Women Science Majors: What Makes a Difference in Persistence after Graduation?

Introduction Nearly thirty years ago, sociologist Alice Rossi posed the question, "Women in Science: Why So Few? " [54]. At that time, the Sputnik era of cold war competition, there was much concern that the United States was not meeting the challenge of producing talented scientists. Women were among the groups clearly underrepresented in science, mathematics, and engineering; they made up just over a quarter of all biologists and mathematicians, and only 9 percent of all chemists, 4 percent of all physicists, and only 0.8 percent of all engineers [54]. The situation improved modestly in the 1970s but was not substantially altered. In her 1988 presidential address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sheila Widnall [69] described major decision-making points along the science pipeline that illustrated inequitable outcomes for male and female students: out of a cohort of 2000 male and female ninth-grade students, 46 males and 26 females received their baccalaureates in science, and of these, 5 men and 1 woman earned a science-related Ph.D. A close examination of the distribution of women Ph.D.'s in the sciences presents a picture of uneven advancement. In a 1991 report the National Research Council [44] stated that while women received 50 percent of bachelor's degrees in the life sciences, they received 31 percent in computer and information sciences, 30 percent in the physical sciences, and 14 percent in engineering. In mathematics, women were granted approximately half of the baccalaureate degrees but less than one-fifth of the doctorates. Attention to the issue of underrepresentation of women in science has been driven by several concerns: projected national scientific labor shortage, continued from earlier eras [11, 50]; equity for women [16, 19, 45, 46, 70]; and a feminist critique of the history and epistemology of science [28, 31, 47, 56, 59]. The authors of these cited works, in offering hypotheses to explain why women are underrepresented in science, emphasize institutional factors; however, these works and the broader range of studies that inform the underrepresentation phenomenon vary in which institutional or cultural factors appear to be most significant. Social- Psychological Perspectives One relevant body of research stresses the importance of the intersection between psychological and social factors. Social-psychological issues such as self-confidence, perceived ability, and resiliency have been linked to female persistence in science [15, 23, 35, 36, 68]. Other research indicates that women attribute their success to extrinsic factors, such as luck, rather than intrinsic factors, such as ability [14, 58]. Hewitt and Seymour [29] found that undergraduate males adapted better to the outcomes-oriented environment of science than do females, who often prefer a more interactive milieu. Self-efficacy theory is useful in describing the development of expectations about females' abilities in fields such as mathematics, science, and engineering. These expectations inform points of decision making (for example, choice of major) during the college years. Bandura [7, 8] suggests that accomplishment may be the most important consideration in creating a sense of ability. Schoenfeld [60], however, stresses that perceived efficacy is a better predictor of performance. Status attainment models give some insight into the importance of family background or status origins for the educational and occupational pathways [9, 17, 21, 42]. Parents' expectations reflect parental occupational, educational, and income status. Parental expectations in turn influence young adult educational and occupational aspirations [26]. As Moen [42] notes, parents play a role both as definers of career expectations and as role models. Previous research on women's participation in science has focused on the father's occupation, but little research has been done on mothers' or dual parental influence [6]. …