https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-1702
Figures
Abstract
Concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) are hidden identities that carry negative stereotypes and can result in a loss of social status if revealed. Instructors often choose to conceal these CSIs due to anticipated negative student reactions, yet revealing CSIs can have a positive impact on undergraduates. Women are generally more likely to reveal personal aspects about themselves in social situations, but may face greater consequences for revealing a stigmatized identity to students given their already marginalized position in academic science and engineering. Therefore, in this study, we were interested in understanding to what extent there are differences between men and women science and engineering instructors in (i) the representation of CSIs, (ii) their decisions to reveal CSIs to undergraduates in their classes, and (iii) their perceived stigma of CSIs. Based on a national survey of over 2,000 instructors in science and engineering from very high research activity doctoral institutions, we found that women were more likely than men to report having depression, anxiety, or a disability. Of instructors who held CSIs, women had 1.5x higher odds than men of revealing their CSIs to some undergraduates compared to no undergraduates and perceived greater stigma associated with all CSIs. Despite perceiving greater stigma associated with concealable stigmatized identities, women are more likely to reveal their CSIs to college science and engineering students, leading the way to a more diverse and inclusive scientific community by demonstrating themselves as role models for these identities.
Citation: Busch CA, Cooper KM, Brownell SE (2023) Women drive efforts to highlight concealable stigmatized identities in U.S. academic science and engineering. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0287795. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795
Editor: Lilybeth Fontanesi, G. D’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, ITALY
Received: March 21, 2023; Accepted: June 14, 2023; Published: July 19, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Busch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation awarded to S.E.B. and K.M.C. (NSF; No. 00035931). C.A.B. was supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 026257-001 and K.M.C was supported by an NSF CAREER award (No. 00037072). Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Science and engineering environments are devoid of identity sharing
Science and engineering (S&E) instructors and classrooms are notoriously chilly and unapproachable [1–3]. The assumed objectivity of S&E often results in instructors leaving any part of their personal identity outside of the classroom, which results in students not seeing the humanizing aspects of the instructor. Therefore, there are an increasing number of calls to make S&E departments and learning environments more welcoming to individuals from a variety of backgrounds and identity groups [4–7]. However, if the overall culture of S&E remains unchanged, instructors may be reluctant to share personal identities with students due to established norms.
Instructor identities
Some identities, such as gender and ethnicity, are generally considered to be visible such that others know, or assume, an individual holds a particular identity without being told [8]. However, while gender is typically assumed to be a visible identity, that may not be the case for everyone, particularly for genderqueer and non-binary individuals [9,10]. Other identities are widely considered to be concealable, such as having depression, low socioeconomic status, and LGBTQ+ identities [11,12]. The combination of identities an individual has may lead to intersectional inequalities or privileges. For example, white able-bodied cisgender heterosexual men experience more privileges than individuals with other combinations of gender, race, sexual identity, and disability status [13]. Therefore, it is important to explore how individuals, including instructors, navigate academic S&E spaces differently based on their own combination of visible and concealable identities.
Instructor concealable stigmatized identity disclosure
Some instructors of college S&E courses aim to be approachable to their students to improve student outcomes in the course [1,14,15]. Sharing personal experiences and information including hobbies, pets, family, and identities or characteristics can help foster positive relationships with undergraduates [16–20]. Although limited, some recent research suggests that sharing concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) may also help build student-instructor relationships and disproportionately so for students who share these marginalized identities [16]. Concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs) are identities which can be hidden and carry negative stereotypes when revealed depending on the context [12,21,22]. In the United States, concealable stigmatized identities generally include LGBTQ+ identities, having depression or anxiety currently or in the past, and low socioeconomic status [11,23]. Although U.S. academic S&E may differ in its cultural values from the U.S. at-large (i.e., the U.S. remains primarily Christian in its values whereas S&E tend to be more secular spaces [24–26]), many of these identities are stigmatized in both contexts [11,23,27–31].
Undergraduates with CSIs who feel marginalized in science anticipate that science faculty revealing the same CSI could provide them with a role model to relate to based on their shared identity [28,32]. Additionally, instructors have described that revealing their LGBTQ+ identities to students can benefit students by making LGBTQ+ students feel more comfortable in the classroom and by modeling authenticity [33,34]. Indeed, when an instructor revealed a CSI to undergraduates during class, students largely perceived a positive impact on their course experience, especially the students who shared the CSI [16,35].
Owing to the benefits thought to be associated with revealing CSIs, instructors are often cautiously encouraged to consider sharing these details if they are comfortable. However, the extant literature highlights reasons why instructors may be reluctant to share this information with students, even when students could benefit. S&E instructors may keep identities concealed because they perceive that disclosing an identity is inappropriate [28,36,37] or are concerned about students’ negative perceptions of individuals with the identity [23,38,39].
The decision of whether to reveal a CSI to students can be compounded with other challenges individuals face in the S&E workplace. Specifically, disadvantaged groups in S&E (e.g., women) may choose to not reveal a CSI to avoid adding more stigma to themselves. Despite the associated stigma, an instructor may choose to reveal a CSI to be an example to students of a successful scientist with that identity [26,33] or because they prefer to live authentically [23,33]. Characteristics associated with certain identity groups may also influence whether instructors choose to reveal CSIs. Specifically, women are generally more empathetic than men [40] and thus may be more perceptive to stigma. Consequently, men and women may differ in the extent to which they disclose CSIs to undergraduates because the degree of perceived stigma affects individuals’ decisions to reveal CSIs [38,39].
Gendered expectations for instructors in science and engineering
Students’ expectations for instructors and mentors in S&E can vary based on the instructor’s gender. While gender exists beyond the binary of man and woman [4,41], previous literature and the current study focus on these two gender identities. Men often score higher on student evaluations of teaching [42,43], but student evaluations of teaching have been criticized for measuring conformity with gendered expectations rather than teaching quality. For example, women were often lauded on evaluations for being “supportive” and criticized for not spending enough time and emotional labor outside of class [44]. Additionally, women report providing undergraduate and graduate student researchers more psychosocial support than men, whereas men report providing more career development than women [45]. Students may perceive women and men differently based on gendered expectations, which may influence instructors’ behavior including whether they reveal CSIs to their students. Specifically, students’ gendered expectations may lead women to reveal CSIs more than men.
Current study
The ways in which instructors navigate academic science and engineering with concealable stigmatized identities is likely affected by gendered experiences and expectations. We explored eight CSIs in the context of men and women faculty in S&E: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ+) identities [46], depression [28], anxiety [47], struggling academically [48], growing up in a low income household [49], transferring from a 2-year institution [50], being a first-generation college student [51], and having a disability [52]. These eight CSIs were chosen because they all represent identities that can be concealed, so one would need to reveal the identity. Additionally, there is an associated stigma with each identity that could be considered marginalized in society and in academic S&E spaces.
Therefore, we sought to explore to what extent there are gender differences between men and women science and engineering instructors in (i) reporting CSIs, (ii) revealing CSIs, and (iii) rating the stigma associated with CSIs. Revealing CSIs to undergraduates may be a way to both foster connections with students and provide role models of successful scientists with these stigmatized identities, so understanding the extent to which women and men are assuming this responsibility and any gender differences will further illustrate the ways that gender affects instructors’ experiences in science and engineering.
Methods
This study was conducted under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol from Arizona State University (#00013208). Written consent was obtained from all participants.
Survey design and validation
We developed a survey with closed-ended items to assess whether science and engineering faculty and instructors hold identities that are often considered to be concealable and stigmatized in the broader United States and whether they reveal or conceal those identities to undergraduate students. We conducted 6 cognitive think-aloud interviews with undergraduate science and engineering instructors to establish cognitive validity and ensure that items were being interpreted as intended [53]. The survey items were iteratively revised after each think-aloud. A copy of the survey questions analyzed is provided in the S1 Appendix.
Screening questions.
The survey began with questions regarding the instructor and the undergraduate course they teach most often. Participants who did not teach undergraduate students were sent to the end of the survey and were not included in the study. Participants provided information about the course including course subject, size, and most recent time teaching. Those who do not teach science (defined as biology, geosciences, chemistry, and physics) or engineering were sent to the end of the survey and not included in the study.
Identities of interest.
All identities of interest in the survey had evidence of being concealable and stigmatized in the U.S. and in the context of science and/or academia. Specifically, participants were asked whether they identify as lesbian or gay, bisexual, having anxiety, having depression, being a first-generation college student, growing up in a low-income household, struggling academically in college, being a community college transfer student, or having a disability. We selected these eight identities based on the prior literature documenting concealable stigmatized identities in STEM workplaces and U.S. contexts. Because individuals can hold identities that are stigmatized only in specific contexts (e.g., there is evidence that Christians are stigmatized in science but not the U.S. broadly [26]), we included only identities which had evidence of stigma across both contexts.
Below we detail the eight identities we investigated, which are considered to be concealable stigmatized identities in the context of both the U.S. at-large as well as in academic science and engineering (Table 1). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ+) individuals face discrimination and bias in S&E [46], and LGBQ+ undergraduates are underrepresented in the sciences [54]. Concealable stigmatized identities associated with mental health, namely depression and anxiety, affect undergraduates’ experiences across learning environments [47,55–62].
Related to the undergraduate experience, students who struggle academically [2,48,69,76], grew up in a low income household [29,49], transferred from a community college or other 2-year institution [50], or are a first-generation college student [51,74,77] may perceive stigma and/or bias due to those characteristics. Additionally, individuals who have a disability face many challenges in S&E [31,52,78] and individuals with hidden disabilities often face the additional challenge of needing to disclose their disability to receive the accommodations that they need [75,79].
Extent of reveal.
For each identity of interest, faculty participants with the identity were asked to consider the last time they taught the course they indicated earlier on the survey and whether they revealed their identity to all undergraduates enrolled in the course, to some undergraduates enrolled in the course (e.g., during office hours), or if they did not reveal the identity to undergraduates in the course. We chose to focus on the extent to which participants revealed their identity to undergraduate specifically because undergraduates who have at least one of the identities of interest have higher attrition from S&E programs than their counterparts [31,47–49,51,54,60,64,65,69,71,80] and examples of diverse and/or counter-stereotypical examples of scientists can improve undergraduate outcomes such as self-efficacy and academic achievement [81–84]. Instructors revealing these identities to graduate students instead of undergraduates may be too late in the training process to have meaningful effects on diversifying who stays in S&E. Additionally, instructors have described revealing LGBTQ+ identities more often in upper level courses with small sizes compared to larger lower level courses [34], which may extend to other CSIs and lead to instructors in general being less likely to reveal CSIs to undergraduates compared to graduate students.
Stigma ratings.
To assess the level of stigma associated with each identity, we provided a definition of stigmatized (“To be stigmatized means to be culturally devalued, prejudiced, or negatively stereotyped due to a particular identity and is influenced by the culture of a particular context”) and then participants responded to the question, “To what extent do you perceive that identifying as [identity of interest] is stigmatized in the context of academic science and engineering?” Participants responded on a four-point scale from “not stigmatized” (1) to “extremely stigmatized” (4) with the option to select “I do not know what this identity is.” Although each identity included in the survey had prior evidence of stigma in academic science contexts, we asked participants about their perception of stigma against the identities of interest to ensure that the sample considered them to be stigmatized and because we hypothesized that an individual’s identities would affect the extent to which they perceived stigma. All participants ranked their perceived stigma for all identities. We asked about each identity individually and converted the text-based responses to their numerical counterparts. For a stigma rating for LGBQ+ identities, we averaged participants’ rankings for gay or lesbian and bisexual identities.
Survey distribution
We identified faculty and instructors across science and engineering departments from all very high-research doctoral granting institutions in the USA via publicly available websites and collected their names and email addresses. We recruited participants (n ≅ 50,000) via email using a mail merge service. Participation was incentivized by awarding the first 50 individuals who completed the survey a $100 gift card and entering all participants into a drawing for one of two $500 cash awards. We sent the initial invitation to participate in the study in November 2021 and a final reminder in January 2022.
Data analysis
We calculated the percent of participants by binary gender who reported each of the identities of interest. While gender exists on a spectrum beyond the binary of man and woman [4,41], individuals whose gender identity falls outside of this binary also face discrimination in S&E often rooted in both sexism and homophobia [80]. Therefore, we only included men and women in order to exclude any influence of homophobia or bias against non-binary or genderqueer individuals from our interpretations. To assess whether there were gender differences in reporting each identity of interest, we used logistic regression analyses, controlling for race/ethnicity, age, and appointment type. (Model: has identity (0/1) ~ gender + race/ethnicity + age + appointment).
We calculated the percent of participants by binary gender who revealed each identity to all, some, or none of their undergraduate students; we also calculated these percentages for all CSIs combined. To assess whether there were gender differences in the extent to which instructors reveal their CSIs, we used multinomial logistic regression analyses. We again included race/ethnicity, age, and appointment as predictors as well as included individual as a random effect to account for participants with multiple CSIs. (Model: extent out (all/some/none) ~ gender + race/ethnicity + age + appointment + (1|individual)).
For stigma ratings, we calculated the percent of participants by binary gender who selected each option. To assess whether there were gender differences in the stigma rating participants assigned to each identity, we used ordinal regression analyses with the same predictors as described previously. (Model: stigma rating (not at all/little/somewhat/extremely) ~ gender + race/ethnicity + age + appointment + (1|individual).) We assessed global differences in stigma ratings by calculating the overall percent of participants by binary gender who selected each option regardless of identity being rated. We used the same ordinal regression described above to identify overall differences in stigma ratings.
All analyses were completed in R [85] using the stats (logistic) [85], nnet (multinomial) [86], and ordinal (ordinal) [87] packages for each of the three types of regression analyses. For all binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses, we confirmed there were no outliers and all assumptions were met. For all ordinal regression analyses, proportional odds assumptions were checked and met. For all models, multicollinearity among predictors was assessed via the variance inflation factor (VIF) values using the car package [88]. The VIF values indicated no issues with multicollinearity. Throughout the manuscript we specify significant results at the threshold of p ≤ .05, and the full results of all regression models are included in the Supporting Information. The code can be found online (https://github.com/carlybusch/Women-highlight-CSIs-in-science.git) and de-identified data in the S2 Appendix.
Results
In total, 2,013 instructors, tenure-track, and tenured science and engineering faculty members who teach undergraduates participated in the survey. 38% of the participants were women, 58% were men, 0.5% were non-binary or genderqueer, and 3% declined to state their gender. Individuals who declined to state their gender or who identified as non-binary or genderqueer were excluded from the analyses. Participants represented a range of ages and were primarily white (Table 2).
Women are more likely than men to report having depression, anxiety, or a disability
A higher percentage of women than men report having anxiety, depression, having struggled academically in college, having a disability, or being LGBQ+ (Fig 1A; full demographic information available in S1 Table), with the largest differences in percent for reporting depression or anxiety. To better assess whether these differences may be specific to gender, we conducted a logistic regression controlling for other factors hypothesized to explain such differences, namely race, age, and appointment [89,90]. When race, age, and appointment are accounted for, women are more likely than men to report having depression (OR = 1.08, p < .001), anxiety (OR = 1.12, p < .001), and having a disability (OR = 1.04, p < .001) but less likely to report being a first-generation college student (OR = 0.95, p = .03) or transferred from a community college (OR = 0.98, p = .04; Fig 1B). The full results from the logistic regressions can be found in the S2 Table.
A) Percent of men (purple) and women (yellow) who reported having each concealable stigmatized identity. B) Logistic regression results demonstrate that women are more likely to report having depression, anxiety, or a disability but less likely to report being a first-generation college student or transferred from a community college. Points to the right of the vertical dashed line indicate women are more likely than men to report the identity; confidence intervals which do not cross the line are statistically significant.
Women reveal concealable identities to undergraduates more readily than men
With regard to whether instructors reveal concealable stigmatized identities to all, some, or none of their undergraduate students, women have 1.46x higher odds than men of revealing CSIs to some students compared to no students (p < .001; Fig 2A and 2B). Disaggregating specific identities, women are more likely than men to reveal to some students that they have depression (OR = 1.93, p = .008), grew up in a low income household (OR = 1.99, p = .02), or are first-generation college students (OR = 2.25, p < .001) (Figs 2C and S1). There are no significant differences between men and women in whether they revealed a CSI to all students in their classes compared to none of their undergraduates in aggregate or disaggregated by CSI. Full results for all regressions are available in the S3 Table.
A) Percent of men and women who reveal a concealable stigmatized identity (aggregate) to all, some, or none of their undergraduate students. B) Women are more likely than men to reveal a CSI to some (compared to none) of their undergraduates; no significant difference between men and women for revealing to all (compared to none) of their undergraduates. C) Multinomial logistic regression results for revealing each identity for women compared to men (disaggregated); points to the right of the dashed vertical line indicate women are more likely than men to reveal the identity to some (teal) or all (pink) undergraduates (compared to no undergraduates) and confidence intervals which do not cross the dashed line and are darker are statistically significant.
Women perceive greater stigma associated with concealable identities than men
Women rate concealable stigmatized identities, in aggregate, as more stigmatized than men (OR = 1.93, p < .001; full result in the S4 Table). Further, when disaggregating specific identities, women rate each of the eight CSIs as more stigmatized than men (all p < .001; Fig 3A and 3B; full results in the S4 Table).
Gender differences between men and women’s perceived stigma for each concealable stigmatized identity A) by percentage and B) based on ordinal regressions. All confidence intervals do not cross the vertical line and are statistically significant; points to the right of the line indicate women rated the stigma associated with the identity higher than men.
