Women Physicists and Sociocognitive

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 24(2):95–119 (2018)

WOMEN PHYSICISTS AND SOCIOCOGNITIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN CAREER CHOICE AND PERSISTENCE Ghada Nehmeh1 & Angela Kelly2,* 1Institute for STEM Education, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA

*Address all correspondence to: Angela Kelly, 092 Life Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; Tel.: 631-632-9750; Fax: 631-632-9791, E-mail: [email protected]

Despite research that has investigated the underrepresentation of women in physics, the disparity is persistent. This study explores the academic and career experiences of professional women physicists to propose different strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain women in the physics community. A qualitative phenomenological case study methodology was employed to analyze this problem through the lens of a sociocognitive theoretical framework, based upon psychological theories of behavior and derived from two career motivation constructs: 1) self-efficacy and self-concept, and 2) expectancy- value theory. Subjects included seven career women physicists with master’s degrees in physics and doctorates in physics-related fields. The influences of psychological and social variables were evalu- ated to generate theories on proposed strategies for inclusiveness. Various latent constructs related to career interest and retention were identified, including early interest in physics and mathematics, recognition of the societal value of physics, and positive experiences with role models. Tensions in their career pathways were related to pervasive feelings of inadequacy, lack of social support, negative stereotypes, awareness of minority status, and struggles with work-life balance. Suggestions for academic and professional institutional paradigm shifts are discussed, including active acknowledgment of disparate participation and increased efforts to recruit and retain women through improved school and workplace environments.

KEY WORDS: expectancy-value theory, gender, physics, phenomenology, physics education research, qualitative methods, self-concept, self-efficacy, women in STEM

1. INTRODUCTION Participation in physics has been persistently inequitable for traditionally underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities (American Institute of Physics [AIP], 2013, 2015). A diverse workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is desirable for economic innovation and global competitiveness (President’s Council of Advisors on Sci- ence and Technology, 2010). Women constitute half the workforce in the U.S., yet they are a considerably untapped talent resource in STEM-related careers, holding fewer than 25% of all STEM positions (Beede, Julian, Langdon, McKittrick, Khan, and Doms, 2011). In terms of physics, female participation tends to decline throughout the academic pipeline. High school physics students were 47% female in 2009, yet they were a smaller proportion (32%) of students taking Advanced Placement Physics C (AIP, 2011). Women earned just 20% of physics bachelor’s degrees and 18% of doctoral degrees in 2015 (American Physical Society [APS], 2015a). Only

14% of faculty members in U.S. physics departments are women (AIP, 2013), and they are most often at the assistant professor level (Nelson and Brammer, 2010). Despite the improvement of women’s representation in physics over the past 50 years, it is still considerably low compared to male representation in the field (APS, 2015a, 2015b). Solutions are needed to prepare, recruit, and retain more women to contribute to a vibrant, inclusive physics community. This study explores various factors related to women’s physics-related career choices and persistence in the context of sociocognitive affects. Although Haussler and Hoffmann (2002) reported that women’s self-confidence and physics abilities tended to diminish with higher levels of physics, the women in this study have persisted to reach career milestones in a field in which they have been considerably underrepresented. Reflecting upon their educational and career pathways, they shed light on the most critical issues that might influence women’s lack of persistence in physics. The research questions explored how professional women have been prepared, attracted, recruited, and retained in physics careers. The lens through which their experiences were analyzed included aspects related to identity, self-concept, self-efficacy, motivation, and resilience. The questions were as follows: 1. What were the motivations for female professional physicists to pursue higher education and careers in physics? 2. How have their experiences in physics been influenced by social, cognitive, behavioral, and environmental constructs? 3. What are their recommendations to promote women’s participation in physics? Recent reports in gender occupational stratification in academic and research STEM fields have attributed the dearth of women to discrimination, implicit bias, lack of funding, and institutional disadvantages (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2007; Ecklund, Lincoln, and Tansey, 2012; Ivie and Guo, 2006; Moss- Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, and Handelsman, 2012), though other researchers suggested women were more likely deterred from mathematics-intensive fields by family considerations, lifestyle choices, and career preferences that form as early as adolescence (Ceci and Williams, 2011). Pathways to STEM and physics careers have been limited by upward transfer issues related to course taking patterns differentiated by gender and ethnicity (Bahr, Jackson, McNaughton, Oster, and Gross, 2016; Wang, 2016). Since physics knowledge has the potential to lead to high- status career paths (Fullarton and Ainley, 2000; Lyons, 2006), it has been portrayed as a subject that only people with special talent can do (Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, and Freeland, 2015). The perceived difficulty of the subject has played a major role in discouraging students from the field (Angell, Guttersrud, Henriksen, and Isnes, 2004). The issue of underrepresentation in physics is experienced by women in most countries, and the causes are complex and nuanced (Ivie and Guo, 2006; Jianxiang, 2002). Researchers have identified various constructs related to physics career interest and retention, which are described below.

1.1 Mentors and Role Models

Parental support and role models have been critical for many women who persist in physics careers (Dabney and Tai, 2013; Koul, Lerdpornkulrat, and Chantara, 2011; Richman, VanDellen, and Wood, 2011). There has been a severe lack of women physics faculty who may serve as role models (Nelson and Brammer, 2010). Female students have been influenced by observing female faculty as social people who enjoy working with others (Fehrs and Czujko, 1992). This

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 97

is not to say that male faculty cannot serve as role models; however, the presence and status of female faculty has often resonated with the self-concept of women physics majors (Nelson and Brammer, 2010; Rask and Bailey, 2002). A lack of female teachers has sometimes led to feelings of isolation and exclusion for women at various stages of physics education (Hodgson, 2000). Furthermore, women have been influenced by negative social experiences in academic settings (Curtin, Blake, and Cassagnau, 1997; Dabney and Tai, 2013). A lack of camaraderie has often been experienced by women in traditionally male-dominated departments (Rosser and Zieseniss, 2000). Social networks have been an important source of job attainment and career advancement in the sciences, and physicists have fewer women in support roles than scientists in other fields (Feeney and Bernal, 2010).

1.2 Self-Efficacy and Confidence

Women tend to have lower assessments of their academic physics abilities regardless of performance, which are typically on parity with men (Angell et al., 2004; Lyons, 2006; Mujtaba and Reiss, 2013; Taasoobshirazi and Carr, 2008). This contributes to lower rates of persistence in physics and other STEM fields (Correll, 2004). Expressions of diminished self-efficacy (confidence in goal-related tasks) and self-concept (identity as a “physics person”) are persistent throughout the physics pipeline, contributing to a cumulative disadvantage (Tripp-Knowles, 1995). Women who have progressed to successful careers in the field still frequently reported feelings of inadequacy, often known as “imposter syndrome” (Ivie and Guo, 2006). Self-confidence has also been related to the experiences women have in academic settings. Women physicists reported some positive experiences in introductory physics classrooms through open communication with faculty and peers (Dabney and Tai, 2014; Dresselhaus, Franz, and Clark, 1994; Stadler, Duit, and Benke, 2000). Some preferred nonauthoritarian teaching styles and inclusive pedagogical practices (Labudde, Herzog, Neuenschwander, Violi, and Ger- ber, 2000; Zohar and Bronshtein, 2005). They also tended to cite the societal benefits of science as a reason for pursuing STEM careers (Ecklund et al., 2012; Murphy, Lunn, and Jones, 2006). Conversely, those discouraged from the field reported high physics anxiety (Williams, 2000) and the need to avoid negative social classroom interactions such as competition and argumentation (Alexoopoulou and Driver, 1997). Often times, women associated their femininity with being identified as less competent in physics (Aprahamian, 2003; Ong, 2005).

1.3 Work-Life Balance and Professional Environment

Compromises have often been required for women who wished to balance a research-focused career path with personal commitments (Hodgson, 2000). The perception of the labor-intensive nature of physics has been cited by women who chose more flexible careers (Ecklund et al., 2012). The “two-body problem,” which occurs when both spouses are physicists and seek jobs in the same location, has affected women physicists more than men—approximately 50% of married female physicists have physicist spouses, while only 7% of married male physicists have spouses in the field. In dual physics job searches, 60% of applicants reported settling for a lower-level physics job or a position in another field altogether (McNeil and Sher, 1999). Other researchers pointed out the inequitable distribution of laboratory resources and unspecified standards for professional success (Tobias, Urry, and Venkatsen, 2002).

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 98 Nehmeh & Kelly

1.4 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this research is based upon several psychological theories of sociocognitive behavior. Recent physics education researchers applied psychological perspectives towards understanding academic and career physics-related choices and experiences (Ca- vallo, Potter, and Rozman, 2004; Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler, and Shanahan, 2010; Kelly, 2016). The seminal work in this field was Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986). He, along with Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984), argued that science career choices are ultimately influenced by social interactions, environmental influences, and cognition. Beliefs,- self-per ceptions, and expectations guide individuals towards making academic decisions (Bandura, 1989). Too often for women, these influences discouraged them from choosing physics as a viable career path. The sociocognitive framework of this study is derived from two constructs related to career motivation: 1) self-efficacy and self-concept; and 2) expectancy-value theory. Self-efficacy has been defined as a student’s judgment of her ability to complete academic or career- oriented tasks (Bandura, 1986), while self-concept is a construct derived from a woman’s perceived competence in physics compared to other subjects as well as external comparison to one’s peers in physics (Möller and Marsh, 2013). Expectancy-value theory explains determi- nants of career choice in terms of perceptions of competence, personal and professional cost options, and values associated with interest and utility (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). These factors were analyzed through the lens of internal beliefs and shared experiences of women physicists. Physics and education researchers have explored physics career diversity and retention in previous work. Some interventions that attracted and retained women in physics were the recruitment of senior women faculty, supportive learning and social environments, effective communication between students and faculty, and day care availability (Dresselhaus et al., 1994). These interventions were initiated by proactive leadership that acknowledged the seri- ousness of the disparity (Stewart and Osborn, 1998). Other studies explored equitable access in terms of racial and economic considerations (Rosa and Mensah, 2016). However, this research adds knowledge through a sociocognitive perspective in identifying career choices related to often nonobservable perceptions and values. The findings of this study will inform physics educators and policy makers of latent contributions to career decision making that are shared by many women.

2. STUDY POPULATION AND DATA COLLECTION

Seven female professional physicists from the U.S. and abroad were recruited for the study through professional networks. The subjects had earned master’s degrees in physics and a PhD in a physics-related field; all had studied and/or worked in the U.S. at various points in their lives. All were employed in a physics-related career, whether research or academia. The women were purposively sampled to represent a variety of backgrounds, family situations, and careers. In addition to the semistructured interview protocol (Appendix A), the interviewees were encouraged to openly talk about their experiences in order to elicit more details about their schooling, employment, and personal lives. The physicists were interviewed for 60 minutes by one or two interviewers; some participated in follow-up interviews of 30–45 minutes.

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 99

3. DESIGN

3.1 Qualitative Research Design

The research methods employed in this study were qualitative, concerned with the meanings the participants brought to the study (Crouch and McKenzie, 2006). From interviews, direct quotations were interpreted to explore subjects’ personal perspectives; in this way, experiences were inductively analyzed to generate explanatory theories (Patton, 1990). The research is descriptive in nature in that it incorporates expressive language in the analysis and interpretation (Eisner, 1991). The study utilized a descriptive case study research design (Baxter and Jack, 2008), an opti- mal design when examining relevant contextual conditions that are not manipulated as part of the research process (Yin, 2003). The boundaries of the case included professional women physicists working in either research or academia. This narrow definition provided richness of data to develop an explanatory model (Morse, 2000). The descriptive case study approach related phenomena in the contexts in which they occurred. Qualitative data were collected to elucidate patterns and themes that were characteristic of each case, which may have been indigenous (identified by subjects) or sensitizing (identified by the researcher) (Patton, 1990). A semistructured interview protocol was developed based on the theoretical framework (Ap- pendix A). Interviews were conducted by one or two researchers. Phenomenological analysis as described by Creswell (2007) and Saldaña (2012) were used to analyze the transcripts. Substan- tive theories were generated inductively. The phenomenological approach, intended to illuminate shared lived experiences, was divided into several different steps (Creswell, 2007). First, after many rounds of reviewing the interview transcripts, the most significant statements were identified. All the statements were given the same weight and overlapping statements were eliminated, in a process known as horizontalization of data. Next, chosen statements were grouped into themes and textural descriptions including verbatim examples were provided. A description of how events took place, or structured description, was accompanied by a reflection on the setting and context of the phenomenon. Finally, the essence of the analysis was illustrated in a composite description of the phenomenon incorporating both textural and structural descriptions.

3.2 Coding Process

Hypotheses were generated from the raw data. The researchers wrote analytical memos, which are documentation of the participants, phenomena, and the process under investigation. At the same time, two coding cycles were applied. The first cycle included open coding methods where raw data were divided into smaller segments. This consisted of three phases. In vivo coding involved identifying short phrases from the raw data to honor participants’ voices (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). In process coding, gerunds were selected to interpret the described actions (Charmaz, 2002; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), which was useful for studying how the women responded to challenges (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). During the initial coding phase, the data were split into discrete parts and subsequently analyzed, compared, and contrasted. After dividing the data into smaller elements, similarities and differences were identified (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In vivo and process coding were performed simultaneously with initial coding (Saldaña, 2013). Both researchers coded transcripts separately before sharing and refining interpretations and resolving discrepancies through extended discussions.

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 100 Nehmeh & Kelly

The second cycle was used to connect the categories identified during the first cycle. The goal was to reorganize and reanalyze the array of first-cycle codes to produce a smaller yet en- compassing list of themes. The second cycle utilized focused, axial, and theoretical coding methods. In focused coding, coded data were characterized into themes based on similarities. Axial coding determined the most dominant and representative codes. At this stage, contexts, interactions, and consequences of the participants’ experiences were identified.Theoretical coding was the process for determining core categories, integrating and synthesizing all thematic elements to create a cohesive narrative (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Based on emergent categories and coding, the literature review was expanded after the interviews to include topics not previously researched. Figure 1 summarizes the analytical framework with two main phases of coding, in which emergent and central categories were identified to elicit explanatory constructs.

3.3 Reflexivity and Bracketing

The authors are science education researchers and physics educators with 13 and 18 years of experience teaching secondary and college physics, respectively. They possess a set of cultural and social values that may have influenced their interpretation of the subjects’ perspectives. To put aside their beliefs about the phenomena under study, a few strategies were employed. First, areas of potential bias were continuously identified and minimized by documenting them in a form of a reflexive diary (Wall, Glenn, Mitchinson, and Poole, 2004), an activity that provided the researchers with a tool to identify the factors that might have influenced the validity of the study. This diary was used to document the researchers’ feelings and reactions throughout the research process. The researchers relied upon the participants’ cues and guided them to focus on the phenomenon under investigation, but consciously avoided leading them (Ray, 1994). This strategy was carried out by asking open-ended questions and listening very closely to the participants to formulate new understandings (Fischer, 2009; Richardson, 1999).

3.4 Limitations

The research subjects had diversity in background and career characteristics. Consequently, it was difficult to generalize their experiences, though several common themes were apparent when analyzing data. In addition, it was difficult to recruit participants to talk openly, particularly when asked to talk about their negative experiences. Some of them were willing to share information but insisted on turning off the audio recording. Worrying about their jobs was evident in their words and demeanors. In order to avoid making the participants uncomfortable, we restrained from asking directly about sensitive personal matters that may have had an impact on their career choices. Participants spoke candidly at their own discretion. An additional limitation was the re- cruiting mechanism for participants. The women physicists were selected from the professional networks of the researchers, which may have introduced bias.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Participants

The seven women participants were selected to provide maximum variation in backgrounds and experiences within the defined case. Demographic, academic, family, and professional character-

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 101

FIG. 1: Analytical framework (adapted from Saldaña, 2012) istics are summarized in Table 1. Two of the women were born in the U.S., two in Europe, two in the Middle East, and one in South America. Despite the diversity of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, most women discussed their academic and career pathways in terms of their gender identity; however, cultural and social issues were sometimes raised.

4.2 Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy Issues

A consistent theme in the interviews with women physicists was a pervasive feeling of inadequacy when it came to their innate physics abilities. Despite the fact that these women overcame many obstacles in their educational and career journeys, an underlying feeling of incompetence was revealed among many. Factors that might have contributed to this construct were grouped into two themes: 1) underestimating their abilities and self-criticism, and 2) lack of social support and negative stereotypes. Six of the seven participants reported that physics was very hard for them and they doubted their abilities to succeed in their post-secondary physics classes, especially the introductory ones. They explained that some physics courses were very challenging and they exerted considerable effort to understand the material. The problem was not that they needed to study more to com- pete, but they needed to work hard just to understand the concepts. Justine, a materials engineer who later studied physics at the graduate level, stated that: I doubted myself like crazy at [university], because it was such a struggle. Every time something came in the mail from [university], I thought it was a letter telling me they were gonna kick me out… I had such imposter syndrome at [university] it was crazy.

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 102 Nehmeh & Kelly N/A N/A N/A M.D. Spouse Physicist Physicist Physicist No No No No Yes Yes Yes Children

program Work field Work development Full professor Full professor Medical imaging Quality assurance in cancer research in cancer research/care Senior researcher in materials University lecturer/researcher Director of graduate engineering science physics earned) PhD physics PhD physics PhD, Materials PhD, Solid state (Highest degree (Highest degree Graduate studies PhD Particle physics PhD, Nuclear physics PhD, Applied physics physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics studies Mathematics/ Undergraduate Materials engineering U.S. U.S. Europe Europe Middle East Middle East Birthplace South America S S S M M M M status Marital Ana Jade Sally Daisy Maude Justine Subject Barbara TABLE 1: Background characteristics of research subjects TABLE

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 103

Such worries did not disappear completely with time, as one might expect. On the contrary, these feelings were persistent in most phases of their academic and career pathways. Even though N/A N/A N/A M.D. Spouse Physicist Physicist Physicist all of them graduated with honors, the feelings of incompetence persisted. They tended to evalu- ate their performance harshly and underestimated their own achievements. Even though these women were quite confident during high school, some started to doubt their abilities in post- No No No No Yes Yes Yes secondary education and needed to overcome perceptions of inadequacy to succeed in graduate Children physics. Some of the women seemed to buy into the notion that extraordinary abilities were required to make an impact in physics, suggesting this notion may have dissuaded others. Ana, a medical

imaging specialist who earned her master’s degree in theoretical physics and doctoral degree in applied physics, commented on how her lack of self-efficacy influenced her subfield choice. She explained that by observing her mentor and the way he worked with equations, she was convinced she could work under his supervision but did not have the ability to do the same work

program independently. This perception influenced her change from theoretical to applied physics: Work field Work development Full professor Full professor Medical imaging Quality assurance in cancer research In my master’s thesis, the professor that I worked with sits at his computer and thinks in cancer research/care about a problem and develops equations. I could work with him but I realized I can’t Senior researcher in materials University lecturer/researcher

Director of graduate engineering do this alone. I think I wouldn’t have been able to make a contribution in that [theoretical] field, the way that work was. I don’t know. I don’t think I was smart enough to continue something like that. I needed something different. It’s like you have to be kind of like Albert Einstein, sitting and thinking out how to explain things and I couldn’t do that. So I think that experience with the master’s kind of changed my mind – that I needed to do something more applicable. science physics earned) PhD physics PhD physics However, when asked specifically about their grades, most reported that they earned high PhD, Materials PhD, Solid state (Highest degree (Highest degree

Graduate studies marks as final grades in their coursework. It was notable that their lack of confidence persisted PhD Particle physics PhD, Nuclear physics PhD, Applied physics despite external validation. Some viewed their struggles to master the content as a weakness in their innate abilities. Jade, a nuclear imaging physicist, stated: For me physics has always been a struggle because it was never something that came super easy to me. It just started coming easily to me in the last 10 or 15 years so it physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics studies was very stressful, but only because I felt like I wasn’t going to get a good grade. That

Mathematics/ was one thing. And the other thing was I never felt like I really understood what I was Undergraduate

Materials engineering doing, and understanding was very important to me. When I did math it just kind of flowed, but physics I always felt like I wasn’t getting it even though I was always doing well. I got an A in the classes but my feeling was always I’m not getting it – I’m not getting the depth of what’s here. I don’t know, maybe I was just feeling insecure U.S. U.S. or inferior or something. Europe Europe Middle East Middle East Birthplace

South America Others concurred with this perception, for example, Maude, a full professor at a highly competitive research university, stated: S S S M M M M I definitely doubted that I would succeed and pass my general exams…I always status doubted whether the next step would actually occur… I was surrounded by people Marital

Background characteristics of research subjects that I am pretty sure they are 500 times smarter than I am…I had the inappropriate view that I could be good in anything. Ana Jade Sally

Daisy Barbara, a theoretical physicist and a full professor at an urban university, reported that she Maude Justine Subject Barbara

TABLE 1: TABLE used to believe that every time the teacher asked her to read something out loud, he or she would

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 104 Nehmeh & Kelly

do that because her work was the worst in the class, but it turned out she had wrongly interpreted his intentions. The academic challenges these physicists faced often impacted their feelings of competence and magnified their sensitivity to the perceptions of others. Communication anxiety and fear of criticism were other factors that contributed to women physicists being overly self-critical. Most of the participants in this study reported that as students they did not like to ask questions during class, preferring to wait to ask questions in smaller groups or one on one. As justification, Justine, a director of a graduate engineering program, reported that she did not like to ask questions that could be perceived as “stupid”: “A Nobel laureate at [university] told me that I have no business in his classroom when I asked a stupid question, I went home and cried.” She further shared her hesitancy about requesting feedback, stating: “If the feedback were positive or constructive, as long as it is not just blatantly negative with no value added, I would be happy.” Factors such as lack of social support and negative stereotypes contributed to a prevailing feeling of incompetence among some female physicists. No participants reported that discrimination against female physicists was obvious or spoken. It was mainly small remarks that ac- cumulated throughout their education and careers that led some to question their commitment to physics. Jade commented on the longitudinal impact of verbal slights or inadvertent insults, often known as microaggressions: I see the differences and that accumulate across the years of comments, like biologi- cally, women are not as suitable. You hear it once, you hear it twice, you hear it a thousand times, it starts to wear you down, more like you are always different. Awareness of stereotypes and gendered roles was expressed in several interviews. Justine described herself as: “I am like the son that my dad didn’t have.” Some physicists expressed that being feminine and a physicist did not fit into one identity. Many repeatedly heard small comments such as: “Why do women waste their time on painting their nails,” or “Females don’t work with tools and that is why they (male professors) don’t help us.” Another reported that she overheard a male professor asking her graduate advisor, “How do you deal with a female graduate student?” Some women in physics felt that they were often under the microscope because they were underrepresented minorities. As graduate students, almost all of them reported that they were among few female graduate students in their classes and some of them did not have any female physics professors. Some felt they were noticed and treated differently than men, for example, Jade reported that, “even though there were six of us missing the class, I was the only one noticed.” Barbara commented on being one of only two women in her graduate class of 24 students: Because in the class of 24 people, there were only two women – you’re always aware of this fact, even if people treat you nicely. You’re always aware. You’re trying to prove something. You’re not at an ease to do your work without worrying about this kind of thing. Standing out was not a problem for all the participants. Some of them felt that being a minority empowered them and sometimes worked to their advantage. Some representative statements included: “I always felt empowered by being a minority in the field,” and “applying as a girl might have some advantages because they were encouraging getting the girls into the field.” Conversely, others felt as strangers in their own field, with Justine stating, “I was in a class of eight people, none of them I related to well, all of whom were male. I felt like totally a fish out of

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 105

water.” Another one said, “You look around but no one looks like you.” Thus, whether the female physicists accepted the fact that they were minorities and used it to their own advantage or not, they sometimes had to deal with differential treatment. One factor embedded in the lack of social support was social pressure that emerged from family obligations and constraints. It is important to note that four of the seven subjects were married, three of them to physicists and three had children. The two-body problem was men- tioned by three of the four married participants, where they had to compromise or had difficulty finding work in the same area as their spouses. Barbara felt that having a physicist spouse was also beneficial and sustaining: “I don’t think many women would survive in physics if they did not have… similarly minded partners. In fact, I think that’s one of the main reasons why I’m around.” Some reported that travel and research prevented them from starting their own families or even delayed it until they were much older than their male colleagues. For example, Maude stated that she felt disadvantaged as a junior-level researcher while male colleagues had spouses to take care of their children: “I started my family when lots of other male junior faculty had working wives and were beginning to pick up the slack. It was very difficult to have kids and needing to travel.” Sally, a university professor and researcher, felt that tension between starting a family and committing to work responsibilities, though she never ultimately had children: I mean you feel that your biological clock is ticking and you get a lot of social pressure so you kind of question, at points, okay where am I going? Is it worth it? There is the element of starting a family and settling down that could be pushed because of that. It came along as a consequence of me moving around between cities and not being able to settle down for a long time. Ana chose a physics career that complemented her vision of a balanced family life once she had children. She did not view this choice as negative but rather a necessary part of determining what career would provide the most satisfaction while being consistent with her values and identity as a mother: When I started working and started having a family, the focus changes. You want something that you can combine with family life. So I think that’s also one reason this medical physics works well for me, because you have a clinical duty and you feel like you can do your job and go home. I mean I chose to be on the clinical track instead of the research track… you see, there is a trade-off… I feel like I’ve been very lucky. Notably, discussions of social and professional status were mostly limited to gender; the subjects from the U.S., Europe, and Middle East did not raise negative ethnic and cultural issues in their reflections. For example, Barbara and Ana (both Europeans) stated they chose physics by the age of 15, largely due to their mathematical abilities, but physics was more common in European schools than in the U.S. so they did not feel it was so unusual. All of the subjects with the exception of Sally had U.S. citizenship, and most had studied in the U.S. where there were many international students in physics. Jade immigrated from South America at the age of 10 and experienced some early academic difficulties due to learning English. However, she did not consider her ethnic background a limitation in educational or workplace advancement.

4.3 Expectancy Value

Factors that encouraged these women in physics were mainly the intrinsic appeal of the field,

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 106 Nehmeh & Kelly

the influence of a role model, and societal values associated with physics. An overwhelming response from all interviewees regarding their main motive to major in physics was their academic strength in mathematics. As high school students, they were exposed to mathematics more than science, yet most reported that they were academically strong in both mathematics and science. For Ana and Barbara, their commitment to physics grew out of their love for mathematics and their desire to apply it to something useful: Ana: I always liked math and science… I was very interested in particle physics… Math is a language, and you kind of need that math to speak physics, if you will… I loved math but I needed something to use it for, and that was physics.

Barbara: I didn’t want to go into engineering. Math was too abstract. I happened to have a friend who did stay in physics, and I was talking to him, and physics seemed to have the bigger picture. Without knowing much, I decided on physics. It’s not really something I always wanted to do. I could have been in biology, been in physics. Physics gave me a kind of bigger perspective, bigger picture. For some of the subjects, jobs were more available in physics-related fields than in mathematics or engineering, which were other options that complemented their strong mathematical skills. Justine explained that she wanted to major in biomedical engineering, but there were no jobs at that time so she had to change her path. Barbara reported that she loved theoretical physics but more jobs were in experimental or more applied physics; consequently, she did three post- docs before finding a tenure-track position in theoretical physics. Some expressed that physics is a way of thinking. In addition to providing them with a broader knowledge of nature and how things work, it equipped them with solving problems and critical thinking skills. Most of them explained that they were attracted to physics because they believed it could show them the mechanisms of the natural world and improve their cognitive abilities. Justine stated that she “…wanted to know more about the 'whys' of how things work, in addition to just how to use knowledge known about things that worked.” Daisy, a senior researcher in materials development, and Sally shared similar sentiments: Daisy: Physics is a way to explain things, to explain whatever problem you have. So that is what I feel. I like the idea that they come to us to explain whatever problems they have, the engineers, most of the scientists, if they have data and they cannot explain it, they come to us to explain it to them.

Sally: I wanted to do something overarching but didn’t particularly know it was physics… I like to have hands on… Physics has the ingredients for explaining a lot that we see in nature… I pretty much look at everything through the lens of physics. Most women interviewed described positive experiences with mentors, who influenced their career paths and provided encouragement. These were instructors or researchers who intrigued them, or perhaps those they viewed as role models. Although some women la- mented the lack of female role models in physics, those who had role models reported they were male. Several spoke specifically about how they made them feel welcomed and valued in terms of their potential. They also admired the mentors’ commitment to their work and their students.

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 107

Maude: When I was a graduate student, I didn’t know that much. And so I would be asking questions where I was out of my depth. And he would take your question and say ‘Oh, right. I think this is what you are getting it,’ and then he would recast it to be a really good question… So that was one of my main teaching moments and it was repeated many times. It was teaching me two things, which was whatever the topic was, and then the second thing that way of being incredibly gracious and making people leave the encounter both learning a lot and also feeling perspective.

Sally: My supervisor in my master’s had a lot of impact on my trajectory, on my thinking, and on my maturing as a physicist. He had this interdisciplinary approach to physics that he tried to communicate and make it the standard in the way we think.

Jade: And the professor teaching that was a nuclear physicist and so I was convinced that I had to convince this man that I could be a good physicist… it took me two years to convince him but he finally gave me the project and I worked with him for two years. I mean, to this day I am in touch with him and I changed his mind about whether or not I should go into physics and he was very supportive.

However, most of the subjects commented that they did not encounter influential female role models in their educational years. Barbara shared that “there are so few women out there, so there is a lack of role models, which I think is very important.” Justine reported that she started a program in her college where she currently works so that female students can be exposed to female role models: “Part of the motivation for me to run the masters of engineering program is to have a healthy role model for female students.” Maude similarly commented that she recog- nized the value of female role models in teaching introductory physics students. She also found that women were openly appreciate of her efforts in a symbiotic way, more so than male students: My theory has always been with the first-year classes that there’s something of a decision that is good for me as one of the only women teaching as a rule to be out there in the front line of teaching… women are unbelievably supportive… and so I frequently have women talk to me after class and say oh, that was so great… I just literally feel like they are being sisterly or motherly or something and stepping in to encourage you. Physics is usually perceived as a challenging subject that requires high cognitive abilities. Most of the women reported they liked the challenge because it motivated them to work harder. The difficulty and the complexity of physics provided them with a sense of satisfaction related to their unique achievement. Daisy described her parents’ positive response when she told them that she would major in physics, indicating their happiness with the higher caliber of the degree: “I wanted to go for math, but that is when my parents insisted that anybody can get a math degree, but nobody can get a physics degree.” Societal value of physics was a final construct that was pervasive in the interview responses. All subjects spoke about the impact of their work, and this was often in the context of the positive influences they were having on social, academic, and professional communities. This complemented their intrinsic interest, however, they spoke more passionately about broader effects. For example, Justine pursued engineering and applied physics because of the practical impact, stating, “Without engineers, nothing would get done, and engineers don’t have to understand

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 108 Nehmeh & Kelly

why things work, they have to know they do and know how to use them.” Jade worked with high school students in addition to her medical research position because she found the process of teaching physics and impacting individuals highly rewarding. Maude concurred with Jade, in that she most enjoyed the rewards of teaching problem-solving recitations: “[I] have people work in small groups and I wander around and help them. And that’s actually one of my favorite things because that way you actually really get to know the students.” Ana enjoyed the quality control aspect of medical imaging because of its importance in providing excellence in medical care. The women physicists found value in their work from their personal satisfaction, which frequently related to societal outcomes and impacts on others.

4.4 Participants’ Recommendations

What should be done to recruit and retain women in physics? Participants were prompted to talk about their experiences to elicit a set of recommendations to promote women’s participation in the field. They were expressive in describing aspects that contributed positively and negatively to their participation in physics. However, it was much easier for them to talk about academic influences than their employment experiences. Some of them were reluctant to talk about work environments. Through the coding process, thematic factors were identified in two categories: 1) learning and working environments, and 2) inclusiveness and resources. The common recommendation related to employment and laboratory environments was to work actively to mediate low representation and differential treatment. Inclusiveness was one of the decisive factors in women’s educational and career choices, and this feeling was impacted by minority status and perceived bias. Environmental factors were cited in academic settings and workplaces. When some sensed a supportive environment, they were inclined to stand up to challenges and overcome obstacles. Conversely, feelings of inadequacy tended to trigger frustration, which had a deteriorating effect on their performance. Most interviewees reported that they were better students and workers when they sensed adequate support. Statements that described their learning experiences varied among participants. Jade stated, “My graduate school was a very unhappy place. Graduate students were left alone on their own.” However, Daisy had the opposite experience and welcomed the difficulty advanced study entailed, commenting, “It was more about the environment; the graduate school environment was more encouraging for us as students while the undergraduate school was more challenging. Challenges motivate you to work harder.” Similarly, some participants reported that they felt empowered when “surrounded by good people,” yet still sometimes felt discriminated against. A few subjects reported experiences of differential treatment. Daisy worked in a place where women were openly encouraged to seek positions of leadership, resulting in more than half of the employees identified as female: “We have women communities at work...they encourage women to go higher in positions.” However, Jade had a different experience and was openly expressive about the cumulative effect of discrimination in her job: I was the lowest paid person in the entire department, even people who were just starting and I have 15 years of experience. So everybody says it’s just a mistake, I mean I have no problem with people making mistakes, but nobody wants to fix it so that nobody is embarrassed, it’s like I don’t care about their embarrassment, I care about my paycheck… So there are all these political things and I just have been asking myself ever since that happened, it’s very interesting that that only has ever

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 109

happened here with a woman and never anyone else… I think it’s a cumulative effect and it’s more in the sense that not because I miss having women around but because I realized that the treatment I receive is different from my colleagues.

The effects of the sense of belonging on the interviewees’ choices were also reflected in their description of the teaching and learning methods they believed were beneficial. All subjects reported that lecturing was the most dominant method of teaching they encountered, however, they stated that this method was not effective and they felt that they had to seek alternative methods to understand concepts. Lecturing excluded them from exercising agency in their own learning. In some cases, their interactions with professors were positive—Sally was greatly influenced by the skilled pedagogy of a high school teacher and Barbara spoke of the importance of approachable professors. However, interactions were sometimes negative, for example, Maude recalled the humiliation of being harshly criticized in front of a large class by a dismissive professor. For most of the women in this study, they relied on problem solving on their own or going to office hours to get more individualized attention. This is consistent with research that suggested women are less likely to participate in physics classrooms. One common recommendation was to learn by doing. To learn abstract concepts, some recommended starting with a demonstration or lab exercise. However, when the lab did not work it had an adverse effect on their learning. Justine emphasized the importance of having good labs to reduce any cause of frustration: If you are trying to understand concepts after all of the work, I want to do a lab. I want to internalize a concept in physics and I absolutely want to do a good lab. I want to play experimentally and discover by myself. Like, phenomenologically, what is happening in the material? Does it work? Does it make sense? It is always the glitches in the experiments that are the most learning rich. Even though some of the participants acknowledged they disliked labs in college, they believed that labs were the best way to learn. Sally explained that most of the time when the experi- ment failed, it affected her confidence and their understanding of the concepts: Lab work, lab work, I hated that. What first attracted me to physics turned out to be what I hated the most. The experiments never worked. I turned out to have an inclination toward theoretical and computational. Hands on helped me understand physics the most. Several participants felt it is not enough to provide students with laboratory exercises and hands-on activities—it is more important to make sure that experiments work well and serve the purpose for which they were intended, and all students have equitable access to guidance in the laboratory. Improved learning and working environments were recommended to promote inclusiveness and sense of belonging for aspiring women physicists. Summaries of the participants’ influences, challenges, and recommendations are presented in Table 2.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The implications from this research are contextualized within a global perspective given the backgrounds of the participants. The physicists in this study were mostly foreign born (n = 5), with two others born in the U.S. All had studied in the U.S. at some point in their academic ca-

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 110 Nehmeh & Kelly role models development learning activities Recommendations assume leadership roles More female role models graduate physics teaching procedures; critical thinking women in physics profession women in physics profession Critical feedback for students More laboratory experience in More laboratory experience in Improved advising for physics Excellence in undergraduate and Excellence in undergraduate Workplace support for women to Workplace physics learning; inspire with fun Improved climate for acceptance of Better advisement and more female Improved climate for acceptance of physics learning with less cookbook undergraduate and graduate students undergraduate female students Sexual harassment Challenges/tensions Self-doubt in physics Self-doubt in physics Harsh public criticism Harsh public criticism Followed spouse for his career particularly for female students Sexual harassment at conferences Oppressive graduate environment Bias against experimental physics Advanced mechanics as an undergraduate Cumulative effect of microaggressions and Cumulative effect Minority status as physics graduate student Minority status as physics graduate student Unwelcoming undergraduate physics program, Unwelcoming undergraduate Technical competence perceived as threatening Technical discrimination in graduate school and workplace Negative laboratory experiences – less guidance for Limited job opportunities in biomedical engineering fields degree program Influences environment Female role model tutoring individuals Father was an engineer Physics explains things tinkering and surveying Supportive undergraduate Supportive undergraduate Father’s influence through Father’s scientists in the workplace Enjoyment of teaching and Summer high school STEM Strong community of women Resilience developed through Practical value of engineering Graduate education funded by Family support for prestigious employer – external validation Undergraduate research mentor Undergraduate Supportive high school teachers difficult grad school experiences Employment in multiple physics Undergraduate physics professor Undergraduate Daisy Jade Justine Subject Summary of subjects’ select experiences and recommendations 2: Summary of subjects’ TABLE

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 111 school courses students practices critical thinking physics learning multiplying effect nonlinear career options students – this will have a Accessibility to professors students; critical feedback for Recruit more female graduate More choices for women who Research experiences to teach More laboratory experience in Better maternity and family leave Science role models in elementary require flexibility in their careers – Interactive methods to get know More female faculty teaching intro as a career career logistics having children Self-doubt in physics Harsh public criticism Junior-level mechanics Junior-level Negative laboratory experiences Minority status as physics major Having children while on tenure track Followed spouse for his medical residency Competitive nature of research is a negative Technical competence perceived as threatening Technical Sought flexibility and time-managed position after Social pressure of having a family not consistent with Did not feel competent or drawn to theoretical physics fields status college scientists an impact high school smart people Graduate mentors Physics explains things Physics explains things Family valued education Master’s thesis advisor – Master’s Mastery through problem interdisciplinary approach Surpassed peers in physics solving – strong work ethic Summer physics research in Other family members were Felt empowered by minority Enjoyed math and science in teamwork, and working with Choosing career in field with sustained interest/enjoyment, Preferred medical imaging and technical applications – having Supportive high school teacher Many opportunities for women Employment in multiple physics Maude Ana Sally TABLE 2: (continued) TABLE

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 112 Nehmeh & Kelly Research opportunities for More approachable professors Reduce fear of experimentation undergraduates and recent graduates undergraduates discrimination Self-doubt in physics Few female role models confidence in female students Lack of tenure-track physics positions External reminders of minority status – hiring Physics overconfidence in male students; lack of physicist of the big picture Physics gives broad perspective Similar-minded partner who is a Similar-minded Barbara TABLE 2: (continued) TABLE

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 113

reers (including postdoctoral fellowships), although one was employed overseas at the time of the study. The European-born participants felt their precollege educational systems were more progressive than those of the U.S., though they sought careers in the U.S. due to higher education or employment opportunities. Although many of the women spoke of tensions and challenges in their physics career pathways, they did not specify geographic or cultural constraints that affected their trajectories; rather, their concerns were related to individual behavior or institutional climate. Demographic and cultural variability was observable in the women physicists, though they were remarkably similar in their perspectives and influences. Perceived disadvantages were consistent, and this has international implications for both organizations and individuals. The results of this study provide insights into sociocognitive aspects of the academic and career experiences of women physicists. Generally, women will not choose physics if they feel they will not be successful and if they do not find potential work environments appealing and consistent with their values. Three related themes influenced the self-efficacy and self-concept of women in physics and have implications for physics educators, policymakers, and employers. The first theme emerged from their innate desire to have knowledge of the world around them and engage in work that has a social impact. A second theme was the environmental and behavioral aspects of academia and workplaces. The third was based on the expectancy and value of an education and career in physics. The social value associated with having a career in physics played an important role in informing career choices. These women wanted to contribute to the complex and innovative discoveries in the world and found in physics the means to fulfill this desire. Having strong mathematical skills provided them with the appropriate academic capital. While physics could offer a place to enrich their knowledge of the world, it was also perceived as a prestigious career and their early interest allowed them to make appropriate academic choices to reach their goals. However, not all women were given the hands-on opportunities to develop physics interest at an early age. Elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the U.S., should devote resources towards providing more physics instruction earlier in the pipeline. This is consistent with the Physics First initiative (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2002) promoting physics early in high school, as well as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), which advocate for conceptual and applied physics instruction throughout the K-12 con- tinuum. The interdisciplinary nature of these standards focuses on the societal value of physics through science-based approaches to designing solutions for technological problems. More relevant academic physics experiences may engage young women and improve their disciplinary self-efficacy, self-concept, and pursuit of physics careers. In addition, students must be aware that brilliance is not a requirement to have an impact in the physics field. There are many career paths for women in physics that complement a variety of lifestyle choices. Women often enroll in physics to learn critical thinking skills and problem-solving strategies that continuously improve through hard work, and they need to believe in their ability to achieve these goals. Physics academic and employment environments often presented several challenges for the women in this study. The predominantly male-dominated departments and workplaces were cited as places where minority status was noticeable and sometimes a disadvantage. Even though the women did not claim that they studied or worked in explicitly discriminatory environments, small recurrent remarks or occasional harsh criticism were sometimes enough to discourage them and lower their self-efficacy. The culture around them sometimes fostered a false perception of inadequacy and incompetence. Women were not seeking differential treatment, but on the contrary, some needed to be assured that their presence and their achievements were valued.

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 114 Nehmeh & Kelly

In order to combat this perception and promote women’s participation in physics, certain interventions may be implemented. Individuals in academic and the physics workplace are well positioned to have a positive impact through their expressed attitudes and actions. Classroom teaching may be improved by fostering more collaborative learning environments, where students are encouraged to express their opinions freely without fear of reprimand. Professors can target individual students to participate in research, providing a safe environment for students to make mistakes and learn from them. In this study, male role models were highly influential in the educational and career choices of most participants. However, some women felt that having female physics faculty and mentors would encourage even more women by conveying they are valued. Both male and female faculty have an obligation to support more inclusive recruitment and hiring practices and to foster a departmental culture where diversity is valued. Inequitable participation in physics may be mediated through organizational considerations, starting with academic institutions. A department-wide, sustained commitment to the inclusion of underrepresented groups is necessary for women to feel welcome and part of the physics community. This requires strong leadership and disproportionate effort to develop long-term strategic planning. The pathways to academic and career success may be demystified by facilitating access to orientations, counseling, and information sessions. Changing the present classroom cultures would allow more women to have a realistic sense of their abilities while reducing feelings of inadequacy. Physics departments should provide support to new students, particularly in introductory courses, to have a smooth start and help reduce social and academic challenges. More progressive teaching practices should focus on minimizing communication anxiety and fear of risk, encouraging hands-on experimental work, providing early research opportunities, and fostering collaboration. These practices are more likely to be initiated and sustained through incentivized professional development for faculty. The expectancy and value of a physics career is the final theme explored in the study. These women sought careers where they felt challenged, rewarded, and balanced between career de- mands and their personal commitments. Some women had to change their goals or limit them to manage their family and career choices; however, they did not express regrets. This does not suggest that universities and workplaces cannot do more to accommodate their needs. Family constraints can be alleviated by implementing better maternity and family leave policies as well as equitable hiring practices to alleviate issues with the “two-body” problem. Environmental factors can be improved with more proactive leadership. Very simple issues such as nonworking laboratory experiments, inequitable resource allocation, and noninclusive teaching methods might frustrate students and push them away from persisting in physics. Improving the workplace and academic climate would provide the social support necessary for sustained motivation. Academic and professional institutional paradigm shifts are required to attract more women to physics, including active acknowledgment of disparate participation and increased efforts to recruit and retain women. The physics community will greatly benefit from more diversified participation.

REFERENCES Alexoopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussions in physics. Interna- tional Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 393–406. American Association of Physics Teachers. (2002). AAPT statement on physics first. Retrieved from https:// www.aapt.org/Resources/policy/physicsfirst.cfm. American Institute of Physics. (2011). Female students in high school physics: Results from the 2008-09 nationwide survey of high school physics teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/sites/default/

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 115

files/statistics/highschool/hs-studfemale-09.pdf. American Institute of Physics. (2013). Women among physics and astronomy faculty: Results from the 2010 survey of physics degree-granting departments. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/ women-among-physics-astronomy-faculty. American Institute of Physics. (2015). Minority issues. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/statistics/minorities. American Physical Society. (2015a). Fraction of bachelor’s degrees in STEM disciplines earned by women. Retrieved from https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/womenstem.cfm. American Physical Society. (2015b). Women in physics. Retrieved from https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/upload/150112_PercentWomenInPhysics.pdf. Angell, C., Guttersrud, O., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful but fun: Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88(5), 683–706. Aprahamian, A. (2003). Women in physics. Nuclear Physics News, 13(3-4), 3–4. Retrieved from http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10506890308232699?journalCode=gnpn20. Bahr, P. R., Jackson, G., McNaughton, J., Oster, M., & Gross, J. (2016). Unrealized potential: Community college pathways to STEM baccalaureate degrees. Journal of Higher Education, 88(3), 430–478. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta, (Ed.), Annals of child development, six theories of child development – revised formulations and current issues (vol. 6, pp. 1–60). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School of Science and Math, 104(6) 288–300. Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108(8), 3157–3162. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & J.A. Hol- stein (Eds.). Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. Ameri- can Sociological Review, 69(1), 93–113. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. Curtin, J. M., Blake, G., & Cassagnau, C. (1997). The climate for women graduate students in physics. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3(2), 95–115. Dabney, K. P., & Tai, R. H. (2013). Female physicist doctoral experiences. Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research, 9(1), 010115-1–010115-10. Dabney, K. P., &Tai, R. H. (2014). Comparative analysis of female physicists in the physical sciences: Mo-

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 116 Nehmeh & Kelly

tivation and background variables. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 10(1). Dresselhaus, M. S., Franz, J. R., & Clark, B. C. (1994). Interventions to increase the participation of women in physics. Science, 263(5152), 1392–1393. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals, Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., &Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender and Society, 26(5), 693–717. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational prac- tice. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Feeney, M. K., & Bernal, M. (2010). Women in STEM networks: Who seeks advice and support from women scientists? Scientometrics, 85(3), 767–790. Fehrs, M., & Czujko, R. (1992). Women in physics: Reversing the exclusion. Physics Today, 45(8), 33–41. Fischer, C. T. (2009). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-5), 583–590. Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Subject choice by students in year 12 in Australian secondary schools, LSAY research reports, longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Haussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G, Sadler, P. M., &Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. Hodgson, B. (2000). Barriers and constraints: Women physicists’ perceptions of career progress. Physics Education, 35(6), 454–459. Ivie, R., & Guo, S. (2006). Women physicists speak again. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics. Jianxiang, Y. (2002). China debates big drop in women physics majors. Science, 295(5553), 263. Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020116-1–020116-13. Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Chantara, S. (2011). Relationship between career aspirations and measures of motivation toward biology and physics, and the influence of gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 761–770. Labudde, P., Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M. P., Violi, E., & Gerber, C. (2000). Girls and physics: Teach- ing and learning strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11. International Journal of Sci- ence Education, 22(2), 143–157. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356–362. Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285–311. McNeil, L., & Sher, M. (1999). The dual-career-couple problem. Physics Today, 52(7), 32–37. Möller, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review, 120(3), 544– 560. Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 117

109(41), 16474–16479. Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013). Inequality in experiences of physics education: Secondary school girls’ and boys’ perceptions of their physics education and intentions to continue with physics after the age of 16. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1824–1845. Murphy, P., Lunn, S., & Jones, H. (2006). The impact of authentic learning on students’ engagement with physics. The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 229–246. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Be- yond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Wash- ington, DC: National Academies Press. Nelson, D. J. & Brammer, C. N. (2010). A national analysis of minorities in science and engineering facul- ties at research universities. 2nd ed., Washington, DC: National Organization for Women. NGSS Lead States. (2013). The next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Retrieved from https://nsf. gov/attachments/117803/public/2a--Prepare_and_Inspire--PCAST.pdf. Rask, K. N. & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 94–124. Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic, and methodologic concerns. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 117–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Richardson, J. T. E., (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educa- tional Research, 69(1), 53–82. Richman, L. S., VanDellen, M., & Wood, W. (2011). How women cope: Being a numerical minority in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 492–509. Rosa, K., & Mensah, F. M. (2016). Educational pathways of black women physicists: Stories of experienc- ing and overcoming obstacles in life. Physical Review Physics Education Research,12(2). Rosser, S. V., & Zieseniss, M. (2000). Career issues and laboratory climates: Different challenges and opportunities for women engineers and scientists (Survey of fiscal year 1997 POWRE Awardees). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Education, 6(2). Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stadler, H., Duit, R., & Benke, G. (2000). Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Educa- tion, 35(6), 417–422. Stewart, G., & Osborn, J. (1998). Closing the gender gap in student confidence: Results from a University of Arkansas physics class. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Education, 4(1), 27–42. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M., Gender differences in science: An expertise perspective. Educational Psy- chology Review, 20(2), 149–169. Tobias, S., Urry, M., & Venkatsen, A. (2002). Physics: For women, the last frontier. Science, 296(5571), 1201. Tripp-Knowles, P. (1995). A review of the literature on barriers encountered by women in science academia.

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018 118 Nehmeh & Kelly

Resources for Feminist Research, 24(1-2), 28–34. Wall, C., Glenn, S., Mitchinson, S., & Poole, H. (2004). Using a reflective diary to develop bracketing skills during a phenomenological investigation. Nurse Researcher, 11(4), 22–29. Wang, X. (2016). Course-taking patterns of community college students beginning in STEM: Using data mining techniques to reveal viable STEM transfer pathways. Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 544–569 2016. Williams, K. (2000). Understanding, communication anxiety, and gender in physics: Taking the fear out of physics learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 232–237 Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zohar, A., & Bronshtein, B. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 61–772005.

APPENDIX A: SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Background Information

• Please state your name, ethnicity, degree, position, field of work. • Did your parents encourage you to study science in general and particularly physics? • Are there any members of your family employed in scientific fields? • Would you please talk briefly about your personal life outside work? Hobbies? Interests?

Physics Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy, Expectancy Value, Planned Behavior, and Theories of Intelligence

• Did you have the intention to study physics when you started college? • When and why did you decide to study physics? • Have you had any moment when you doubted that decision? • How do you describe physics and how studying physics impacted your reasoning skills? • Did you have female physics teachers? Do you have any preference and why? • Can you talk about your worst experience in physics? • Have you encountered many obstacles to reach this level? And how do you usually overcome them? • Have you ever felt that you have to study harder or work harder than your peers to prove yourself as a physicist? • During the first years in college have you felt that your level of understanding physics was changing and how? • How often did you get out of an exam and felt that you could have definitely done better? Do you get nervous before or while you are taking a test and why?

Learning Environment

Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations 119

• Which method of learning helped you understand physics the most? • Would you please describe your most positive and negative learning experience? • Which method of teaching have you used in your classrooms that you can describe as effective (if applicable)? • As a student did you like to participate in the class? Why or why not? • How often did you get feedback from your instructors and how do you perceive them? • Did you like working in groups, and did you choose your own lab groups? • Which topics of physics did you prefer in college? • What do you think should change in teaching higher physics courses to be more welcoming and more effective to underrepresented students?

Physics Culture in Higher Education

• What outside factors have affected your academic performance? • Have you ever been challenged by your colleagues or supervisors? • In your opinion, why are women underrepresented in the physics field and how can we attract them to the field? • Did your personal life as a female impact your achievement at any time? • Does it impact you at all that you are a minority in your career and why?

Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018