Intergenerational Resemblance in STEM Subjects and Gender Differences: The Case of England

• In Event: Using evidence to accelerate progress in girls’ education: from systematic reviews to program mapping

Proposal

England is among the many nations aspiring to increase highly qualified and diversified human resources in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) fields (Crawford, Johnson, Machin, & Vignoles, 2011; Smith, 2011). Despite the expansion of higher education in England, women remain underrepresented in STEM subjects (Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman, & Vignoles 2008; Smith 2011). Becoming a matter of national concern, politicians have voiced their worries over the economy’ overall health and security due to the inadequate number of women in STEM fields (Arnett, 2015). Similarly, the Royal Academy of Engineering (2012) argued that UK policymakers should address women and minority underrepresentation and its implications on the nation’s global competitiveness.

Gender disparities in enrollment and persistence in STEM education in England are replicated internationally (Butz et al., 2006; Gago et al., 2004; National Academy of Sciences, 2007). Increasing female participation in STEM promotes advancements in science, research and technology and increases the nation’s economic prosperity and societal well-being (Blair, 2006; Brennan & Naidoo, 2008). Because STEM careers often offer high earnings, hiring more women engineers and scientists who are equally qualified as males is critical to dismantling gender inequalities in the workforce. Numerous studies have addressed gender disparities in entry to STEM majors. Still, it is unclear how parents influence children’s major choices from early schooling to entry to higher education, and how that impact varies depending on parental and children’s gender.

Parents influence both “where” and “what” children study in higher education. The majority of research on educational disparities discusses educational level rather than field of study (Van de Werfhorst, Sullivan, & Cheung, 2003). Based on the rational choice perspective and cultural reproduction theory, Van de Werfhorst et al. (2003) highlight the importance of parental economic and cultural context in influencing children’s education choice.
Children tend to choose similar fields as their parents in upper secondary school. Dryler (1998) found that this probability was stronger between father and sons. However, Bengtsson’s (1983) study of Swedish female university students found that a larger proportion of women studying natural sciences had fathers who studied or worked in the same field. Research has also discussed the intersection of social class on atypical educational choices, defining “atypical” as fields of study in which a gender is highly underrepresented. Findings from this research demonstrate that girls from a higher social class are more likely to make atypical educational choices (Gruca, Ethington, & Pascarella, 1988). Researchers attribute atypical educational choices to different gender role socialization theories. While Kohlberg’s (1966) cognitive-developmental theory emphasizes same-sex imitation, Hetherington (1965) explains that cross-sex imitation of a parent’s job may occur if one parent is more influential.

Drawing upon the framework of intergenerational resemblance in field of study and gender role socialization, this study examines if entry to STEM majors in higher education is reproduced by students’ parental backgrounds, particularly parental occupation in STEM or non-STEM fields. Specifically, this study aims to examine whether parental occupations in STEM fields relates to their children’s educational trajectories, such as early academic achievement (5th year English, mathematics, and science proficiencies), curricular experiences (A-level courses), and major choices in STEM or non-STEM fields in higher education. Also, we aim to examine whether the relationship varies by children’s and parents’ gender.

Data Source and Study Methods

This study uses data from the British Department of Education’s Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (Department for Education and National Centre for Social Research, 2012). Respondents were born between 1 September 1989 and 31 August 1990 and were interviewed annually between 2003 and 2010. Furthermore, respondents’ parents were interviewed for the first four years. This analysis uses a partial sample of respondents from the LSYPE dataset: while the first wave sampled 15,770, we focus on those respondents who were still participating by the seventh wave and had enrolled in university by that stage. This reduced the sample size to 4,026.

In this study, we define STEM-major degrees as those in which the subject major is classified as either biological sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, engineering, or technology. We do not include medicine or pre-medicine courses. Parental factor variables include parental educational level, socio-economic status, occupations, and educational expectation for their children. We used logistic regressions to analyze a binary outcome, whether students chose to study STEM subjects. The preliminary findings of this study indicate that women are less likely to choose STEM majors even after controlling for their other demographic characteristics and early proficiency in English, Math, and Science. There is a positive relationship between having a parent in a STEM profession and student STEM subject choice. Interestingly, other parental factors are not statistically significant when we controlled for parental occupation. Female students with parents who work in STEM occupations and who have early intentions to study STEM at grade 12 are more likely to study STEM majors at university.

In the full version of the paper, we include a more extensive literature review focusing on gender norm socialization and intergenerational transmission of field of study, more detailed information about the methods and final results, and discussion and implications. This study will assist both K-12 and higher education administrators and policy makers to better understand the influences of parents on students’ subject choice and provide policy and practice implications to parents and students who are disadvantaged in the process of STEM major choice. We will also offer directions for future research addressing parental factors in higher education literature.

Authors

• Hyun Kyoung Ro, Bowling Green State University

• Frank Fernandez, University of Houston

• Ben Alcott, University of Cambridge

• Dina Ghazzawi, University of Houston