STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) is by design an inclusive acronym. It pulls together four separate disciplines and groups them as one. This is why I love STEM as a concept. But when you take a closer look at the research into STEM-related fields, from education to careers and into industry, a gap as wide as time starts to appear, which sees one group peering over the edge of a gendered ravine, and girls often find themselves on the wrong side of a needless dividing line.
Last year, I set about trying to understand this divide, so I embarked on a systematic literature review as part of my Doctorate. The full 8k words are accessible here: Gender Participation in STEM Education: A Systematic Literature Review of UK Secondary School Contexts to identify equity interventions.
Here is the 800-word version.
In short, there are three entrenched, and at times intertwined, reasons why Girls’ participation in STEM subjects reflects structural conditions that systematically limit their collective recognition as legitimate STEM people. Let’s break it down.
-
Formation of STEM Identity
The research spotlights how early STEM experiences (primary, foundational years) shape a sense of belonging. Where children are exposed to STEM activities in a neutral setting (both genders have the same access to activities and learning), then girls thrive and are statistically more likely to study STEM subjects at GCSE, A-level and University level. But it’s a complicated story. STEM identity is not only shaped by school experiences, but also by how STEM roles are viewed and talked about in the home. This is where the ‘entrenched’ views can derail the most ambitious girls and force them to question whether they are ‘STEM people’.
My reading taught me that participation is driven by whether students see themselves as legitimate “STEM people”, not just by attainment. The research illustrates that STEM identity is shaped by three factors: early experiences (play, exposure, media), recognition from teachers, peers, and family and access to STEM-related opportunities. Girls often perform well in STEM subjects, enjoy STEM lessons, but still do not identify with STEM careers. That’s the ravine I was referring to in the opening paragraphs. In short, STEM identity is granted through recognition, not simply developed individually.
-
Cultural reproduction of gender inequality
This was an interesting, but not a surprising finding. I remember being struck by the words of Maths professor Jo Boaler (author of Elephant in the Classroom), when she describes a scene where a young girl comes home after a challenging maths lesson and says to her mother, ‘I found maths really hard today, mum.’ The response still flaws me today - Mother to daughter … ‘Don’t worry darling, I wasn’t any good at maths either at school.’ This is a classic example of stereotype, or the entrenched threat of intergenerational, gendered beliefs. The mother normalises struggle as a permanent, inherited trait rather than a developmental challenge.
Cultural beliefs are shaped at school, too and far too often the gender disparities above are systematically reproduced within our places of learning, which are by design, supposed to be neutral - our curriculum, our pedagogy and our expectations. The research points to well-intended interventions, focused on ‘fixing girls’ through raising the profile of STEM subjects, and their role within them. There are intentional contentions, too, such as the language that surrounds STEM, which consistently frames it as masculine. This impacts subject choices and eventually influences STEM career aspirations. One is symptomatic of the other. We know that in the UK, where this paper is grounded, girls drop out at key transition points (GCSE, post-16), with the ratio of boys who study STEM subjects far higher. This is true even when girls outperform boys in science, maths and computer science from an early age. I saw this historical trend play out in the research.
Away from schools, gendered norms are reinforced at home, with numerous studies suggesting parents actively discourage girls from studying STEM subjects. I worry that our obsession with putting female role models in front of girls. There is much to be said for the benefits of this - representation in the labour markets, career progression and a duty of care, but the data is stark. In almost every case, the impact of the visiting STEM expert dwindles once girls return to their norms - whether that be in STEM lessons or at home. One solution might be to fix our gaze on making STEM subjects inclusive rather than changing structural conditions. The message in the literature is clear - inequality is reproduced by cultural norms and systems, not individual deficits.
-
Intersectionality of gender and socio-economic disadvantage
You might not be surprised to learn that gender inequality in STEM is not experienced equally. It is intensified by socio-economic status. The research shows us that girls from low-income backgrounds face compounded barriers. This appears in the form of limited access to STEM capital (resources, networks, experiences) and less support from families for STEM pathways.
STEM capital is a constant in the research surrounding gendered experiences of STEM education. The term ‘capital’ was popularised by Pierre Bourdieu (1972) and found its way into education literature through various forms - cultural capital being the most popular. Louise Archer and colleagues developed science capital around 2013 to 2015 by applying Bourdieu's framework specifically to science education. Science capital refers to the science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences, social contacts, and resources that make it easier for some young people to see themselves as ‘science people.’ There are links here to the writing above. The lesson here is that gender inequity in STEM is amplified by wider social inequalities, not just gender alone. Participation gaps appear to be structural, not ability-based.
But there are some exceptions, so let’s look at the outliers.
Girl-focused STEM interventions:
Many interventions (e.g. enrichment, clubs) fail to close the gap long-term, especially if access is unequal or funding is inconsistent. In many cases, the funding dries up, the club closes, and the opportunity falls away. Or, the teacher driving the innovation leaves the school, and nobody replaces them. Despite this, the outlier data shows some snippets of hope. When STEM clubs involve both genders, and girls are treated equally to boys, they thrive. In one study, where girls were asked if they would like to lead STEM teams in a Formula 1 task, the researchers reported higher levels of confidence and belief from the girls involved.
Misdiagnosing the problem leads to ineffective solutions.
Interventions are not solutions; they are sticking plasters applied to a wound that requires surgery. This wound is the entrenched view that STEM subjects are not for girls. If you are reading this and you are the exceptions, I would be fascinated to hear about your journey. The reading taught me one painful lesson - we have spent decades fixing girls for a system that was never broken for boys. Changing the nature of STEM activities to make them more inclusive for girls has worked in a few cases, and I spotlight this in the full version of the paper here: Gender Participation in STEM Education
Short-term solutions to an entrenched problem
Many interventions are simply not given time to breathe. They are either short-term or lack longitudinal impact. The main barriers to these interventions scaling is that they rely on funding that has a shelf life, or they need specialist staff to run. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, it serves to reinforce existing inequality when the opportunity is taken away, or access is limited. The other more sinister issue is the framing of girls as the problem that we need a solution for. Effective change requires system-wide transformation, not isolated initiatives.
Drawing conclusions that might spark future solutions
Gender inequality in STEM is not an individual problem; rather, it is a system that works exactly as designed. Schools, families, and labour markets do not operate in isolation; together, they form a self-replicating cycle that normalises who belongs in STEM and who does not.
Interventions that focus narrowly on girls’ confidence or aspiration, without questioning how STEM itself is framed, risk reinforcing the very inequalities they set out to challenge. Real change requires disrupting the cultural logic that positions STEM as masculine by design, or rethinking how STEM careers are represented to young people. This forces us to confront the inequities that persist even when girls succeed academically. Without that systemic shift, gender inequality in STEM will continue to reproduce itself quietly, persistently, and across generations regardless of rising attainment or renewed policy ambition.
Thank you for reading this article. The words are the authors’ and no Generative AI was used during the writing of the words above. For full access to the paper and for an extensive bibliography, please click the link here: Gender Participation in STEM Education: A Systematic Literature Review of UK Secondary School Contexts to identify equity interventions.