This topic area focuses on programs, courses, and other interventions designed to foster interest and success among girls and women in STEM fields. CLEAR identified causal research that examined the effectiveness of these interventions and reviewed the studies against the causal guidelines.
Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM)
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1994 - 2014.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 95
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to describe several critical components to targeted recruitment for information technology courses, with a particular focus on the recruitment of girls and women. The…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study aimed to inform the literature on gender stereotypes in classrooms by studying whether teachers displayed bias by underestimating the ability of 10th-grade female and minority students in…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to examine whether different gender and racial/ethnic subgroups of 8th-grade students in the United States varied in their aspirations of pursuing a career in science or…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study presented findings from a review of after-school programs in the United States focused on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills and increasing access to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study examined a series of residential environmental engineering summer camps run by a southern technology university that were intended to stimulate interest in STEM fields, primarily for girls…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s main objective was to accurately identify the nature of gender imbalances in the receipt of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees, specifically isolating…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study's objective was to analyze gender differences in the award of National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural grants in the 2008 fiscal year. This research was intended to inform efforts to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study examined existing empirical research on the challenges that minority women have faced in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at the undergraduate and…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study investigated the relationships among sector (federal or private); science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupation; gender or racial minority status; and earnings to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study described factors that might increase young Latinas’ enrollment in pre-engineering programs. The authors reviewed a case study of middle and high school Latina students in the rural…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.