Master’s Education in STEM Fields
in China: Does Gender Matter?
Wenqin Shen（Graduate School of Education, Peking University）
Jiale Yang（Insitute of Education, Tsinghua University）
2020.11.18

CONTENS
 Research Background &Research Question Literature Review
 Variables & Methods
 Research Findings
 Discussion & Conclusion

1. Research Background & Research Question
1.1. Gender differences in education have been widely recognized
as an important policy issue
Although women have made considerable progress in higher education
participation, the proportion of women in the fields of STEM, remains low

Australia: Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship’ Programme
European countries: The Helsinki Group on Women and Science

American: The ADVANCE project
Britain: The Athena Project of the Scientific Women’s Academic Network1. Research Background & Research Question
1.2. The growth of Chinese master education
China started to rebuild its master training system during the 1980s(Regulation of Academic Degrees of P.R.C, 1980)
There are about 2.28 million master students in 2017
(Ministry of Education, 2018)

Female students’ participation is rising during the expansion of master’seducation

1. Research Background & Research Question
1.2. The rising of females in STEM master education

47.5%

54.2%

1. Research Background & Research Question
1.3. Female suffer from disadvantage during socialization
research
projects
involvement

Compared with explicit
enrolment rates, implicit
inequality embedded insocialization is easy toignore but difficult topursuit ofdoctorate

Socialization

changesatisfaction
withadvisoracademicpublication

1. Research Background & Research Question
1.4. Research Questions(1) What are the differences between female and malemaster’s students in terms of socialization in STEM fields?
(2) Does the gender matching between master’s students andtheir advisors influence socialization in STEM fields?

2. Literature Review
2.1. Gender segregation in graduate education
Horizontal segregation: the underrepresentation of a certain groupacross domains
Mullen and Baker (2008) investigated gender segregation in mathematics,
science and engineering fields in the USA
Vertical segregation: the underrepresentation of a certain group inranking, such as the differential status

men and women also be segregated across universities that differ inprestige (Weeden et al., 2017)

2. Literature Review
2.2. Gendered socialization of graduate students
Gender inequity becomes more prominent in the STEM fields (Britton, 2000;Parson, 2016)
Male doctoral students expressed higher satisfaction in their relationships
with advisors compared with female peers in biological sciences andengineering. Hence, male students published more scholarly works thanfemale students (Lubienski et al., 2018)
A qualitative study on female PhD students noted that women doctoral
students in the field of mathematics expressed that they did not fit into themale-dominated disciplinary culture (Herzig, 2004)
In aerospace and mechanical engineering field that is dominated by men,socialization of doctoral students was shaped by masculine norms such as
being competitive (Sallee, 2011)

2. Literature Review
2.3. Gender matching in graduate education
A male advisor may pose severe structural barriers for female
students in terms of teacher–student interaction, particularly in a
male-dominated department (Kantola,2008)
In the field of chemistry, female doctoral students supervised byadvisors of the same gender appeared more productive and more
likely to choose academic career trajectories compared with thoseadvised by the opposite gender (Gaule and Piacentini, 2018)
Data from Caltech PhD student cohorts likewise confirmed that agender dyad consisting of a female student–male advisor publishedfewer scholarly papers (Pezzoni et al., 2016).

2. Literature Review
2.4. Research Gaps
◆ The vast majority of research on gendered graduate education ismainly concerned with doctoral students, while few have focused on
master’s students◆ Previous studies have been conducted within individual departments,
whereas research based on large national data is limited◆ Qualitative methodologies have been applied in the extant literature,
whereas quantitative ones have yet to be utilized◆ Most of the empirical studies of gender disparities in STEM fields havelong been confined to the Western context. What status do female
students face within other contexts in different social dynamics andcultural norms remains to be explored2. Conceptual Framework

3. Methodology
3.1. data: national master’s education quality survey in 2017

STEM fields in China remain male dominated3. Methodology
3.2. Variables

3. Methodology
3.3. Descriptive results

4. Research Findings
4.1. Gender and project participation (Negative binomial regression)

4. Research Findings
4.2. Gender and academic publication (Negative binomial regression)

4. Research Findings
4.3. Gender and satisfaction with advisors (OLS regression)

4. Research Findings
4.4. Gender and pursuit of a doctorate (Logistic regression)

5. Discussion and Policy Implication
5.1. Discussion: gender effects
1. female respondents participated in fewer research projects
during their studies and were less likely to pursue a doctorate
after graduation (consistent with studies in the Western context)
2. no significant gender difference in academic publication, andfemale students were highly satisfied with their advisor (no‘productivity puzzle’ in STEM master’s education)
3. One Child policy → parents hold equal educational aspirations→ increased educational investment for young girls5. Discussion and Policy Implication
5.1. Discussion: gender effects
Physics
equal representation (43.4%)；
no significant disadvantage insocialization

Mathematics
well represented (64.8%)；
highly satisfied with advisor；
less productive;
less likely to pursue a doctorate

Civil engineering
low representation (24.4%)；
less research opportunities；
highly satisfied with their advisor

STEM

Computerunderrepresented (33.5%)；
less research opportunities

5. Discussion and Policy Implication
5.1. Discussion: gender-matching effects
1. female students—female advisor: more satisfied(mathematics & civil engineering)

2. female students—female advisor: more productive(mathematics)
highlight the importance of the same-gender advisor → role model5. Discussion and Policy Implication
5.2. Policy implication

tackling gender disparity in STEM fields
at master’s education level

differential interventions for distinct
subfields are recommended

gender matching between students andadvisors deserves more attention

5. Limitation◆ Only measured the number of research projects that master’s students
participated in and the number of academic papers they publishedrather than the quality of their research involvement◆ Only explored in four fields, but STEM fields include more
◆ Mainly considered factors from student themselves, their advisors andinstitutions where they enrolled. Other factors contributing to genderedsocialization are not consideredReferences
Austin, A. E. (2002) ‘Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academiccareer’, The Journal of Higher Education 73(1): 94–122.
Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., and Archer, S. A. (2010) ‘Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’
perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes’, NACADA Journal 30(1): 34–46.
Bauer, J., Feng, W., Riley, N. E., and Xiaohua, Z. (1992) ‘Gender inequality in urban China: Education andemployment’, Modern China 18(3): 333–370.
Berg, H. M., and Ferber, M. A. (1983) ‘Men and women graduate students: Who succeeds and why?’, The Journalof Higher Education 54(6): 629–648.
Bettinger, E. P., and Long, B. T. (2005) ‘Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female
students’, American Economic Review 95(2): 152–157.
Bilimoria, D., and Singer, L. (2019) ‘Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership (IDEAL): A
partnership to advance gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic STEM’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal 38(3): 362–381.
Britton, D. M. (2000) ‘The epistemology of the gendered organization’, Gender and Society 14(3):418–434.
Bragg, A. K. (1976) The Socialization Process in Higher Education, ERIC Higher Education Research Report,Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.
Broaded, C. M., and Liu, C. (1996) ‘Family background, gender and educational attainment in urban China’, The
China Quarterly 145: 53–86. Austin, A. E. (2002) ‘Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school associalization to the academic career’, The Journal of Higher Education 73(1): 94–122.
Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castan˜o, C., Klinge, I., Larios, M., Meulders, D. and Va´zquez, C. (2012) Metaanalysisof Gender and Science Research: Synthesis Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office.
……

Thanks for listening• shenwenqin@pku.edu.cn• yjl18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn