Review Protocol
You Recently Viewed
Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM)
This topic area focuses on programs, courses, and other interventions designed to foster interest and success among girls and women in STEM fields. CLEAR identified causal research that examined the effectiveness of these interventions and reviewed the studies against the causal guidelines.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
-
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s main objective was to accurately identify the nature of gender imbalances in the receipt of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees, specifically isolating... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine factors that affect motivation to pursue a computer and information sciences (CIS) degree, with the intention of informing strategies to increase the number of... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study summarized the role of various factors, both within and outside a university, in shaping use of the university’s parental leave policy. The authors conducted semistructured interviews in... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This article summarized current gender equity issues in career and technical education (CTE) as well as in STEM fields for high school and college students. Using findings from various other... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper examined whether people with high math and verbal abilities were more likely to work in STEM occupations at the age of 33 compared with people with high math but only moderate verbal... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper was a literature review of research about gender differences in STEM education levels and careers in the United States, including any evidence available for specific cultural, biological,... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The article discussed how career counselors can use social cognitive career theory (SCCT), a theory that one’s background and characteristics influence self-efficacy and ultimately career choice, to... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report highlighted a 2013 convening of stakeholders who discussed barriers to becoming successful STEM faculty for black, Hispanic, and Native American women, and strategies to overcome those... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study described the implementation of the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program at New York City College of Technology. This year-long program aimed... -
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study described how women in academic STEM positions (compared with corporate environments) constructed their own mentoring networks; it also explored the mentoring configurations female...
Pages
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
-
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
-
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
-
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
-
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
-
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
-
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
-
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
-
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
-
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
-
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
-
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
-
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.