A Perspective of Gender Differences in Chemistry and Physics

Sep 4, 2012 - Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, ... the master's degrees and 36% of doctorates in chemistry (...
0 downloads 0 Views 377KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

A Perspective of Gender Differences in Chemistry and Physics Undergraduate Research Experiences Joseph A. Harsh,† Adam V. Maltese,*,† and Robert H. Tai‡ †

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, United States Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, United States

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: The loss of talented women from the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pipeline has been widely recognized within science education as a pressing issue, particularly in the physical sciences. To provide a gender-based perspective of a popular educational device, the present study evaluated undergraduate research experiences (UREs) from a longitudinal perspective in respect to participation, learning enhancements, and contribution to the pursuit of a postgraduate education. Data from practicing scientists and graduate students indicated that women were more likely to participate in these research programs than their male counterparts. Of those who had participated (n = 1829), similar patterns in conferred gains for men and women were reported; however, gender-based variations were observed within items associated with self-efficacy, science interest, and the practice of authentic research. Women were found to identify UREs as a primary reason for entering graduate school at a significantly higher rate than their male counterparts. Results of this study suggest the long-term efficacy of UREs as a gateway for women interested in STEM careers and provide support in justifying research programs and initiatives for women in traditionally male-dominated fields. KEYWORDS: Undergraduate Research, Women in Chemistry, Graduate Education/Research FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

T

he inability to recruit and retain women in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields has been widely recognized by leading policy agencies and the academic community as one of the most insistent issues in the U.S. educational system.1−4 Of particular concern is the commonly portrayed “leaky pipeline”, representing the stratification of women in STEM disciplines at various educational and professional stages owing to gender-based filters.4−6 In attempts to deepen the STEM talent pool by mitigating the resultant gender gap, an expansive assortment of governmental and private initiatives over the past 40 years have been introduced to promote the participation and advancement of girls and women at different levels within these fields.3,7−9 However, despite such efforts and the associated gains in the number of women in the sciences over time, women’s representation in advanced graduate study and as practicing research scientists in chemistry and physics remains grossly disproportionate.10−12 In 2008, within the United States, women accounted for 41% of conferred bachelor degrees in the physical sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics, and astronomy) from U.S. institutions; only a marginal increase from 39% in 1998.11 Within the same period, women were awarded 46% of the master’s degrees and 36% of doctorates in chemistry (up from 46% and 32% in 1998) and 21% of the conferred master’s degrees and 19% of doctorates in physics (up from 18% and 14% in 1998).11 © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY

Barriers to Women’s Participation in STEM Disciplines

Given the persistent and progressive underrepresentation of women at advanced stages of the physical science pipeline,3,11,13 understanding the factors that contribute to student persistence in postgraduate education and research-related careers is crucial. Previous studies identified a wide range of individual (intrinsic) and institutional (extrinsic) barriers that influence the persistence and retention of women in STEM fields. Research on intrinsic gender-based factors generally focuses on selfefficacy (i.e., one’s beliefs about one’s own competencies), personal motivation, attitudes toward science, precollege experiences, sense of career direction, concerns of balancing career with family, and family support.3,6,14−17 However, extant literature suggests that self-confidence has the greatest overall impact on female participation.5,18 For instance, in surveying 5320 college students from four highly selective institutions, Strenta, Elliot, Adair, Matier, and Scott19 found disproportionate levels of female attrition from the sciences, which they partly attributed to the loss of self-confidence. Interview data from Seymour’s5 study of 335 undergraduates later corroborated this outcome as female participants indicated the loss of confidence left them more vulnerable than their male counterparts to “switch” from the sciences. Published: September 4, 2012 1364

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

research-intensive university. Results from participant surveys and mentor ratings indicate that males and females comparably appraised their skill levels at the onset and conclusion of their research programs. Russell, Hancock, and McCullough33 surveyed a nationally representative sample of undergraduate majors and faculty in STEM fields. The authors suggest there were no significant gender differences in benefits conferred to participants and only 4% of mentors reported differential needs in guidance or mentorship between men and women. In a survey of undergraduate researchers in summer URE programs at 41 institutions, Lopatto26 concluded “men and women reported similar levels of benefits and similar patterns of career trends” (ref 33, p 270). Such findings are particularly encouraging as prior literature14 suggests that disparities in persistence disappear when men and women exhibit comparable levels of academic performance in STEM degree programs. Consistent with these findings, female participation in UREs has been found to contribute to the circumvention or alleviation of barriers that commonly affect women in pursuit of science careers. Data from alumni surveys and interviews of current female fellows in a single summer research program revealed that participation enhanced technical skills, selfconfidence, and motivation in seeking a science career.18 This was attributed to the nature of the research project and interactions within the community of practice (i.e., the student−mentor relationship, peer interactions, and participation in professional research conferences). This research converges with literature demonstrating the key role that research experiences have on the membership of underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines despite the innate challenges that are often affiliated with these fields (i.e., “cold” social and cultural climates).3

In analyzing extrinsic factors affecting STEM participation, prior studies indicate that academic experience, introductory curriculum, socialization, the perceived “cold” cultural climate of STEM fields, and interactions with faculty all have implications for student interest in the sciences. For example, in their study of science majors, Seymour and Hewitt14 argue that common norms encountered in STEM disciplines (i.e., high levels of competition, poor student−faculty interactions, and traditional teaching practices in introductory courses) often result in the attrition of talented students. While such extrinsic factors filter members of both genders from the STEM pipeline, researchers have found this impact to be especially amplified in underrepresented groups.5,10,20 In an examination of data from a longitudinal sample of college students (n = 17,637), Sax, Bryant, and Harper21 reported that interactions with faculty have a significant effect on female students’ self-confidence and sense of overall well-being. Such findings converge with Blickenstaff’s6 argument that the underrepresentation of women in the sciences is attributable to “the cumulative effect of many separate but related factors [that] results in the imbalance in STEM fields” (ref 6, p 369). Therefore, educational activities that enable women to compensate or overcome the multiple factors that act as layers in gender-based filters are necessary.6 STEM UREs as Educational Devices

One of the most common educational devices available to sustain students’ interest in the STEM fields are undergraduate research experiences (UREs).22 As described by Halstead23 in this Journal, UREs are portrayed as “an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate that makes on original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline” (ref 23, p 1390). Much has been written about the short- and long-term effects of URE participation on an assortment of learning gains and found evidence of substantial positive effects on a multitude of outcomes. Such effects included educational enhancements in discipline-specific knowledge,24 technical research skills,25 understanding of primary literature,26,27 problem-solving skills,28 scientific ethics,26,27 familiarity with theory and procedures,29 statistical skills,30 scientific communication,31 technical writing skills,32 and understanding of the research process.33 Further evidence indicates that research participation prior to graduate school is closely related to the development and support of key internal factors for participants. Several studies on UREs reported participant gains in the maintenance of interest in STEM fields,33 increased self-confidence in science and research,4 improved student attitudes toward science,28 and enhanced science identities (i.e., how individuals view themselves with respect to science).24 Given such contributions, it has been argued that URE participation positively affects academic performance,34 peer recognition,35 persistence in undergraduate majors,36 entrance to postgraduate studies,37 and retention and advancement of minority groups in STEM and professional careers.38 For general reviews of URE outcomes, see Crowe and Brakke39 and Sadler.40 While research investigating the effects of UREs on students is expansive, few studies have specifically focused on differential outcomes based on gender. Recent results from general studies assessing gender differences in UREs contend that participation enhances the educational experiences of male and female participants comparably.26,29,33 Kardash29 surveyed student interns and faculty involved with funded URE programs at a

Research Questions

As mentioned, evidence on long-term, gender-based differences in URE participation and effectiveness is particularly limited. The bulk of studies on the topic concentrate on the outcomes of undergraduates who are either active or recent research participants. In addition, the majority of this work has been conducted with students either participating in a single research program or from an individual institution. Thus, differences in the extent to which men and women participate in and benefit from UREs may be obscured by the institutional or program type, static time frame, or the participant’s ability to evaluate the professional significance of the experience. As a result, limited multi-institutional, long-term information exists on gender differences associated with UREs.39 The purpose of the present study is to specifically examine the extent to which gender differences exist in the participation in and reported benefits from participation in UREs across institutions over a longitudinal time frame. For this, the study was designed to use data from “advanced” members of the fields of chemistry and physics (i.e., graduate students and practicing scientists) to inform the following research questions: 1. Do men and women participate in UREs to the same extent? 2. How has URE participation for men and women changed over time? 3. What are the indicated benefits of UREs reported by men and women who advance to graduate school or beyond? 1365

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

students, 10% postdoctoral researchers, 23% current or former faculty (tenure track and lecturer/adjunct), 19% industrial researchers, 16% research scientists, and 7% not currently active in research.

4. What contributions do UREs have on the pursuit of postgraduate education for men and women? Through this analysis we hope to delineate the influence that UREs have in retaining students in the physical science pipeline, to offer a picture of how URE participation evolved over the last half-century, and to provide information that may guide mentors and administrators in facilitating and justifying research programs that support women in advanced chemistry and physics pursuits.

■

FINDINGS

Gender Differences in URE Participation

Our first objective was to examine gender specific differences in URE participation. We analyzed respondent data for research involvement prior to graduate school. Female respondents reported a higher level of URE participation within both disciplines (Table 1). Women and men also demonstrated

■

RESEARCH DESIGN The data analyzed for this work were collected as part of Project Crossover (NSF No. 0440002), a national mixedmethodology study designed to investigate the transition from student into practicing scientist.41 The study was conducted in two phases. Beginning in the fall of 2005 initial semistructured, exploratory interviews were conducted with 116 individuals who were working toward or had previously completed advanced degrees in chemistry or physics (e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, research scientists, etc.). Interview questions covered topics that contributed to the depth of insight on the entrance into research careers. Of these 116 interviewees, 86 (74%) had completed at least one research experience prior to graduate school. In an effort to validate accuracy, interview transcripts were sent to the participants for feedback and approval (i.e., member checking). Memberchecked participant transcripts were imported into QSR NVivo 8 (Cambridge, MA), a qualitative software package that enables computer-assisted data analysis by systematically organizing and categorizing verbal data (i.e., data coding). In the second phase of the project, an expansive questionnaire was developed to assess the transition to practicing scientist based on the preliminary interview data and previous research.42,43 Prior to distribution, the questionnaire underwent field testing with a handful of interviewees who were not participating in the survey study for feedback. The finalized survey consisted of 144 items asking respondents about their backgrounds, motivations, and experiences with respect to personal, educational, and professional contexts. Using a stratified random sampling approach (for gender), a representative sample of graduate students and scientists in the fields of chemistry and physics were contacted to complete the survey through the membership lists of two national professional societies (n = ∼13,000). Survey responses were received from 4285 individuals, yielding a 34% response rate. Initial analysis revealed the sample of survey respondents was consistent in several key demographic measures to the general populations of these fields.10 Comparable to earlier work by the authors,25 this analysis is based on a subset of data regarding URE participation and associated outcomes from the larger comprehensive study.44,45 Respondents failing to include items critical to this study (e.g., field of study, gender, year of baccalaureate conferment, URE participation, occupational role, and doctoral status) were excluded, yielding a final subsample of 2315 individuals. Of the total participants, female respondents comprised approximately 22% of the sample. Median age of respondents was 37 years old and the year of doctoral conferment (actual and projected) for participants ranged from 1946−2012 with a median completion year of 2001. From the final subsample of 2315, 67% of respondents reported chemistry as their respective field of work. The study sample was composed of 25% graduate

Table 1. Number and Percentage of Women’s and Men’s Within-Gender Responses Indicating Participation in Research Experience Prior to Graduate School Responses from Women, N (%)

Participation Type URE participants Chemistry URE participants Physics URE participants Mean number of URE experiences (SD)

400 (84) 340 (85) 61 (81) 3.36 (2.81)

b

Responses from Men, N (%)

Total Responses, Na

1429 (78) 927 (81)

1829 1267

501 (72)

562

2.88 (2.74)

a

A total of 2315 individuals were asked about their participation; 1829 reported participating in at least one URE. bSignificant at p = 0.001.

differences in the total number of UREs they participated in. Results of independent sample t-tests revealed that the total number of research experiences for females was significantly greater than their male counterparts: F(1,2314) = 11.80, p = 0.001. The Cohen’s d for this difference is 0.18, generally considered a small effect size.43 Gender Differences in URE Participation over Time

To investigate gender differences in URE participation over time, we grouped male and female respondents into cohorts based on the reported year of baccalaureate conferment. To increase statistical power, chronological groupings were structured to include at least 30 members. The estimated participation rate curves for men and women, by cohort of degree date, are summarized in Figure 1. The overall trends between time periods demonstrate comparable increases in URE participation for both genders to approximately 87% of men and 90% of women between 1996 and 2005. From Figure 1, the reported participation rates for women prior to 1976 were at least 9% higher than for men, but this variation may be an artifact of small sample size for this period. To examine the extent of URE participation over time for men and women, the total number of experiences for those who reported participating in a research opportunity (n = 1829) was analyzed by cohort. Figure 2 summarizes the number of men and women participating in three or more URE experiences by period of baccalaureate conferment. Results indicate that prior to the mid-1970s, females were 8% less likely than their male counterparts to participate in more than two research experiences; however, these results may again be attributable to the small sample of individuals from that period. Between the 1975 and 2005 cohorts, the difference in participation by gender is quite consistent. While demonstrating comparable increases in the percentage of men and women 1366

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 2. Responses to the Question on Greatest Specific Learning Gain from Research Experience Prior to Graduate School a

Item

Exposure to genuine scientific research Built confidence to conduct research Development of basic lab techniques Maintained interest in science Influenced my decision to explore other areas Exposure to graduate students Application of principles learned in class Exposure to research group/meetings discussions Exposure to literature Development of presentation skills

Figure 1. Trends in undergraduate research experience (URE) participation of women and men (n = 2315) by period of baccalaureate conferment. Respondents were separated into five cohorts based on time of undergraduate completion: 1940−1975 (men, n = 451; women, n = 41); 1976−1985 (men, n = 322; women, n = 51); 1986−1995 (men, n = 330; women, n = 98); and 1996−2005 (men, n = 737; women, n = 285).

Responses from Men (n = 1428), %

Responses from Women (n = 401), %

Total Responses (n = 1829), %

51

46

50

15

17

16

15

16

15

4

9

5

4

4

4

4

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1 1

1 1

1 1

a

Items are listed in descending order of selection frequency by women.

conf idence to conduct research and Maintenance of interest in science. The percentage of both men and women selecting Inf luenced my decision to explore other areas was found to be limited and comparable at approximately 4%. Figure 2. Trends in the number of women and men who participated in three or more undergraduate research experiences (UREs) (n = 1829) by period of baccalaureate conferment. Respondents were separated into five cohorts based on time of undergraduate completion: 1940−1975 (men, n = 288; women, n = 30); 1976− 1985 (men, n = 238; women, n = 38); 1986−1995 (men, n = 259; women, n = 77); and 1996−2005 (men, n = 643; women, n = 256).

The Role of UREs in the Pursuit of Postgraduate Education

The final objective of this study was to investigate the effect of URE participation on the pursuit of advanced STEM degrees. For this portion of the study, we analyzed an item on which participants were asked to select from a series of 20 factors to indicate the two most important reasons for entering graduate school. In comparison to former studies that focused primarily on students’ postgraduate interests as influenced by research participation, we included a variety of options from prior academic performance, general science interests, prior research experiences, encouragement from family and teachers, professional ambitions, funding opportunities, and familial reasons. Analysis of all of these factors is outside the scope of this study; however, it is of value to note that participation in a prior research experience was the highest ranked extrinsic factor and the second-rated reason overall, marginally behind career aspirations. Of all the respondents, 42% reported that participation in early research experiences was a major factor for pursuing postgraduate education. Pearson χ2 tests indicated significant differences in the distribution of responses across genders [χ2(1,N = 1828) = 5.169, p = 0.023] as a higher proportion of women (47 vs 40%) reported UREs as a motivating factor for postgraduate education.

participating in a higher number of research experiences, we found a gender gap of approximately 3%favoring womenin the percentage of respondents who reported completion of three or more UREs. Conferred Benefits of UREs

Table 2 summarizes the single greatest conferred benefit associated with UREs reported by participants. Items are listed in Table 2 in descending order of selection frequency by women. As can be seen, results of the analysis indicate gender similarities in the general patterns of experiential gains, with minor differences in the selection percentages across genders. While approximately half of all participants reported the Exposure to genuine scientif ic research as the single greatest benefit, men were found to select this outcome at a higher rate than women. For practical learning enhancements, females reported larger single gains in the Development of basic lab techniques item, whereas, in the scientific community and communication items, men reported marginally higher gains based on Exposure to graduate students. Of particular interest were the responses regarding self-efficacy and retention, on which a greater percentage of women indicated gains for Built

■

DISCUSSION In a 1989 report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) stated (ref 47, p 6): 1367

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

It is clear that the academic community regards the involvement of undergraduate student majors in meaningful research and related scholarly activity with faculty members as one of the most powerful of instructional tools. As women are commonly identified as being lost from the STEM pipeline at the secondary and postsecondary levels, an understanding of any gender differences in URE participation is of critical importance if we seek to achieve gender parity. By surveying advanced students and scientists, results of this study provide a gender-based perspective on trends in URE participation and the value of early research opportunities in the advancement of long-term educational enhancements and retention in the physical sciences. In the discussion below, we include relevant quotes from the interview phase of the project to illuminate certain results. For the observed disciplines, our data indicate that women were more likely to participate in URE opportunities than their male counterparts. Female respondents in physics had participation rates that were approximately 9% greater than men, while in chemistry the rates were more comparable across genders. These results may suggest that for students in physics and chemistry there are differences in the number of experiences available to them or in the expectations of URE participation. Analysis of the cumulative number of research experiences respondents participated in revealed differences between genders as women in both fields were found to participate in a greater number of UREs. These findings accord with the supposition of Mabrouk and Peters28 that URE programs are “effective to reaching out to interested undergraduate women” (ref 28, p 26). Using the year of baccalaureate conferment as a guide, results indicate that the participation rates for men and women have noticeably increased over time. This finding is, perhaps, unsurprising given the widely endorsed view of UREs as a key educational device in postsecondary science curricula33 and the generous financial and institutional resources allocated to such programs.47−49 Our results further demonstrate that the number of research experiences participated in by both genders have comparably increased during this period. However, it is important to note that female respondents reported a higher rate of participation than males in the total number of research experiences. One potential question worthy of further study is why this difference exists: perhaps female students felt they “needed” to complete more UREs to compete with male colleagues in obtaining admission to graduate programs in these fields. Our findings also indicate that men and women perceive similar benefits from participation in UREs. Exposure to genuine research was strongly considered the most valued attribute across genders. In addition, respondents commonly cited the importance of UREs in building confidence to conduct research, development of basic laboratory techniques, and maintenance of interest in science. While the results demonstrate comparable trends in reported gains, some variations across gender are observable within the ratings. Female respondents were found to more commonly select outcomes associated with self-efficacy and science interest, whereas males ranked the practice of authentic research at a higher level. These results align with prior studies on gender differences in STEM attrition5,14,50 attributed to undergraduate curriculum, academic and social cultures, and low selfconfidence, with the latter two being particularly important

for underrepresented groups. Going back to our interview data, the following remark espouses this view: Women, more often, and I saw that very much true in terms of when I was a graduate student, left grad school because they lacked the self-confidence...They always questioned themselves, inherently. [Linn, scientist, chemistry]

