Women in Engineering and STEM: A Review of the 2023 Literature

In 2023, researchers published a tremendous number of articles that confirm, interrogate, and confront the systemic injustices that impact women and girls in engineering and the STEM fields more generally. This collective focus underscores the importance of addressing gender inequities in STEM — which an encouraging number of practitioners and researchers are working to eradicate — and sharing models for creating change that others might adopt. This annual review aims to survey the variety of this research, while highlighting particularly salient examples of studies that convey important insights, especially insofar as they inform scholars, policymakers, funders, and practitioners interested in creating more equitable engineering ecosystems.

This review reveals differences in how researchers’ emphases have shifted since last year. In 2022 there was a preponderance of research interested in the COVID-19 pandemic’s largely negative effects on gender equity; in 2023, there were fewer of these studies. There are opportunities moving forward to further unpack the mechanisms through which the pandemic may or may not be contributing to long-term inequities. At the same time, the review of the 2022 literature discussed some themes that continued to be relevant in 2023. These include: the prevalence of gender stereotypes and their impact on women’s and girls’ interest and performance in STEM activities; efforts to increase diversity through an emphasis on either recruitment or retention; and interventions designed to increase gender equity in STEM.

Collectively, these continued themes signify that there are active discussions among scholars about how best to conceptualize diversity and equity, and the role of research in this process. Rather than attempting to settle or simplify these discussions, wherever possible, we showcase the manifold perspectives that are represented in the literature, recognizing that ultimately this diversity — and the conversations it provokes — strengthens our combined efforts to redress the racist, colonial, and gendered inequities through which STEM has been conceptualized (Takeuchi & Marin, 2022; Chen & Buell, 2018).

At the outset, we recognize that to advance gender equity within STEM, it is crucial to consider not only the experiences of women and girls, but others who are marginalized by gendered injustices, including those who are transgender and/or nonbinary. Wherever possible, we elevate research that centers people with these genders — though in 2023 there were limited studies in this domain. In fact, the research has often reinforced gender norms by, for example, using data with only two options for the gender of participants.

This review is based on 372 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings that relate to girls and women in engineering and STEM more broadly. Most studies were published in the United States, and many were published in additional countries around the world. The key themes that emerged from our review include:

• gender and intersectionality,
• damage-centered vs. desire-centered research,
• individual-level vs. system-level factors,
• international research,
• stereotypes and biases,
• support networks, mentors, and role models,
• recruitment,
• retention, advancement, and publishing, and
• hope for the future.

Gender and intersectionality

Intersectionality continues to be an important theme as scholars are beginning to more widely recognize the need to understand how gendered inequities play out alongside other power dynamics. While for some this means centering the perspectives of those who have been multiply marginalized from STEM (discussed further below), for others, it simply means acknowledging the limitations of their work (e.g., Sadler, 2023). A scoping review of gender equity in academic health research found that out of 562 included studies, just three mentioned the term “intersectionality,” and “[n]o studies reported on the intersection of these social and political characteristics [e.g., ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age] within systems of power and oppression to produce potential discrimination or privilege” (Tricco et al., 2023, p. 7).

Though that review represents just a fraction of research that falls under the STEM umbrella, it signifies a need to more rapidly advance progress in the way scholars conceive of equity more broadly. Most research in 2023 did not take an intersectional approach to studying girls and women in STEM. We summarize much of the relevant research in this section and highlight it where appropriate throughout this review.

Most intersectional studies are concerned with race and gender, and how these combined characteristics are related to STEM outcomes. Some researchers used survey methods to explore aspects of these complex relationships across a range of populations. For example, Patrick et al. (2023) surveyed 1,355 undergraduate engineering students from seven Hispanic-serving institutions to better understand how their sense of belonging in engineering was related to their race/ethnicity and gender. They found that there was no significant aggregate correlation between race/ethnicity and sense of belonging, but that white women and Latino people generally had a higher sense of belonging than white men.

This kind of statistical approach is particularly useful for demonstrating trends across a variety of institutions and contexts. It also invites researchers to consider the nuances involved with individuals’ experiences based on the intersection of various social identities that they embody.

These quantitative studies are complemented by more in-depth qualitative studies, which explore the lived experiences of students, professors, and professionals within STEM. 

These quantitative studies are complemented by more in-depth qualitative studies, which explore the lived experiences of students, professors, and professionals within STEM. This year, there were several studies centering the intersectional perspectives of particular minoritized groups.

Most often these included Black women and other women of color who were either students or professors. These studies often used a decidedly assets-based framework to understand the strengths that women of color were bringing to inequitable academic contexts. For example, one study conducted focus groups (called ‘Sista Circles’) with 18 anti-racist Black women teachers from the United States, Canada, and Qatar (Riley & Mensah, 2023).

These teachers bring meaningful, anti-racist critical thought into science classrooms by connecting the standards-based content with community, historical, and cultural contexts. Furthermore, some teachers are working in unsupportive school contexts and are still making these strides.

Riegle-Crumb et al. (2023) interviewed Black, Latinx, Asian, and white female high school students in SWENext, an outreach program of the Society of Women Engineers, to look at whether and how they were critically reflecting on gender inequality. The authors found racial differences in the results. Black participants most commonly discussed gender inequality as systemic, and a relatively small number of Black and Latinx participants exhibited confidence that they can chip away at these systemic issues during their professional lives. However, “White respondents commonly invoked a ‘lean-in’ self-efficacy to be successful navigating, but not challenging, the white male-dominated engineering workforce” (p. 5).

Through interviews with 16 women of color engineering faculty, [the researchers] found that many of these women did not negotiate for wage increases, despite disparities between their own wages and those of their more privileged colleagues. 

These studies suggest that, to persist in male-dominated STEM disciplines, women can locate their challenges in structural and historic factors, rather than in more individualistic notions of success or failure. Critical reflection, analysis, and understanding of one’s positionality within oppressive systems can support girls and women to enter and advance in STEM pathways (see also Garcia et al., 2023).

Other researchers used qualitative methods to understand the experiences of women of color in faculty positions. For example, McGee et al. (2023) sought to uncover the dynamics of gendered and racialized wage disparities in academia. Through interviews with 16 women of color engineering faculty, they found that many of these women did not negotiate for wage increases, despite disparities between their own wages and those of their more privileged colleagues. For some, disengaging from salary negotiations was a method of coping or “self-preservation,” in large part because of the backlash that women (Mazei et al., 2015) and Black professionals (Hernandez et al., 2019) often face in negotiations. This troubling finding signals that university administrators should not put the onus on women of color to negotiate but should proactively work toward institutionalizing more equitable compensation structures.

Some studies considered how additional social identities interact with gender within STEM contexts. For example, Boyle et al. (2023) examined the school science participation of working-class Irish girls as part of a three-year STEM Passport for Inclusion longitudinal study. The researchers discovered that the girls displayed lower levels of confidence, self-efficacy, and interest in pursuing science than their peers. Similarly, Stahl & McDonald (2023) show that first-in-family working-class students in higher education can face particularly acute challenges getting acclimated, and that these challenges often have a gendered dimension.

By incorporating social class into a gender analysis of STEM education, we begin to better understand how students with overlapping racial/ethnic identities may benefit from different kinds of support structures or interventions. 

By incorporating social class into a gender analysis of STEM education, we begin to better understand how students with overlapping racial/ethnic identities may benefit from different kinds of support structures or interventions. This understanding is further complicated when considering nationality. In a survey of 1,492 Qatari high school students, Sellami et al. (2023) found that interest in STEM was not simply a function of gender, but also varied by students’ status as a Qatari national.

Overall, the research published this year provides additional insight into the many intersecting factors that predict interest and attainment in engineering and other STEM disciplines. By taking an intersectional approach to their research, these scholars are moving past colorblind notions of gender equity to recognize how inequities within STEM have impacted girls and women differently, depending on their various intersecting social identities.

The intersectional research this year has been primarily focused on women of color, which is an important perspective. Indeed, the concept of intersectionality originally focused on the overlapping race and gender oppressions Black women face (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989). In future years, we hope an intersectional lens will guide much of the literature in this review. We encourage additional gender scholars to study racialized inequities from an asset-based perspective, and to consider additional marginalized identities and their associations with gender (e.g., sexuality, dis/abilities, age, language use, and immigration status).

Damage-based vs. desire-based research

This year, as with previous years, much of the relevant research has sought to examine, explain, or quantify gendered inequities within STEM disciplines. This work can sometimes serve an important role for a couple of reasons. For one, it can help us understand the mechanisms through which inequities are perpetuated, thus informing potential interventions. Second, it can be used rhetorically to convince people with power that our professional and academic STEM ecosystems are, in fact, polluted by the ongoing legacies of racism, sexism, and colonialism.

However, research examining the outcomes of gendered inequities can also unwittingly perpetuate harmful narratives about the value or ability of women and gender minoritized individuals in STEM. The education scholar Eve Tuck (2009) uses the terms “damage-centered” and “damage-based” to describe “research that operates, even benevolently, from a theory of change that establishes harm or injury in order to achieve reparation” (p. 413).

As an “antidote” to damage-based research, Tuck (2009) suggests operating from “desire-based” frameworks, which “[…] yes, [account] for the loss and despair [systemically marginalized peoples face], but also the hope, the visions, the wisdom of lived lives and communities” (p. 416). Rather than focusing solely on damage, these frameworks open possibilities for understanding how minoritized communities use wisdom and hope to create more equitable futures.

This year there was an encouraging amount of research working from [a] desire-based frame. Out of this work, some common themes emerged, including allyship, cohort-style programs, and practical/experiential learning.

This year there was an encouraging amount of research working from this desire-based frame. Out of this work, some common themes emerged, including allyship, cohort-style programs, and practical/experiential learning. Studies examining allyship sought to better understand the role of allies, or people with dominant social identities who choose to actively support the rights of members of a targeted group (Broido, 1997).

Some researchers found that allyship workshops could be successful, particularly if they help cultivate an emotionally safe environment in which participants can discuss actual bias and discrimination they have encountered (Isaac et al., 2023). This outcome held constant, regardless of whether these workshops were done online or in person. Either way, the content of the workshop should be carefully considered, as this will directly affect participants’ takeaways. In an assessment of one allyship workshop for STEM faculty, the researchers found that participants generally prioritized nonconfrontational bystander interventions, and that lower-ranked professors were less likely to intervene (Ro et al., 2023). These professors — many of whom were white men — often felt that they lacked positional power to show up as an ally. In response to these findings, the researchers urge others designing allyship workshops to introduce techniques for strategic confrontation towards sexism, particularly aimed at faculty who have some degree of privilege, whether related to their race, gender, and/or tenure status.

Indeed, men can play a particularly important role in creating more equitable STEM environments. A literature review of 29 articles focusing on the role of Black fathers in the STEM learning of Black girls (Lewis Ellison et al., 2023) found that when the role of these fathers is appropriately supported, these men can help their daughters view themselves and their cultures in a favorable light. These authors call for more attention to the assets that exist in relationships between Black girls and Black fathers and for more Black fathers to share their STEM competencies to support their daughters’ STEM learning.

A focus group with women engineers revealed that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that included men and women were more effective than those focused solely on women.

In another study, a focus group with women engineers revealed that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that included men and women were more effective than those focused solely on women (Smith et al., 2023). This is in part because male engineers may feel excluded from those initiatives that involve only women or may not understand the goals of these initiatives. To increase allyship among men, interventionists should carefully consider the extent to which men will be included in an initiative. If they are not part of the focal participants, as they would be in a universal model (Patitsas et al., 2015), they might be offered separate allyship support tailored to their contexts. It is especially important to cultivate male scientists as allies because perceptions of their allyship create safer environments for gender minoritized individuals.

One study found that when white female students received cues from other women that a white male scientist was an ally, the students reported higher identity safety, interest, and self-efficacy (Johnson & Pietri, 2023). Notably, these “allyship cues” only mattered if they came from other women. In general, this research underscores the importance of allies in equity work. Those with more privilege are in a good position to reduce the labor that too often falls on gender minoritized individuals — particularly women of color and others with multiply minoritized identities.

Additional desire-based research showcased the potential of cohort-style programs, which create spaces for STEM learning and affinity among women and other nondominant groups. The age groups and experience levels these programs served varied. Girls Go Digital, for example, provides girls an alternative to mixed-gender summer technology camps (Grant, 2023). Other programs, like BridgeUP STEM, are geared for high school students and provide opportunities for girls and women to enter STEM professions through mentoring and internships (Johnson et al., 2023). Meanwhile, the I CAN PERSIST STEM Initiative, or ICPSTEM, is convening Black undergraduate women to facilitate the mutual support needed for persistence in their fields (Wilkins-Yel et al., 2023).

All these groups have different foci, depending on the populations they are concerned with. However, they share an understanding that re-mediating systemic inequities requires convening communities (Gutiérrez et al., 2009). Communities built around shared identities in particular can help create power for minoritized groups, while developing the confidence and skills of the individuals who are involved.

Communities built around shared identities in particular can help create power for minoritized groups, while developing the confidence and skills of the individuals who are involved.

Finally, some desire-based research emphasized the positive effects of curricula and environments centered around practical or experiential learning. While the benefits of experiential learning have been described for at least several decades (Dewey, 1938; see also Lewis & Williams, 1994), the research this year is beginning to tell us more about its potential positive effects for gender equity in STEM. If STEM education is geared specifically toward creating authentic, meaningful experiences for girls and women, more girls and women are likely to become involved — and remain — in STEM disciplines.

One undergraduate physics group increased women’s participation and retention by focusing on extracurricular learning opportunities that were relevant to these students (Balasubramanian et al., 2023). Rather than requiring these students to fulfill a standard research requirement, the group “invites a student to discover for themselves how best to uniquely experience physics. These opportunities not only increase the total number of students who participate […], but they also broaden and diversify how a physicist is defined in society” (p. 6).

This emphasis on heterogeneity and self-discovery was mirrored in other programs. For example, the success of an informal STEM program for girls of color was grounded in its unwavering focus on the participants’ lived experiences, as opposed to learning STEM skills purely for their own sake (Garcia et al., 2023). Moreover, by adopting the cohort-style model discussed above, the group was able to move toward a kind of educational intimacy (Uttamchandani, 2021) that, combined with practical, experiential learning, facilitated the girls’ intersectional sociopolitical development and interest in STEM.

Design principles from these programs could be applied more broadly. Evidence suggests that engineering students choose their majors based in part on practicality and personal interest (Poncio, 2023). Therefore, a more diverse engineering workforce could be achieved by making it easy and interesting for girls, women, and other gender minoritized individuals to get involved.

Individual-level and systems-level factors

Substantial portions of the 2023 literature focused on individual-level and/or systems-level factors that relate to gender disparities in engineering and STEM more broadly. Critical education scholars have long called for working to address systemic issues rather than attempting to “fix” individuals who face additional challenges because of systemic barriers.

For example, Gloria Ladson-Billings (2006) suggested that instead of an “achievement gap,” education researchers should focus on the “education debt” that has accumulated from centuries of inequitable systems and that negatively impacts marginalized communities. Similarly, Gutiérrez and colleagues (2009) argue for “re-mediating” these inequitable systems to build on students’ strengths, rather than using “remedial” approaches that view students from nondominant communities as deficient.

Several scholars in 2023 focused on ways to re-mediate academic and professional contexts to meet the needs of girls and women. Given that individual- and systems-level factors can shape and interact with each other (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), many studies include a focus on both. There are few, if any, 2023 citations that seem to suggest that individual-level disparities arise in a vacuum. At the same time, it is important to consider the balance of focus between individual- and systems-level factors that relate to gender disparities in STEM, as an overemphasis on individual-level factors can arguably lend itself to blaming individuals for systemic inequities.

It is important to consider the balance of focus between individual- and systems-level factors that relate to gender disparities in STEM, as an overemphasis on individual-level factors can arguably lend itself to blaming individuals for systemic inequities.

Indeed, numerous authors called for researchers to examine more systemic issues that matter for participation in STEM. In a review of 253 articles published before 2021, more than half of which focused on gender disparities, the authors found that individual-level factors were the most commonly studied contributors to choosing a career in computer science or STEM more generally (López et al., 2023).

Additionally, researchers used two theories most often: expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1983) and social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002). The former suggests that students make decisions based on whether they value a task and whether they expect to be able to do it. The latter theory suggests that our choices are driven by our personal experience, social observation and interaction, and physiological factors. Both theories offer conceptual tools for acknowledging the importance of systemic factors in learners’ STEM participation. However, their extensive use suggests an opportunity to diversify the theoretical frameworks that drive research about participation in STEM.

In a review article focused on “gender inclusion and fit in STEM,” Schmader (2023) calls for researchers to pay additional attention to the ways gender stereotypes are culturally pervasive, and to look beyond women’s individual-level characteristics like self-efficacy, abilities, and interests. Indeed, self-efficacy and confidence were two of the more common individual-level focal variables in the studies we reviewed. The predominant focus of this research emphasizes factors that influence the feelings individuals have about their abilities. One survey of undergraduate engineering students at two land-grant universities in the United States found that participants’ experiences of doing well are perhaps the most important factor shaping self-efficacy. In addition, the study found that women more often than men cited social sources (e.g., friends, advisors) of their sense of self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2023).

One survey of undergraduate engineering students at two land-grant universities in the United States found that participants’ experiences of doing well are perhaps the most important factor shaping self-efficacy. 

Other studies we reviewed provide additional insight into the nature of self-efficacy and related concepts. For example, one quasi-experiment indicates that women faculty mentors can help increase self-efficacy for undergraduate STEM students who are women and/or from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (Kuchynka et al., 2023).

Furthermore, an interview study with 21 female undergraduate engineering students suggests self-efficacy is shaped by their experiences in completing challenging tasks (mastery experiences) and receiving affirmation of their capacity to succeed (verbal or social persuasions) (Liang et al., 2023). These are aspects of social cognitive theory (2023). Additional research with biomedical graduate students and postdoctorate students suggests that self-efficacy can be shaped by social identities — race, ethnicity, and gender — as well as mentorship, whether individuals were seeking to work in academia, and how advanced respondents were in their careers (Chatterjee et al., 2023).

While research on self-efficacy has yielded useful insights for increasing equity in STEM fields, there has been an effort to look beyond this fairly individualistic construct to better understand additional factors that predict academic success. For example, a survey of engineering graduate students at one large Midwestern university found that “feeling welcome and included” significantly predicted commitment to completing an engineering degree (Fitzpatrick et al., 2023). Moreover, most of this effect (70%) operated independently of self-efficacy. The authors argue that this finding is important because it demonstrates that social and cultural contexts can strongly affect persistence in engineering and should therefore be a focus of additional research.

While research on self-efficacy has yielded useful insights for increasing equity in STEM fields, there has been an effort to look beyond this fairly individualistic construct to better understand additional factors that predict academic success.

As in years past, some research also focused more squarely on systemic factors to better contextualize women’s academic and professional STEM performance. A fair number of these studies document systemic barriers, discuss how women navigate them, and/or suggest possible ways for researchers and practitioners to address them. For example, an interview study focused on China’s tech sector found that women are often deemed less capable of performing particular programming subspecialties. To persist in these contexts, they demonstrate flexibility in their behavior and with respect to forging their career path (Li, 2023).

Systemic factors also impact women of color in academic contexts. For example, a phenomenological study focused on the experiences of three female Nigerian American STEM students at one university in the United States (Sparks, 2023). The researcher found that the participants’ intersecting identities shaped their experiences in meaningful ways. For example, they found that the participants “will continue to be policed by hegemonic powers because of their bodies, identity, gender, and immigrant status” (p. 286). In response to these systemic oppressive forces, the author argues that future research should further explore how microcultures in STEM departments might support or neglect students who are African immigrants, Black, or identify with other minoritized groups.

Given the severity and pervasiveness of systemic factors in exacerbating gendered inequities in STEM, we conclude this section with recommendations derived from one study we reviewed. Through in-depth surveys with 37 early-career researchers within the fields of geomorphology and earth/environmental science, Alderson and colleagues (2023) infer that women in their sample tended to be more concerned than men with compensation, job security, and their ability to make choices about where they live and work. In response, the authors suggest several policy changes for STEM employers to support women and early-career researchers:

• clarify parental leave policies,
• create flexible working opportunities,
• formalize and enhance mentorship opportunities,
• anonymize job applicants’ social identities for part of the recruitment process,
• establish dedicated recruitment streams for jobseekers from underrepresented groups,
• limit the number of short-term contracts,
• clarify employment rights for employees on short-term contracts, and
• establish ‘transparency and clarity’ on salary scales and promotion criteria.

Many of these recommendations were echoed in the research this year, and additional research would be helpful for continuing to uncover how these policies might improve gender equity in various STEM contexts.

International perspectives

A substantial number of studies reviewed this year originated outside the United States, though most of the research was produced in this country. This is in part because researchers in the United States have been prolific in studying gendered inequities in STEM, and the United States is the largest producer of scientific documents (Scopus, 2023). It is also because of a language bias in which English-language articles are more likely to be sought out and reviewed.

In this year’s review, we excluded non-English articles entirely, due to capacity limitations. We recognize that this strategy necessarily precludes us from achieving more equity in the review process. While acknowledging this limitation of the current review, we dedicate this section exclusively to literature focused on populations outside of the United States. By calling special attention to this research (in addition to including it throughout this review), we hope to amplify the important voices of researchers across the globe.

We will proceed by sketching out themes of research in particular countries and regions. In interpreting these findings, we encourage readers and researchers to consider the diversity and nuances within these locales, even while uncovering high-level themes. The section concludes with a description of two studies in which data were collected across multiple countries.

One study found that 15- to 17-year-old girls in Kenyan science classes faced many obstacles to their success. These included stereotypes, pressure from peers and parents, and inadequate resources, as well as the “smart kids” syndrome, or the unfair assumption that girls enrolled in select science classes “know it all.”

Generally, research in Africa looked at some of the challenges and opportunities associated with girls’ and women’s participation in STEM. One study (Machocho Mwang’ombe & Mwingi, 2023) found that 15- to 17-year-old girls in Kenyan science classes faced many obstacles to their success. These included stereotypes, pressure from peers and parents, and inadequate resources, as well as the “smart kids” syndrome, or the unfair assumption that girls enrolled in select science classes “know it all.” At the same time, the girls were found to possess multiple assets, including mentorship, support networks, an expectation of success, and “a naturally inclined love and interest in science” (p. 1270).

Fussy et al. (2023) use a qualitative multiple case study methodology to further describe some of the structural limitations faced by girls in STEM. Looking at science teachers and female students across several schools and regions of Tanzania, they highlight the scarcity of female science teachers who could serve as mentors and role models for girls. They also draw attention to the heavy domestic workloads that many girls were given, which limits the amount of time they can spend on science.

Research in India is providing additional context about gender inequities of working professionals in STEM. One retrospective analysis of public data from the Indian Institutes of Technology reveals that women faculty are underrepresented across STEM disciplines in general, and especially within higher ranks in these disciplines (Amirtham & Kumar, 2023). The analysis also shows that there has been a decline in women Ph.D. graduates in some disciplines (e.g., electrical engineering), though in others (e.g., mechanical engineering) there has been an increase. This somewhat mixed trend in academia has been further scrutinized by, for example, Bansal et al. (2023), who show that women publish less than their male colleagues in Indian universities and publish more often as solo authors, which may mean they have less access to collaborators.

The authors also note that women are more likely to publish in higher-ranked journals. The authors conjecture that this discrepancy could be the result of a “survivor bias,” with the women who remain in the field “perhaps performing better than their male counterparts” (p. 286). The authors also note that women are likely stifled in career advancement due to a lack of early-career mentorship opportunities, as well as a “marriage and motherhood penalty” (p. 286), in which they shoulder the bulk of domestic and childrearing responsibilities. Fortunately, organizations have sprung up to address some of these challenges.

The issue is not that women in China are unable to perform well in math-intensive STEM fields, but rather, they opt out of these fields at disproportionate rates.

Research from China this year was varied, but nonetheless shows how gendered inequities play out across a range of STEM settings. One study sought to better understand the relative scarcity of women in math-intensive STEM majors, such as engineering and computer science (Li et al., 2023). Through an analysis of data from the National College Entrance Examination, the authors showed that test scores actually play less of a role than student interest. In other words, the issue is not that women in China are unable to perform well in math-intensive STEM fields, but rather, they opt out of these fields at disproportionate rates. While this kind of research helps clarify why inequities persist, some Chinese scholars have sought to design studies that aim to encourage more meaningful participation by girls and women.

For example, Zhong et al. (2023) looked at the effects of pair learning in fifth-grade robotics classes. They found that pairing students improved girls’ learning engagement, and mixed-gender pairings were more beneficial for girls than single-gender pairings. These findings encourage STEM equity advocates to consider how a variety of resources for female students could work well together, from cohort-style programs with other female students to supported opportunities to work with classmates of all genders.

While no single country in the Middle East produced a substantial amount of relevant research, the region as a whole was home to ample research dedicated to gender equity in STEM. Some of this research looked at the interests and aspirations of students and — in some cases — how teachers can shape this. For example, there were multiple relevant studies from Saudi Arabia.

Teacher practices and attitudes were shown to be positively associated with students’ achievement in math and science, and female teachers held more positive attitudes toward teaching, to the benefit of their students.

First, a survey of female high school students showed that greater confidence in computer science and seeing computer science as useful corresponded with more interest and engagement in computer science classrooms (Albakri et al., 2023). Second, teacher practices and attitudes were shown to be positively associated with students’ achievement in math and science, and female teachers held more positive attitudes toward teaching, to the benefit of their students (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2023).

At the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, having a female science advisor positively corresponded with female students’ enrollment and graduation in STEM disciplines (Canaan and Mouganie, 2023). For example, following a meeting with advisors, more female students with female science advisors enrolled in a STEM course before they had taken any other courses. In supplementary analyses, authors also show that the effects of these models are stronger in fields in which women are underrepresented. These last two studies suggest that reducing gender disparities in STEM education professions could have a positive secondary effect of increasing STEM participation and achievement by female students. (For more on the relationship between women engineering faculty and positive outcomes for women studying engineering, see “Representation Matters,” page 54.)

In Israel, researchers conducted a survey of ninth-grade students in both Hebrew-language and Arabic-language schools about their aspirations for computing jobs (Budge et al., 2023). They found that there was a smaller gender gap in schools serving the Arab/Palestinian population, which the authors suggest may be because increased socioeconomic precariousness provides an impetus for female students to work toward more lucrative careers.

Europe was also home to a considerable amount of relevant research this year, and the themes resonate with research from the other countries and regions described in this section. For example, through a survey of female students aged 16–20 in Germany, researchers found that teacher behavior was the most important factor for their attitudes toward STEM (Steffen et al., 2023).

In addition to (and perhaps because of) unfair treatment from teachers, imposter syndrome also continues to affect girls and women in STEM.

Unlike the case in Saudi Arabia, the German students in this study described “unfair and abusive treatment” (Steffen et al., 2023, p. 221) that too often served as a barrier to their enrollment and success in STEM. In addition to (and perhaps because of) unfair treatment from teachers, imposter syndrome also continues to affect girls and women in STEM. A survey of engineering students at the University of Madrid showed that first-year female students experienced imposter syndrome significantly more than their male counterparts (Domínguez-Soto et al., 2023). The same study points to transformational leadership as a potential solution, in which teachers and other educational leaders serve as role models to inspire innovation and personal growth.

The studies mentioned in this section thus far have all provided invaluable insights for helping to move toward more equity in STEM in local or national contexts within a particular country. In addition, a small number of studies looked intentionally across multiple countries to better understand relationships between them. Petroff and Fierro (2023) analyzed data from Spanish and Argentinian users of a crowdsourcing platform for hiring workers. They found that in both countries, the share of men is greater than that of women in the “gig economy” of STEM-related tasks, but gender variations in hourly wages are relatively small.

Another study was focused on interest and stereotypes in engineering across students in Ireland, Kenya, and Sweden (Buckley et al., 2023). The researchers administered the “draw an engineer test,” which prompts respondents to draw an engineer and may point to participants’ perceptions about what the “standard” engineer looks like. Results suggested that Irish students were the most likely among the three national groups to draw engineers in a way that researchers read as male. However, gender was a more important predictor than nationality with respect to the gender presentation of the engineers that students drew. Like the Petroff and Fierro (2023) article, this study provides evidence that gender discrimination manifests and varies across international lines.

Stereotypes and biases

Last year’s review explored the ways that gender stereotypes affect girls’ career choices at an early age. The report also discussed how gender bias leads to inequitable hiring practices. This year, we combined stereotypes and biases into one section to demonstrate how the two work together to perpetuate gendered inequities. Indeed, the two are closely linked, since stereotypes can form the basis of biases. The 2023 research related to gender stereotypes and biases generally describes evidence of these two constructs and how they can influence gender inequity in engineering and STEM.

We understand stereotypes as simplistic preconceived understandings of a person or thing based on one or more characteristics of that person or thing. Much of the 2023 literature about gender in engineering or STEM has discussed the existence of stereotypes and their potential impact on generating and/or reinforcing biases.

To consider stereotypical images of engineers and scientists, Keren and Kapon (2023) took a novel approach and analyzed 1,022 English-language jokes about these two groups found through multiple online searches. They found that there is balance in the rate at which scientists are perceived as women and men, but engineers are typically gendered male.

Both girl and boy students drew engineers as men most of the time, suggesting an association between engineering and maleness. 

In the study mentioned previously involving Ireland, Kenya, and Sweden, 1,232 students were asked to draw an engineer (Buckley et al., 2023). Both girl and boy students drew engineers as men most of the time, suggesting an association between engineering and maleness. This association appeared stronger for boys — they drew male engineers 74% to 94% of the time, depending on country, while girls drew male engineers 52% to 63% of the time. This helps demonstrate the importance of addressing stereotypes among boys.

Research also discussed the internalized influence of stereotypes for girls and women in engineering and STEM. Schmader (2023), for example, conducted a review of the psychology literature regarding women’s inclusion in STEM. The author concluded that gender stereotypes, rather than individual-level explanations, play a central role in maintaining gender disparities by limiting women’s ability to feel as if they fit in STEM and thereby lowering their interest.

Another article found that gender stereotypes play an important role in shaping academic performance in STEM in high school, but not college (Wrigley-Asante et al., 2023). Instead of stereotypes, Wrigley-Asante and colleagues show that teaching approaches, parental support, and efforts to empower women are more important in higher education. These results came from a multi-methods approach, including surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups with university students from five STEM departments at the University of Ghana.

