Gender Disparities in STEM (Science) Education Research Paper

The proposed social sciences topic is the gender gap in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) higher education globally. The research question at level 1 concerns a broad understanding of the subject, “Is there a gender gap in STEM higher education?” Consequently, level 2 is a more detail-oriented approach that requires information processing, “What are the causes of the gender gap in STEM studies?” Lastly, level 3 entails philosophical implications regarding the subject, “How does the culture affect the gender gap in STEM higher education, and is it necessary to change it?”

Considering the first question, the appropriate design is a literary review. It is an effective research methodology that allows finding answers to broad questions by examining relevant academic sources (1). There is extensive literature on the topic of STEM higher education and cultural differences that might affect the gender gap. Hence, it is appropriate to conduct the initial research by analyzing the relevant articles. Nevertheless, it is critical to follow several criteria to ensure the reliability of the studies. Namely, the examined books and articles should be up-to-date, published in credible academic journals, and thoroughly describe the research process to eliminate potential researcher bias (1). Following these guidelines, it is possible to find relevant literature and answer the research question at level 1.

The second question is a more specific inquiry that requires information processing to determine the causal relationship between the gender gap in STEM studies and the variables that affect it. In this case, a systematic review is a continuation of a literary search process; however, it implies additional research, coding, and analysis (2). Newman and Dough (2) note that this approach is a highly effective methodology for answering a large variety of research questions. However, it requires significant academic competencies to select the appropriate literature sample, determine the criteria for analysis, and generalize the findings across several sources (2). The researcher might understand the general causes of the relationship between variables but fail to synthesize the results, leading to inaccurate and false conclusions (2). In summary, a systematic review is an appropriate methodology for the level 2 question, but it is necessary to thoroughly evaluate the sources and generalize the findings.

Lastly, a qualitative research design with in-depth interviews is a practical approach to answering the level 3 question. This methodology provides the most detailed insights into the topic due to direct cooperation with interviewees, allowing the researcher to understand the feelings and perceptions of the affected respondents (3, 4). In the current case, interviewing the students in STEM higher education will reveal whether they feel discriminated against and whether there is a notable gender gap in the studies. Although this approach is practical for understanding the causes of the problem, the researcher needs to adhere to ethical considerations of qualitative research and eliminate any potential bias (3). Ultimately, the proposed designs are appropriate for answering the research questions at levels 1, 2, and 3.

The following articles utilize a literary review concerning the level 1 question (gender gap in STEM higher education) or associated topics, such as the gender gap in STEM fields in general (5, 6). Consequently, sources (7,8) use a systematic review to analyze the subject. This approach is seemingly the most popular research methodology in the topic of STEM studies and the gender gap. Lastly, articles (9, and 10) are examples of the qualitative research design for the proposed topic.

References

1. Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104: 333-339.
2. Newman M, Gough D. Systematic reviews in educational research: methodology, perspectives, and application. In: Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, Buntins K, editors. Systematic reviews in educational research. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2020. p. 3-22.
3. McGrath C, Palmgren P, Liljedahl M. Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Med T, 2019;41(9): 1002-1006.
4. Busetto L, Wick W, Gumbinger C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neu Res Pr, 2020;2(14): 1-10.
5. Kwiek M, Roszka W. Gender disparities in international research collaboration: a study of 25,000 university professors. J Eco Sur, 2021;35(5): 1344-1380.
6. Cech EA, Blair-Loy M. The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. P Nat Ac Sci, 2019;116(10): 4182-4187.
7. Bozkurt A, Ucar H, Durak G, Idin S. The current state of the art in STEM research: a systematic review study. Cypr J Edu Sci, 2019;14(3): 374-383.
8. Margot KC, Kettler T. Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. Int J STEM Edu, 2019;6(2): 1-16.
9. Corneille M, Lee A, Allen S, Cannady J, Guess A. Barriers to advancement of women of color faculty in STEM: the need for promoting equity using an intersectional framework. Equ Div Inc: Int J, 2019;38(3): 328-348.
10. Park JJ, Kim YK, Salazar C, Hayes S. Student-faculty interaction and discrimination from faculty in STEM: the link with retention. Res H Edu, 2020;61: 330-356.