With regard to these factors, our findings suggest the importance of UREs in providing participants an avenue to overcome such perceived barriers. Several women commented upon the role of these programs in advancing self-efficacy in the field: I knew how to do research. I mean, I really did. When I got into the [graduate] group at [research university], I had an enormous number of technical skills I had to gain with brand new instrumentation, brand new scienceit did not scare me. I knew I could do it, right? ...I had confidence in my ability to research. [Elizabeth, scientist, chemistry]

Yeah, in the sense that it [undergraduate research] helped megave me confidence that this was something that I wanted to do for one thing. It gave me an in-depth exposure to inorganic chemistry as a subfield that I wanted to pursue. So that influenced my choice of graduate school. [Anita, scientist, chemistry]

These findings support prior literature on the role of authentic research experiences in providing women a means to mediate intrinsic gender-based filters through the enhancement of self-confidence by “doing science”.5 While these feelings are likely not unique to women, the effect of these feelings may be and we feel this is an area that needs further research. Converging with previous findings,25,26,51,52 participation in undergraduate research was found to be effective in contributing to the pursuit of postgraduate education. Our findings suggest that while research participation plays a motivational role for both genders, such experiences had a stronger association for women entering graduate school than their male peers. These results strongly support the proposition that UREs are an important educational tool for retaining women in the STEM pipeline. This argument is further endorsed by the following interview response: So for me [undergraduate research] was a very powerful experience, made me want to major in chemistry, made me want to take the next course, want to see how things could interplay. [Marguerite, scientist, chemistry]

An issue worthy of further study is the mechanism(s) by which UREs encourage women to pursue advanced degrees either through the promotion of new career aspirations or the clarification, refinement, or reinforcement of pre-existing interests. The present findings complement prior literature4,25,26,28 demonstrating the efficacy of UREs in promoting researchrelated career interests and learning gains associated with the process of science, self-confidence, and scientific methodologies for women in STEM fields. In this current study, female researchers, who were on average 11 years post-Ph.D. conferment at the time of the survey, were asked to select the single greatest URE benefit and the two major reasons for pursuing an advanced degree. As posited by Simonton,53 there is a “10-year rule” for the full germination of creative 1368

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

participants were more likely to select gains associated with selfefficacy (e.g., self-confidence) and maintenance of interest. Most notably, women reported that URE participation often played a formative role in the pursuit of advanced STEM degrees at a significantly higher rate than male participants. As asserted by Blickenstaff,6 underrepresentation of women in the STEM pipeline is a complex issue requiring innovations that help women overcome a host of gender-based barriers. Thus, an analysis of UREs as an educational device, from the perspective of advanced students and practicing scientists in the physical science fields, has important implications for practice and policy in science education. The findings presented here are consistent with the proposition that UREs provide a gateway for women interested in careers in chemistry and physics. Additionally, data from this mixed-method study complement prior research21 advocating for URE program designs that emphasize “hands-on” experiences modeling genuine community practices. This outcome is of particular importance as studies on STEM attrition in postsecondary education previously identified a relationship between retention rates and the perception of a positive science identity, especially in underrepresented groups, that is predicated on legitimate participation.5,54,55 Finally, our results offer support for the value of programs and initiatives that provide women research opportunities in traditionally male-dominated fields, which should be encouraging to the science community and funding agencies.

achievements or demonstration of professional successes that stem from involvement in educational programs. Thus, by examining the perspective of those participants who made the transition from student into scientist, this study adds to the field by providing one of the few assessments of the distal impacts for UREs in STEM fields.

■

LIMITATIONS There appear to be three general limitations to this study. First, our survey participants were sought through the membership lists of professional research societies. Given the centrality of these professional research societies to their respective fields, it is reasonable to conclude that our findings are relevant to a large and important segment of scientists and researchers in these scientific fields. However, individuals who did not go on to pursue advanced degrees in the physical sciences were not included. It seems fair to expect that the URE data reported here may be influenced by each individual’s level of selfmotivation to advance as research scientists in chemistry and physics. This rather intuitive association or “selection” may be particularly true for female respondents who persisted in what have been historically male-dominated fields. On the other hand, females for whom a high level of motivation was not present may have chosen to leave the field. As such, it would likely be beneficial in future studies on UREs to seek insight from individuals who participated in early research experiences yet did not pursue advanced degrees in the physical sciences. Second, while qualitative interview data were collected as part of the larger study, we consciously chose to include only a selective subset of these findings in this work. As the purpose of this analysis was outlined post hoc, the semistructured exploratory interview questions posed by multiple interviewers were not specifically constructed to investigate gender differences in UREs. We suggest that future studies directly evaluate gender considerations as associated with UREs. Third, the survey item used to examine the conferred educational enhancements may be biased toward positive outcomes. As the item initially included a single “negative” outcome (Influenced decision to explore other areas) and failed to offer an “other” category for open response, a follow-up contact addressing this concern was sent to participants who provided email addresses (n = 240) on the original survey. Of the 55 responses, only three individuals indicated a negative outcome or experience associated with URE participation. It is suggested that future studies examining the educational enhancements of UREs be structured in a manner that provides a greater selection of potential negative outcomes and an opportunity for respondent elaboration.

■

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Survey items related to URE participation and benefits. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Support for Project Crossover was provided by the NSF under Award #0440002. Any findings, opinions, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Project Crossover group members in the design and implementation of the initial study that this work stems from, and John Esteb for his assistance in reviewing this article.

■

CONCLUSION

The present analysis on the gender-based effects of participation in undergraduate research has important implications for postsecondary chemistry and physics education. The results indicate that male and female participation in UREs have made equivocal percentage-wise gains since the 1940s. Our findings suggest that during this period, women in chemistry and physics were more likely to participate in UREs than their male counterparts. Responses concerning long-term URE enhancements indicate that the exposure to genuine, authentic research was considered the most valued attribute by both genders. Despite general similarities in a multitude of other conferred benefits, the results demonstrated that female

REFERENCES

(1) National Science Foundation. Research on Gender in Science and Engineering FY 2006 (GSE) Program Announcement, NSF 05-614; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2005. (2) U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional Requesters: Gender Issues: Women’s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need To Do More To Ensure Compliance with Title IX, GAO-04-639; U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, 2004. (3) Rosser, S. V. The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed; New York: Routledge, 2004. (4) Seymour, E.; Hunter, A. B.; Laursen, S. L.; Deantoni, T. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (4), 493−534. (5) Seymour, E. Sci. Educ. 1995, 79 (4), 437−473. 1369

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(6) Blickenstaff, J. C. Gen. Educ. 2005, 17 (4), 369−386. (7) Mertl, M. Grants for Women in Science. Sci. Careers 2000, May 31; http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_ issues/articles/2000_05_31/noDOI.16094295288747995254 (accessed Aug 2012). (8) Zumdahl, S. A. Mission Impossible? Improving Retention of Science Majors among Minorities and Women. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (11), A266−A267. (9) National Science Foundation. New Tools for America’s Workforce: Girls in Science and Engineering, NSF 06-59; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2006. (10) Alper, J. Science 1993, 260, 409−411. (11) National Science Foundation. Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2009, NSF 09-305; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2010. (12) Snyder, S. A.; Dillow, T. D. Digest of Education Statistics 2009, NCES 2010-013; NCES: Washington, DC, 2010. (13) Cronin, C.; Roger, A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36 (6), 639−661. (14) Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview: Boulder, CO, 1997. (15) Rayman, P.; Brett, B. J. Higher Educ. 1995, 66, 388−414. (16) Sax, L. J. Rev. Higher Educ. 2001, 24 (2), 153−172. (17) Wyer, M. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 2003, 9, 1−16. (18) Campbell, A.; Skoog, G. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2004, 33 (5), 24−26. (19) Strenta, A. C.; Elliott, R.; Adair, R.; Matier, M.; Scott, J. Res. Higher Educ. 1994, 35 (5), 513−547. (20) Wickware, P. Nature 1997, 390, 202−203. (21) Sax, L. J.; Bryant, A. N.; Harper, C. E. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2005, 46 (6), 642−657. (22) For the purpose of this study, an undergraduate research experience (URE) refers to any hands-on research experience prior to graduate school independent of research type or funding agency. (23) Halstead, J. A. What Is Undergraduate Research? J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (12), 1390−1391. (24) Hunter, A. B.; Laursen, S. L.; Seymour, E. Sci. Educ. 2006, 91, 36−74. (25) Harsh, J. A.; Maltese, A. V.; Tai, R. H. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2012, 41 (1), 84−91. (26) Lopatto, D. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270−277. (27) Lopatto, D. Cell Biol. Educ. 2007, 6, 297−306. (28) Mabrouk, P. A.; Peters, K. CUR Quart. 2000, 21, 25−33. (29) Kardash, C. A. J. Educ. Psych. 2006, 92, 191−201. (30) Kremer, J. F.; Bringle, R. G. J. Res. Dev. Educ. 1990, 24 (1), 1−5. (31) Bauer, K. W.; Bennett, J. S. J. Higher Educ. 2003, 74, 210−230. (32) Bressette, A. R.; Breton, G. W. Using Writing To Enhance the Undergraduate Research Experience. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12), 1626−1627. (33) Russell, S. H.; Hancock, M. P.; McCullough, J. Science 2007, 316, 548−549. (34) Hearn, J. C. Res. Higher Educ. 1987, 27 (2), 119−141. (35) Hutchinson, A. R.; Atwood, D. A. Research with First- and Second-Year Undergraduates: A New Model for Undergraduate Inquiry at Research Universities. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (1), 125− 126. (36) Nagda, B. A.; Gregerman, S. R.; Jonides, J.; von Hippel, W.; Lerner, J. S. Rev. Higher Educ. 1998, 22 (1), 55−72. (37) Hathaway, R. S.; Nagda, B. A.; Gregerman, S. R. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2002, 43 (5), 614−631. (38) Gregerman, S. CUR Quart. 1999, 20, 54−59. (39) Crowe, M.; Brakke, D. CUR Quart. 2008, 28 (1), 43−50. (40) Sadler, T. D.; McKinney, L. L. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2010, 39 (5), 68−74. (41) For more of a comprehensive discussion of the methodologies employed in the study, please consult the authors or see Maltese, A. V.; Tai, R. H. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32 (5), 669−685. (42) Gaff, J. G. Change 2002, 34, 63−66. (43) Nettles, M. T.; Millett, C. M. Three Magic Letters: Getting to Ph.D.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 2006.

(44) The questionnaire items central to the questions addressed here can be found in the online Supporting Information. (45) As the current analysis was outlined post hoc, the initial semistructured interviews did not explicitly address gender differences in UREs. The selected interviewee comments included here are intended solely to provide depth to the survey findings. (46) Cohen, J. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155−159. (47) National Science Foundation. Report on the National Science Foundation Workshops on Undergraduate Education; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 1989. (48) Mervis, J. Science 2001, 293, 1614−1615. (49) National Science Foundation. FY 2009 Budget Request to Congress; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2008. (50) Masnick, A. M.; Stavros Valenti, S.; Cox, B. D.; Osman, C. J. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32 (5), 653−667. (51) Foertsch, J. A.; Alexander, B. B.; Penberthy, D. L. CUR Quart. 2000, 20, 114−119. (52) Summers, M. F.; Hrabowski, F. A., III. Science 2006, 311, 1870− 1871. (53) Simonton, D. K. Creativity as a Constrained Stochastic Process. In Creativity: From Potential to Realization; Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Singer, J. L., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, 2004; pp 83−101. (54) Calabrese-Barton, A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1998, 35, 379−394. (55) Karukustis, K. Community-Based Research. A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Research in the Sciences. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (1), 15−18.

1370

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200581m | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364−1370