It may be the case that the differences in results relate to the possibility that girls who are more susceptible to the negative effects of stereotypes might avoid STEM majors in college and may therefore be excluded from that portion of the study.

Some research examined different types of stereotypes. Dunlap and Barth (2023) studied implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) stereotypes and found that the former may be more important to address than the latter regarding women’s persistence in STEM. Through a survey of 240 women from a single university in the southeastern United States, the authors found that women in STEM were less likely than women in women-dominant majors to have implicit associations between maleness and STEM careers. At the same time, women in STEM (and those more advanced in their studies, regardless of major) had more explicit associations between masculinity and STEM, which the authors suggest may have accumulated through their experience as minoritized individuals within STEM.

Biases are closely linked with stereotypes since they comprise favoring or disfavoring a person or thing based on stereotypes. Several 2023 articles demonstrated instances in which gender biases operated against women.

Biases are closely linked with stereotypes since they comprise favoring or disfavoring a person or thing based on stereotypes. Several 2023 articles demonstrated instances in which gender biases operated against women. In a climate study of undergraduate engineering programs at a U.S.-based land-grant university, engineering students reported a “climate gap” that disadvantaged people based on gender, race, LGBTQIA+ status, status as a transfer student, and being a student with a family. And this was true regardless of whether the survey respondents were women of color, men of color, white women, or white men (Davis et al., 2023). While white men tended to report smaller climate gaps, perhaps because of their lower likelihood of interacting with disadvantage, this demonstrates that there is a widespread acknowledgement of inequities within this institution.

Multiple studies about bias focused on hiring and promotion. Friedmann and Efrat-Treister (2023) conducted a focus group and curricula vitae evaluation with managers in the computer science and biorobotics industries from the United States and the United Kingdom. They found that men, but not women, had bias against women when hiring. Specifically, men managers raised concerns about women’s abilities to work long hours when reviewing women’s CVs.

Baker and colleagues (2023) conducted a study of the annual gender equality reports of nearly 500 engineering and construction organizations in Australia and found, to some extent, a virtuous cycle for addressing gender bias at work. Specifically, they reported that having more women managers often corresponded with more women being hired and promoted in management and nonmanagement roles. However, there was no evidence that having more women in top management positions related to the hiring and promotion of other women. This suggests different gender dynamics in middle and upper-level management.

Despite the evidence of gender biases, there are also studies that suggest these forces may be more contained than the literature typically suggests. For example, Ceci and colleagues (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of research on gender biases in the science workplace. These authors found evidence of biases in two domains: teaching evaluations and salary. But they did not find evidence in four other domains: tenure-track hiring, grant funding in the United States, journal submission acceptances, and faculty recommendation letters. These authors argue that it is important to highlight null findings, in part so that interventions can be better tailored to the true needs of the field. If women see scientific fields as less biased than commonly believed, they might be more likely to pursue them.

Researchers also described promising interventions to help address stereotypes. For example, Breda and colleagues (2023) conducted a large-scale experiment with high school students in Paris and found that inviting women scientists for multiple visits with students corresponded with reduced gendered images of scientists. Scholars are also documenting role models who dispel stereotypes about who can be a scientist. They have done so by publishing work detailing women scientists’ histories and contributions (Chowdhury, 2023; Steele & Challis, 2023), or by documenting women scientists who share knowledge and serve as role models on TikTok (Huber and Baena).

Support networks, mentors, and role models

Broad representation in engineering and STEM is important because of the benefits of having relatable people to connect with, draw support from, and look up to. As in past years, this has been a focus within the literature, with themes related to documenting the importance of support networks, mentors, and role models for women in engineering and STEM. The research hails from several countries and generally suggests that community, other social supports, and exemplars can boost the participation of girls and women in engineering and STEM. Research also highlights women who serve as the scientific role models some girls and women need.

Building on this, research from 2023 showed that exposure to relational supports at work and in the classroom matters for women. In a survey of 144 women in biomechanics in 16 countries, a supportive working environment was one of three central needs that respondents identified (along with support for career planning and addressing gender bias in the workplace) (Ebrahimi et al., 2023).

Wilkins-Yel and colleagues (2023) found that a multigenerational “counter space” — a “transformative STEM [space] that holistically [supports participants’] intersecting identities” (p. 269) — supported women of color’s persistence in STEM. Having this space — where they could gather, reflect, and offer one another support — helped them integrate their orientation toward social justice into their STEM identities, and helped them focus on their well-being.

Having this space — where [women] could gather, reflect, and offer one another support — helped them integrate their orientation toward social justice into their STEM identities, and helped them focus on their well-being.

In another study, Zhang (2023) analyzed student exams in a second-year statics and dynamics course at the University of Michigan and fielded surveys about student experiences with a project-based extra-credit activity. Most students worked in groups with other students. The author found that participating in the activity helped women students improve learning and boost exam grades more than it helped men students. Zhang partly attributed these findings to the collaborative and inclusive environment the activity created.

Research also suggests that mentors and role models play an important role in shaping women’s participation in STEM — and that mentors and role models may even have a detrimental effect if they do not treat their responsibilities to students with care. For example, Ortiz-Martínez and colleagues (2023) analyzed 2014 admissions data at a private university in Mexico, and fielded a survey of students at the same university in 2022. The authors emphasized the key role faculty played in shaping women’s higher education experiences in STEM. “Faculty may be considered a positive factor when transmitting the passion for knowledge, motivation, friendliness, support, solidarity, empathy, companionship, and mentoring students about the future, but harmful if not” (p. 10). In short, when women students work with faculty who demonstrate an interest in their work and in the careers of their mentees, the students’ resolve to stay in the field is enhanced. These results prompted the authors to suggest mentoring programs for women to help boost their participation in STEM.

In another study, De Gioannis and co-authors (2023) conducted a scoping review of the past 30 years’ worth of research on role models in STEM. They reported that there has been a great deal of variation in the methods and findings from studies on how role models might support girls and women in STEM. These authors found that exposure to role models is generally beneficial, though this is not always the case, and in some instances these exposures may even be detrimental. However, they argue, further research is necessary to add more coherence to the relevant body of work and to be able to draw stronger conclusions.

Additional studies cite the importance of same-gender role models. For example, Sevilla and colleagues (2023) analyzed administrative data regarding 10th- and 11th-graders from the Chilean Ministry of Education and found that female students in applied STEM programs who have at least one woman vocational technical teacher have a 9.6% higher probability of enrolling in STEM higher education. This observed relationship stands regardless of class size — suggesting that role models may be beneficial even if there is limited opportunity for direct contact between the student and professor — and does not apply to male students.

The results suggested that, overall, personally known role models were more important than famous role models. 

Midgley and co-authors (2023) considered whether STEM role models were same-gender (for women and men) and whether they were personally known or famous. The results suggested that, overall, personally known role models were more important than famous role models. Mediation analyses also showed that for women in STEM, personally known role models and women role models were seen as embodying achievable futures and therefore motivated the study participants more.

Research in 2023 also served as a venue for campaigns to provide exposure to role models and/or to describe these campaigns. Chowdhury (2023) wrote an article featuring the histories of several Asian women pioneers in STEM, particularly from China, India, and Japan. The author suggests that these women did not have role models, but developed networks of support that helped them pave the way for others to follow. Steele and Challis (2023), responding to research that suggests that elevating the contributions of notable women biomechanists can combat bias and stereotyping, wrote an article to elevate the stories and contributions of such women.

Finally, Huber and Baena (2023) analyzed 150 videos from 50 TikTok accounts of women involved in science who used academic hashtags. This article reported that women post about their experiences (including as women scientists and as private individuals living potentially relatable lives), discuss scientific concepts, demonstrate the scientific process, and contradict stereotypes. Through their presence on TikTok, these women are chipping away at the limited access some girls and women have to women role models in STEM.

Recruitment

This section outlines themes in the 2023 literature focused on recruitment of women and girls (trans and cisgender) and gender-nonconforming individuals in engineering and STEM. Dozens of articles focused on this mature area of the literature, with some articles describing and/or explaining gender differences in recruitment into these fields. A substantial portion of the work described interventions aimed at improving the recruitment of women and girls and the practical implications of their findings. Several interventions improved interest in STEM careers for women and girls and can provide models that can be adapted in additional contexts. Some interventions did not achieve their desired results and can also inspire critical reflection for others working in this area.

The 2023 research describing the state of gendered recruitment into engineering and STEM portrays the field as slowly moving toward women-men gender parity, with geographic and disciplinary variation. Jamali and Abbasi (2023) conducted a bibliometric analysis of Australian publications and suggested it would be decades before there is female-male gender parity in this area, at the current rate of change.

Additional research demonstrated gender gap variation across geographies. Varma and colleagues (2023) focused on women’s participation in STEM in South and Southeast Asia; they noted that the representation is generally increasing, and they highlighted recruitment efforts in some countries. For example, public and private efforts at recruiting more women into STEM have been undertaken in Singapore (Bhadra et al., 2023, cited in Varma et al., 2023). Initiatives often aimed to boost representation by making women scientists visible, connecting women with each other, and supporting women’s development of professional and support networks. Efforts also supported women’s professional development through facilitating mentorship, self-reflection, and growth in leadership skills. In Sri Lanka, while engineering has the lowest representation of women among the STEM fields (32%) (Varma et al., 2023), the proportion of women is nevertheless substantially higher than in many other countries.

Several 2023 studies focused on individual-level explanations for gaps in recruitment, focusing on differences in interests and motivations. Such work implies an opportunity to better align male-dominated disciplines with the interests and motivations of gender minoritized individuals and to clearly communicate this alignment. 

Several 2023 studies focused on individual-level explanations for gaps in recruitment, focusing on differences in interests and motivations. Such work implies an opportunity to better align male-dominated disciplines with the interests and motivations of gender minoritized individuals and to clearly communicate this alignment. Li and colleagues (2023) analyzed 2014–2015 college admissions test scores of more than 64,000 students in Ningxia, China. They found that women perform similarly in math scores but tend to prefer different disciplines than do men, and argue that these differences in interest do more to shape differences in major than do test scores.

In another study, Sellami and colleagues (2023) considered Qatari high school students’ interest in STEM. They found that female expatriate students in Qatar, whose home countries were not specified, are more likely than Qatari girls and boys and male expatriates to be interested in STEM. There was no significant difference in interest among Qatari girls and boys, demonstrating that gender differences in interest are not a given.

As previously discussed, research on recruitment included studies that relate to the influence of role models. Having role models of women in science corresponds with higher enrollment in STEM degree programs in Beirut (Canaan & Mouganie, 2023) and Chile (Sevilla et al., 2023).

Breda and colleagues (2023) conducted an experiment in 98 high schools in Paris, which involved more than 19,000 students and 56 role models who visited classes of 10th- and 12th-grade students. The role models completed four visits, which focused on: sharing the need for labor in STEM and the fact that women are underrepresented; countering stereotypes about who can succeed in STEM; sharing the role model’s experience in the field; and outlining the diversity of STEM careers available. The authors found that the interventions corresponded with reduced stereotypical images of STEM workers and an increased likelihood that high-achieving 12th-grade girls would enroll in male-dominated STEM programs in college. Aligning with the idea that damage-centered work can reinforce stereotypes (Tuck, 2009), the higher likelihood of enrolling in a STEM program was particularly the case when role models did not overemphasize the underrepresentation of women in STEM.

To recruit African American girls into cybersecurity and computing, Bailey and colleagues (2023) offered culturally responsive teaching about these fields to African American female middle school students in Baltimore. These students participated in Morgan State University’s GenCyber: Females are Cyber Stars summer camp and reported increased knowledge and interest in these fields after the program. The authors described multiple successful approaches: connecting students with ethnically matched role models — faculty, student facilitators, and cyber professionals — as well as using culturally relevant images in marketing and educational materials, incorporating interactive activities that highlight the relevance of STEM to real life, and facilitating socioemotional learning activities.

Another study focused on the University of Pennsylvania’s Emerging Scholars Program, which recruited first- and second-year students with undeclared majors (Powell et al., 2023). The program involved collaborative problem-solving facilitated by peer leaders. Administrative data found that large portions of participants chose computer science or mathematics majors or minors, with the highest rates for Black and Hispanic males (77% of participants) and the lowest rates for Black and Hispanic females (41%). Roughly two-thirds of racially/ethnically “majority” females (63%) (undefined, but ostensibly not Black or Hispanic) and “majority” males (65%) also enrolled in a relevant major or minor. This highlights the benefit of this program, while suggesting the opportunity for additional support for women from racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in STEM. Students reported that the program exposed them to “new ways of thinking,” to the realities of computer science and math, and to various career pathways within these disciplines. Students also reported benefiting from the opportunity to develop friendships and a computer science/math community, as well as from working with peers or leaders/mentors.

Another study focused on the University of Pennsylvania’s Emerging Scholars Program. …  Students reported that the program exposed them to “new ways of thinking,” to the realities of computer science and math, and to various career pathways within these disciplines.

Multiple articles also reported that interventions did not achieve the desired outcomes. In one of the few studies in 2023 that focused on transgender and gender-nonconforming people, Figard and colleagues (2023) conducted pre- and post-surveys with high school students participating in one or two semesters of e4usa, a precollege engineering course that aimed to build more equitable engineering learning environments for preengineering students. Nine of 371 students reported being transgender or gender-nonconforming, and results showed these students were actually less likely after the course to express interest in pursuing engineering.

Though the authors could not say definitively, they argued that these students may have experienced marginalization in the program, perhaps particularly during teamwork. To promote positive change, the authors highlighted the importance of examining and addressing transphobia and heteronormativity within classrooms, including using terms that correspond only to the gender binary and the possibility of misgendering students or deadnaming them (calling them by a name they used prior to a gender transition). They also suggested teachers and administrators should examine their own privilege and perceptions of transgender and gender-nonconforming students, center these students in advocacy and research toward generating solutions, and build solutions off work that includes the voices of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals.

Indeed, the authors called for more work that centers the voices of trans and gender-nonconforming students (2023). They suggest larger-scale quantitative and qualitative studies, noting that the latter may be particularly well-suited to highlighting participants’ voices. Doing so could incorporate a desire-based approach that helps document the assets of trans and nonbinary people, which can also assist us in understanding how to improve conditions and better support them.

Additionally, some interventions had mixed results, achieving only some of their goals. Vossen and colleagues (2023) presented a lesson series focused on inclusion and diversity in space science that was implemented in two primary schools in the Netherlands. Surveys and interviews with 65 10- and 12-year-old students found that the series improved perceptions of and interest in the field but did not improve interest in pursuing a career in space science. The array of studies in this section, and their varying outcomes, can provide material for critical reflection among those aiming to improve the recruitment of gender minoritized people in STEM.

Retention and advancement

Last year’s literature review highlighted ongoing debates about whether social equity initiatives should focus primarily on recruiting or retaining women in STEM fields. While recognizing that organizations indeed choose strategic priorities amid limited resources, we underscore that these dual efforts — recruitment and retention — can work together synergistically to benefit each other. Or, if not attended to adequately, recruitment and retention issues can compound, further exacerbating inequities.

In a literature review of women in computer science, for example, Read et al. (2023) describe a negative feedback loop in which the lack of women’s representation makes it less appealing for women to enter and remain in the field. Silva et al. (2023) published similar findings based on interviews with women engineering students in Brazil. One student said that “the presence of women in leadership positions turns out to be a mirror for women who want similar places in the job market” (p. 5). The authors suggest multiple solutions, which are echoed throughout the literature: reduce gender stereotypes, increase organizational flexibility, establish wage parity, and empower women. Research in 2023 generally concurs with these strategies, supporting a close connection with efforts to retain women and efforts to support their career advancement.

In the remainder of this section, we describe scholarship that delves into three emergent themes related to retention and advancement: publishing, compensation, and domestic responsibilities.

Publishing one’s work is an important aspect of advancement in many STEM career paths and can serve as a proxy for recognition and stability. This is especially salient for early-career scholars who do not have tenure and are still establishing their professional networks. A recent survey of female engineering education faculty found that 80% of respondents “always have stress” related to research and publications (Rani et al., 2023). Women carry this stress with them daily, adding additional barriers to work environments that are already often cold and hostile.

A recent survey of female engineering education faculty found that 80% of respondents “always have stress” related to research and publications. Women carry this stress with them daily, adding additional barriers to work environments that are already often cold and hostile.

In 2023, several studies reported on bibliometric analyses aimed to identify and describe the persistence of gendered inequities in STEM-related publishing. These studies provide quantitative evidence, demonstrating how the ongoing impact of these inequities shows up in different ways across fields. In a review of orthopedic literature, researchers found that 86% of first authors were men, and men were more likely to publish in higher-rated journals (Ghattas et al., 2023).

In psychological research, women have been underrepresented in invited submissions to high-impact journals (Mackelprang et al., 2023). Also recall the previously mentioned research on agricultural and applied economics in India, in which women were found to publish less than men, but notably, they tend to publish in higher-ranked journals more frequently than their male colleagues (Bansal et al., 2023).

On the other hand, within obstetrics disease prevalence literature, studies published in low-income countries were less likely to have a woman as first author (Román Gálvez et al., 2023). These findings remind researchers that national and disciplinary contexts can serve as significant mediating factors, sometimes supporting women, but often working against them. Though some have suggested that the gender gap in publishing can be explained by differences in individuals’ productivity (Madison & Sundell, 2023), most research points to more systemic barriers.

To overcome these inequities, one strategy involves ensuring gender diversity among editorial board members, where gender gaps have been demonstrated in some fields (e.g., Massa et al., 2023).

In general, research suggests that establishing wage parity should be the responsibility of the employer and not the individual employees, who are forced to navigate tenuous hiring and compensation processes in professions with long histories of sexism. 

Beyond reducing barriers to publishing, some scholars have emphasized the importance of wage parity for women’s retention and advancement in STEM careers. In general, research suggests that establishing wage parity should be the responsibility of the employer and not the individual employees, who are forced to navigate tenuous hiring and compensation processes in professions with long histories of sexism. This is particularly important when considering the experiences of women of color, and others who are multiply minoritized in the workplace. As mentioned earlier, McGee et al. (2023) found that engineers who are women of color tend not to negotiate as aggressively as men, in part to protect themselves from backlash and mistreatment. In addition to this lack of safety, gendered pay gaps may stem from gender segregation around different roles in the workplace.

An analysis of recently released data from the Association of American Medical Colleges shows that women deans tend to occupy lower-ranked decanal positions than men, and thus receive lower median compensation than their male colleagues (Gottlieb et al., 2023). Similar hierarchies have also been identified in other contexts. For example, as mentioned previously, through interviews with female software engineers in Chinese internet companies, Li (2023) discovered a gendered hierarchy of subspecialties. Women tended to occupy positions with lower rankings and compensation, such as data analysis and web design, as opposed to the more male-dominated subspecialties of back- and front-end development. Reaching wage parity will likely require employers to take steps to eradicate gendered hierarchies and to systematically provide greater transparency and accountability with respect to compensation processes.

Another barrier to women’s retention and advancement involves their familial and parental responsibilities. Women have historically been expected to serve as the caregiver at the expense of their careers, and this dynamic was exacerbated during the pandemic, when women disproportionately cared for children and managed additional domestic responsibilities (Petts et al., 2021). As a result of this dynamic, women have been facing significant barriers to advancement: fewer opportunities to achieve traditional measures of productivity; less “face time” and relationship-building capacity with managers and colleagues; and demoralization from their impractical load of personal and professional responsibilities (Blackburn, 2023).

A recent Delphi analysis of women in academic senior leadership positions in STEM demonstrated that “[c]onflicting family obligations was considered the most relevant factor that inhibited advancement” (Luthi & Kosloski, 2023, p. 118). The authors acknowledge that addressing this issue will not be a simple fix, though some relatively straightforward modifications to existing policies can help, such as enabling candidates to submit equity statements as part of their applications for tenure.

Overall, recent research is describing some of the ways that sexism has become entrenched in STEM institutions, despite significant strides to reduce inequities. Attention to wage and publication disparities, informed by how domestic responsibilities disproportionately affect women, could help researchers and practitioners create structures to support women and other gender minoritized people to succeed in STEM careers.

Hope for the future

Much of the research for this review underscored the many challenges that girls, women, and other gender minoritized individuals face as they endeavor to participate in STEM disciplines. Earlier in this review we advocated for moving away from research that centers this kind of damage, to a more desire-based frame (Tuck, 2009). We also highlighted examples of desire-based research from 2023 that discussed successful programs, policies, and interventions. In this penultimate section we continue a similar trend; the scholarship we showcase here offers hope that, with the right kinds of collaboration and creativity, STEM researchers and practitioners can advance the field by supporting ongoing efforts to redress historical gendered inequities.

Rather than offering interventions, here we point out more descriptive research that suggests areas in which conditions are improving. At the same time, we emphasize that STEM disciplines continue to be vastly inequitable; our purpose in this section is not to sugarcoat these persistent inequities, but instead to show areas that are beginning to improve, so that we may consider how to build on these efforts.

First, we offer research that looks at STEM professionals. Then, we consider various academic settings in which students are challenging common perceptions of gendered inequities.

These findings indicate that academic publishing is moving in the right direction. However, the authors describe the rate of progress as “slow” and “concerning;” at the current rate, it will still take decades to reach gender parity.

Evidence of increasing gender equity is somewhat scattered across STEM professional spheres, with research being fairly idiosyncratic to particular disciplines and contexts. To take one example, Reis et al. (2023) surveyed civil engineers in Australia about their career optimism. They found that for male civil engineers, career optimism declines with experience, but the opposite is true for women and other gender minoritized civil engineers. The authors surmise a couple of possibilities to explain this finding. For one, gender minoritized civil engineers who are not optimistic early in their career might be less likely to push beyond the additional barriers they face to persist in their careers and would therefore be excluded from the population. Second, the Australian government’s recent amendment to the Workplace Gender Equality Act may have helped gender minoritized civil engineers become more optimistic. This latter explanation signals the profound impact that policy decisions may have on the optimism (and perhaps retention) of women in STEM.

To put the results of this single study into a broader context, consider a bibliometric analysis of all Australian scientific publications from 2010 to 2020 (Jamali & Abbasi, 2023). The authors found that across nearly every field of research (except information and computing sciences), the ratio of female to male first-authored articles increased. Moreover, the percentage of single-authored articles by females also increased. These findings indicate that academic publishing is moving in the right direction. However, the authors describe the rate of progress as “slow” and “concerning;” at the current rate, it will still take decades to reach gender parity.

In contrast, a bibliometric analysis in the field of animal cognition shows that gender parity may have already been achieved, and from some perspectives, women may be occupying more high-status positions in publishing; women held first-authorship positions in 58% of the reviewed studies (Gavriilidi & Van Damme, 2023). Meanwhile, the study shows that last-authorship positions, which often indicate a position of seniority, are predominantly occupied by men. This likely indicates the histories of inequities that women have endured and which will take continued efforts to overcome.

There is some evidence, however, that gender parity has also been achieved or even surpassed at more senior levels in particular domains. For example, a retrospective descriptive study found that women were proportionally represented to speak at grand rounds within the health sciences, which is considered an important honor (Bhardwaj et al., 2023). Another study found that, depending on their field, women are currently three to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than men with similar publication and citation records (Card et al., 2023). While these kinds of results are still too few and far between, they signal that within certain contexts, women are slowly gaining the credit they deserve.

There have also been studies on areas in which female students are performing exceptionally well in STEM. For example, one mixed methods study in Ghana found that although males performed better than females in high school STEM classes, the gender gap “switches in favour of females by the time they get to the tertiary level” (Wrigley-Asante et al., 2023, p. 11). The authors suggest that this switch might be caused by pressure on male students to focus on overcoming economic hardship, while females are permitted to focus on schooling.

In New Zealand, one study on digital technologies education found that although boys often had more confidence and were more visibly expressive, teachers reported that girls tended to perform better overall with these technologies.

In New Zealand, one study on digital technologies education found that although boys often had more confidence and were more visibly expressive, teachers reported that girls tended to perform better overall with these technologies (Varoy et al., 2023). One takeaway from both these studies is that sociocultural influences contribute greatly to student success in STEM, and the dynamics of these influences are mediated by students’ genders.

Another illustration of this can be found in a study looking at gender representation in math-intensive STEM majors using data from the National College Entrance Examination in China (Li et al., 2023). The authors found that female test-takers tend to do relatively well on the exam, and their underrepresentation in these majors is less strongly predicted by exam scores than by the students’ choice of major. Collectively, these findings signal that, given the right support structures, girls and women are fully capable of succeeding in STEM; it is up to more senior scientists and practitioners to create welcoming environments such that they become interesting pathways for girls and women to explore. We can already see some evidence that this trend is beginning in some fields.

One survey conducted of 2015 and 2016 chemistry and chemical engineering graduates at two U.S. universities found that women were significantly more likely than men to already have a job lined up (Glass et al., 2023). The supportive policies and infrastructure that are facilitating gender equity change provide some hope that STEM fields — with sustained efforts — can overcome entrenched histories of sexism and become professions in which people of all genders thrive.

Conclusion

The 2023 literature on women, girls, and nonbinary people in engineering and STEM was plentiful: the number of relevant articles that we analyzed for this review was the highest it has been. The research not only revisited and further developed existing areas of literature, but also grew in several ways.

For example, the body of related research taking intersectional and/or international perspectives may be expanding. There were also many desire-centered studies that took an assets approach and/or focused on the success of efforts to improve gender equity. Research suggests some evidence to support having hope for the future. Amid the considerable productivity of STEM gender equity researchers in 2023, we found, as always, additional ways to improve. Importantly, little work centered or explicitly included trans and nonbinary people. There are also opportunities for more longitudinal studies that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There were several 2023 studies that took an intersectional perspective. However, while we highlighted some such studies in each section and summarized them in their own section, most of the literature does not take an intersectional perspective. It is clear from the literature that the experiences of everyone who shares a gender are not uniform and that studying them as a homogeneous group hides much of their rich variation in experiences (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989).

It is clear from the literature that the experiences of everyone who shares a gender are not uniform and that studying them as a homogeneous group hides much of their rich variation in experiences.

At times, there were likely methodological constraints preventing scholars from considering people who are multiply marginalized, but some studies had sufficiently large samples to do so and may consider how to incorporate an intersectional approach moving forward. In addition to future studies that center women of color, particularly from an assets-based perspective, we encourage more scholarship that considers additional marginalized identities and their associations with gender (e.g., sexualities, dis/abilities, age, language use, and immigration status).

This review included many studies that were conducted outside of the United States and published in English. While it may hamper accessibility to research for people about whom the research is written, it is beneficial for an English-language audience that the results of studies from a wide range of non-English-dominant geographies are available. This work helps demonstrate the importance of context for shaping conditions that impact the success of interventions.

Indeed, several studies explicitly brought contextual variation to the fore, considering multiple countries in their work; more similar relational work could be illuminating moving forward. For scholars completing international or national work as “outsiders” in the contexts they are studying, this is also a reminder about the need for cultural humility, care, and a deep understanding of the context when stepping into spaces that are not their own. Print and electronic resources are available for those learning in this area (e.g., consider the resources on the website of the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research, or CLEAR) (Paris & Winn, 2013; Tuhiwai Smith, 2021).

To improve gender equity in engineering and STEM, we encourage researchers to explicitly include and center trans and nonbinary people in their work, especially desire-centered work. In 2023, very little work centered or even explicitly included members of these groups. Beyond centering trans and nonbinary people, there are methodological approaches that exclude them.

For example, surveys should routinely include options for gender beyond “female” and “male.” Second, collecting qualitative data can help center participants’ voices and tell deeper stories. Third, bibliometric analyses — which some 2023 articles used — often rely on an algorithm that automatically assigns gender based on first name. We encourage authors to exercise caution with this approach, which may unwittingly reinforce gender stereotypes. More scientific journals can also allow authors to add their pronouns if they choose to do so. This could support gender equity in multiple ways, including improving the accuracy of bibliometric analyses.

It is encouraging to see many studies focusing on desire-centered work that, for example, demonstrates participants’ assets and provides action-oriented research on successful interventions.

It is encouraging to see many studies focusing on desire-centered work that, for example, demonstrates participants’ assets and provides action-oriented research on successful interventions. This type of research can help us move toward a more equitable future (Tuck, 2009), and more attention to this can be beneficial in 2024 and beyond. We suggest that researchers explicitly acknowledge the goals of their work, and — if demonstrating damage is an aspect of this — that they grapple with whether and why the work is necessary and what any trade-offs are. Scholars can also contribute to the literature by building off the desire-centered work already done. For example, researchers can consider whether and why interventions implemented in one context are effective in other spaces.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women, girls, and nonbinary people in engineering and STEM were profound and are likely to have long-term consequences. As such, it is surprising that the research published on this topic was limited. A literature review (Blackburn, 2023) noted that while “research regarding women in STEM in higher education slowed to a crawl from 2020 to 2022” (p. 188), these women lost potential career opportunities during this period. The author explains this loss is likely the result of assumptions of less availability while working from home, as well as isolation without mentors and collaborators. Longitudinal studies on the effects of the pandemic are likely in process, and hopefully our reviews will feature this work in years to come.

In closing, we thank the many researchers who poured their institutional and intellectual resources into producing substantial new knowledge about the state of women, girls, and nonbinary people in engineering and STEM. We also thank the participants in these studies for sharing their invaluable stories, the Society for Women Engineers for the opportunity to synthesize the research, colleagues for their support and for reviewing sections of this work, and you for your interest in this important area of study.

See the 2023 Literature Review Bibliography.

Read our Methodology and Positioning

About the authors

Ari Hock is a research assistant at the University of Washington (UW) Center for Evaluation & Research for STEM Equity (CERSE) and a Ph.D. candidate in the UW College of Education. His dissertation is a collaborative filmmaking project designed to stimulate critical civic engagement in land use issues within his neighborhood in Seattle.

Erin Carll, Ph.D., is the associate director of CERSE, where she conducts program evaluation and research into efforts to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Dr. Carll is also currently a board member for the Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network (WEPAN).

Aryaa Rajouria is a research assistant at CERSE and a Ph.D. student in the UW Department of Sociology. Her doctoral research focuses on the intersections between natural disasters, migration, and health in the global south.