Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

By C. Hill, Christianne Corbett, A. S. Rose. 2010

1,380 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/889811b2372b7fe0133e58f63265a2b163440ed5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Molly M. King
2. Megan E. Frederickson
3. Shelley J. Correll
4. Jevin D. West
5. Dustin B. Thoman
6. David I Miller
7. John Oliver Siy
8. Jessi L. Smith

Citations in the corpus

• The Grass Is Greener in Non-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Classes (2014, background): “Because we were particularly interested in understanding the problem of ‘‘why so few’’ women in STEM (Hill et al., 2010), we did not test whether competing belonging exists for H/LA majors taking STEM classes.”
• Do Female and Male Role Models Who Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women’s Anticipated Success in STEM? (2011, background): “Women are less likely than men to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010)—a disparity that exists even when men and women are matched for quantitative ability and experience (Strenta, Elliott, Adair, Matier, & Scott, 1994).”
• Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time (2016, background): “8 dominated, do report less satisfaction than their men colleagues with opportunities to collaborate with senior colleagues (Hill et al. 2010; MIT 1999, 2011).”