IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v11y2018i02p314-318_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Size Does Not Fit All: Gender Inequity in STEM Varies Between Subfields

Author

Listed:
  • Gisler, Stefanie
  • Kato, Anne E.
  • Lee, Soohyun
  • Leung, Desmond W.

Abstract

We wholeheartedly agree with Miner et al. (2018) that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists should take a lead in addressing gender inequity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The focal article is particularly timely in light of the recent controversial “Google memo†(Damore, 2017), in which a senior software engineer endorsed the same individual-level myths regarding the gender gap in STEM that were critiqued by Miner et al. (2018). However, we caution against painting all STEM fields with the same broad brush. We argue that it is critical for I-O psychologists to be aware of important differences between STEM subfields, as these distinctions suggest that a “one-size-fits-all†approach may be inadequate for addressing existing gender disparities in STEM. In order to be maximally effective, interventions may need to emphasize distinct issues and target different points in the career pipeline depending on the specific STEM subfield in question.

Suggested Citation

  • Gisler, Stefanie & Kato, Anne E. & Lee, Soohyun & Leung, Desmond W., 2018. "One Size Does Not Fit All: Gender Inequity in STEM Varies Between Subfields," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 314-318, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:02:p:314-318_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942618000214/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:02:p:314-318_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.