
130

women” (Schiebinger, 2000, p. 1173). It is important to recognize that gender is
constructed through a variety of experiences and interactions and therefore our
understanding and awareness of gender is subject to our immediate culture and
community. For women in these fields, they are seeing their gender through the lens
of a male-dominated and male-favored philosophy, which perpetuates an indifferent
and secondary view of gender. In a study about the difference in outcomes by men
and women on college campuses in the first three years, we learn of
“the tenacity of gendered roles, behaviors, expectations, and assumptions on
college campuses. Given the challenges this tenacity poses, providing
effective learning environments and experiences for all students will require
an unwavering commitment to gender equity in experiences and outcomes,
dispassionate examination of basic institutional assumptions and
commitments, and basic changes in institutional structures and practices”
(Whitt, Pascarella, Nesheim, Marth & Pearson, 2003).

In an effort to move towards gender equity, we need to bring the female gender to
the forefront of these communities, making it an integral factor within the science
and engineering culture.
In women’s willingness to accept the current culture, including forgiving
sexist comments as “joking” and “harmless,” they are continuing to shift the power
structure to men. As more women enter these fields, we see the culture moving
towards a more neutral and passive approach towards gender. The expectation is
that women integrate into and conform to the already existing culture, which by
default favors men. This approach is detrimental for women in these fields because
it both impedes their personal understanding of their gender as well as furthering the
shift in power and philosophy toward men.
131

A gender-neutral approach supports a culture that could potentially contribute
to and foster a chilly climate for women. Again men are by default the primary
gender and establish the standards and universal expectations of the community.
Women are therefore positioned to try and reach their level, neutralizing their gender
as a component of themselves because it may have an adverse reaction to their
perceived academic competency. This cycle is perpetuated by the status quo and the
continued gender-ignorant and gender-neutral approach of the science and
engineering community. As women become more a part of this community, it is no
longer acceptable or appropriate to breed a culture that is neutral about gender.
As I witnessed the blatant masculine overtones within these communities, the
idea of gender-neutral was originally welcomed. Anything that would equalize the
culture for women would be positive. However, after further reflection, gender-
neutral will merely perpetuate the current culture and even inadvertently, continue
favoring men and fostering a chilly climate for women. I recommend these
institutions adopt a gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive approach towards
supporting women. My working definition of gender-sensitive is a shared
awareness, investment and appreciation of gender. Gender-inclusive goes a step
further and not only calls for sensitivity, but for actively encompassing women in
this culture as a vital piece of the fabric. In remaining gender-neutral, women are
being faced with having to manage and negotiate their gender within the default
masculine culture. In becoming gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive, the default
132

becomes women are equally as smart and capable as their male counterparts and
bring a diverse set of skills and attributes that strengthen the culture. Additionally,
this paradigm shift would foster a community that no longer tolerates gender
differences but celebrates them.
Although many of the women interviewed would likely argue they do not
manage their gender, the data clearly states otherwise. We see Sheila having to flirt
with male study partners in order to be heard; Leigh has to decipher what her male
peers really mean when they make sexist comments; Dhara is so nervous and
uncertain about how to be a female in this culture, she has “learned to keep quiet.”
As a result of being part of this masculine culture, women are negotiating their
gender in order to be successful. It is imperative women start seeing their gender as
a salient component of their identity. The cost of their negotiating and
compromising their gender is both a detriment to their own personal development
and growth, as well as further allows the culture to keep shifting the power, control
and authority in favor of men. What is unfortunate and extremely dangerous is how
seemingly unaware and uninformed these women are that they are being positioned
to manage and negotiate their gender. Below are a list of recommendations that
institutions, especially PILA and SST can and should adopt, that allow gender to be
an accepted and appreciated component of women’s identity and overall experience.
Recommendation: Create all female learning communities
Studies have shown that all female communities are helpful in creating
connections and networks that help women in these fields thrive both academically
133

and socially. The research conducted by Hyde and Gess-Newsome (1999) with
Project Access, highlighted the benefits this eight week program had on women at
that university. In a similar attempt, both SST and PILA would benefit from offering
all female learning communities to undergraduate women who were interested in a
more inclusive, female centered environment. This initiative would be especially
beneficial at PILA, where an 8 house residential system creates additional
subcultures that further the underrepresentation of women and values traditions and
customs that have historically marginalized and isolated women in this community.
There are a myriad of learning community models that could be adopted by
these institutions. From a summer program only open to undergraduate women to a
residential hall dedicating a floor to a women’s centered learning community, this
network would provide a comfort zone for undergraduate women to explore, foster
and expand their feminine identity. All female communities allow the dominant
social group to switch from all male to all female, providing women a safe haven for
developing their gender as a primary component of their identity.
Learning communities are an excellent way to address the issues and
challenges women face by being the numerical minority; it enables women to grow
and develop within a more female centered context. These environments would
allow women to rely on each other in various contexts, from study partners to social
outlets. Ideally, learning communities will only serve as a bridge for gender
exploration and appreciation; in the future, the goal needs to be a balanced social
group within science and engineering that is gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive.
134

Recommendation: Implement outreach programs
As mentioned earlier, women in these fields are aware of and interested in
helping younger females pursue and succeed in science and engineering. Whether it
is Rae being a role model for her siblings or Karly and others mentoring the younger
female students in their house, they are vested in the idea of support and
encouragement. In order to capitalize on this sentiment, as well as try to promote
gender as a key aspect of their role-modeling, I propose that institutions implement
outreach programs led by undergraduate women in the STEM fields to middle and
high school girls interested in pursuing these fields.
This programming allows the undergraduate women to serve in a female-
centered leadership activity that highlights them as the experts in content, as well as
role-models for being women in these fields. The more we can intentionally employ
gender as a key component to their identity, the more the undergraduate women will
begin viewing it in that light. Additionally, it will help strengthen the pipeline and
allow younger girls to learn more about these fields from older, female leaders in
these disciplines. Outreach programs can be motivational and inspiring for all of
those who participate; including them as an outlet for women in these fields can have
a significant impact.
Recommendation: Change the missions of women’s centers from solely supportive to
pro-female
As we have learned through retention studies highlighted in Chapter 2, the
135

implementation of women’s centers and women-oriented programs were instituted
on many campuses in an effort to provide support and resources for women. At SST,
there is a female-centered organization that is unique to SST and is designed to “help
keep the girls a little girly.” This group has outings such as manicures and pedicures,
movie nights and museum trips and is popular among many women at SST. PILA
has a Diversity Center that provides information, resources and support for women.
Both of these programs, as well as similar ones on other campuses, were designed to
address the chilly climate women face in their fields. In an effort to move from a
gender-neutral environment to a gender-sensitive and inclusive culture, these
organizations need to revamp their missions to include the promotion of the female
gender in a more overt and explicit manner. By actively discussing and endorsing
the female gender, women will be more comfortable to explore their own gender.
For some women, they may find themselves more inclined towards masculine
attributes, others may adopt a new found feminism; regardless of what individual
choices are, we can use these existing programs to allow for a more specific and
evident opportunity for gender understanding, awareness and exploration. In that
same respect, these centers and programs can and should be used to sensitize the men
in embracing and appreciating all facets of both the male and female gender.
Recommendation: Implement a diversity class in the freshmen year
A common model of addressing retention and persistence issues at many
engineering schools is to design and implement first year transition courses. Using
this type of course structure as a template, it is my recommendation to create a
136

required diversity seminar for all first year students. This course model should be
institutionalized at all schools, especially technical schools such as PILA and SST.
A diversity class would provide a forum for both dialogue as well as reconditioning
historical and predetermined perceptions and stereotypes. In these cultures there is a
large degree of desensitization to gender by both men and women. Men feel it is
accepted and appropriate to “joke” and “tease” their female classmates about their
gender; women are apt to condone and overlook their own feelings and perspectives
about being a woman in fear of being rejected by their peers. Upon arrival at these
technical institutions, the majority of students are committing to careers in these
fields and therefore it is essential to address, combat and change the behaviors before
they are perpetuated throughout the pipeline.
The format of the diversity class could be determined by each institution,
however specific conditions would ensure it be taken seriously by students. It would
need to be taught by well known and respected faculty and become fully integrated
within the university curriculum. The course would have attendance policies,
homework assignments and a grading structure that would be consistent among each
of the class sections. Each seminar would have an upper division student who could
serve as a teaching assistant to the faculty, as well as an informal mentor to the
freshmen. The content of the course would address the role of women in
engineering, as well as broadening the conversation to underrepresented ethnic
members of the science and engineering community. Using the lens of
globalization, the course would stress not only the increasing diversity within the
137

field, but how a firm, respected understanding and appreciation of diversity will
further position these students in their future careers. With both PILA and SST
being academic leaders in these disciplines, the implementation of this course would
even further contribute to their progressive and holistic reputation.
Changing the structure
Moving to a gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive culture will not work if
the current structure remains intact. The structure that has been historically
embedded within this community needs to be revamped in order to allow for a
culture of openness and change. As a result of all of academia being originally
crafted by men, the underrepresentation of women is seen in a variety of areas. This
reality is compounded within the science and engineering world. This culture has
remained stringent and closed while other academic areas became more inclusive
and open. It is time that the leadership within these fields come together and
addresses these issues in an effort to create a real opportunity for change.
Science and engineering, especially at these institutions, has positioned their
work in the top tier of academia and thus a vague but very present illusiveness and
elitism permeates this culture. It is this sentiment that drives these women to be so
preoccupied with proving their intellectual worth and willingness to accept the
culture. I am not suggesting lowering standards or compromising expectations, I am
however arguing that in order to preserve and continue this academically strong
reputation, this culture needs to change and the leadership needs to guide the
138

conversation away from long-standing traditions and customs to a more diverse,
forward-thinking community.
Motivating change within this culture will take significant time and be an
arduous process. In order to instigate this change, I propose the following
recommendations for bridging the old culture with a new way of thinking.
Recommendation: Create a steering committee of leaders from PILA, SST and other
institutions
As discussed earlier, the entirety of this structure needs to be studied and
addressed from a global, gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive perspective. I
recommend a committee is formed between key leaders at both PILA and SST, as
well as 5-8 other key leaders at technical oriented universities, that together can
begin the larger conversation. Institutions such as these have long been the
progressive leaders in the science and engineering community. Their participation
will heighten and amplify the issue, as well as influence those who are more resistant
to the idea of change and favor the status quo. Although this initiative may seem too
far-reaching, I specifically call on the leadership at PILA to serve as the role model
to this community and set a precedent for dialogue and policy creation. This cause
needs leadership and PILA is seen as a global figure in this field. There is a plethora
of research being conducted on and around this topic, however without guidance and
direction, implementation is not as likely.
Recommendation: Position more prominent women throughout the institution
It is critical that universities position strong, accomplished and diverse
139

women throughout the infrastructure of the institution. SST has an impressive
number of female faculty, however PILA has very few. It is important for female
faculty to be available as academic mentors for undergraduate women. Female
faculty not only serve as role models, but they also act as a resource for
undergraduate women who may feel marginalized or uncomfortable with male
faculty. Additionally, increasing the number of female faculty will contribute to
shaping male students perspective on females within the field.
It is critical to also provide women in key administrative and guest roles in
addition to faculty. Women should have an administrative presence in admission,
financial aid, academic services and other instrumental offices throughout the
institution. In an effort to change the culture, there needs to be a female presence,
both physically and philosophically, throughout the institution. Both PILA and SST
should begin a named lecture series that specifically host women in various science
and engineering fields. By inviting and welcoming women from outside these
institutions, all members of the community will be exposed to a diverse, robust pool
of females who will share different thoughts and perspectives. The goal is not to
inundate these communities with one replica of a female scientist or engineer, but
rather provide a variety of women in background, opinion, style and communication.
Undergraduate women in these fields should shape their identity through experience
and exposure; the more opportunity to identify and relate with experienced,
accomplished, professional women will further enable a holistic development

140

Recommendation: Conduct gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive training for the
campus community
As we see through past research as well as the findings in this study, faculty
have significant influence on women’s experiences. I propose a range of training
and development sessions are created and implemented at both institutions. Similar
to the concept of the freshmen course, these exercises would foster a larger
conversation about gender and diversity among the faculty. Additionally, it would
provide an outlet for addressing and combating the perceptions and biases that
faculty have towards women. Often, especially with more veteran faculty, they are
unaware of the subtle nuances and biases that can negatively affect female students.
Regardless of their intention, all faculty must be held to a higher standard in not only
the academic content they deliver but also in their approach and behavior. In
addition, this training should be conducted for all staff and administrators throughout
the campus community. Although faculty have a more direct role with individual
students, all members of the community should be expected to foster a gender-
sensitive and gender-inclusive environment.
I recommend these sessions be conducted in formal environments, such as
faculty meetings or departmental retreats, so participation is required by all faculty,
staff and administrators. It is important that all levels of the hierarchy, including
senior faculty, deans and even chief academic officers such as the provost or
chancellor, support this initiative so all campus members are a part of the process.
141

Establishing this initiative as part of the institutional and academic mission is critical
for it to be seen as valid and valuable.
Future Research
The primary objective of this dissertation was to find useful ways
practitioners can foster change within these communities. It is also important to
consider areas that would benefit from future research. I have identified two specific
topics that could further contribute to understanding women’s experiences.
As mentioned throughout the paper, both SST and PILA are technical schools
geared towards the study of science and engineering. Often the case with singular
focused institutions, there is a greater intensity that can be found within these
cultures. For the purpose of this study, the heavy technical concentration had
significant bearing on the overall environment, and therefore the experiences of the
participants. I have had the privilege of working at a technical institution similar to
PILA and SST, as well as at an engineering school within a robust, expansive
research university. It is my opinion that the overall culture is quite different within
these two institutional models, which in turn influences the experience and social
identity development of women. It is my suggestion that further research be
conducted on the gender awareness and development of women studying science and
engineering at non-technical, mainstream institutions. I would predict many findings
would be similar however, I would also argue that many would be different. For the
benefit of all women within these disciplines, we must study multiple variations of
142

this one culture in order to offer the most comprehensive and pervasive
recommendations.
Another area that would be helpful for practitioners, as well as researchers,
would be to study the role of ethnicity as a factor in women’s development within
these communities. Customs, traditions and most especially perceptions, are greatly
influenced and molded through ethnic backgrounds and experiences. For example,
Dhara comes from a traditional Asian culture where she has been conditioned to
defer to men throughout her life. Now at PILA, she is highly sensitive to working
and socializing with men as peers in such a masculine environment. She lives with
many Asian men in her “house” at PILA and they often expect her to behave
submissively as part of their cultural tradition. However, Dhara is conflicted in
establishing relationships with them as Asian men, as well as peers and equals in
study groups and on projects. Ethnic women have an additional layer in managing
this culture and forming their identity; studying this additional component will only
aid in their experience and development.
Concluding Thoughts
At this point, I want to revisit what we have learned from this study and the
key takeaways that can help move this culture forward. There needs to be an effort
to change perceptions, both externally and internally, that women do not belong or
are not qualified for science and engineering. These perceptions fuel self-doubt and
make women skeptical of their belonging as a result of being female. As we found
through the data, women are primarily concerned with their academic and
143

intellectual identity, with gender being a secondary component of their identity.
Significant changes need to be made at the early stages of the pipeline to remove and
combat biases about female scientists and engineers during early gender schema.
For those women at the undergraduate level, we need to find concrete, tangible ways
to reaffirm and support them as female scientists and engineers. It is important to
revamp and diversify the structure embedded within this culture so that it does not
have such a dominant masculine undertone. Whereas women are being represented
more numerically, they are still subject to the overwhelming masculine philosophy
and undercurrent in these fields which are requiring them to negotiate and
compromise their gender in some way. The science and engineering community
needs to move from a passive, neutral stance on the female gender to a gender-
sensitive and gender-inclusive model. Women in these disciplines should develop
social identities and gender awareness in a balanced, gender supportive environment
and not as the byproduct of a masculine culture.
In conclusion, these five chapters provided us a background and history of
women in science and engineering, as well as a glimpse into the current state and
possibilities for the future. We began the story of women in science and engineering
in Chapter 1. There has been a distinct amount of progress made, and as seen in
Chapter 2, a plethora of research that has been conducted to study, explore and
essentially benefit women in the science and engineering community. As we learned
in Chapter 3, this study would focus on the role of gender and how being a female in
such an overtly male laden culture would affect the development, growth and overall
144

experience of undergraduate women. Through the findings presented in Chapter 4,
we learn how perception shapes women’s self-concept and sense of belonging,
making them more willing to adapt to the male culture and essentially adopting
behaviors that enable them to succeed in spite of it. In discussing the findings
throughout this chapter, we answer the research question that guided this study, also
connecting the data to the theoretical framework. The implications stem from the
data and pinpoint two areas that need to be addressed. One is helping women
understand their gendered experiences and how gender should become more of a
primary factor in their experience and development and secondly, studying the
structure of this culture in an effort to move from a masculine philosophy to one that
is gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive. For both practitioners and researchers, it is
our job as educators to be change agents. It is through research that we inform
institutional practice and policy. In the context of this study, it is my hope that the
marriage of research and practice facilitate a future where gender and all diversity
are not seen as threatening to the norm, but instead part of it.
145

Bibliography

ACT, Inc. Website
http://www.act.org/
Retrieved April 4, 2009

Ambert, Anne-Marie, Adler, Patricia A., Adler, Peter & Detzner, Daniel, F.(1995).
Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research. Journal of Marriage
and the
Family, 57(4).
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Astin, A. (1985). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations on thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Belenky, Mary F., Clinchy, Blythe M., Goldberger, Nancy R. & Tarule, Jill M.
(1986). Women’sWays of Knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Berkowitz, S. (1997). Analyzing Qualitative Data. In J. Frechtling, L. Sharp, and
Westat (Eds.), User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method
Evaluations (Chapter 4). Retrieved June 21, 2006 from National Science
Foundation, Directorate of Education and Human Resources Web site:
http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/pubs/NSF97153/CHAP_4.HTM

Blickenstaff, Jacob Clark (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or
gender filter? Gender Education, 17(4).

Brainard, S.G. & Carlin, L. (1998). A longitudinal study of undergraduate women in
engineering and science, Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4).

Brewer, Marilynn, B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for
political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1).

Clewell , Beatriz Chu & Burger, Carol J. (2002). At the crossroads: Women, Science
and Engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 8.

146

Clewell, Beatriz Chu & Campbell, Patricia B. (2002). Taking stock: Where we’ve
been, where we are, where we’re going. Journal of Minorities and Women in
Science and Engineering, 8.

Colbeck, Carol L., Cabrera, Alberto F. & Terenzini, Patrick T. (2001). Learning
professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-
perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24 (2).

College Board Website
http://www.collegeboard.com/
Retrieved April 4, 2009

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dietz, James S., Anderson, Bernice and Katzenmeyer, Conrad (2002). Women and
the crossroads of science: Thoughts on policy, research and evaluation.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8.

Dorn, C. (2008). "A Woman's World": The University of California, Berkeley,
during the Second World War. History of Education Quarterly. 48(4).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Website
http://www.eeoc.gov/
Retrieved April 4, 2009
 
Hall, R.M. & Sandler, B.R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?
Washington: Association of American Colleges.

Harwarth, Irene (1997). Women's Colleges in the United States: History, Issues, &
Challenges. Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing Co.

Heyman, Gail D., Martyna, Bryn and Bhatia, Sangeeta (2002). Gender and
achievement-related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8.

Hughes, W. Jay (2002). Gender attributes of science and academic attributes: An
examination of undergraduate science, mathematics, and technology majors.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8.

Hyde, Michelle S.& Gess-Newsome, Julie (1999). Adjusting educational practices to
increase female persistence in the sciences. Journal of College Student
Retention, 14.

147

Jacobs, Jerry A. (1996). Inequality and higher education. Annual Review of
Sociology, 22.

Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. 2
nd
Edition. NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.

McGlone, Matthew S. & Aronson, Joshua. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity
salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 27.

Meinholdt, C. & Murray, S.L. (1999) Why aren’t there more women engineers?
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5.

Morris, LaDonna K. & Daniel, Larry G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate:
Differences in traditional and non-traditional majors for women. Research in
Higher Education, 49.

Murphy, Mary C., Steele, Claude M. & Gross, James J. (2007). Signaling threat:
How situational cues affect women in math, science and engineering settings.
Psychological Science, 18(10).

National Girls Collaborative Project Website
http://www.pugetsoundcenter.org/ngcp/resources/statistics.html
Retrieved March 1, 2009.

Nixon, Ashley E., Meikle, Heather & Borman, Kathryn (2007). The urgent need to
encourage aspiring engineers: Effects of college degree program culture on
female and minority students STEM participation. Latin America and
Caribbean Journal of Engineering Education, 1(2).

Pace, Diana, Witucki, Laurie & Blumreich, Kathleen (2008). Benefiting female
students in science, math and engineering: The nuts and bolts of establishing
a WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) Learning Community. NASPA
Journal, 45(3).

Pascarella, Ernest T. & Terenzini, Patrick T. (1980). Predicting freshmen persistence
and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher
Education, 51(1).

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PILA Website
Retrieved March 18, 2009
148

Pillow, Wanda S. (2002). Gender Matters: Feminist research in educational
evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 96.

Ramirez, Francisco O. & Wotipka, Christine Min (2001). Slowly but surely? The
global expansion of women’s participation in science and engineering fields
of study, 1972-1992. Sociology of Education, 74(3).

Rolin, Kristina (2008). Gender and physics: Feminist philosophy and science
education. Science and Education, 17.

Schiebinger, Londa (2000). Has feminism changed science? Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 25(4).

Seymour, Elaine & Hewitt, Nancy M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why
undergraduates leave the sciences. Colorado: Westview Press.

SST Website
Retrieved March 18, 2009

Steele, C.M (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52.

Swan, Suzanne & Wyer, Jr. Robert, S. (1997). Gender stereotypes and social
identity: How being in the minority affects judgments of self and others.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12).

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tinto,V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

United States Department of Justice Website
http://www.usdoj.gov/
Retrieved April 4, 2009

Vogt, C M, Hocevar, D., & Hagedorn, L. S. (May-June 2007). A social cognitive
construct validation: Determining women's and men's success in engineering
programs. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 3

149

Waller, Alisha A (2005). Proceedings from ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference: Work In Progress - Feminist Research Methodologies: Why,
What,and How; Indiana, IN.

Wasburn, Mara H. & Miller, Susan G. and (2004). Retaining undergraduate women
in science, engineering and technology: A survey of a student organization.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2).

West, C. & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987) Doing Gender. Gender and Society, 1(2).

Whitt, Elizabeth J., Pascarella, Ernest T., Elkins Nesheim, Becki S., Marth, Brian P.,
Pierson, Christopher T. (2003). Differences between women and men in
objectively measured outcomes, and the factors that influence those
outcomes, in the first three years. Journal of College Student Development,
44(5).

Wyer, Mary (2003). Intending to stay: Images of scientists, attitudes towards women,
and gender as influences on persistence among science and engineering
majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9.

Zeldin, Amy L., & Pajares, Frank (2000). Against the Odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of
women in mathematical, scientific and technology careers. American
Educational Research Journal, 37(1).

150

Appendix A
Student Focus Group Guide
Background
Why did you choose to study engineering as your major?
What was it about X school that made you decide to attend?

Group identity
What groups, clubs or organizations do you belong to on or off campus?
What made you chose these particular groups?
Has there been any activity, program or class that you’ve wanted to participate in but
haven’t? If so, why did you choose not to participate?

Person-based identity
How do you think being female influences your experiences within these groups?
What are some adjectives you would use to describe yourself? Are there any that are
new since beginning at X?

Relational identity
What advice did you receive from those in your life before heading to X?
What are your family and friends reactions when you tell them you are studying
engineering?
What advice would you give to your sister who is planning to study engineering at
X? Would the advice be different for your brother?

Collective identity
Can you think back to when you first began at X, how would you describe your
initial impressions within the first 2 weeks?
What stands out as something that surprised you?
How has your initial impressions changed since you began at X? Why have these
changed?
How would you describe the student body/community at X?

Conclusion
If you were a senior in high school again, would you still choose to study
engineering?
Would you still choose to attend X?
Is there anything you can think of that could have further contributed to your
experience at X?
Are you planning to enter the engineering field/engineering related graduate school
when you graduate?
Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you would like to share with me?
151

Appendix B
Individual Interview Guide

Relational identity
Who has been influential in supporting and encouraging you to study engineering?
Who has not?
Describe your support network in college….who is it? What does it look like? How
did it form?

Person-based identity
How do you think being female in a male heavy environment has influenced you
personally/socially?
How aware of your gender are you? On a scale of 1-10….what prompts you to think
about being female? How/Has that changed from high school to college?

Group/Collective identity
How would you describe the engineering community you are a part of? What role
do you play in that community?
Do you feel like you have to adapt to belong to groups/classes you are in or a part
of? To the larger engineering/science community?

Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you would like to share with me?
152

Appendix C
University of Southern California
Rossier School Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Undergraduate Women in Engineering: Thriving or Surviving?

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Kate Baxter, Ed.D
Doctoral Candidate and Kristan Venegas, Ph.D. from the University of Southern
California. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything
you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it
with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign
this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will focus on the experiences of undergraduate women who are currently
studying engineering at the college level. The research’s goal is to determine how
being a female in a male dominated culture affects your sense of belonging, your role
in the engineering community and your decision to remain in the engineering
program.

Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things: You will be asked to participate in an interview that lasts approximately 60-
90 minutes in length. There will be a minimum of 1 interview and a maximum of 3
interviews. All interviews will be held on campus at a time that is convenient for
you.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is minimal risk associated with this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Through your participation in this study, you will be assisting future college women
in better acclimating and integrating in engineering programs. Your experiences will
help create a more supportive environment for undergraduate engineering women,
generating larger numbers of women enrolling and graduating from engineering
programs.

153

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation. Additionally, the investigators
of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor or in the product
being studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is in connection with this study and is identified with you will
remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required
by law. 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 office in a
cabinet/password protected computer. The data will be stored for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. 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.
The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so. Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to
speak with someone independent of the research team to have questions answered
about the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please
contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Kate Baxter
Principal Investigator
3710 S. McClintock Avenue RTH 212
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2900
(213) 740-3562 (work)
(617) 256-0872 (cell)

Kristan Venegas
Faculty Sponsor
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(213) 740-0507
154

Appendix D

Kate Baxter
Study: Women in Engineering
Recruitment Email

Dear Student,

My name is Kate Baxter and I am an EdD student in the Educational Leadership
program at the USC Rossier School of Engineering. For my dissertation, I am
studying how gender impacts an undergraduate woman’s experience in an
engineering program. As a woman studying engineering at X institution, you are in
a unique position to provide insight and perspective on this topic. I hope you will
consider participating in my study!

All interviews and focus groups will be held on campus at a time that is convenient
for you. The meetings will take between 60-90 minutes. All undergraduate women
currently enrolled in an engineering major are encouraged to participate. Your input
will be kept confidential and you can either meet with me individually or in a group
with other female engineering women on your campus.

Candy and snacks will be provided!

If you are interested in participating, please email me at kbaxter@usc.edu.

Thanks,
Kate

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As a result of the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering programs, the culture is male-dominated and perpetuates an unsupportive and biased climate that discourages undergraduate women from connecting to their gender. Using a social identity framework, this study addresses how gender influences undergraduate women’s perception of themselves, their role in the engineering community and their decision to persist. By capturing the experiences of 16 undergraduate women who are enrolled at two elite technical universities in Southern California, this qualitative study utilizes focus groups and individual interviews to provide key insight and perspective on the role of gender in their experience. Through the data, we learn perception has a significant impact on women, that women are willing to acclimate to a masculine culture as a means to both prove legitimacy and feel a sense of belonging and lastly, women manage their gender in two primary ways, one by integrating within the culture through adopting more masculine tendencies and second, by adapting to the environment as needed and persevering in spite of the masculine undercurrent. The implications at the conclusion of this study are two-fold. One focus is helping undergraduate women understand gendered experiences and bringing gender to the forefront of their experience and the second is studying the overall structure of this culture in an effort to move from a masculine, gender-neutral philosophy to one that is gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?

PDF

A feminist model of institutional transformation: a case study of one campus-based women's center

PDF

From their perspective: discovering the sources of impact on older women undergraduates' identity development and mapping those experiences

PDF

An exploration of the experiences of undergraduate adult learners in an adult degree program from the theoretical framework of self-authorship

PDF

An online strategic career planning and leadership development curriculum for women in upper-division undergraduate and graduate programs

PDF

Leading from the margins: exploring the perspectives of Black women in leadership roles at predominantly white institutions

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

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

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Sex-role orientation, gender role attitudes, and acculturation as predictors of psychological well-being

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

PDF

First-year persistence of rural high school graduates at four-year, urban colleges and universities

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Asian American college student well-being: racial identity consciousness as model minorities at an elite university

Asset Metadata

Creator Baxter, Kathleen B. (author)

Core Title Women in science and engineering: thriving or surviving?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/17/2010

Defense Date 03/12/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag chilly climate,culture,Engineering,gender,gender-inclusive,gender-sensitive,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,Science,Women

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (city or populated place)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Venegas, Kristan M. (committee chair), Hunt, Felicia (committee member), Kezar, Adrianna (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email kathleenbaxter7@hotmail.com,kbaxter@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3087

Unique identifier UC1330388

Identifier etd-Baxter-3544 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-337683 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3087 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Baxter-3544.pdf

Dmrecord 337683

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Baxter, Kathleen B.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu