Empowering Undergraduate Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine: Exploring Experiences, Fostering Motivation, and Advancing Gender Equity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article evidenced considerable research, careful thought about methodology and some good arrangement of findings into thematic areas. There is careful consideration of ethics, and research protocols. There is some reference to theoretical approaches and a good awareness of the author's own 'lens'.

The reservations I have with regard to this piece of work are the following.

Some of the references especially in the introduction are quite dated; facts/opinions of a quite general nature are applied to STEMM studies with minimal critical reflection (eg obstacles, stereotyping etc); there is reference to the 'Australian context' as significant but the characteristics or relevance of this is not made explicit and it is not clear whether much of the literature relates to this specific context or other contexts - where findings may not be transferable. The cohort of students for the qualitative study (while justified by the author) is very small and little distinction is made in the conclusions regarding their different stages of study. In several places the statements of individuals are used to support much more generalised conclusions. Also a number of the statements made could equally be applied to non-STEMM subjects so the unique link between the qualitative research and the subject area is at times weak. There is an absence of diversification of views or contrary views and some disaggregated data even from such a small sample would have been good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW OF “EMPOWERING UNDERGRADUATE WOMEN IN STEM….”

This is an interesting and thoughtful paper that seeks to investigate and provide insights on issues young women face in pursuing undergraduate STEM degrees. The presentation is fairly straightforward (but see comments below), and the analysis is clearly presented. The conclusions seem to be supported by the analysis as well.

I have three issues with the paper as it presently stands.

First, the literature review conflates a number of issues (not related to the data collection) that render the analysis choice a bit confusing. The analysis focuses exclusively on undergraduate women’s persistence in STEM once they are in STEM. The literature review shifts between talking about leaders and PHD’s in academia, prominent leadership positions, etc. and doesn’t really focus on undergrad. Experiences and choices. One could argue that this portion of the presentation is contextual, which would be fine, but it doesn’t really focus on the essence of what the analysis is about. Further, it conflates the entry of a group into a specific set of occupational settings with the disappearance of groups that are already there. In high quality jobs (as one sees in STEM) “the best predictor of who will have a job next year is the person who has it this year” (to quote Christopher Jencks). No matter how many members of underrepresented groups enter STEM fields as undergraduates, or graduate with even advanced degrees, nobody from that cohort is going to be assigned to a leadership position – those positions are occupied by people hired a number of years before, in a different labor market, with different values regarding who should be there. They aren’t getting in a Star Trek transporter to be shot into rock just because new people show up.  The more relevant question (from the standpoint of social change) is “if there is a job open now for a so-called leadership position, who gets it?” This addresses hiring norms in the here-and-now and doesn’t conflate them with hiring norms two generations ago.

Second, to some extent, the researchers have “selected on dependent variable.” If we really want to learn why there aren’t more women in STEM and figure out why they don’t persist, the first thing one must know if why women don’t show up at the front door. This would involve interviewing a sample of undergraduate women to figure out why they didn’t go into STEM in the first place (or why they left if they started) and comparing their answers to the answers of women that are already there. If the answers contain substantial overlap, that’s very interesting. If they don’t, that’s almost more interesting.  This, by itself, is not fatal but it is a limitation. A vast majority of the screening happens before STEM is even engaged.

Third, the author(s) acknowledge there are differences (some fairly vast) in the gender representation in STEM fields and their reputations for receptivity. But that seems to disappear in the analysis and the selection of respondents. Further, some of these disciplines are applied, others are very theoretical and tied to “basic science.” Some require graduate/professional degrees of PHD’s to make your way in the labor market. Others don’t. And there are no students in technology, which has (of the entire set) the most promising labor market (absent Engineering) for BA degree holders. The persistence in some of these fields (even generally) is very low and others less so. Do any of your respondents talk about career aspirations? What do they see themselves doing with their degrees? Etc.

In short, the author(s) have put together a nice analysis of young women who are already in STEM majors and the difficulties they face. A more focused literature review, tied to some greater contextualization of specific disciplines (tied to the respondents) would help a lot to make the paper more effective.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) has engaged constructively and extensively with feedback provided and considerably improved the analysis and reflection aspects of this article thereby creating  a much more valuable contribution to knowledge on this subject. Literature references have been updated and there are some useful comments on future research possibilities