Research Blog #7: Frame

Theoretical Frame or Approach

Social scientists have suggested a multitude of theories to better explain, and account for, sex segregation in college major choice. “Preferences, Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice Analysis” offers the theory of “Gender Essentialism”, which emphasizes the influence of gender stereotypes. Essentialism theory regards college major choice as “an instance where individuals behave in accordance with societal expectations of what constitutes gender-appropriate behavior,” (Ochsenfeld, 119). This theory suggests that we, as a culture, cultivate gender stereotypes and expectations, and instill them in children at a young age which guides their development of interests and self-concept. Gender essentialism claims that “culturally dominant stereotypes learned during childhood and adolescence guide the development of strongly gendered tastes,” based on which women and men form “systematically different” college major preferences and vocational interests” (Ochsenfeld, p119). Gender essentialism attributes gendered college major preferences to societal influences that have reinforced gender stereotypes throughout children’s development, depicting parents and educators as major actors in the influence process. Gender essentialism holds that parents and educators with gender-biased perceptions, direct male and female student’s interests in diverging directions, which influence their self-perception and development of competencies in various subject areas. Male students feel more competent in math, where they are most encouraged by parents and teachers, and therefore gravitate more towards math-intensive subject areas throughout their educational careers. Gender Essentialism views gender segregation in higher education and the labor force as a result of deeply-rooted gender stereotypes, reinforced throughout childhood, that influence the development male and female student’s interest and aptitude in different subject areas. 

Another theoretical frame to analyze gender segregation that “Preferences, Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice Analysis” provides is the theory of “Separate Spheres”.  Separate Spheres explains gender segregation in higher education and the work force “against the backdrop of the fact that men and women have historically assumed different roles in the household,” (Ochsenfeld, p120). The theory of Separate Spheres claims that men and women internalize these gender roles early in their development, and allow them to direct their academic and occupational preferences. For example, because men predominantly adopt the “breadwinner role” in the household, they tend to value material rewards more highly than women do. This would serve as an explanation as to why men pursue occupations based on income-level, more so than women. Male students feel more pressure to pursue majors with higher pay grades and opportunities for career advancement because they feel they need to meet the societal expectation that they one day support a family. In contrast, women, who have historically been in charge of childrearing and keeping up with the household, will gravitate more towards occupational fields that allow for a work-life balance. And women feel more pressure to pursue majors in fields that will accommodate work-life balance, to satisfy their future gender-typical role as a mother and housewife. “Separate Spheres” attributes gender segregation to the influence of historically rooted gender role expectations on the educational and occupational preferences of men and women. 

Literature Review Blog #4

Maryalice Hauer

Literature Review Blog #4

1.       Visual

2.       Citation

Ma, Yingyi. "College Major Choice, Occupational Structure And Demographic Patterning By Gender, Race And Nativity." Social Science Journal 48.1 (2011): 112-129. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

3.       Summary

“College major choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and nativity” analyzes whether occupational segregation influences college major choice. The information used is derived from the National Education Longitudinal Studies (NELS), which provides information on college majors, as well as the Public Use of Micro data (PUMS), which provides occupational structure information. The author uses these two sources of information to integrate stratification research both in higher education and the labor market, in aim to prove that college major choice is the link between the two. This article examines occupational segregation by gender, race, and ethnicity, but for my purposes, I will focus segregation by gender. Results of the cross comparison between these two sources of information demonstrate that the most evident gender divide, in both occupation and college major choice distribution, lies between technical and life/health science fields, with women more predominantly majoring and later working in life-health science fields than men.

4.       Author

Yingyi Ma earned her Ph.D from Johns Hopkins University in 2006, with focuses in education, migration, and gender.  Ma has written over 15 published scholarly articles in the last five years, as well as a book. She has raised hundreds of dollars in funds for education research in her specialized subject areas. I believe this author is an extremely reputable source to include in my final paper, not only based on her extensive research, but based on the diversity of her research areas. This article is unique in that includes race and ethnicity in its analysis of education and labor market segregation. I believe the inclusion of this perspective will be an interesting addition to my paper.

5.       Key Terms

●        National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS 1988-1994): provides information on college major and precollege information that may influence college major choice

-          Based on nationally representative sample of high school students

-          Contains information on students’ academic achievement, attitudes, and course taking

-          (considers this information as influential to college major choice)

●        Public Use of Micro data 1990 census 5% Sample (PUMS 5%): includes household and person records for a sample of housing, collected i a 1990 Census Questionnaire

-          Includes detailed information on individual occupations (using 3-digit occupation codes)

-          Superior to other national data sets because these three-digit codes allow for the inclusion of 500 occupations in the data set

6.       Quotes (3)

“Previous studies investigating the factors leading to college major choice examine the micro level influences, such as abilities and interests...This study, while recognizing the importance of those factors, focuses on...the macro influences of the social environment at the societal level.” (115)

“Friends and siblings, teachers and parents are agents of socialization, encouraging students to cultivate their competence and interest in a particular domain field.” (115)

“For example, work traditionally associated with women, such as the caring and nurturing professions, is devalued. More generally, women receive less compensation working in female-dominated jobs than in male-dominated or gender-neutral jobs.” (116)

7.       Value 

This article holds a lot of value, in several regards. First, although the focus of my paper will remain on gender segregation, it might be interesting to include some of the segregation by race and ethnicity that this article discusses. Particularly, the fact that sex segregation for Whites is the most severe among the four racial groups (White, Asian, Hispanic, and Black). It might be interesting to go into the implications of this finding, and tie that into my discussion of the societal influences that affect college major choice and, consequently, career trajectory. I also find this article's discussion of societal influences. Particularly its terminology, referring to family, peers, and educators as “agents of socialization” in a student's’ development. In conclusion, I think the most valuable aspect of this article is its final conclusion, which serves almost as a “bird's-eye view” of the entire phenomenon. This article's claim is that “seemingly individual choice of college major has deep structural roots at the societal level.” This is a broad claim, with may implication, that will be of value to my paper in that it will generate a great deal of discussion. I may choose to use this article as a focal point of reference in my final paper. 

Research Blog #4: Research Proposal

Maryalice Hauer

Research in the Disciplines: College!

Research Proposal

Working Title

Gender Segregation: from College to the Workforce

Topic

My topic tackles gender segregation. How it begins in college with gender-influenced choices of major, which ultimately determine career trajectory, and result in the and results in a historically persistent, sex segregated workforce. In specific regard to college major choice, my paper will begin by analyzing the factors that influence college major choice, for both male and female students. How have their subject interests and preferences been guided. From here, I will begin to focus on the influences that specifically affect female students and their career trajectory, as I discuss the constraint, culturally-rooted stereotypes and gender role expectations put on the professional development of women. In this discussion, I will examine the influences of social class and gender role expectations on female students, that direct their academic and professional paths. My paper will seek to identify the root causes of sex segregation in college major choice and onward. Specifically, my paper will aim to identify the factors that influence women’s professional development, from college, into their  perspective careers. I hope my paper does well to discuss the startling prevalence of gender segregation today, and bring about more understanding of the issue.

Research Question

The historical persistence of gender role expectations and stereotypes cannot be discounted, but what societal influences can we concretely attribute sex segregation in college major choice, and consequently the work force, to?

Theoretical Frame or Approach

Social scientists suggest several different theories to better explain, and account for, sex segregation in college major choice. One of which is referred to as “gender essentialism”, which centers on the influence of gender stereotypes. Essentialism theory regards college major choice as “an instance where individuals behave in accordance with societal expectations of what constitutes gender-appropriate behavior,” (Ochsenfeld, 119). This theory suggests that we, as a culture, cultivate gender stereotypes and expectations, and instill them in children at a young age which guides their development of interests and self-concept. In this self-fluffing prophecy, male and female students develop interest and aptitude in gender-typical fields, and gravitate in those directions. Essentialism does well to account for sex segregation in college major choice, and consequently in the workforce.

Another theory proposed by social scientists is referred to as “separate spheres”, which attributes sex segregation to household division of labor. Historically, men and women have assumed different roles in the family unit. The stereotypical, household gender role expectations include a male breadwinner and female house-wife, in charge of childrearing and taking care of the home. This theory resides on the basis that children internalize the gender roles they see in their own households, and seek to replicate them in their own futures. “Separate Spheres does well to explain why male and female undergraduate students would pursue different majors based on the influence of gender stereotypes. Male students feel more pressure to pursue majors with higher pay grades and opportunities for career advancement because they feel they need to meet the societal expectation that they one day support a family. And women feel more pressure to pursue majors in fields that will accommodate work-life balance, to satisfy their future gender-typical role as a mother and housewife.

Research Plan

Because choice of college major greatly determines a person’s occupational trajectory, several studies have been done to evaluate what factors influence college major choice for male and female. “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major,” an article written by several research specialists at Bentley College, surveyed undergraduate students to uncover some of the influences surrounding college major choice.  Some of the factors examined in the study include general interest and aptitude in the subject, as well as potential for career advancement and level of compensation. Students were asked to rate these factors on a scale of 1 to 5; 1 being insignificant influence, and 5 being very influential and important. The results of the study indicated that although the majority of incoming freshman rated interest in the subject as the most important factor influencing their decision, there was a divergence in the extent to which male and female respondents rated the relative importance of other the factors. Results of the data proved a statistical difference in the influence of pay rate and potential for career advancement on male and female students, with male students ranking these factors significantly higher than their female counterparts. Conversely, female students rated aptitude in the subject, second to interest, as the most important factor influencing their college major choice. Here is an interesting proposed explanation to the growing gender segregation in the workforce. Male students are statistically more likely than female students to pursue majors in subject fields that provide more opportunities for future career advancement and higher wages, whereas female students more commonly choose majors based on general interest and aptitude in the subject field.

“Preferences, constraints, and the process of sex segregation in college majors: A choice analysis”, an article by Fabian Ochsenfeld, also seeks to examine the factors influencing college major choice. Specifically, factors of gender influence that may solely be affecting female student’s choice of majors. The article examines research conducted on a sample of college entrants in Germany to determine the level of influence gender stereotypes and expectations have on female students’ major selection process. Interestingly enough, their research produced results similar to those contributed by Malawi, Howe, and Burnaby in “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major”. General interest in the subject matter was the greatest explanation for gendered major selection. Results did not indicate any concrete influence of gender stereotypes influencing college major choice. The extent to which students general subject interests have been influenced beyond their awareness, through societal or parental expectations, is a matter worth further investigation.Perhaps the investigation should be more so into how their interests been shaped, or guided, throughout their education history based on societally-rooted, gender role expectations.

I aim to further investigate the roles of societal influence, economic standings, and gender stereotypes in influencing students’ interest in gender-specific subject areas. How do these influences specifically affect women? If general subject interest is indeed a proven factor that determines college major choice, then what factors and influences guided these gender-specific interests? How have female students been guided towards predominantly female subject areas? What constraints do these gender role expectations, or gender norms, place on their development? I seek to better understand the factors contributing sex segregation in higher education, how these factors have developed, and to what degree do they potentially hinder the professional development of women.

Bibliography

American Association of University Women., and Gender and Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June 19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1997.

Bartolj, Tjaša, and Sašo Polanec. "College Major Choice and Ability: Why Is General Ability Not Enough?" Economics of Education Review 31.(2012): 996-1016.ScienceDirect. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., and Hudson, L. “The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women.” Sex Roles 69.(1-2), 58-71. 2013.

Daymont, Thomas N., and Paul J. Andrisani. “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings”. The Journal of Human Resources 19.3 (1984): 408–428. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Dinella, L. M., Fulcher, M., & Weisgram, E. S. “Sex-typed personality traits and gender identity as predictors of young adults' career interests.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 43(3), 493-504. 2014.

Holland, Dorothy C., and Margaret A. Eisenhart. Educated in Romance: Women, Achievement, and College Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Malgwi, Charles A., Martha A. Howe, and Priscilla A. Burnaby. "Influences On Students' Choice Of College Major." Journal Of Education For Business 80.5 (2005): 275-282. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ma, Yingyi. "College Major Choice, Occupational Structure And Demographic Patterning By Gender, Race And Nativity." Social Science Journal 48.1 (2011): 112-129. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ochsenfeld, Fabian. "Preferences, Constraints, And The Process Of Sex Segregation In College Majors: A Choice Analysis." Social Science Research 56.(2016): 117-132. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Zafar, Basit. "College Major Choice And The Gender Gap." Journal of Human Resources 3 (2013): 545. Project MUSE. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Research Blog #5: Bibliography

Bibliography

American Association of University Women., and Gender and Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June 19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1997.

Bartolj, Tjaša, and Sašo Polanec. "College Major Choice and Ability: Why Is General Ability Not Enough?" Economics of Education Review 31.(2012): 996-1016.ScienceDirect. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

 

Cohoon, J. McGrath, and Lecia Barker. "Harvey Mudd College's Successful Systemic Approach (Case Study 2)." National Center for Women & Information Technology. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Daymont, Thomas N., and Paul J. Andrisani. “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings”. The Journal of Human Resources 19.3 (1984): 408–428. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Dinella, L. M., Fulcher, M., & Weisgram, E. S. “Sex-typed personality traits and gender identity as predictors of young adults' career interests.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 43(3), 493-504. 2014.

Kimmel, Michael. "Guyland." An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers . Tue. 26 April. 2016

Malgwi, Charles A., Martha A. Howe, and Priscilla A. Burnaby. "Influences On Students' Choice Of College Major." Journal Of Education For Business 80.5 (2005): 275-282. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ma, Yingyi. "College Major Choice, Occupational Structure And Demographic Patterning By Gender, Race And Nativity." Social Science Journal 48.1 (2011): 112-129. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Ochsenfeld, Fabian. "Preferences, Constraints, And The Process Of Sex Segregation In College Majors: A Choice Analysis." Social Science Research 56.(2016): 117-132. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. 

Saujani, Reshma. "Teach Girls Bravery, Not Perfection." YouTube. TED Talks, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Zafar, Basit. "College Major Choice And The Gender Gap." Journal of Human Resources 3 (2013): 545. Project MUSE. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Literature Review Blog #3

Maryalice Hauer

Literature Review Blog #3

Title

“College Major Choice and the Gender Gap”

Citation

Zafar, Basit. “College Major Choice and the Gender Gap.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no.364 Feb. 2009: JEL Classification. Print.

Summary

In regard to the present gender gap, “College Major Choice and the Gender Gap” attributes the divergence in major choice major among male and female students to differences both in innate abilities and in preferences. To further investigate the phenomenon, the article uses a study conducted at Northwestern on a sample of 161 sophomore students, who responded to a survey. Results of the data collected demonstrated similar responses from male and female students in regard to their in-college preferences, such as the importance of enjoying coursework. But the responses of male and female students differed significantly in regard to their workplace preferences, with female students concerned with outcomes such as their parents approval of their careers and enjoying the work itself, and male students more concerned with outcomes such as social status at their jobs and income level. The conclusion of this article states that although these findings present interesting implications, gender differences in major choice remains a highly complex issue with a multitude of factors at play. There can be no concrete explanation for the current phenomenon.

Author

Basit Zafar

Basit Zafar is a Research Officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he specializes in labor economics and economies of education. His research examines how individuals makes decisions and the factors that influence their decision making process. This author is extremely knowledgeable i subject areas that directly pertain to my research topic, and analyzes the issue of sex segregation at a deeply personal level. The studies he conducts and analyze are specifically designed to create subjective circumstance to truly allow uncertainty to be present in the decision making process, as  it so often is in real life. I find it extremely interesting that he allows uncertainty to be a present factor in his study because it makes the results so much more realistic. The majority of undergraduate students are uncertain about their major choice, and may choose based on a variety of factors such as pressure from friends or family, that do not necessarily reflect their actual interest in the field they choose to major in. The fact that this author takes this into consideration is extremely impressive, and his article has been a valuable contribution to my research.  

Key Terms

• Pecuniary Outcomes: outcomes related to money

• Random Utility Model: a choice model that allows/accounts for uncertainty the decision making process

• uncertainty in regard to outcomes such as economic returns, personal tastes and abilities
• accounts heterogeneity in beliefs
• treats the decision as a  dynamic one

Quotes

“The choice of major is treated as a decision made under uncertainty- uncertainty about personal tastes, individual abilities, and realizations of outcomes related to choice of major” (p 1)

“Non Pecuniary outcomes at college are most important in the decisions of females, while pecuniary outcomes realized at the workplace explain a substantial part of the choice for males” (p 1)

“Gender differences in major choice are extremely complex, and no simple explanation can be provided for them. The analysis presented in this paper attempts to enhance our understanding of these issues” (p 28)

Value

This article is an extremely valuable resource to my research paper because it analyzes the complexity of the decision making process that takes place in regard to college major choice. It analyzes this process at a deeply personal level, which has broadened my perspective of the issue. As I read more about the survey that was conducted to derive these results, I learned that the survey was broken down into three sections. The first collected demographic and background information of the student participant. The second provided a choice model, where majors were broken into clusters based on similarity, and the student would choose a cluster that included several majors surrounding a general subject area. This was done purposely to allow for uncertainty in the decision, knowing that the majority of undergraduate students are, indeed, uncertain about their choice of a major. Having a general understanding of aptitude and interest in a certain subject area, and knowing you would like to pursue a career in that general field, is different than choosing one absolute major that will ultimately determine your career trajectory. I found the details of this study to be extremely interesting, and set it apart from a variety of other studies that have been conducted on the issue. The uniqueness of this study and the  in-depth personal analysis it employs makes this article an extremely valuable resource for my research.