Discussion
Overall, women disclose CSIs to undergraduates more than men, specifically to some undergraduates rather than all undergraduates. While this could be due to appointment type–women are more likely to hold non-tenure positions [89]–or age–women are more likely to have been hired more recently and therefore may be younger on average [90]–neither of these factors appear to drive this difference in our dataset. We controlled for appointment type and age in the model, yet women were still more likely to reveal a CSI to some undergraduates than men. This pattern holds for CSIs in aggregate as well as specifically for depression, first-generation status, and growing up in a low-income household, while trending in the same direction for other identities. While perceived level of stigmatization has been shown to encourage concealment of CSIs in general [23,91,92], our data suggest the opposite: that increased perceived stigmatization may be encouraging women to emerge as role models.
We posit that women are more open about their CSIs in part because they have encountered bias in S&E [93–96] and therefore may recognize the importance of instructor role models for students. Specifically, women face gender bias across all levels of academia including during hiring [97,98], tenure and promotion decisions [99], compensation [100], and in negative attitudes and “snide comments” [101]. Further, women are more likely to have their work devalued by both men and women [102] and are credited less via authorship [103]. However, at the undergraduate level, women in S&E courses report increased course success and persistence in science majors from having a same-gender instructor [104,105] or role model of a successful scientist [106,107]. Therefore, women’s own experiences with bias and the impact that a role model may have had on their own trajectories might explain their willingness to reveal CSIs to provide undergraduates with a same- or similar-identity role model. Prior experiences of bias in S&E based on gender likely also explain why women rated each of the CSIs as more stigmatized than men; previous exposure to bias can make people more perceptive to it in other situations [108,109].
Women disclosing CSIs more than men may also be due to students’ expectations for warmer relationships with women instructors. Students and mentees expect more personable and stronger psychosocial relationships with women than they do men [44,45]. Potentially due to the influence of students’ evaluations of teaching on promotion and tenure decision [110–112], women may strive to meet these expectations. Sharing personal details, including CSIs, may be a way to help foster a strong connection [16]. However, if women are choosing to reveal CSIs to their undergraduates to meet these gendered expectations, it is adding unpaid, emotional labor that their male colleagues without these gendered expectations do not have to undertake. Therefore, some women may reveal an identity because they prefer to live authentically or be open about their CSI while others may reveal because students will have a higher regard for the instructor if she seems more personable [23,33]. The impact on the instructor of revealing a CSI may depend, at least in part, on her underlying motivation to reveal the identity. Revealing a CSI may be perceived more negatively if the instructor reveals an identity to meet students’ expectations in cases where she seems uncomfortable sharing the identity [113].
Women were specifically more likely to reveal CSIs to some students than men, but we found no gender differences in revealing CSIs to all students. Instances where an instructor reveals a CSI to some students is likely occurring during office hours or in one-on-one discussions before or after class. Undergraduates request and expect to be granted special favors, such as extra credit and accepting late work, from women more than men [114]; these requests likely come during office hours or before and after class and may drive higher office hour attendance for women instructors. Additionally, for the same amount of student-instructor interaction, students rate women lower on interpersonal measures than men [115], which may be because students expect a greater level of personal support from women instructors [44,45]. This expectation for a more personal relationship with women may lead students to share more about themselves, including CSIs, with women, potentially leading to women revealing their own CSIs to students in these one-on-one or small group settings outside of class. Therefore, women being more likely to reveal a CSI to some students than men may be due to differences in the frequency of interactions with students, student motivations for seeking support outside of class, or even students sharing more about their identities with women rather than men. Future research could explore these interactions in office hours in more depth to better understand the impetus and context of these situations where instructors reveal their identities.
Of note, men are both more likely to be first-generation college students and less likely to disclose it. This illustrates a specific instance where women are driving the representation of first-generation college students among S&E instructors despite being less likely to report this identity. Despite any potential consequences, this pattern highlights the deliberate effort from women to highlight CSIs to S&E undergraduates.
While individuals with CSIs are generally less likely to reveal an identity if they anticipate greater stigma [38,39], women instructors in S&E demonstrate the inverse: women perceive greater stigma and reveal CSIs to undergraduates more than men. This is true overall as well as specifically for revealing depression, first-generation status, and growing up in a low-income household. This unexpected pattern may be due to the powerful impact that women role models in science can have on other women and girls [106,107,116,117] and these instructors intend to provide that role model for students based on other identities regardless of any subsequent stigma they encounter. However, as stigmatized identities carry negative stereotypes, if there are negative consequences from revealing these identities, then women may disproportionately face those consequences in addition to the gender biases already prevalent in S&E [93,94,96].
Limitations and future directions
In this study, we focus on differences between men and women and do not discuss any patterns among responses from non-binary individuals. Excluding non-binary individuals from our analyses removes a participant population that is vastly understudied and not well-understood in professional S&E contexts [80,118], but we chose to focus on the experiences of men and women as the majority of the participants fell into the gender binary and doing so allowed us to focus on gender differences between men and women exclusively and exclude any influence of homophobia or bias against non-binary or genderqueer individuals.
Throughout our analyses, we did not assess the impact of multiple identities (i.e., a racial identity and a gender identity) on whether an instructor revealed a CSI or their perceived stigma. The intersectional systems of oppression that women of color experience result in different experiences in S&E than those of white women [13,119,120]. However, although we did not have the statistical power to explore these interactions (i.e., run a model with gender*race/ethnicity as an interactive term), we did control for race/ethnicity as well as age and appointment in our models which allows us to make inferences based on the gender differences described. Additionally, because the majority (72%) of participants were white, the results described may not be generalizable to a more racially and ethnically diverse sample. However, the uneven distribution of racial/ethnic identities is reflective of the disparities that exist within S&E faculty [121,122]. Future work can build on these results and explore these interactions along gender and racial/ethnic identities as well as use a sampling design to specifically recruit a more racially and ethnically diverse sample of instructors. In our analyses we did not account for academic institution or state, as the distribution of the data across institutions and states was not adequate to assess such differences. The participants spanned 46 states, so although there are likely regional differences in revealing CSIs and perceived stigma, we posit that the results presented in the present study are generally reflective of the U.S.
We took steps to ensure a random sample participated in our study by recruiting instructors from each very high research activity doctoral granting institution across science and engineering departments in the U.S. Instructors did not know that we were going to be asking about any of these identities to limit sampling bias towards any of these identities. However, there may be some degree of sampling bias because faculty often receive many requests per day and may not have interest in completing a survey. Additionally, the recruitment email included the language “help improve STEM education” and that participating in the survey would help gain insight into who the faculty and instructors who teach undergraduates in science and engineering are in order to better understand potential gaps between those teaching and those learning undergraduate science and engineering. This language may have created sampling bias and led to more instructors invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or who practice evidence-based teaching participating than their colleagues. We worked to counteract this bias and increase participation by providing incentives and reminders to individuals who did not complete the survey after the first recruitment, but we may be overestimating the percentage of faculty who reveal these identities if they were more interested in participating in this survey.
Future studies can explore the extent to which gendered experiences or expectations consciously inform women’s decisions to reveal CSIs to students and to what extent perceived stigma associated with their identity or in S&E generally influences their decisions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we find that women reveal CSIs more readily than men despite also perceiving greater stigma associated with these identities. Specifically, women reveal that they have depression, are a first-generation college student, and grew up in a low-income household to some undergraduates more than men. While this indicates that women are positioning themselves to be role models for students based on a variety of identities, our findings encourage efforts to identify barriers instructors face to revealing CSIs to their students and understand the potential impact that revealing these identities has on undergraduate science and engineering students.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Percent of men and women who reveal each of the identities to all, some, or none of their undergraduate students.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s001
(TIF)
S1 Table. Demographic breakdown of participants.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Results from logistic regressions for reporting each of the CSIs.
Group of interest is in parentheses and reference groups are men, white, <50, and lecturers. Odds ratio (OR) calculated by exponentiating the beta.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Results from multinomial regressions predicting revealing CSIs overall and each of the CSIs specifically (reference group: Revealing to no undergraduates).
Group of interest is in parentheses and reference groups are men, white, <50, and lecturers. Odds ratio (OR) calculated by exponentiating the beta.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s004
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Results from ordinal regressions predicting stigma ratings for CSIs overall and each of the CSIs specifically.
Group of interest is in parentheses and reference groups are men, white, <50, and lecturers. Odds ratio (OR) calculated by exponentiating the beta.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s005
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. Copy of survey questions analyzed.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287795.s006
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the faculty and instructors who agreed to participate in the study. We thank Tala Araghi and Jingyi He who helped identify potential participants during study recruitment and Yi Zheng for guidance on the statistical analyses.
References
- 1. Christe BL. The importance of faculty-student connections in STEM disciplines. J STEM Educ Innov Res. 2013;14.
- 2.
Seymour E, Hewitt NM. Talking about leaving. Westview Press, Boulder, CO; 1997.
- 3.
Seymour E, Hunter A-B. Talking about leaving revisited. Springer; 2019.
- 4. Cooper KM, Auerbach AJJ, Bader JD, Beadles-Bohling AS, Brashears JA, Cline E, et al. Fourteen Recommendations to Create a More Inclusive Environment for LGBTQ+ Individuals in Academic Biology. Brame C, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2020;19: es6. pmid:32663116
- 5. De Grandi C, Ramos R, Mochrie SGJ. Assessment of strategies to build a welcoming STEM classroom environment for all students. Phys Educ Res Conf Proc. 2018. pp. 3–6.
- 6. Moore SE, Wallace SL, Schack G, Thomas MS, Lewis L, Wilson L, et al. Inclusive teaching circles: mechanisms for creating welcoming classrooms. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2010;10: 14–27.
- 7. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117: 6476–6483. pmid:32152114
- 8.
Alcoff LM. Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self. Oxford University Press; 2005.
- 9. Darwin H. Doing Gender Beyond the Binary: A Virtual Ethnography. Symb Interact. 2017;40: 317–334.
- 10. Howansky K, Wittlin N, Bonagura D, Cole S. Him, her, them, or neither: Misgendering and degendering of transgender individuals. Psychol Sex. 2021;13.
- 11. Henning JA, Ballen CJ, Molina SA, Cotner S. Hidden Identities Shape Student Perceptions of Active Learning Environments. Front Educ. 2019;4: 129.
- 12. Quinn DM. Concealable versus conspicuous stigmatized identities. Stigma Group Inequal Soc Psychol Perspect. 2006; 83–103.
- 13. Cech EA. The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Sci Adv. 2022;8: eabo1558. pmid:35704581
- 14. Micari M, Pazos P. Connecting to the professor: Impact of the student–faculty relationship in a highly challenging course. Coll Teach. 2012;60: 41–47.
- 15. Schussler EE, Weatherton M, Chen Musgrove MM, Brigati JR, England BJ. Student Perceptions of Instructor Supportiveness: What Characteristics Make a Difference? Andrews TC, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2021;20: ar29. pmid:33938766
- 16. Busch CA, Supriya K, Cooper KM, Brownell SE. Unveiling Concealable Stigmatized Identities in Class: The Impact of an Instructor Revealing Her LGBTQ+ Identity to Students in a Large-Enrollment Biology Course. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21: ar37. pmid:35580002
- 17. Harrison CD, Nguyen TA, Seidel SB, Escobedo AM, Hartman C, Lam K, et al. Investigating Instructor Talk in Novel Contexts: Widespread Use, Unexpected Categories, and an Emergent Sampling Strategy. Reiness CG, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2019;18: ar47. pmid:31469624
- 18. Hosek AM, Thompson J. Communication privacy management and college instruction: Exploring the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private disclosures. Commun Educ. 2009;58: 327–349.
- 19. Seidel SB, Reggi AL, Schinske JN, Burrus LW, Tanner KD. Beyond the biology: A systematic investigation of noncontent instructor talk in an introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2015;14: ar43. pmid:26582237
- 20. Webb N, Barrett LO. Student views of instructor-student rapport in the college classroom. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2014; 15–28.
- 21. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27: 363–385.
- 22. Quinn DM, Earnshaw VA. Concealable stigmatized identities and psychological well-being. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2013;7: 40–51. pmid:23730326
- 23. Chaudoir SR, Fisher JD. The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychol Bull. 2010;136: 236–256. pmid:20192562
- 24. Ecklund EH, Scheitle CP. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Soc Probl. 2007;54: 289–307.
- 25. Masci D. Scientists and Belief. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project; 2009 Nov. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/.
- 26. Barnes ME, Maas SA, Roberts JA, Brownell SE. Christianity as a Concealable Stigmatized Identity (CSI) among Biology Graduate Students. Bolger MS, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2021;20: ar9. pmid:33444108
- 27. Bilimoria D, Stewart AJ. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: The Academic Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Faculty in Science and Engineering. NWSA J. 2009;21: 85–103.
- 28. Cooper KM, Gin LE, Brownell SE. Depression as a concealable stigmatized identity: what influences whether students conceal or reveal their depression in undergraduate research experiences? Int J STEM Educ. 2020;7: 27. pmid:32550126
- 29. Aries E, Seider M. The interactive relationship between class identity and the college experience: The case of lower income students. Qual Sociol. 2005;28: 419–443.
- 30. Quinn DM, Earnshaw VA. Understanding Concealable Stigmatized Identities: The Role of Identity in Psychological, Physical, and Behavioral Outcomes: Concealable Stigmatized Identities. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2011;5: 160–190.
- 31. Moon NW, Todd RL, Morton DL, Ivey E. Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Atlanta GA Cent Assist Technol Environ Access Ga Inst Technol. 2012; 8–21.
- 32. Cooper KM, Brownell SE. Coming Out in Class: Challenges and Benefits of Active Learning in a Biology Classroom for LGBTQIA Students. Marsteller P, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2016;15: ar37. pmid:27543636
- 33. Cooper KM, Brownell SE, Gormally C. Coming out to the class: Identifying factors that influence college biology instructor decisions about revealing their LGBQ identities in class. J Women Minor Sci Eng. 2019;25: 261–282.
- 34. Nielsen E-J, Alderson KG. Lesbian and Queer Women Professors Disclosing in the Classroom: An Act of Authenticity. Couns Psychol. 2014;42: 1084–1107.
- 35. Mohammed TF, Brownell SE, Cooper KM. The upside to depression: Undergraduates benefit from an instructor revealing depression in a large-enrollment physiology course. under review.
- 36. Fidas D, Cooper L. A Workplace Divided: Understanding the Climate for LGBTQ Workers Nationwide. Human Rights Campaign Foundation; 2018. Available: https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/AWorkplaceDivided-2018.pdf?_ga=2.95864795.656603218.1620927843-1246751368.1620927843.
- 37. McKenna-Buchanan T, Munz S, Rudnick J. To Be or Not To Be Out in the Classroom: Exploring Communication Privacy Management Strategies of Lesbian, Gay, and Queer College Teachers. Commun Educ. 2015;64: 280–300.
- 38. Chaudoir SR, Quinn DM. Revealing Concealable Stigmatized Identities: The Impact of Disclosure Motivations and Positive First-Disclosure Experiences on Fear of Disclosure and Well-Being: Revealing Concealable Stigmatized Identities. J Soc Issues. 2010;66: 570–584. pmid:26160985
- 39. Quinn DM, Chaudoir SR. Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97: 634–651. pmid:19785483
- 40. Löffler CS, Greitemeyer T. Are women the more empathetic gender? The effects of gender role expectations. Curr Psychol. 2021; 1–12.
- 41. Bass M, Gonzalez LJ, Colip L, Sharon N, Conklin J. Rethinking gender: The nonbinary approach. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018;75: 1821–1823. pmid:30228164
- 42. Centra JA, Gaubatz NB. Student perceptions of learning and instructional effectiveness in college courses. Res Rep. 2000;9.
- 43. Mitchell KM, Martin J. Gender bias in student evaluations. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2018;51: 648–652.
- 44. Adams S, Bekker S, Fan Y, Gordon T, Shepherd LJ, Slavich E, et al. Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching:‘Punish [ing] those who fail to do their gender right.’ High Educ. 2022;83: 787–807.
- 45. O’Brien KE, Biga A, Kessler SR, Allen TD. A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Gender Differences in Mentoring. J Manag. 2010;36: 537–554.
- 46. Cech EA, Waidzunas TJ. Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Sci Adv. 2021;7: eabe0933. pmid:33523910
- 47. England BJ, Brigati JR, Schussler EE. Student anxiety in introductory biology classrooms: Perceptions about active learning and persistence in the major. PloS One. 2017;12: e0182506. pmid:28771564
- 48. Chen X. STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014–001. Natl Cent Educ Stat. 2013.
- 49. Niu L. Family socioeconomic status and choice of STEM major in college: An analysis of a national sample. Coll Stud J. 2017;51: 298–312.
- 50. D’Amico MM, Dika SL, Elling TW, Algozzine B, Foxx K, Ginn D, et al. What Happens after Transfer? Engagement and Success of Transfer Students at UNC Charlotte. Cent Educ Mes Eval Tech Rep. 2013.
- 51. Dika SL, D’Amico MM. Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. J Res Sci Teach. 2016;53: 368–383.
- 52. Gin LE, Guerrero FA, Cooper KM, Brownell SE. Is active learning accessible? Exploring the process of providing accommodations to students with disabilities. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2020;19: es12. pmid:33001769
- 53.
Trenor J, Miller M, Gipson K. Utilization of a Think-Aloud Protocol to Cognitively Validate a Survey Instrument Identifying Social Capital Resources of Engineering Undergraduates. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. Vancouver, BC: ASEE Conferences; 2011. p. 22.1656.1–22.1656.15. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–18492
- 54. Hughes BE. Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Sci Adv. 2018;4: eaao6373. pmid:29546240
- 55. Araghi T, Busch CA, Cooper KM. The Aspects of Active-Learning Science Courses That Exacerbate and Alleviate Depression in Undergraduates. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2023;22: ar26. pmid:37097219
- 56. Busch CA, Mohammed TF, Nadile EM, Cooper KM. Aspects of online college science courses that alleviate and exacerbate undergraduate depression. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0269201. pmid:35648764
- 57. Cooper KM, Downing VR, Brownell SE. The influence of active learning practices on student anxiety in large-enrollment college science classrooms. Int J STEM Educ. 2018;5: 23. pmid:30631713
- 58. Cooper KM, Gin LE, Barnes ME, Brownell SE. An exploratory study of students with depression in undergraduate research experiences. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2020;19: ar19. pmid:32412838
- 59. Downing VR, Cooper KM, Cala JM, Gin LE, Brownell SE. Fear of Negative Evaluation and Student Anxiety in Community College Active-Learning Science Courses. Coley J, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2020;19: ar20. pmid:32453679
- 60. England BJ, Brigati JR, Schussler EE, Chen MM. Student Anxiety and Perception of Difficulty Impact Performance and Persistence in Introductory Biology Courses. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2019;18: ar21. pmid:31120397
- 61. Mohammed TF, Nadile EM, Busch CA, Brister D, Brownell SE, Claiborne CT, et al. Aspects of Large-Enrollment Online College Science Courses That Exacerbate and Alleviate Student Anxiety. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2021;20: ar69. pmid:34806910
- 62. Mohammed TF, Gin LE, Wiesenthal NJ, Cooper KM. The Experiences of Undergraduates with Depression in Online Science Learning Environments. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21: ar18. pmid:35294254
- 63. Forbes TD. Queer-free majors?: LGBTQ + college students’ accounts of chilly and warm academic disciplines. J LGBT Youth. 2020; 1–20.
- 64. DeRoma VM, Leach JB, Leverett JP. The relationship between depression and college academic performance. Coll Stud J. 2009;43: 325–335.
- 65. Hysenbegasi A, Hass SL, Rowland CR. The impact of depression on the academic productivity of university students. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2005;8: 145. pmid:16278502
- 66. Busch CA, Mohammed TF, Nadile EM, Witt ML, Vargas C, Tran M, et al. Costs and Benefits of Undergraduates Revealing Depression to Online Science Instructors. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2023;22: ar9. pmid:36637379
- 67. Limas JC, Corcoran LC, Baker AN, Cartaya AE, Ayres ZJ. The Impact of Research Culture on Mental Health & Diversity in STEM. Chem–Eur J. 2022;28: e202102957. pmid:35075707
- 68. Wilkins-Yel KG, Arnold A, Bekki J, Natarajan M, Bernstein B, Randall AK. “I can’t push off my own Mental Health”: Chilly STEM Climates, Mental Health, and STEM Persistence among Black, Latina, and White Graduate Women. Sex Roles. 2022;86: 208–232.
- 69. Ost B. The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Econ Educ Rev. 2010;29: 923–934.
- 70. Nguyen DJ, Herron A. Keeping up with the Joneses or feeling priced out?: Exploring how low-income students’ financial position shapes sense of belonging. J Divers High Educ. 2021;14: 429–440.
- 71. Bahr PR, Jackson G, McNaughtan J, Oster M, Gross J. Unrealized Potential: Community College Pathways to STEM Baccalaureate Degrees. J High Educ. 2017;88: 430–478.
- 72. Lakin JM, Elliott DC. STEMing the shock: Examining transfer shock and its impact on STEM major and enrollment persistence. J First-Year Exp Stud Transit. 2016;28: 9–31.
- 73. Beattie I. Sociological Perspectives on First-Generation College Students. 2018. pp. 171–191.
- 74. Stephens NM, Townsend SS, Markus HR, Phillips LT. A cultural mismatch: Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions among first-generation college students. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012;48: 1389–1393.
- 75. Gin LE, Pais DC, Parrish KD, Brownell SE, Cooper KM. New Online Accommodations Are Not Enough: The Mismatch between Student Needs and Supports Given for Students with Disabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2022;23: e00280–21. pmid:35496702
- 76. Seymour E. The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Sci Educ. 1995;79: 437–473.
- 77. Stanich CA, Pelch MA, Theobald EJ, Freeman S. A new approach to supplementary instruction narrows achievement and affect gaps for underrepresented minorities, first-generation students, and women. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2018;19: 846–866.
- 78. Gin LE, Pais D, Cooper KM, Brownell SE. Students with Disabilities in Life Science Undergraduate Research Experiences: Challenges and Opportunities. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21: ar32. pmid:35499822
- 79. Gin LE, Guerrero FA, Brownell SE, Cooper KM. COVID-19 and Undergraduates with Disabilities: Challenges Resulting from the Rapid Transition to Online Course Delivery for Students with Disabilities in Undergraduate STEM at Large-Enrollment Institutions. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2021;20: ar36. pmid:34114885
- 80. Maloy J, Kwapisz MB, Hughes BE. Factors Influencing Retention of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students in Undergraduate STEM Majors. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21: ar13. pmid:35044846
- 81. Shin JEL, Levy SR, London B. Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement: Role model. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2016;46: 410–427.
- 82. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA. STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100: 255–270. pmid:21142376
- 83. Schinske JN, Perkins H, Snyder A, Wyer M. Scientist Spotlight Homework Assignments Shift Students’ Stereotypes of Scientists and Enhance Science Identity in a Diverse Introductory Science Class. Marsteller P, editor. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2016;15: ar47. pmid:27587856
- 84. Gladstone JR, Cimpian A. Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. Int J STEM Educ. 2021;8: 1–20. pmid:34868806
- 85.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2022. Available: https://www.r-project.org/.
- 86.
Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth. New York, NY: Springer; 2002. Available: https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/.
- 87. Christensen RHB. ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data. 2022. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal.
- 88.
Fox J, Weisberg S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression. Third. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2019. Available: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/.
- 89. Rennane S, Acheson-Field H, Edwards KA, Gahlon G, Zaber MA. Leak or link? the overrepresentation of women in non-tenure-track academic positions in STEM. PloS One. 2022;17: e0267561. pmid:35675259
- 90. Wapman KH, Zhang S, Clauset A, Larremore DB. Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention. Nature. 2022;610: 120–127. pmid:36131023
- 91. Ahrens CE. Being Silenced: The Impact of Negative Social Reactions on the Disclosure of Rape. Am J Community Psychol. 2006;38: 31–34. pmid:17111229
- 92. Berkley RA, Beard R, Daus CS. The emotional context of disclosing a concealable stigmatized identity: A conceptual model. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2019;29: 428–445.
- 93. Begeny CT, Ryan MK, Moss-Racusin CA, Ravetz G. In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Sci Adv. 2020;6: eaba7814. pmid:32637616
- 94. Bloodhart B, Balgopal MM, Casper AMA, Sample McMeeking LB, Fischer EV. Outperforming yet undervalued: Undergraduate women in STEM. Plos One. 2020;15: e0234685. pmid:32584838
- 95. Eddy SL, Brownell SE. Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2016;12: 020106.
- 96. McKinnon M, O’Connell C. Perceptions of stereotypes applied to women who publicly communicate their STEM work. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2020;7: 1–8.
- 97. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109: 16474–16479. pmid:22988126
- 98. Rivera LA. When two bodies are (not) a problem: Gender and relationship status discrimination in academic hiring. Am Sociol Rev. 2017;82: 1111–1138.
- 99. Roper RL. Does gender bias still affect women in science? Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2019;83: e00018–19. pmid:31315903
- 100. Samaniego C, Dirr BA, Kazmi MA, Lindner P, Kong DT, Jeff-Eke E, et al. Higher Research Productivity=More pay? Gender Pay-for-Productivity Inequity Across Disciplines. pre-print.
- 101. Hirshfield LE, Joseph TD. ‘We need a woman, we need a black woman’: Gender, race, and identity taxation in the academy. Gend Educ. 2012;24: 213–227.
- 102. Ni C, Smith E, Yuan H, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. The gendered nature of authorship. Sci Adv. 2021;7: eabe4639. pmid:34516891
- 103. Ross MB, Glennon BM, Murciano-Goroff R, Berkes EG, Weinberg BA, Lane JI. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature. 2022;608: 135–145.
- 104. Bowman NA, Logel C, LaCosse J, Jarratt L, Canning EA, Emerson KT, et al. Gender representation and academic achievement among STEM-interested students in college STEM courses. J Res Sci Teach. 2022. pmid:36591375
- 105. Kapitanoff S, Pandey C. Stereotype threat, anxiety, instructor gender, and underperformance in women. Act Learn High Educ. 2017;18: 213–229.
- 106. Hernandez PR, Bloodhart B, Adams AS, Barnes RT, Burt M, Clinton SM, et al. Role modeling is a viable retention strategy for undergraduate women in the geosciences. Geosphere. 2018;14: 2585–2593.
- 107. Herrmann SD, Adelman RM, Bodford JE, Graudejus O, Okun MA, Kwan VS. The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2016;38: 258–268.
- 108. Craig MA, DeHart T, Richeson JA, Fiedorowicz L. Do Unto Others as Others Have Done Unto You?: Perceiving Sexism Influences Women’s Evaluations of Stigmatized Racial Groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38: 1107–1119. pmid:22569223
- 109. Craig MA, Richeson JA. Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;25: 21–27.
- 110. Boring A, Ottoboni K. Student Evaluations of Teaching (Mostly) Do Not Measure Teaching Effectiveness. Sci Res. 2016 [cited 9 Feb 2023].
- 111. Hobson SM, Talbot DM. Understanding student evaluations: What all faculty should know. Coll Teach. 2001;49: 26–31.
- 112. Hornstein HA. Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Educ. 2017;4: 1304016.
- 113. Goodboy AK, Carton ST, Goldman ZW, Gozanski TA, Tyler WJ, Johnson NR. Discouraging instructional dissent and facilitating students’ learning experiences through instructor self-disclosure. South Commun J. 2014;79: 114–129.
- 114. El-Alayli A, Hansen-Brown AA, Ceynar M. Dancing backwards in high heels: Female professors experience more work demands and special favor requests, particularly from academically entitled students. Sex Roles. 2018;79: 136–150.
- 115. MacNell L, Driscoll A, Hunt AN. What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching. Innov High Educ. 2015;40: 291–303.
- 116. Buck GA, Clark VLP, Leslie-Pelecky D, Lu Y, Cerda-Lizarraga P. Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Sci Educ. 2008;92: 688–707.
- 117. Drury BJ, Siy JO, Cheryan S. When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychol Inq. 2011;22: 265–269.
- 118. Casper AMA, Rebolledo N, Lane AK, Jude L, Eddy SL. “It’s completely erasure”: A Qualitative Exploration of Experiences of Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender Nonconforming, and Questioning Students in Biology Courses. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21: ar69. pmid:36112619
- 119. Ireland DT, Freeman KE, Winston-Proctor CE, DeLaine KD, McDonald Lowe S, Woodson KM. (Un) hidden figures: A synthesis of research examining the intersectional experiences of Black women and girls in STEM education. Rev Res Educ. 2018;42: 226–254.
- 120. Pietri ES, Johnson IR, Ozgumus E. One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for Black women. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018;74: 291–306.
- 121.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation; 2023 Jan. Report No.: Special Report NSF 23–315. Available: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/graduate-enrollment-in-science-and-engineering#enrollment-of-women-in-s-e-fields.
- 122. National Center for Education Statistics. Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty. In: Condition of Education [Internet]. 2022 [cited 4 May 2023]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc.