Theoretical-critical review identifies gender biases in STEM subjects, suggesting implications for feminist educators.
STEM education research has repeatedly demonstrated how the STEM field is gendered masculine. But what does this mean? Is there anything about STEM subjects as such, that warrants labelling them masculine? This paper explores these questions through a meta-narrative, theoretical-critical review of previous review studies. The aim is to investigate how STEM subjects have been conceptualized as gendered in STEM education research, and what this means for feminist STEM educators who want to pluralize STEM education. Three ways of conceptualizing STEM subjects as gendered are identified: 1) The non-substantial association thesis; 2) The masculine epistemology of STEM; 3) STEM as difficult, asocial, and unhelpful. An over-arching finding is that most studies do not explore how STEM subjects emerge as gendered in the educational settings explored. Instead, gender is “imputed” into the analysis in ways that are not always productive for educators who want to pluralize STEM education through educational measures. Updated with minor typographical corrections: June 30, 2025.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andreas Ottemo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: