revisiting the double bind: ensuring the development and advancement of women of color in stem

Running head: REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND

Revisiting the Double Bind:

Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Capstone Paper Submitted for the Master of Professional Studies Degree in

Human Resources Management

Georgetown University

By:

Brittany J. Harris

Georgetown University

Fall 2014

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND ii

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND iii

Master of Professional Studies in Human Resources Management

Capstone Authenticity Statement

Name: Brittany J. Harris

Word count: 19,878

I confirm that:

Please

check

statement

I have read the University’s rules relating to plagiarism as found on the

Georgetown University website.

I am aware of the University’s disciplinary regulations concerning conduct in

examinations pertaining to submission of assignments and, in particular, of

the regulations on plagiarism.

I have read and am aware of and understand the Georgetown University

honor code.

The Capstone paper I am submitting is entirely my own work except where

otherwise indicated.

It has not been submitted, either wholly or substantially, for another course of

this Department or University, or for a course at any other institution.

I have clearly signalled the presence of quoted or paraphrased material and

referenced all sources.

I have acknowledged appropriately any assistance I have received in addition

to that provided by my advisor.

I have not sought assistance from any professional agency.

Signed :

Date: 12/17/2014

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND iv

Acknowledgements

If you would’ve asked me this time last year, what I saw myself doing now, never in a

million years would I have thought my answer would be, “Taking capstone, again.” The last few

months have been a beautiful challenge. A challenge I would not have been able to overcome

without the grace of God, love of my family, and support from my friends.

Mom and Dad, thank you for your prayers, support, and unconditional love. Most of all,

thank you for helping me see the beauty in what I saw as a failure. To Montese, thank you for

being my best friend. Your love and support during my graduate school journey have been

invaluable. Special thanks to Jen Tracy because in such a short period you have epitomized my

definition of a leader. Thank you for your flexibility and genuine support during this time.

I would also like to thank Professor Cumberlander and Professor Pinnock, both of whom

have played a huge part in my development as a diversity and inclusion practitioner. Professor

Cumberlander, thank you for challenging me and helping me discover a new passion while

writing my capstone. Professor Pinnock, thank you for being an inspiration. Your passion and

commitment to this work is admirable and contagious.

Lastly, to the women of color who gathered in 1975 to discuss the challenges and barriers

they overcame to pursue their careers in science, thank you. Your resilience and agency are

inspiring.

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND v

Dr. Shirley Malcom, co-author of “The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority

Woman in Science”, and I. December 19, 2014

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND vi

Abstract

Women of color represent a valuable source of domestic science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent. Nonetheless, they remain underrepresented

in STEM disciplines and professions. This study builds upon the body of research that

seeks to address the underrepresentation and unique experiences of women of color in

STEM. This study uses intersectionality theory to support what researchers have

previously referred to as the double bind. The double bind is used to describe the double

form of oppression upon women of color pursuing STEM at the intersection of race and

gender identity. This research asserts the critical need for colleges and universities to

understand the unique experiences of women of color before these institutions can begin

to create environments conducive to their advancement and development. This study fills

a research gap by bringing additional awareness to the unique experiences of women of

color pursuing STEM and by providing practical and actionable recommendations for

ensuring their development and advancement in the academic setting.

Keywords: minority women, STEM, science, diversity, double bind

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND vii

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Aims ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Justification ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 6

STEM: An Economic Imperative ................................................................................................ 7

Talent Shortages in STEM .......................................................................................................... 8

Underrepresentation of Women in STEM .................................................................................. 9

Underrepresentation of Women of Color in STEM .................................................................. 10

The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science ............................. 11

Intersectionality Theory and the Double Bind .................................................................. 14

Barriers in the STEM Academic Setting ................................................................................... 17

Cultural Values in the STEM Academic Setting .............................................................. 19

Contribution to Literature and Summary .................................................................................. 21

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 22

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter One: Understanding the Double Bind ............................................................................. 25

An Examination of the Double Bind ............................................................................................ 25

The Cost of Pursuing STEM ..................................................................................................... 25

The Essence of the Double Bind ............................................................................................... 26

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND viii

Understanding the Intersection.................................................................................................. 28

Ain't I a Woman? ...................................................................................................................... 29

The Double Bind of The Past........................................................................................................ 32

The Pre-Collegiate Experience.................................................................................................. 32

The Collegiate Experience ........................................................................................................ 36

Recommendations of the Double Bind Study ........................................................................... 39

Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter Two: Contemporary Experiences in the Double Bind .................................................... 41

The Double Bind: Thirty-Five Years Later .................................................................................. 42

Legislation to Address Discrimination ...................................................................................... 42

STEM Organizations for Women of Color ............................................................................... 43

Increased Interest among Girls of Color ................................................................................... 44

Areas of Opportunity Remain ................................................................................................... 45

The Role of Educational Institutions ......................................................................................... 47

Contemporary Experiences of Women of Color in STEM ........................................................... 48

Unintentional 'Threat' of Professors and Peers.......................................................................... 49

Manifestations of Implicit Biases .............................................................................................. 50

Discouraging Classroom Practices and STEM Cultural Values ............................................... 52

Challenges Associated with Alternate Pathways ...................................................................... 55


Chapter Three: Overcoming the Double Bind: Fostering Science Identity to Develop and

Advance Women of Color in STEM ............................................................................................ 57

Science Identity: A Model for Persistence.................................................................................... 58

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND ix

Dimensions of Science Identity................................................................................................. 60

Science Identity Trajectories ..................................................................................................... 61

Critical Role of Recognition in Developing Science Identity ................................................... 62

Recommendations: Using Recognition to Overcome the Double Bind ....................................... 65

Supporting Recognition of Self: Intercollegiate Affinity Groups ............................................. 65

Developing Culturally Aware "Meaningful Others" ................................................................. 67


Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 70

References ..................................................................................................................................... 72

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 80

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 82

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND x

List of Abbreviations or Acronyms

AAAS – American Associations for the Advancement of Science

AAMC – American Association of Medical Colleges

ACS – American Chemical Society

HBCU – Historically Black Colleges and Universities

IAT – Implicit Association Test

NAE – National Academy of Engineering

NAS – National Academy of Sciences

NSF – National Science Foundation

NSBE – National Society of Black Engineers

PWI – Predominantly White Institution

STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics

WICSE – Women in Computer Science Engineering

WOC – Women of Color

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND xi

Research Problem: Women of color continue to be underrepresented among science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines and occupations.

Research Question: How can colleges and universities better address the underrepresentation of

women of color in STEM?

Thesis Statement: Colleges and universities should act as incubators and create environments

that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.

REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 1

Revisiting the Double Bind:

Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM

President Obama has described the investment in science as "more essential for our

prosperity, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before" (The

White House, 2009). To remain globally and economically competitive, the United States must

continue to grow its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce

(Ong, 2011). Given the predominant presence of women enrollees, and increases in the

enrollment of students of color at U.S. colleges and universities, women and people of color

represent a growing source of domestic talent to meet the needs of the nation (Ong, 2011).

Leaders at technology companies, such as Google and Facebook, have responded to this

imperative by acknowledging their role in addressing the underrepresentation of women and

people of color in STEM, and articulating their commitment to addressing barriers that may exist

(Google, 2014; Williams, 2014). Separately, there has been an array of research dedicated to

identifying the barriers women and people of color face in the pursuit of STEM (Simard, 2009).

Nonetheless, women of color remain largely invisible and severely underrepresented in

STEM professions and academic research (Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011; Google,

2014; Williams, 2014). Scholars suggest that the barriers associated with belonging to two

marginalized identities (non-White and female) in a predominantly White, male industry, are

compounded to create a distinct experience for women of color in STEM (Malcom, Hall, &

Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Historically, initiatives and programs seeking to

increase the representation of women and people of color in STEM fail to address the unique

experiences of women of color in the pursuit of STEM careers, which has not been effective in


fully addressing their underrepresentation (Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom,

2011).

In their influential study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in

Science, Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976) were the first to explore the experiences of women of

color pursuing STEM. Malcom et al. (1976) used the term double bind to describe the double

form of oppression upon women of color pursuing STEM at the intersection of race and gender

identity. For purposes of this research, the term double bind study is used throughout this paper

to refer to Malcom et al.'s (1976) research. In addition, women of color is used in lieu of minority

women to refer to women from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Although the original

double bind study referred to minority women, subsequent studies have since referred to women

of color.

Since the publication of the original double bind study, scholars have argued that

educational institutions play a critical role in addressing the underrepresentation of women of

color in the STEM talent pool (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong et al.,

2011). However, these institutions can only fulfill this obligation by removing barriers and

creating environments that contribute to the success of women of color pursuing STEM. This

research seeks to fill this gap. To address the underrepresentation of women of color in the

STEM talent pool, colleges and universities should act as incubators and create environments

that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.

Scope

This paper intends to extend research on the double bind in the context of women of color

pursuing STEM. The data is reflective of the experiences of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and

American Indian women within STEM academic settings, specifically, U.S. colleges and


universities. It should be noted that the original double bind study did not include the experiences

of Asian women, as they have historically been overrepresented in STEM occupations (Malcom

et al., 1976). Asian women are included in this analysis because studies and demographic data

following the original double bind study suggest significant decreases in the representation of

Asian women with advanced degrees in STEM (Ong et al., 2011).

STEM occupations include computer and mathematical roles, engineers, actuaries, life,

physical, and social scientists, as well as managers, teachers, and technicians working in these

fields (U.S. Census, 2010). STEM-related occupations consist of architects and medical and

healthcare practitioners (U.S. Census, 2010). This research will focus primarily on STEM majors

and professions. The period studied and analyzed extends from 1970, the decade in which the

original double bind study was first published, to 2014.

Aims

The overall aim of this research is to analyze and synthesize relevant data and literature

on the double bind as experienced by women of color in STEM and the role U.S. colleges and

universities play in addressing the underrepresentation of women of color in the STEM talent

pool. A summary of this paper's theoretical, methodological, and practical aims are included in

the table below.


Table 1

Aims

Aims Description

Theoretical The theoretical aim of this research is to use existing theories

(i.e., implicit bias, stereotypes, and stereotype threat) to explain

psychological barriers to pursuing STEM, as experienced by

women. This research also employs intersectionality theory to

qualify how the aforementioned psychological barriers are

further complicated for women of color. This research also

discusses cultural and climatic barriers in the academic setting;

for example, chilly climate, decontextualized science, and

science as race- and gender-neutral. The final theoretical aim of

this paper involves the application of the science identity model

as a framework to provide recommendations on how colleges

and universities can develop and advance women of color

studying STEM.

Methodological The methodological aims of this research involve the use of

qualitative data from peer-reviewed journals and studies, and

findings from focus groups and interviews, in addition to

quantitative data, organizational data, and scholarly literature to,

demonstrate the barriers to STEM as experienced by women and

the unique experiences of women of color in the academic

setting.

Practical The practical aim of this research is to provide

recommendations for colleges and universities to ensure women

of color are developed and successful in STEM, thus increasing

their representation in the STEM talent pool.

Objectives

This paper has three main objectives. First, this paper brings awareness to the unique

experiences of women of color as they navigate the double bind throughout their STEM

academic pursuits. Second, this paper draws attention to the factors that contribute to the

development and advancement of women of color in STEM and the barriers that prevent this

development and advancement in the academic setting. Third, this paper demonstrates the

importance of educational institutions in producing more women of color in STEM, and provides


recommendations that colleges and universities may implement to ensure the development and

advancement of women of color studying STEM.

Justification

The United States' STEM workforce is critical to the nation's economic and global

competitiveness. As colleges and universities across the nation continue to enroll increasingly

more students of color and more women than men (NSF, 2013), women of color represent a

growing potential source of talent (Ong, 2011). This research is significant because colleges and

universities play a critical role in increasing the representation of women of color in the STEM

talent pool. An improved understanding of the unique experiences of women of color pursuing

STEM sets the foundation for thoughtful and effective programs to support these women in their

pursuits. There is a lack of research addressing the unique experiences of women of color in

STEM and ways academic institutions can ensure their advancement.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this research paper. The most significant limitation is the

time constraint, which limited the collection of primary data. Therefore, secondary data was

used. The scope of this paper also presents several limitations. The original double bind study

addressed the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM in the context of K–12, post-

secondary, and workplace environments (Malcom et al., 1976). However, this paper focuses

primarily on the experiences of women of color in post-secondary educational institutions. Post-

secondary educational institutions include colleges and universities in the United States.

The empirical research base addressing the collective experiences of women of color in

STEM is still developing (Ong et al., 2011). The research used in this study includes women of

color pursuing science, technology, engineering or mathematics, but primarily studying science.


The cultural similarities among the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields of

study deem it appropriate that findings of this study be applied across most, if not all, STEM

disciplines.

Literature Review

Historically, programs aiming to address diversity in STEM have targeted women and

people of color (Malcom et al., 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong et al., 2011). Women of

color and their unique experiences at the intersections of race and gender marginalization have

traditionally been overlooked and excluded in research and programmatic efforts (Ong et al.,

2011). Consequently, women of color remain underrepresented in STEM disciplines and

professions. Educational institutions are critical to addressing this gap, setting the context for the

research question: How can colleges and universities better address the underrepresentation of

women of color in STEM? Colleges and universities should act as incubators and create

environments that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.

Consistent with the aims, scope, and objectives articulated for this research paper, this

review seeks to examine the scholarly literature that supports the thesis statement, which

emphasizes the unique experiences of women of color pursuing STEM and the critical role

colleges and universities can play in addressing their underrepresentation. As such, the literature

review is divided into four sections. First, the literature review will set context by defining the

STEM workforce and its criticality to the growth and competiveness of the United States,

including discussions surrounding the STEM pipeline talent shortage and the underrepresentation

of women in STEM. Second, this review will discuss the research that conveys the unique

experiences of women of color pursuing STEM and explore intersectionality theory as a means

to support Malcom, Hall, and Brown's study (1976) The Double Bind: The Price of Being a


Minority Woman in Science. Lastly, this review will examine specific barriers to STEM,

particularly those prevalent in the academic setting, and their impact on the representation and

development of women of color pursuing STEM degrees.

STEM: An Economic Imperative

To remain globally and economically competitive, the United States must increase

participation in STEM and related majors and professions. STEM occupations include computer

and mathematical roles, engineers, actuaries, life, physical, and social scientists, as well as

managers, teachers, and technicians working in these fields (U.S. Census, 2010). STEM-related

occupations consist primarily of architects and medical and healthcare practitioners (U.S.

Census, 2010). This research will focus primarily on STEM majors and professions.

Government, industry, and academic leaders have communicated the criticality of the

nation's STEM workforce (Landivar, 2013a). President Obama (2009) described the investment

in science as "more essential for our prosperity, our health, our environment, and our quality of

life than it has ever been before." According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),

National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and Institute of Medicine (2007), the high quality and

knowledge intensiveness of STEM roles are imperative to new technology, innovation, and

discovery. Without STEM workers, the United States' economy and standards of living will

suffer (NAS, 2007).Yet, despite the essential nature of STEM, these occupations only make up

six percent of the United States' total workforce (Landivar, 2013a). In addition, the vast majority

of the STEM workforce includes individuals with bachelor's degrees (Landivar, 2013a), which

further supports the critical role colleges and universities play as key stakeholders in the

development of STEM talent. If talent is not developed, there are serious implications for talent

shortages in STEM.


Talent Shortages in STEM

Some organizations and government agencies have already alluded to potential talent

shortages in STEM occupations. Bayer (2013), the multinational chemical and healthcare

company, conducted a study surveying Fortune 1000 companies in STEM and non-STEM-

related industries, and found that STEM jobs were being created at a faster rate than non-STEM

jobs. Additionally, half of all those surveyed reported difficulties in finding qualified individuals

with STEM degrees to fill STEM roles in a timely manner (Bayer, 2013). On the other hand,

Salzman, Kuehn, and Lowell (2013) argue against the STEM talent shortage. Their study

examined patterns in the information technology (IT) labor market and the STEM education

pipeline and found trends suggesting the United States has more than a sufficient supply of

workers qualified for STEM occupations (Salzman et al., 2013). The striking contrasts between

the two studies could be attributed to the inclusion of skilled, foreign workers in the study by

Salzman et al. (2013). This paper seeks to address domestic STEM talent; therefore, Bayer's

(2013) study supports the significance of this research. The development of STEM talent is

critical to the abilities of organizations to recruit individuals into these highly skilled roles. As

academic stewards to the success of students pursuing degrees in STEM, colleges and

universities play a critical role.

The U.S. Department of Labor (2007) suggests several factors contribute to a shortage in

supply of STEM workers. First, a significant number of existing STEM workers are approaching

retirement age, much like the baby boomers in the workforce (U.S. DOL, 2007). Second, many

students are not making it into the STEM pipeline as a result of inadequate math and science

education opportunities at K–12 levels (U.S. DOL, 2007). Last, women continue to represent an

untapped pool of talent and, therefore, remain underrepresented in the STEM pipeline (U.S.


DOL, 2007). Given this paper seeks to address how colleges and universities can ensure the

development women of color in STEM, the next section of this review quantifies the

underrepresentation of all women in the STEM pipeline and workforce.

Underrepresentation of Women in STEM

Increasing the participation of women in traditionally male-dominated STEM

occupations continues to be an area of concern for governments, universities, and organizations.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) (2013) reported that 51 percent of all engineers and

scientists were White males in 2010. In 1970, women comprised 3 percent of engineers, 14

percent of life and physical scientists, 15 percent of mathematical and computer workers, and 17

percent of social scientists (Landivar, 2013a). Since the 1990s, women's representation in

computer-related occupations has declined. This decline can be attributed to the decline in

computer science degrees awarded to women seen since the 1980s (Landivar, 2013a). Fewer

women pursuing computer-related degrees means fewer women are pursuing computer-related

careers. This analysis further supports the critical role colleges and universities play in

developing STEM talent.

In 2011, although women made up nearly half (48 percent) of the total workforce, they

accounted for only 26 percent of STEM jobs (Landivar, 2013a). This underrepresentation is

especially evident in engineering roles, where women only comprised 13 percent of engineers in

2011 (Landivar, 2013a). In the academic setting, women only make up one fourth of science,

engineering, and health professors (NSF, 2013). This underrepresentation of women as STEM

educators further perpetuates one of the most common barriers to STEM for women: lack of role

models.


Equally troubling is attrition throughout the STEM pipeline among girls and women at

the secondary and post-secondary levels. In 2003, less than 20 percent of students who took the

advanced placement (AP) test in computer science were girls (College Board, 2013). In Montana

and Mississippi, no female students took the exam (College Board, 2013). Additionally, one

study that examined student attrition in STEM undergraduate majors over a nine-year period,

found significant turnover among female students (Rask, 2010). During the first semester of their

studies, female students comprised 31 percent of computer science departments (Rask, 2010). By

the fourth semester, female students only represented 17 percent of these same departments

(Rask, 2010). The findings Rask’s (2010) study support the thesis of this paper, which reasons

that colleges and universities play a critical role in ensuring the development and advancement

STEM talent. The attrition documented in the Rask (2010) study depicts the challenge that

colleges and universities face in retaining women in STEM majors, which subsequently affects

their representation in the STEM pipeline and workforce. This impact is also evident in the

underrepresentation of women of color in STEM.

Underrepresentation of Women of Color in STEM

Although increasing the representation of women in STEM has been a critical factor in

addressing diversity and the talent shortage in STEM, there has not been as much focus on the

underrepresentation of women of color and their unique experiences in STEM environments

(Espinosa, 2011; Ong, 2011). Even in areas where White women have neared or reached parity

with their male counterparts in STEM participation, women of color continue to lag, particularly

in the academic setting. For example, in 2010, women were awarded 57.8 percent of biosciences

bachelor's degrees, but women of color made up only 9.3 percent (NSF, 2013). Likewise, women

made up 43.1 percent of mathematics degrees in 2010, while women of color were awarded 5.2


percent (NSF, 2013). In 2010, women had the lowest participation in computer science (17.9

percent) and engineering (18.1 percent); women of color accounted for 4.9 percent and 3 percent

of these degrees awarded (NSF, 2013). Such contrasts in degree attainment illustrate the

importance of addressing STEM participation in academic settings for women in general, but

also women of color. This creates an imperative for colleges and universities to ensure women of

color are developed and positioned to participate in the STEM workforce.

There have been many studies on the experiences of women and people of color in

STEM; however, the unique experiences of women of color, who encounter the simultaneous

intersections of race and gender identity, have often been excluded from the research (Ong,

2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976) were the first

to fill this gap in their seminal study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in

Science.

The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science

Malcom et al. (1976) used the double bind to describe the unique challenges women of

color faced due to biases and stereotypes related to their gender and race in the pursuit STEM

careers. The study, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS), was the first of its kind to bring awareness to the experiences of women of color in

STEM. They discussed the high cost of studying and pursuing STEM, making note that the more

an individual deviated from the typical STEM professional (White and male), the greater the

price she paid (Malcom et al., 1976). The “price” refers to professional and personal sacrifices

experienced by STEM professionals. Malcom et al. (1976) also uncovered the exclusion of

women of color from programs meant to increase women in STEM and programs meant to

address people of color in STEM that were largely dominated by men (Malcom et al., 1976).


The study was based on the insights of 30 women practicing in STEM professions. The

women had shared experiences at varying points in their socialization and careers that

contributed to their persistence in STEM. They also experienced common racial and gender

barriers in their pursuits (Malcom et al., 1976). These experiences began as early as childhood

and continued throughout college and well into the workplace (Malcom et al., 1976). Many of

the women alluded to barriers based on race or ethnicity as more pervasive during their pre-

collegiate experiences; for example, lack of access to quality education during K–12, lower

expectations from teachers, and lack of academic counseling (Malcom et al., 1976). It was during

the women's collegiate studies that race and gender oppression became more evident (Malcom et

al., 1976). At the collegiate level, the women recalled being unprepared for rigorous coursework,

experiencing condescending professors, a lack of mentors or role models, social and personal

isolation, and poor academic advising (Malcom et al., 1976).

Thirty-five years following the original double bind study, Malcom and Malcom (2011)

discussed the progress of women of color in STEM in their paper The Double Bind: Next

Generation. They suggested that, while some progress has been made, women of color remain

underrepresented largely because of the inaction of educational institutions. They assert that

colleges and universities have not fully addressed the unique experiences of women of color

pursuing STEM and have been unsuccessful in creating a culture and environment where women

of color can flourish as STEM professionals (Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Therefore, while some

institutions have seen growth in the rate of women of color declaring interest in STEM, the

successful completion of those programs by women of color remains a concern (Malcom &

Malcom, 2011). This inaction of educational institutions as posited by Malcom and Malcom

(2011) could account for the aforementioned low rate of science and engineering degrees among


women of color and their subsequent underrepresentation in the STEM workforce, further

justifying this research and the need for colleges and universities to create environments where

women of color can be developed.

Malcom and Malcom (2011) also discussed the antiquated use of the "pipeline" metaphor

to describe the historically rigid, single route to pursuing STEM majors and careers. Given that

women of color are more likely to attend community college prior to pursuing a STEM degree in

the university setting, Malcom and Malcom (2011) discuss the term "pathways" as more

appropriate in accounting for the unique academic pursuits of women of color studying STEM.

Reyes (2011) explored these pursuits in her study of the challenges experienced by women of

color transferring from community colleges to universities. Reyes' (2011) research uncovered an

atmosphere where women of color experienced attitudes and treatment signaling that they did

not belong.

The existing research on women of color and the double bind sets context and brings

awareness to their unique experiences while pursuing STEM. Ong (2005) examined how women

of color tended to question their own senses of belonging and competence because they did not

conform to prevalent images of White, male physicists. Carlone and Johnson (2006) examined

the experiences of successful women of color and revealed the significance of recognition to

their success. Johnson (2006) uncovered how science professors can unintentionally discourage

women of color by norms and values they perpetuate in the classroom. Ong, Wright, Espinosa,

and Orfield (2011) refuted the myth that women of color are simply less interested in STEM,

claiming that underrepresentation is a result of educational institutions that understand neither

the double bind nor how to address it.


The lack of understanding surrounding the double bind as it relates to the experiences of

women of color pursuing STEM provides justification for this study's use of intersectionality

theory. Ko, Kachchaf, Ong, and Hodari (2013) employed intersectionality in their study, which

sought to identify how the intersection of race and gender affected performance, identity,

persistence, and overall career experiences of women of color working in physical sciences.

Intersectionality can be used to conceptualize the double bind and the impact of simultaneous

race and gender marginalization on the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The

following section reviews intersectionality theory and its relevance to the double bind.

Intersectionality Theory and the Double Bind

The theory of intersectionality originates in Crenshaw's (1989) seminal critique of civil

rights and feminist theory. Intersectionality theory posits that women of color, who occupy

multiple marginalized identities (e.g., being non-White and female) experience racism and

sexism to a greater degree than men of any race and White women (Crenshaw, 1989). Crenshaw

(1989) argued that the historic use of race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of inquiry

and analysis neglected to fully capture the unique experiences of Black women, thus failing to

address the race and gender discrimination Black women often experienced. Crenshaw (1989)

reasoned that the same laws and policies meant to include and protect the rights of women and

Blacks subsequently excluded Black women. The consistent focus on White women and Black

men as normative subjects in feminism and civil rights discourse, excluded Black women in the

conceptualization, identification, and remediation of race and gender discrimination (Crenshaw,

1989).

Crenshaw's (1989) critique echoes the sentiments of the women in the double bind study.

Malcom et al. (1976) found that women of color pursuing STEM believed the programs designed


to increase diversity in STEM were primarily to the benefit of White women and men of color—

just as feminist and civil rights movements were primarily to the benefit of White, middle-class

women and Black men (Crenshaw, 1989). As such, those programs failed to consider the unique

experiences of women of color caught at the intersection of race and gender marginalization

(Malcom et al., 1976). Crenshaw (1989) called for an intersectional analysis of racism and

sexism to develop inclusive feminist and civil rights movements.

Intersectional analysis involves taking a bottom-up approach to discrimination and

inequality (Crenshaw, 1989). Rather than centering efforts on the needs and problems of those

singularly marginalized by race or gender (i.e., White women and Black men), Crenshaw (1989)

suggested centering analysis and efforts on those most disadvantaged. Crenshaw (1989)

concludes that, if the needs and experiences of those most disadvantaged were addressed, those

who were singularly disadvantaged would also benefit (Crenshaw, 1989). Employing

intersectionality theory in this study provides a critical foundation for understanding how the

intersection of race and gender informs the unique experiences of women of color navigating the

double bind.

Crenshaw's (1989) critique revolutionized the analytical approach to gender and

femininity. Scholars have since applied intersectionality theory across varying disciplines and

beyond the lens of race and gender. For example, Brah and Pheonix (2004) proposed using the

theory to understand social class and its intersections with race, gender, and sexuality and posited

that any form of identity (class, race, gender, sexuality) may simultaneously intersect to inform

unique experiences. Symington (2004) encouraged the use of intersectionality as a tool for global

human rights and development work. Symington's (2004) approach confirmed that the goal of

intersectionality was not to identify those more privileged or marginalized than others, but to


uncover meaningful distinctions and similarities to overcome discrimination and put conditions

in place that would allow all people to fully enjoy their human rights.

Holvino (2008) extended intersectionality research with the conceptualization of

intersectionality as the simultaneous interaction of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and

nationality. This model sought to dispel the notion that one identity was central over another,

arguing instead that identity can become more salient based on contextual factors (Holvino,

2008). Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) used intersectionality to examine the

underrepresentation of women of color in leadership. In juxtaposing the experiences of women

of color with their White counterparts in the workplace, Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) cited

differences in promotion opportunities, likeness among White male executives that favored

White women, occupational segregation, and access to formal and informal networks. This

research called for organizations to better address underrepresentation of women of color in

leadership by first understanding how race, gender, and ethnicity intersect to create contrasting

experiences between White women and women of color in the workplace.

Intersectionality theory is not without criticism. Nash (2008) interrogated several aspects

of intersectional analysis: its lack of a defined methodology, the use of Black women as its

quintessential subjects, and its vague definition. McCall (2006) described the use of

intersectionality in social analysis as overly complex. Nonetheless, some scholars have sought to

clarify intersectionality by defining major principles of its theoretical framework. Smooth (2010)

identified several principles of intersectionality theory. First, intersectionality regards identities

as interconnecting and mutually constitutive rather that additive and mutually exclusive. It also

takes into account variations within social identities, recognizes that social identity and dominant

or marginalized group statuses may change over time depending on the social and environmental


context, and accepts the coexistence of privilege and oppression rather than treating them as

mutually exclusive categories. Lastly, Smooth (2010) contended that the use of intersectionality

is requisite to understanding privilege and oppression and fully addressing societal inequality

(Smooth, 2010). An understanding of intersectionality contributes to thoughtful and relevant

programmatic efforts and recommendations that address the barriers women of color often

experience during their STEM pursuits. Some of the barriers discussed in this study have been

experienced by women from all groups. However, intersectionality theory suggests that the

impact of these barriers may be greater for women of color. The following section discusses

some of those barriers.

Barriers in the STEM Academic Setting

The research suggests some of the barriers to STEM affect not only women of color but

also women in general. However, double bind and intersectionality theory reason that the impact

of barriers can be greater for women of color than for White women. Implicit biases, stereotype

threat and a "chilly" STEM climate have all been attributed to the underrepresentation of women

in STEM, all of which are discussed separately (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies & Steele, 2009; Deemer,

Thoman, Chase, & Smith, 2013; Hall & Sandler, 1982; Nosek et al., 2009; Spencer, Steele, &

Quinn, 1998). A greater understanding of these barriers sets the foundation for further analysis

throughout the paper.

Stereotype threat. Spencer et al. (1998) found that, when performing math, women risk

judgment by the negative stereotype that they have weaker math abilities. They call this

predicament stereotype threat (Spencer et al., 1998). Stereotype threat refers to the individual's

experience of being judged based on a societal group stereotype (Spencer et al., 1998). Women

of color are susceptible to stereotype threat based on race and gender. For example, a Black


female student may experience the burden of not conforming to stereotypes that imply women

are not good in math and that Black people are intellectually inferior. This simultaneous burden

can be detrimental to the persistence of women of color in the academic environment,

threatening their sense of belonging, interest in STEM (Cheryan et al., 2009), and performance

(Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007).

Implicit biases. These stereotypes manifest as implicit biases that impede the success of

women in the STEM academic environment. Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes and

assumptions, which are influenced by an individual's experiences with people or groups

(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Societal stereotypes regarding men, women, and STEM inform

many of the interactions between faculty and students in the academic setting. Moss-Racusin,

Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, and Handelsman (2012) showed how these biases influenced how

female students were evaluated by science faculty members. The implicit biases of faculty

members caused them to favor male over female students when attempting to fill a lab manager

position (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Faculty members, both male and female, were more likely

to rate male students as more hirable and competent than identical female students, and to offer

higher starting salaries and more career mentoring to the male students (Moss-Racusin et al.,

2012).

Similarly, Justin-Johnson (2004) found the female students of color at a predominantly

White institution (PWI) experienced a sense of unfriendliness and unwillingness to help from

professors. Many of the participants alluded to experiencing different treatment than that of their

White and male counterparts on campus (Justin-Johnson, 2004). Such experiences are linked to

the implicit biases commonly held by faculty members. Though unconscious to the faculty, these


biases can impact the level of access women of color have to professional development

opportunities, research opportunities, and assistance outside of the classroom.

Chilly climate. These disparities in treatment support what Hall and Sandler (1982)

called a chilly climate for women in STEM academic settings. This climate, wherein women are

often treated differently than their male counterparts, perpetuates the disparate experiences of

women in STEM, thus contributing to their underrepresentation in the STEM workforce. That

said, the chilly climate experienced by women in STEM is often even colder for women of color,

whose experiences in STEM environments are nuanced by not only gender but also race. As a

result, women of color often experience isolation, alienation, and low sense of belonging (Justin-

Johnson, 2004; Johnson, 2007; Malcom et al., 1976). There is a critical need for colleges and

universities to develop practices and methods of intervention to counter the barriers that impede

the success of women of color pursuing STEM in the academic environment.

Cultural Values in the STEM Academic Setting

In addition to the aforementioned barriers, research suggests that the cultural values

embedded in the STEM academic setting can be detrimental to women of color pursuing STEM.

These values include the narrow focus on decontextualized science and the depiction of science

as a race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral construct (Johnson, 2007). Johnson (2006) uncovered

these values while studying the experiences of Black, Latina, and American Indian women

pursuing science at a predominantly White research university. Johnson (2006) found that the

professors unintentionally discouraged women of color by perpetuating these values in the

classroom.

The first value (a focus on decontextualized science) referred to professors' consistent

depersonalized approach to lecturing (Johnson, 2007). The lectures focused primarily on


scientific content without much attention to how that content may fit into a bigger picture (i.e.,

why students were interested in the subject matter or what they planned to do with their degrees)

(Johnson, 2007). The absence of big-picture applications was discouraging to the women of

color who, in most cases, were drawn to science for big-picture reasons, such as altruism

(Johnson, 2007). While the professors were well-intentioned in focusing lectures heavily on the

subject matter, they were inadvertently discouraging female students of color (Johnson, 2007).

The second value (science as race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral) was also discouraging

to women of color. In the professors' attempts to focus their lectures on the subject matter, they

often created classroom cultures that did not support individualized learning, or the role of

individual characteristics in the learning experience (Johnson, 2007). The women in the study

felt like blindness to race and gender presented people of color as special cases and White men

as the norm (Johnson, 2007). Some respondents even questioned whether they should bring up

issues of race in science. For example, some students were reluctant to discuss how genetic

differences among races and genders account for the prevalence of diseases in certain groups

over another (Johnson, 2007).

The notion that science is a color-blind meritocracy contradicts many of the subtle racial

and gender dynamics that govern how fellow students interact. For example, it was common for

students to segregate by race and gender when choosing seating in the classroom, identifying lab

partners, and studying in the library (Johnson, 2007). In addition, many of the implicit biases that

manifest in the STEM classroom were shown to originate from unconscious race- and gender-

related attitudes (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Again, though not the intention of the professors,

such classroom culture is particularly discouraging to women of color. This discouragement can

impede the persistence of women of color pursuing STEM careers, leading to lower


representation in the STEM talent pool. Colleges and universities play a critical role in

identifying the barriers that exist within the academic setting and developing practices that

mitigate the impact on women of color pursuing STEM.

Contribution to Literature and Summary

The existing literature acknowledges the critical need for the United States to continue to

develop and sustain a robust workforce in STEM fields. Advancements in science and

technology are critical to the nation's global and economic competitiveness. Talent shortages in

STEM imply a need for colleges and universities to produce STEM majors and professionals

continuously. As the representation of women continues to exceed men on college campuses,

and the enrollment of students of color continues to rise, women of color represent a valuable

source of domestic STEM talent.

However, despite their increased presence on college campuses women of color remain

underrepresented in STEM majors and professions. The underrepresentation of women of color

can be attributed to the inabilities of colleges and universities to mitigate barriers that exist in

these women's pursuits of STEM and failure to create environments that support their

persistence. The existing research on the double bind suggests the critical need for colleges and

universities to understand the unique experiences of women of color before these institutions can

begin to create environments conducive to their advancement and development. This research

aims to fill this gap by bringing additional awareness to the unique experiences of women of

color pursuing STEM and by providing practical and actionable recommendations to increase the

representation of women of color in STEM.


Methodology

From a meta-qualitative methodological standpoint, this research design is illuminative,

descriptive, and exploratory. A qualitative research approach was used to convey the unique

experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The qualitative method is effective in that it

reveals first-hand the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM over varying time periods,

across multiple STEM fields of study, and in the context of different university settings (Carlone

& Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2007; Malcom et. al., 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2010; Ong, 2005;

Reyes, 2011). Inductive reasoning was used to identify patterns in the experiences of women of

color and to establish linkages to relevant theories of implicit bias, stereotypes, and stereotype

threat. The review of secondary data involves an analysis and synthesis of relevant studies,

scholarly discussions, interviews, and narratives that qualify the unique experiences of women of

color in their pursuits of STEM.

This study also employed a quantitative approach. Quantitatively, U.S. Census data,

organizational data, and studies from the National Science Foundation (NSF) were analyzed to

quantify the underrepresentation of women in STEM degree programs. Quantitative empirical

studies were also used to conceptualize the existence of barriers to STEM and factors that

contribute to persistence. Given time constraints, only secondary data were used in this study.


Results

The following table summarizes the primary sources used in this study to qualify the unique

experiences of women of color pursing STEM.

Table 2

Secondary Data Sources: Unique Challenges of Women of Color Pursuing STEM

Source Relevance

Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., &

Brown, J. W. (1976). The double

bind: The price of being a

minority woman in science (No.

76-R-3). Washington, DC:

American Association for the

Advancement of Science.

Retrieved from:

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default

/files/migrate/uploads/1975-

Double-Bind.pdf

Seminal study that brought awareness to the

unique experiences and challenges of women

of color (WOC) in science

Qualitative study and collection of narratives

based on insights shared by 30 WOC

scientists at a 1975 conference hosted by

AAAS

Findings: WOC experience a combination of

racism and sexism during their STEM

pursuits.

Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of

young women of color in

physics: Intersections of gender,

race, and science. Social

Problems, 52(4), 593–617.

Qualitative, longitudinal study that examined

the experiences of ten women of color

studying physics

Findings: WOC’s belonging and competence

are questioned because they do not conform

to prevalent images of the ordinary White,

male physicist.

Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended

consequences: How science

professors discourage women of

color. Science Education, 91(5),

805–821.

Qualitative study that examined the

experiences of 16 Black, Latina, and

American Indian women science students

Findings: WOC are negatively impacted by

the size of classes, asking and answering

questions, and embedded cultural values of

science.

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A.

(2007). Understanding the

science experiences of

successful women of color:

Science identity as an analytic

lens. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–

1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237

Ethnographic interviews were conducted

with 15 successful WOC over the course of

their collegiate careers

Findings: The science identity model

conceptualizes the significance of

recognition in the advancement of WOC in

science.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1975-Double-Bind.pdf




Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M.

(2011). The double bind: The

next generation. Harvard

Educational Review, 81(2), 162–

171, 388–389.

This paper is a scholarly discussion that

revisits the progress made in addressing the

double bind since the original study’s

publication. Authors suggest educational

institutions have not fully assumed their

responsibility in addressing the

underrepresentation of WOC in STEM.

Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and

pathways: Women of color in

undergraduate STEM majors and

the college experiences that

contribute to persistence.

Harvard Educational Review,

81(2), 209–241.

Quantitative study that utilizes hierarchical

generalized linear modeling to examine the

experiences of 1,250 WOC and 891 White

women studying STEM

Findings: There are differentiating factors to

persistence in STEM between WOC and

White women. For example, joining STEM-

related organizations were particularly

critical to the persistence of WOC.

Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges

for women of color in STEM

transferring from community

colleges to universities. Harvard

Educational Review, 81(2), 241–

262, 390.

Quantitative study based on interviews

conducted with WOC who entered the

university setting through community

colleges

Findings: WOC experienced an environment

that signaled they do not belong and were

inadequately prepared.


Chapter One: Understanding the Double Bind

“In such case, it does not matter whether one is being hit with the club of sexism or

racism—they both hurt. And this is the nature and essence of the double bind.”

(Malcom et al., 1976, p. 3)

Historically, women of color have been invisible in academic research and programmatic

efforts that seek to address diversity, or the lack thereof, in STEM majors and professions

(Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong, 2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa,

& Orfield, 2011). Some scholars suggest the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM

can only be addressed if organizations and institutions understand the unique experiences of

these women as they navigate both racial and gender forms of oppression in the predominantly

White, male field (Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong, 2005; Ong,

Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). To comprehend the unique experiences of women of color

pursuing STEM, it is important to examine the historical context of the double bind and the

relevance of intersectionality theory. This chapter provides a conceptual and theoretical

examination of the double bind and intersectionality, an analysis of the experiences of the

women of the seminal double bind study The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science

(Malcom et al., 1976), and a discussion of the foci of actions that followed the study.

An Examination of the Double Bind

The Cost of Pursuing STEM

Aspiring to become a scientist, engineer, biomedical professional, or even an astronomer

does not come without a cost (Ko, Kachcaf, Ong, & Hodari, 2013; Malcom et al., 1976).

Financial strain, difficult curricula, overly competitive environments, and significant time

commitments are all associated with the culture of STEM and the sacrifices required of any


individual who pursues these majors or careers (Malcom et al., 1976; Ko et al., 2013; Seymour &

Hewitt, 1997). However, the cost of pursuing STEM can be especially inflated for individuals

who do not resemble the typical STEM professional.

Scientists, engineers, and mainstream STEM professional prototypes often reflect images

of White males (Ong, 2005; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). STEM culture and many of its norms are

closely aligned with masculinity (Johnson, 2007; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). For example,

Seymour and Hewitt (1997) argued that the common focus on individual rather than collective

goals, the competitive nature of STEM classrooms, and the "weeding out" process of STEM

courses are consistent with the norms and cultural skills of White, middle-class men. Thus, the

more an individual resembles the typical STEM professional, the lower his or her costs (Malcom

et al., 1976). Conversely, the farther an individual deviates from the norm, the higher his or her

costs (Malcom et al., 1976). The higher costs as result of this differentness is what qualifies the

unique experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976)

referred to these experiences as the double bind in their seminal study The Double Bind: The

Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.

The Essence of the Double Bind

Malcom, et al. (1976) were the first to bring awareness to the unique experiences of

women of color pursuing STEM careers in their study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a

Minority Woman in Science. The study used double bind to describe the nuanced experiences

and double forms of oppression and obstacles faced by women of color in their pursuits of

STEM careers (Malcom et al., 1976). Unlike their White female counterparts and men of color,

women of color experienced a combination of two marginalized and negatively stereotyped

identities: being female and a person of color (Malcom et al., 1976). The intersection of these


identities in the context of a predominantly White, male field has a significant impact on how

women of color experience the pursuit of STEM careers. Malcom, et al. (1976) conceptualized

these experiences in their double bind study.

The women of the study included practicing scientists, engineers, astronomers,

zoologists, medical students, and biomedical professionals of Black, Mexican American, Native

American, and Puerto Rican decent (Malcom et al., 1976). Asian American women were not

included in this study because, at the time, they were over represented in STEM professions

(Malcom et al., 1976). This study represented the first time in history that women of color had

convened to discuss their experiences and the climates and cultures of their respective industries

(Malcom et al., 1976). The insights from the study were based on meetings that took place at the

Conference of Minority Women Scientists, sponsored by the American Association of the

Advancement of Science (AAAS) Office of Opportunities in Science (Malcom et al., 1976).

The Office of Opportunities in Science had sponsored many initiatives aimed to increase

the race and gender diversity in science. However, Malcom et al. (1976) found that women of

color in STEM often "fell through the cracks" and were overlooked in efforts aimed to increase

the representation of women and people of color in STEM. Diversity-related programs and

organizations typically benefitted men of color and White, middle-class women (Malcom et al.,

1976), which failed to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM professions.

During the time of the study, women of color made up only half of one percent of all

science and engineering doctorates (Malcom et al., 1976). In 1974, the American Chemical

Society reported that 42 women of color were awarded bachelor's degrees in chemistry out of the

2,315 earned across the United States (Malcom et al., 1976). Although women in general were

severely underrepresented in STEM during the time of the study, the efforts meant to combat the


underrepresentation of women failed to consider the obstacles faced by women of color at the

intersection of race and gender identity (Malcom et al., 1976). An understanding of the

compounded impact of belonging to two marginalized identities is critical to understanding the

double bind. Crenshaw's (1993) intersectionality theory can be used as a foundation for

understanding Malcom et al.'s (1976) definition of the double bind, as experienced by women of

color pursuing STEM.

Understanding the Intersection

The theory of intersectionality formally originates in Crenshaw's (1989) influential

critique of civil rights and feminist theory. Crenshaw (1989) argued that the historic use of race

and gender as mutually exclusive categories of inquiry and analysis did not fully capture the

unique experiences of Black women, thus failing to address the combined race and gender

discrimination they experienced. Crenshaw (1989) argued the same laws and policies meant to

include and protect the rights of women and Blacks inadvertently excluded Black women. The

consistent focus on the experiences of otherwise privileged groups, White women and Black men

excluded Black women in the conceptualization, identification, and remediation of race and

gender discrimination (Crenshaw, 1989).

Intersectionality theory challenges essentialist thinking around group identity (Hancock,

2007). Group essentialism occurs when a group identity (e.g., women) is fixed on the

characteristics of only a subset of that group (e.g., White women), subsequently marginalizing

other members of the group that may differ in other aspects of identity (e.g., women of color)

(Hancock, 2007). This aspect of intersectionality is consistent with the purpose of Malcom et

al.'s (1976) study, in that the women of color who were scientists believed White women and

Black men were normative subjects of initiatives aimed to increase STEM diversity.


Although Crenshaw's (1989) discussion of intersectionality theory has its origins in the

feminists and social justice schools of thought, scholars have since used intersectionality in other

areas of study, such as leadership (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010), economic justice

(Symington, 2004), political consciousness (Greenwood & Christian, 2008), and organizational

studies (Holvino, 2010). The theory has also generated criticism. Nash (2008) interrogated

several aspects of intersectionality, including its lack of a defined methodology, the use of Black

women as its quintessential subjects, and its vague definition. McCall (2006) described the use of

intersectionality in social analysis as overly complex.

Nonetheless, some scholars have sought to clarify intersectionality by defining major

principles of its theoretical framework. Smooth (2010) identified five principles of

intersectionality theory. First, intersectionality regards identities as interconnecting and mutually

constitutive rather that additive and mutually exclusive (Smooth, 2010). Second, intersectionality

acknowledges variations within social identities (Smooth, 2010); for example, there is no single

understanding or standard of femininity or Blackness. Third, intersectionality recognizes that

social identity and dominant or marginalized group statuses may change over time depending on

the social and environmental context (Smooth, 2010). Fourth, intersectionality accepts the

coexistence of privilege and oppression rather than treating them as mutually exclusive

categories (Smooth, 2010). For instance, the same person can experience oppression along one

axis (e.g., gender), while being privileged along another (e.g., race) (Smooth, 2010). Lastly, the

use of intersectionality is requisite to understanding privilege and oppression and fully

addressing societal inequality (Smooth, 2010).

Ain't I a Woman?


Although Crenshaw (1989) and other scholars have expanded the premise of

intersectionality theory, they were not the first to bring awareness to the complicatedness of race

and gender marginalization. Sojourner Truth, in her 1851 speech at the Women's Rights

Convention in Akron, Ohio, exposed the flaws of the women's suffrage movement and the

invisibility of women of color:

Well, children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of

kilter, I think between the Negroes of the South and the women of the North—all talking

about rights […]. That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages,

and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody helps me any best

place. And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm. I have plowed, I have planted

and I have gathered into barns. And no man could head me. And ain't I a woman? (Brah

& Pheonix, 2004, p.77).

Truth challenged essentialist thinking of how women should be treated and were being treated in

America by differentiating her experience as a woman, which was significantly influenced by her

race. Her speech showed how the positioning of the experiences of White women as the foci for

the women's suffrage movement failed to address the discrimination and oppression of Black

women. Just as Truth was unable to relate to the experiences of the White women of her time,

and did not equally benefit from the gains of the women's suffrage movement, so it was with the

women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study. These women sensed a disconnection from the feminist

movements of their time and the programs that sought to address the underrepresentation of

women in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).

Consequently, the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study were more inclined to align

themselves with the elimination of racism than sexism. Most of the women believed the barriers


they experienced earliest in their pursuits of STEM were more influenced by race than gender

(Malcom et al., 1976). It was in their post-secondary and advanced education pursuits that the

impact of their gender became more salient in STEM settings (Malcom et al., 1976). This nuance

is indicative of Smooth's (2010) theoretical framework of intersectionality theory, which

recognizes how the impact of identity may change over time based on the environmental context.

Most of the women grew up during the pre-civil rights era, a period where racism was

manifested in many of their experiences (Malcom et al., 1976). This however, does not negate

the impact of gender identity. Even though the impact of identities are not always equivalent,

multiple identities, like race and gender, still function simultaneously, thus producing unique

experiences for women of color. Their experiences are significantly different from those of

White women, who do not endure marginalization at the intersection of race, and from those of

men of color, who do not encounter oppression at the intersection of gender.

When Malcom et al. (1976) argued that the experiences of women of color were not

being addressed in existing diversity programs meant for women and people of color pursuing

STEM, it was an echo of Truth's sentiments and the essence of Crenshaw's (1989) critique.

Crenshaw (1989) and other scholars have since demonstrated that gender and race do not operate

independently of other dimensions of identity (Brah & Pheonix, 2004; Holvino, 2008;

Symington, 2004). The impact of the race and gender intersection is greater than the impacts of

racism and sexism separately (Crenshaw, 1989). Understanding the effects of the intersection of

race and gender is a requisite for countering its impact. Intersectionality, as it relates to the

double bind, provides a foundation for thoughtful analyses of the experiences shared in Malcom

et al.'s (1976) The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.


The Double Bind of The Past

An analysis of the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study and their experiences reveals

the challenges and obstacles women of color faced throughout their pursuits of STEM careers

from 1916 up until the time of the study, 1975. The women, though varying in educational

background, STEM discipline, and ethnicity, held many of the same perceptions and experiences

(Malcom et al., 1976). Most prevalent were the shared obstacles due to their gender and race or

ethnicity (Malcom et al., 1976). The women discussed their pre-collegiate years, which included

familial influences and their experiences in secondary school (Malcom, 1976). They also

discussed their collegiate years, which included their undergraduate and graduate school

experiences (Malcom et al., 1976). The pre-collegiate and collegiate experiences of the women

in Malcom et al.'s (1976) double bind study, as well as the foci of actions that followed the study,

are examined in this section.

The Pre-Collegiate Experience

The women from Malcom et al.'s (1976) study attributed most of the barriers they faced

in the pre-collegiate years to race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Most of the women

were born between 1916 and 1956, periods were overt racism and its manifestations impacted

their childhood experiences more than sexism (Malcom et al., 1976). This dynamic is consistent

with the intersectionality theoretical framework (Smooth, 2010). Although the women found

race oppression more salient during their earlier years, that does not negate the simultaneous

existence of the impact of gender identity on their experiences. For the women in Malcom et al.'s

study, race was more salient because the social context was pre-civil rights era, a time when race

discrimination was overt and experienced by most members of the women's respective racial or

ethnic groups. Malcom et al. (1976) found many of the commonalities in pre-collegiate


experiences shared by the women in the study were related to their familial influences, quality of

education, and academic counseling.

Familial influences. Most of the women recalled supportive family structure as critical

to their educational pursuits (Malcom et al., 1976). Education was seen as an opportunity to

overcome poverty and racial barriers at the time. Whereas many of their White counterparts had

alternative aids to success (e.g., family businesses or wealthy family members), women of color

typically did not (Malcom et al., 1976). This contrast is consistent with intersectionality theory.

Although White women and women of color shared gender identities during that period,

differences in other identities (e.g., race and socioeconomic status), differentiated their

experiences. In addition, although it was common for White women at the time to maintain

domestic roles and work inside the home, the women of color in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study did

not recall being held to the same expectation. For most of the women, the expectation was

always to work outside the home (Malcom et al., 1976). This uniqueness in experience is yet

another way in which race or ethnicity and gender identities intersect to inform the unique

experiences among women of color.

Although the women of the double bind study felt their educational pursuits were

supported by their families, many of the women also reported that family members had little

understanding of science as a discipline (Malcom et al., 1976). The absence of images and

people of color (much less women of color in science) as role models made it difficult for many

parents to comprehend their daughters' career aspirations (Malcom et al., 1976). Careers in

science, which were non-traditional for women and people of color, were seen as conflicting

with feminine behavior and roles, thus perpetuating stereotypes and biases against science

careers for women of color (Malcom et al., 1976). These notions also manifested themselves in


the limited career expectations and aspirations for the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study.

For example, many women of color and their families assumed the women would pursue careers

in science as educators and teachers, instead of practitioners, scientists, and engineers (Malcom

et al., 1976). The women in the double bind study also attributed this to the non-existence of

women of color as role models in science (Malcom et al., 1976).

Quality of education. There were several qualitative differences among the secondary

school experiences of the women in the double bind study. Some women attended segregated

and others attended integrated or predominantly White schools. The women who attended

segregated schools were often taught by teachers of the same race or ethnic group (Malcom et

al., 1976). In these environments, the women of color reported experiencing a stronger sense of

support and vested interest from their educators (Malcom et al., 1976). Yet, while the teachers

were a positive influence on the students, the schools usually suffered from inferior facilities,

equipment, and books, which compromised the overall quality of education (Malcom et al.,

1976). In this instance, the intersections of socioeconomic status, race, and gender account for

the differences between the pre-collegiate experiences of White women and women of color

during that period. Again, although both groups share gender identity, intersectionality informs

very distinct experiences.

The women of color who attended integrated or predominantly White schools recalled a

competitive atmosphere and high academic standards intended to challenge them (Malcom et al.,

1976). However, teachers often held lower expectations for students of color in general (Malcom

et al., 1976). It was also during this period in their STEM pursuits that social isolation became

more evident to the women (Malcom et al., 1976). Though forming same-gender and same-race

peer relationships is customary during the secondary years, the women of color found it


particularly elusive (Malcom et al., 1976). By the time they reached high school, as women and

persons of color with interest in STEM, they had already established a pattern of differentness in

their lives (Malcom et al., 1976). This made it particularly difficult to establish peer relationships

with not only other girls, but also other students of color (Malcom et al., 1976).

Academic counseling. Malcom et al. (1976) also found that many of the women had

received no formal counseling during their secondary school years. The counseling that they did

receive was mostly negative advice that deterred them from their science aspirations (Malcom et

al., 1976). Many of the counselors and teachers, particularly at predominantly White schools,

were overtly prejudiced and undermined the students' interests in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).

Even in schools where teachers shared the same racial or ethnic backgrounds as the women, they

were often not provided formal career and academic counseling (Malcom et al., 1976). The

women in the double bind study reported that, in high school, they received little to no

information on financial aid for college, career paths and opportunities, or how to identify

colleges and university programs (Malcom et al., 1976).

One engineer in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study who had attended a predominantly White

high school recalled being advised to apply only to historically Black colleges and universities

(HBCUs), which, at the time, had no engineering programs. For women of color, career

counseling often did more harm than good (Jones, 1974). While the women in the double bind

study were able to overcome these barriers, they recollected how many of their peers were not

(Malcom et al., 1976). The inherent and overt racial bias rooted in the counseling system was

particularly harmful to the aspirations of women of color interested in STEM and subsequently

extended into their collegiate experiences.


The Collegiate Experience

While racism and its manifestations were more prominent during the women's pre-

collegiate years, Malcom et al. (1976) found that the women were more likely to suffer both

racism and sexism during their undergraduate and graduate experiences. The impact of the

double bind became more evident as the women progressed through their academic pursuits.

This was partly due to the increased underrepresentation of women and people of color in

general, but particularly women of color studying STEM at the undergraduate and graduate

levels (Malcom et al., 1976). Malcom et al. (1976) found that both academic and social factors

contributed to the impact of the double bind during the women's collegiate experiences.

Academic factors. The women in Malcom et al.’s study (1976) recalled feeling

unprepared for the rigor of course work at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Many of the

necessary prerequisite courses for success at the undergraduate level were not offered in the

secondary schools many of the women attended (Malcom et al., 1976). In addition, lower

standards of academic preparedness at the secondary level made transitioning into the demanding

nature of college science curricula especially difficult. Similarly, the women who attended

HBCUs and women's colleges for their undergraduate studies cited difficulties at the graduate

level, particularly if they continued their education at a PWI (Malcom et al., 1976). At the time,

many of the HBCUs and women's colleges were less equipped to offer competitive and rigorous

science curricula, leading the women to feel less prepared (Malcom et al., 1976). For example,

some women had not had equal exposure to laboratory science and research compared to their

counterparts (Malcom et al., 1976).

Evelyn Hammonds is a woman of color who pursued her academic studies in STEM

during that period (Harding, 1993). In an excerpt from Never Meant To Survive: A Black


Woman's Journey, Harding shared the frustrations she experienced in the collegiate environment

as a result of her deficient pre-collegiate education, specifically in math and science (Harding,

1993). Although she knew she was equally intelligent to her White counterparts, she found it

painful to navigate the collegiate landscape backed by a critical educational gap (Harding, 1993).

Colleges and universities did not have programs or systems in place to address the difficult

transition for women of color proactively (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976).

Many women of color were reluctant to seek guidance from faculty members in fear of

colluding with the misconception that they were less qualified than were their White and male

counterparts (Malcom et al., 1976). In addition, many of the professors still held strong racial

biases against students color (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976). Faculty members and

professors were known to be condescending and have lower expectations for women of color

studying science (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976). The women in Malcom et al.'s study

(1976) feared that regularly asking for help would perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy of

inferiority or incompetence, similar to stereotype threat. This dilemma became especially

problematic at the graduate level, when establishing relationships with professors as mentors and

role models became critical to academic success (Malcom et al., 1976).

Professors served as mentors and counselors for students, offering support in career and

academic preparedness, writing references, and assisting students in obtaining post-doctoral

appointments (Malcom et al., 1976). These relationships, however, were heavily based on

personality factors; for example, how well the mentor related to the student or communicated

with her. As women of color in predominantly White and male academic areas, the women in the

double bind study found it particularly difficult to identify professors and mentors whose race

and gender biases did not interfere with their abilities to provide effective counsel (Malcom et


al., 1976). Consequently, many of the women received limited counseling and access to

information that would have been beneficial to them in their academic and professional pursuits

(Malcom et al., 1976).

Social factors. In addition to academic factors, the women in the double bind study

encountered social barriers during their undergraduate and graduate experiences. Whether at

PWIs or HBCUs, the choice to study science naturally separated the women of color from peers

of the same gender and race or ethnicity (Malcom et al., 1976). The women who attended

HBCUs recalled difficulty establishing relationships with other women of color, as there were

not many pursuing their field of study (Malcom et al., 1976). Feelings of isolation and exclusion

were exacerbated for those on campuses at PWIs, where the representation of people of color

was already bleak (Malcom et al., 1976). In most cases, students of color, but especially women

of color, were excluded from informal social networks and study groups, which primarily

comprised males or Whites (Malcom et al., 1976). Malcom (1976) found that, while some

women of color were able to find support in peer relationships with White women also studying

science, most experienced an unmet, yet critical need for relationships with other women of color

who shared their interests (Malcom et al., 1976).

In addition to isolation and exclusion, the women in the double bind study shared the

effects of stress associated with familial and cultural expectations (Malcom et al., 1976). Many

of the women's families were still not privy to science-related careers, and therefore did not fully

understand their daughters' aspirations to continue education beyond the undergraduate level

(Malcom et al., 1976). Again, the lack of women of color role models pursuing science also

contributed to a misunderstanding among parents of how the women would use their education,

and many parents simply did not want their daughters to experience the racial and gender


challenges that accompanied the pursuit of science (Malcom et al., 1976). Lastly, the women in

the double bind study recalled feeling pressured to return to the communities where they had

grown up and to pursue more traditional careers (Malcom et al., 1976). Marriage and familial

responsibilities often conflicted with the demands of studying science, so some of the women

recalled feelings of guilt because of choices they did or did not make when family and career

aspirations conflicted (Malcom et al., 1976).

Recommendations of the Double Bind Study

Many of the experiences of the women of the double bind study were heavily influenced

by racism and its manifestations during that period (Malcom et al., 1976). The intersection of

race or ethnic and gender identity for these women made their experiences unique to those of

their White counterparts. It becomes understandable how and why women of color felt invisible

and unaddressed in the diversity efforts of the time that sought to increase the representation of

women in STEM. Following the conference, the women of the double bind study developed

practical recommendations to address the underrepresentation of women of color pursuing

STEM.

The absence of role models was emphasized throughout the study as a significant

contributing factor to the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).

In response, the women proposed visiting junior and senior high schools, developing materials

for girls of color and their families on careers in STEM, and airing television announcements that

gave visibility to women of color practicing STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). The women also

believed the impact of segregation and race discrimination on quality of education affected girls'

of color interests and success in pursuing STEM. As a result, the women urged policy makers to


develop programs that would compensate for educational deficiencies and barriers (Malcom et

al., 1976).

The women also found that the invisibility of women of color in diversity-related STEM

initiatives perpetuated their underrepresentation (Malcom et al., 1976). The women encouraged

scientific societies to develop programs and workshops that specifically targeted women of color

(Malcom et al., 1976). They also requested that agencies and institutions begin collecting more

race and gender data to better quantify the underrepresentation and experiences of women of

color pursuing STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).

Chapter Conclusion

When the women of Malcom et al.'s (1976) study gathered to discuss their experiences

navigating the double bind, they were making history (Malcom et al., 1976). It was the first time

a group of women of color scientists convened to discuss their experiences within the White,

male-dominated culture of STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). Many of their concerns of invisibility

were consistent with Sojourner Truth's address years prior to the study and to Crenshaw's

discourse (1989) years later. Crenshaw's (1989) intersectionality theory provides a foundation for

understanding the unique experiences of women of color and how these experiences influence

their underrepresentation in STEM.

The foci of actions that followed the double bind study were predominantly geared

toward establishing organizations that targeted women of color in STEM, influencing policy to

eliminate overt barriers, increasing interest in STEM among girls of color, and increasing the

visibility of women-of-color subjects in academic research; all as a means to address the

underrepresentation of women of color in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). The following chapter

discusses progress made in increasing the representation of women of color in STEM since the


original double bind study. It examines the double bind through the lens of contemporary

challenges experienced by women of color pursuing STEM, and how those challenges continue

to perpetuate their underrepresentation.

Chapter Two: Contemporary Experiences in the Double Bind

“The next-generation women, the Double Bind daughters, face different challenges from

those faced by their mothers. Now it's […] less about the behavior of individuals […] and

more about the responsibilities and action (or inaction) of institutions.” (Malcom &

Malcom, 2011, p.163)

The original double bind study was the first of its kind to bring awareness to the unique

experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The recommendations following the study

sought to address many of the concerns expressed by the women, such as the lack of role models

and overt barriers to quality education. Although educational data suggests that progress has

been made in increasing the representation of women of color pursuing and practicing STEM,

areas of opportunity remain. This chapter discusses the progress since the original double bind

study and the role that colleges and universities play in addressing remaining areas of

opportunity. This is accomplished through a discussion of Malcom and Malcom's (2011) The

Double Bind: Next Generation and subsequent efforts to address the double bind. The role of

educational institutions is substantiated through an analysis of contemporary challenges and

barriers experienced by women of color pursuing STEM majors in the academic setting. This

analysis sets the foundation for practical recommendations, which follow in chapter three and

aim to counter the impact of the double bind and thereby increase the representation of women of

color in STEM.


The Double Bind: Thirty-Five Years Later

At the 35th anniversary of the first double bind study, Malcom and Malcom (2011)

discussed the progress of women of color in STEM in their paper The Double Bind: Next

Generation. Since the original double bind study, much has and much has not changed regarding

the status of women of color in STEM (Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Nonetheless, some strides

have been made in addressing the underrepresentation of women and women of color in STEM.

Thirty-five years later, Malcom and Malcom (2011) suggest progress made in increasing the

representation of women of color in STEM is a result of their call to action following the original

double bind study. Malcom and Malcom (2011) identify several measures that have sought to

counter the double bind and increase the representation of women of color in STEM: the

enforcement of legislation to address overt discrimination, an increase in organizations that

support women of color in STEM, and an increased interest in STEM among girls of color. A

brief discussion of each follows.

Legislation to Address Discrimination

Firstly, legislative enforcement has since been in place to address the overt discrimination

experienced by women at colleges and universities (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). For example, the

enforcement of the Title IX Educational Amendments, which protect women against

discrimination in the university setting, helped eliminate quotas that limited the number of

women admitted into medical schools (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Subsequently, women went

from accounting for 16 percent of medical school graduates at the time of the double bind study

to nearly half of all medical school graduates in 2010 (AAMC, 2010; Malcom et al., 1976;

Malcom & Malcom, 2010). However, this legislation only alleviated overt, gender-based

discrimination, which only addresses half the challenges experienced by women of color. As


posited by intersectionality theory and the essence of the double bind, many of the challenges

experienced by women in the study were also based on their race. In addition, many of the

contemporary challenges, which are discussed later in this chapter, are frequently more subtle.

Therefore, while legislation has been a successful stride in alleviating many of the barriers

experienced by the women in the original double bind study, it has not fully addressed the

underrepresentation of women of color in STEM.

STEM Organizations for Women of Color

In the years following the double bind study, professional organizations were established

to support women of color in STEM. Such efforts were encouraged by the women in the original

study, who believed that, historically, professional societies unintentionally excluded women of

color (Malcom et al., 1976). Even those with diversity segments were typically more targeted

toward White women and men of color (Malcom et al., 1976). In response, the Minority Women

in Science (MWIS) network was founded in 1979 and sought to provide a means for women of

color in STEM to connect for mentoring opportunities and advocacy efforts (Malcom &

Malcom, 2010). Modern STEM professional societies have begun to make efforts to specifically

target and support women of color. For example, the American Chemical Society (ACS)

developed the ACS Women Chemists of Color Program to target, empower, and bring awareness

to the experiences of women chemists of color (ACS, 2012). Such programs could account for

the steady increases in the representation of women earning STEM degrees. At the time of the

original double bind study, women of color accounted for 0.12 percent of all doctoral scientists

and engineers (Malcom et al., 1976; ACS, 2012). In 2006, that number was 2.4 percent (Malcom

et al., 1976; ACS, 2012). While there have been increases in the representation of women of

color in the STEM community, such figures suggest very small, incremental progress.


Increased Interest among Girls of Color

Other efforts have sought to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM

earlier in the pipeline. Since the double bind study, organizations and efforts have aimed to

increase the interest in STEM and awareness of STEM careers among young girls of color

(Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Many of the women in the original double bind study recalled

unfamiliarity with STEM among themselves and their families in their earlier years (Malcom et

al., 1976). Organizations such as Black Girls Code, have since aimed to attract girls of color to

STEM by capturing their interests as early as elementary school (Black Girls Code, 2014).

Similarly, organizations such as Level the Playing Field Institute have engaged in research and

programming efforts that seek to attract people of color, but specifically women of color, to

STEM-related areas of study (Scott & Martin, 2014). Similar efforts have been successful in

increasing the interest in STEM among girls of color (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Subsequently,

women of color have, in some ways, even become more interested in STEM than are their White

counterparts (O'Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, & Hammer, 2014).

O'Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, and Hammer (2014) surveyed Black and White

students and found that Black women were more likely to be interested in STEM fields than

White women. Additionally, Black women were also more likely to intend to study STEM

despite masculine stereotypes associated with the fields (O'Brien et al., 2014). O'Brien et al.

(2014) came to these conclusions by taking an intersectional approach to understanding women's

perception of STEM careers. Historically, similar studies that addressed women and girls in

STEM neglected to consider race and ethnic differences (O'Brien et al., 2014). Their findings

further support the necessity of understanding the impact of race and gender intersection not only

on how women perceive STEM fields, but also on how they experience STEM environments.


Areas of Opportunity Remain

Amidst legislative measures, organizations that support women of color, and increased

interest among girls of color since the original double bind study, women of color remain

underrepresented STEM, and the pace of progress in addressing the double bind is slow

(Malcom & Malcom, 2010; Hammonds, 2011). STEM fields continue to be dominated by

Whites and men, while women and people of color in general remain underrepresented. Today,

women of color comprise about 1 in 10 employed scientists and engineers (NSF, 2013).

Source: National Science Foundation, 2013

Figure 1: Scientists and Engineers working in STEM occupations (2010)

This is especially problematic given the nation's historic demographic shifts. At the time

of the original study, White men made up 41.5 percent of the United States population (Malcom

et al., 1976). In 2010, that number was 31.3 percent (NSF, 2013). As the population of White

men, who have been the traditional source of STEM talent, declines, it becomes especially

important for organizations and educational institutions to maximize on traditionally

underrepresented groups as viable prospects in the STEM talent pool. This requires that

51%

18%

13%

5%

3%

2%

4%

2% 1% 1%

White Men

White Women

Asian Men

Asian Women

Black Men

Black Women

Hispanic Men

Hispanic Women

Other Men

Other Women


institutions create environments where women, but particularly woman of color, can be

nourished and developed as STEM professionals. There is where the gap remains.

Notably, women in general have seen increases in STEM participation. At the time of the double

bind study, women comprised 8.6 percent of the science and engineering doctoral workforce

(Malcom et al., 1976; NSF, 1973). In 2010, women accounted for 28 percent of all scientists and

engineers (NSF, 2013).

Overall, more women graduate from college with bachelor's degrees, although men tend

to earn a higher proportion of STEM degrees (NSF, 2013). However, even in STEM areas of

study where women have neared or reached parity with their male counterparts, women of color

continue to lag in their share of STEM degrees. It could be assumed that these disparities are due

to a disinterest in STEM among women of color; indeed, some scholars have taken that position

(Ceci & Williams, 2011). However, O'Brien's (2014) most recent study suggests otherwise.

Table 3

Percent of women and women of color awarded STEM degrees in 2010

Area of Study Women Women of Color

Computer Sciences 17.9 4.9

Engineering 18.4 3.0

Physical Sciences 40.9 6.1

Mathematics 43.1 5.2

Social Sciences 53.7 13.0

Biological Sciences 57.8 9.3

Psychology 77.1 18.1

Adapted from National Science Foundation, 2013


Women of color are as interested (and in some cases more interested) in STEM as are

White women (O'Brien et al., 2014). However, amidst an identified interest in STEM and

increased enrollments in colleges and universities, women of color remain underrepresented not

only as STEM professionals, but also among STEM degree recipients (NSF, 2013; Ong et al.,

2011). Given that 70 percent of all STEM professionals have bachelor's degrees or above

(Landivar, 2013b), it is clear that STEM degree attainment is critical to the pursuit of a STEM

career. If legislation, then, has been successful in alleviating overt barriers to STEM education,

and organizations have been successful in attracting more girls of color to STEM, the question

remains of why women of color remain underrepresented in STEM. Moreover, why has progress

in addressing the representation of women of color been so slow? According to Malcom and

Malcom (2010), these answers and the onus lie in the environments cultivated in educational

institutions.

The Role of Educational Institutions

Malcom and Malcom (2010) assert that colleges and universities have not fully realized

how women of color experience STEM culture, and have therefore been unsuccessful in creating

environments where women of color are advanced and developed as STEM professionals.

Hammonds (2011), who earned science and electrical engineering degrees at the time of the

original double bind study and has since assumed leadership roles in the university setting,

expressed similar sentiments. Colleges and universities have not attended to the specific

experiences of women of color and have continued to maintain practices and efforts that expound

identity as "woman" or "person of color" (Hammonds, 2011). In doing so, colleges and

universities miss the opportunity to make the best use of STEM talent, particularly women of

color, who desire to pursue STEM careers (Hammonds, 2011; Malcom & Malcom, 2010).


Therefore, while some institutions have seen growth in the number of women of color

declaring interest in STEM, the successful completion of those programs by women of color

continues to be a concern (Malcom & Malcom, 2011; NSF, 2013). As posited by Malcom and

Malcom (2011), this inability on the part of educational institutions accounts for the

aforementioned low earnings of women of color with science and engineering degrees and their

subsequent underrepresentation in the STEM workforce (NSF, 2013). If the nation is to

maximize women of color as an opportune source of STEM talent, it is critical that women of

color be advanced and developed in STEM academic settings. This requires a culture shift in

colleges and universities, who must begin to cultivate environments and remove barriers that

impede the success of women of color pursuing STEM.

Contemporary Experiences of Women of Color in STEM

To begin to address this problem, it is critical that colleges and universities fully

understand how women of color experience STEM academic settings and how the intersection of

race and gender marginalization informs those experiences. Many of the contemporary

challenges and barriers experienced by women of color pursuing STEM are much more subtle

than those experienced by the women of the original double bind study, and are deeply rooted in

the historic climate of STEM (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Implicit biases and stereotypes are

often manifested in what scholars have called a "chilly climate" for women (Hall & Sandler,

1982) and an even colder climate for women of color.

The following section analyzes contemporary barriers experienced by women of color

pursuing STEM and specifically addresses how the double bind of race and gender

marginalization in the predominantly White, male culture of the STEM academic setting can

impede critical aspects of the STEM academic experience. Specifically, this section discusses


how women of color experience stereotype threat and implicit biases in interactions with faculty

and peers, as well as how classroom practices and STEM cultural values can be particularly

discouraging to women of color. This section also examines how women of color typically take

untraditional routes to pursuing STEM and how understanding their pathways to STEM can

better position colleges and universities to address these women's underrepresentation.

Unintentional 'Threat' of Professors and Peers

Women and people of color in general risk being judged by negative stereotypes of

intellectual inferiority to Whites and men, specifically in math and science (Cheryan et al., 2009;

Spencer et al., 1998; Steele & Aronson, 2005). This dynamic is called stereotype threat, the

individual's experience of being judged based on a societal group stereotype (Spencer et al.,

1998). Woman of color are particularly susceptible to stereotype threat and its effects in the

STEM academic settings. Professors and peers unknowingly perpetuate this threat in the STEM

classroom.

Ong (2005) conducted a qualitative, longitudinal study of women of color studying

physics at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The study examined how the intersections of

gender and race conflicted with the prototypical image of a scientist (White and male) and how

that dissonance influenced their experiences in the classroom (Ong, 2005). Ong (2005) found

that the women of the study felt vulnerable to being judged against prevailing societal

stereotypes (e.g., Blacks and women have inferior intellect; Mexicans are lazy) from both faculty

and other students. One student recalled an instructor explicitly telling her that he did not believe

women could be successful in physics and that he had never taught women before (Ong, 2005).

Regardless of their grade point averages or how they performed on examinations, the women in


the study said they received consistent messages implying that because they lacked the image of

a scientist they also lacked the intellectual competence associated with one (Ong, 2005).

The burden of stereotype threat can be detrimental to the development and advancement

of women of color in the academic environment, jeopardizing their sense of belonging, interest

in STEM (Cheryan et al., 2009), and performance (Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007). The extent to

which stereotype threat is experienced by women of color exceeds that of their White, female

peers (Espinosa, 2011). Espinosa (2011) conducted a quantitative analysis and utilized

hierarchical generalized linear modeling to compare the experiences of White women and

women of color who were STEM majors. They identified specific variables that contributed to

their success in studying STEM. Espinosa (2011) found that White women appeared to have

more positive interactions with faculty outside the classroom, and to experience far fewer

instances of faculty expressing stereotypes in class. These findings support the essence of the

double bind in that women of color experience STEM in ways that are unique from their White

counterparts.

Espinosa (2011) also found that healthy faculty interactions and peer relationships were

significant to the persistence of women of color STEM majors. Joining a STEM-related club and

securing other forms of peer support were more significant to the success of women of color than

of White women in STEM (Espinosa, 2011). Given this significance, efforts that seek to advance

and develop women of color in STEM must counter the effects of stereotype threat and facilitate

healthy and productive relationships between women of color and their professors and peers.

Manifestations of Implicit Biases

Stereotypes can manifest themselves as the implicit biases of professors and faculty,

which impede the advancement of women of color in STEM majors. Implicit biases are


unconscious attitudes and assumptions, which are influenced by an individual's experiences with

people or groups (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Societal stereotypes, as those previously

mentioned, can inform how faculty members and professors treat of women of color studying

STEM. Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) asked science faculty at research-intensive universities to rate

application materials for students interested in a laboratory manager position. Faculty

participants were more likely to rate the male applicant as significantly more competent and

hirable than the identical female applicant (Moss-Racusin, 2012).

Moss-Racusin's (2012) study did not account for race or ethnicity; however, similar

research suggests that implicit racial biases can also negatively impact perceptions of people of

color (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Women of color studying STEM experience the

manifestations of implicit biases due to their race or ethnicity and gender. As shown in Moss-

Racusin's study, these biases affect how faculty members evaluate students and recommend them

for professional development opportunities—both of which are critical to the advancement of

STEM professionals, but especially those who are women of color. Carlone and Johnson (2007)

studied 15 women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies and into

their careers. They found that recognition by way of recommendations, exposure to research,

development opportunities, and mentoring were significant factors in the cases of women with

successful career trajectories. Some women recalled that earning recognition was particularly

elusive during their academic careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The audience from which they

sought recognition (typically White, male professors) was not immune to its own racial and

gender biases (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson's (2006) study suggests race and

gender identities play a significant role in how women of color are recognized by their

professors, and whether they are recognized at all. Given the significant role of recognition and


the influence of implicit bias on women of color receiving recognition, efforts to advance and

develop women of color in STEM must address those effects.

Discouraging Classroom Practices and STEM Cultural Values

Johnson (2007) found that science professors unintentionally discouraged women of

color through the perpetuation of STEM cultural values and many of their classroom practices.

Johnson's (2007) study examined the experiences of Black, Latina, and American Indian women

pursuing STEM degrees at a predominantly White research university. The study revealed

several aspects of the academic experience that women of color found discouraging, particularly

related to large class sizes and asking and responding to questions (Johnson, 2007). Johnson

(2007) also uncovered two cultural values that had detrimental effects on the women's

persistence. These were the narrow focus on decontextualized science and the depiction of

science as a race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral construct.

Large classes. The large classes contributed to an increased sense of alienation and an

inability to develop relationships with the professor—something most of the women found

critical to their success (Johnson, 2007). Many of the women expected that the educational

environment would be more personal, given their experiences in pre-collegiate environments.

Johnson's findings were consistent with those revealed by Seymour and Hewitt (1997), who

found that transitioning into large, academic environments was difficult for all female science

students, regardless of race and ethnicity. However, the impact was amplified for the women of

color, who often felt alienated as the only persons of color in their classes (Johnson, 2007).

Fear of asking questions. Johnson's (2007) study also showed that many women felt

uncomfortable participating when professors solicited questions, which generally presents

opportunities for students to distinguish themselves. However, research has shown that women


science majors unknowingly reduce their status in the eyes of their male counterparts, and even

professors, by asking questions in class (Johnson, 2007; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Johnson

(2006) specifically found that White women were more likely to ask questions in the classroom

than were women of color. The women of color in Johnson's study attributed their hesitance to

the fear of being seen as confused or intellectually inferior, which is consistent with the previous

discussion on stereotype threat. The women of color were also less inclined to ask questions for

fear of drawing attention to themselves as the only women of color in their classrooms (Johnson,

2007). In addition to classroom practices, Johnson (2006) also uncovered two STEM cultural

values that are discouraging to women of color and perpetuated in the classroom.

Decontextualized science. Johnson (2006) referred to the first value as the narrow focus

on decontextualized science, or professors' impersonal approaches to lecturing and teaching

science (Johnson, 2007). In other words, the content and delivery were seen as strictly text-based

and without context (Johnson, 2007). The lectures tended to focus on scientific content without

presenting ways the content might fit into big-picture contexts. For example, professors did not

solicit why students might be interested in the subject matter or what they planned to do with

their degrees (Johnson, 2007). The absence of big-picture applications was discouraging to the

women of color who, in most cases, were drawn to science for big-picture reasons, such as

curing diseases and serving underserved populations (Johnson, 2007). Espinosa (2011) found

that women of color who were able to identify reasons of personal import for studying STEM,

such as finding a cure to a health problem or making a theoretical contribution to science, were

more likely to persist in STEM through their fourth year of college. Similarly, Carlone and

Johnson (2007) found that women who were successful in their STEM pursuits attributed the

significance of their altruistic ambitions to their persistence. While the professors in Johnson's


(2006) study were well intentioned in focusing lectures heavily on the subject matter, their

depersonalized approach was unknowingly discouraging women of color. Practices and efforts to

advance and develop women of color in STEM should leverage their personal ambitions.

Science as a meritocracy. The second value (science as race-, gender-, and ethnicity-

neutral) was also discouraging to women of color. Again, in their attempts to focus on the subject

matter in their lectures, the professors created classroom cultures that did not support

individualized learning, or the role of individual characteristics in the learning experience

(Johnson, 2007). It is common within STEM culture for scientists, in particular, to disregard or

seldom acknowledge that practicing science entails subjective procedures and judgments and

context-laden assertions, therefore perpetuating a culture where markers of identity, race,

ethnicity, and class are not acknowledged (Ong, 2005). This color-blind culture of science

further perpetuates the invisibility of women of color in STEM and disregards their unique

experiences, thereby impeding efforts to create environments where they can be successful.

Additionally, the notion that science is a color-blind meritocracy contradicts many of the

subtle racial and gender dynamics that govern the experiences of women of color in the STEM

environment, and particularly how fellow students interact (Johnson, 2007). For example, it was

common for students to segregate by race and gender when choosing seating in the classroom,

identifying lab partners, and studying in the library (Johnson, 2007). In addition, many of the

implicit biases that women of color experienced in the STEM classroom were triggered by

unconscious race- and gender-related attitudes (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).

The perpetuation of science as an ethnicity-neutral construct also failed to consider the

ethnic conflicts that may exist between women of color and the traditional practices expected of

science students. For example, Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that some women students of


American Indian heritage held cultural taboos against dead bodies and dissection. Professors had

little regard for such nuances and required the women to choose between their ethnic culture and

the culture of STEM (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Such compromises are particularly

discouraging to women of color. Quite the reverse, Carlone and Johnson (2007) and Ong (2005)

found that environments that encouraged a sense of self among women of color benefitted the

women's development and persistence in STEM. Therefore, efforts that seek to advance and

develop women of color in STEM should encourage thoughtful consideration of multiple forms

identity and the influence of identity in the academic setting.

Challenges Associated with Alternate Pathways

Lastly, the unique routes women of color take in the pursuit of STEM can make their

experiences in university settings even more divergent. Historically, "the pipeline" metaphor has

been used to describe the rigid, single route to pursuing STEM majors and careers (Malcom &

Malcom, 2010). However, increases in community college enrollment among women and people

of color pursuing STEM indicate the growing prevalence of alternate pathways to STEM careers

(Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Community colleges have become a critical source of talent for

students pursuing STEM. On average, 44 percent of STEM graduates have attended community

college at some point during the pursuit of a STEM degree; these percentages are equal among

Hispanics, American Indians, and African Americans (Tsapogas, 2004). Moreover, between

1986 and 2006, full time enrollment of women at community colleges increased by 53.3 percent

(Nettles & Millett, 2008). Women of color are highly likely to enter the university setting

through community colleges, but successful transfer and retention rates are low (Reyes, 2011).

Reyes (2011) conducted a qualitative study examining the unique challenges of women

of color transferring from community colleges to universities. Many of the challenges


experienced by the women in the study were consistent with those of women of color in general.

For example, the women recalled "chilly" classroom climates where their male counterparts were

treated differently and held in higher regard by professors (Reyes, 2011). Reyes (2011) also

found that the women struggled with differences in institutional cultures. The larger, impersonal

university setting was not as supportive as the nurturing community college environment (Reyes,

2011). Difficulties in transitioning and integrating into the university setting can lead to attrition

among women of color pursuing STEM. Espinosa (2011) found that involvement in transfer

meetings, mentoring, and undergraduate research opportunities could counter these challenges.

Challenges associated with managing conflicting priorities were unique to most of the

women of color who transferred from community colleges (Reyes, 2011). Women of color were

more likely to have to balance familial and cultural expectations with their college education

(Reyes, 2011). Women of color were also more likely to have to work outside the home to

contribute to household income and assume caretaker responsibilities while pursuing school. The

women recalled experiencing stress when study and review sessions did not accommodate those

living off campus and when professors' office hours were not held right after class (Reyes, 2011).

Similar research suggests that the successful management of family and community

responsibilities is critical to the success of students of color in general (Carlone & Johnson,

2007; Hurtadao et al., 2007). Women of color who are not retained during the transition from

community college to the university setting represent a loss of STEM talent and investment.

Therefore, efforts to advance and develop women of color in STEM must consider the

challenges associated with these women's unique pathways and incorporate practices that seek to

counter them.


Chapter Conclusion

Universities play a critical role in addressing the underrepresentation of women of color

in STEM. Previous and contemporary efforts to increase the representation of women of color in

STEM have eliminated overt barriers in academic settings, led to the establishment of

organizations that support women of color in STEM, and increased interest in STEM among

girls of color. However, educational institutions have not been successful in fully addressing the

double bind as experienced by women of color pursuing STEM.

Many of the impediments to women of color advancing in STEM are perpetuated by the

elusive barriers that exist in the STEM academic setting. The subtle effects of biases,

stereotypes, and STEM cultural values rooted in White masculinity are detrimental to the

persistence of women of color in STEM and therefore contribute to their overall

underrepresentation in STEM. For colleges and universities to address the underrepresentation of

women of color in STEM, they must cultivate environments and institute practices that develop

women of color into STEM professionals, taking into account the uniqueness of their

experiences navigating the double bind. The following chapter introduces the development of

science identity as a means for colleges and universities to develop and advance women of color

in STEM.

Chapter Three: Overcoming the Double Bind: Fostering Science Identity to Develop and

Advance Women of Color in STEM

When I walk through the campus, no one's ever gonna look at me and just think that I'm a

physicist[…] I guess the things that made other people find it hard to see me as a scientist

are making it hard for me to see myself as a scientist, too. —Sofia Caldo, Chicana college

senior (Ong, 2014, p.1)


The previous discussions on the double bind and women of color pursuing STEM

emphasize their unique experiences as requisite to addressing their underrepresentation.

Understanding the unique experiences of women of color requires consideration of how the

intersection of race and gender oppression, the double bind, influences their experiences in

STEM environments. Scholars who have studied the double bind since the original study in 1976

suggest that colleges and universities have not fully assumed their role in addressing the

underrepresentation of women of color in STEM, particularly because they have struggled with

creating environments that ensure these women's development and advancement.

Creating an environment conducive to the advancement of women of color requires an

approach that counters the subtle barriers and challenges that the women face in the academic

environment. Colleges and university must implement practices that foster the development of

women of color into STEM professionals as they navigate a culture that sends continuous,

implicit cues that they do not belong. This chapter introduces Carlone and Johnson's (2007)

science identity model as a framework to inform practices and create an environment to develop

and advance women of color in STEM.

Science Identity: A Model for Persistence

Science identity refers to how people express and perceive themselves as scientists or

members of the science community (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson (2007)

developed the science identity model to better understand how women of color experience,

negotiate, and persist in science amidst the complexities of the double bind. Science identity is

relevant to this study because it serves as an indicator of a woman's persistence and development

in the field of science (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Accordingly, colleges and universities should


aim to foster science identity among women of color to ensure their development and

advancement.

In developing the science identity model, Carlone and Johnson (2007) sought to

understand the factors that contribute to a woman of color achieving her science identity and

advancing in her science career (Carlone & Johnson). The science identity model is relevant to

this study because it conceptualizes the multiple paths women of color take in forming their

science identities, which is particularly useful when identifying practices that colleges and

universities can implement to support that development (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Moreover,

the science identity model takes into account the roles of race, ethnic, and gender identities in

science identity formation (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This is consistent with the essence of the

double bind and intersectionality theory, which suggest that the intersection of race and gender

has a significant impact on how women of color experience STEM (Malcom, et al., 1976).

Carlone and Johnson (2007) based the science identity model on the experiences of 15

successful women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies and into

their careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The science identity model consists of three

dimensions: competence, performance, and recognition (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Each

dimension is discussed in the next section. Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that the women

formed their science identities along varying paths. Their differential experiences were the basis

for three science identity trajectories: research scientist, altruistic scientist, and disrupted scientist

(Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Each trajectory and its relevance are discussed following the

dimensions of science identity.


Dimensions of Science Identity

As mentioned, the science identity model consists of three dimensions: competence,

performance, and recognition. The prototypical individual with a strong science identity is

competent, in that she has acquired meaningful knowledge of her field of study and is motivated

to understand and learn more (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In the context of this study, a student

who demonstrates competence would have a high GPA and do well on tests and exams in the

academic setting. Second, a woman with a strong science identity would have the skills required

to perform and show her competence by engaging in practices relevant to her field of study. For

example, a science student who satisfies the performance dimension would be familiar with the

scientific instruments in a lab and know how to use them. Likewise, a software engineering

student would be proficient in using programs and coding languages required to carry out tasks.

Thirdly, an individual with a strong science identity would recognize herself and be recognized

by others as a "science person" and credible member of the science community (Carlone &

Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that recognition was the most critical

dimension of the science identity model. The recognition dimension (i.e., how the women

recognized themselves as scientists and were recognized by "meaningful others") is what

differentiated their trajectories (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In addition, the recognition

dimension was the dimension most significantly influenced by the women's race, ethnicity, and

gender identities (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). A brief discussion on the research, altruistic, and

disrupted scientist identity trajectories follows.


Figure 2: Dimensions of Science Identity. Adapted from Carlone & Johnson (2007).

Science Identity Trajectories

From Carlone & Johnson's (2007) science identity model, three independent science

identity trajectories emerged that conceptualized the varying paths the women in the study took

in forming their science identities. The trajectories were research scientist, altruistic scientist, and

disrupted scientist (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). These trajectories were based on the differential

experiences among the women, particularly how the women sought and received recognition

during their science studies (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). At the time of Carlone and Johnson's

study, the women classified in the research scientist trajectory were working as research

scientists, held patents or had previously been published in peer-reviewed publications, and had

completed their doctorate degrees or were in the process of completing them (Carlone &

Johnson, 2007). The women on the altruistic scientist trajectory were working health

practitioners and doctors or were in the process of completing pre-professional programs

Performance

• Social performances of relevant scientific practices (e.g., ways of talking and using tools)

Competence

• Knowledge and understanding of science content (may be less visible than performance)

Recognition

• Recognizng oneself and getting recognized by others as a "science person"


(Carlone & Johnson, 2007). There were obvious patterns in the women whose trajectories were

classified as research and altruistic scientists.

However, there were no career patterns among the women on the disrupted scientist

trajectory (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). While the women were still successful in their career

pursuits, none in the disrupted scientist trajectory entered doctoral programs (Carlone & Johnson,

2007). The women on the disrupted scientist trajectory also expressed dissatisfaction with how

they were positioned in science. They felt their goals and paths had been disrupted and were

rockier and more unstable than the paths of their altruistic and research counterparts (Carlone &

Johnson, 2007). The following discussion examines each trajectory and the role of recognition in

cultivating satisfying science identities.

Critical Role of Recognition in Developing Science Identity

As discussed, the recognition dimension of science identity refers to how people

recognize themselves as scientists and how they are recognized by "meaningful others" as

credible members of the science community (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Recognition is the most

critical component in the development of science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). A woman

can possess the competence and performance dimensions of science identity, but if she does not

secure recognition, she risks compromising her development and advancement in science

(Carlone & Johnson, 2006). Each trajectory incorporates the recognition dimension differently,

which accounts for the disparate outcomes in how the women advanced in their science careers.

Research scientist identity. The women with research scientist identities recognized

themselves as scientists and were particularly interested in the prototypical aspects of science

(Carlone & Johnson). They were fascinated by the natural world and interested in the logical

processes of science (Carlone & Johnson). Critical to their ability to recognize themselves as


scientists were their experiences working in research labs, and serving as tutors and teaching

assistants during college (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Serving in these capacities not only

increased the sense of belonging, which is particularly challenging for women of color in STEM,

but also positioned the women for recognition by other members of the science community,

another critical aspect of the recognition dimension (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).

Engaging in laboratory opportunities early in their science careers also resulted in greater

exposure to senior members in their fields of study (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Recognition did

not just happen once, but repeatedly, and well into their careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).

Recognition by "meaningful others" manifested as invitations to present at research forums,

solicitations to participate in fellowships, and inclusion as authors in published papers (Carlone

& Johnson, 2007). In sum, women on the research scientist trajectory recognized themselves as

prototypical scientists and were recognized by others the same.

Altruistic scientist identity. The women on the altruistic scientist trajectory gravitated

towards science for altruistic reasons (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Their interests in science and

reasons for pursuing it were less about science itself and more about using science as a vehicle to

serve humanity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Their reproductions of science in the context of

service allowed them to recognize themselves as scientists and to redefine whose recognition

mattered (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Whereas women in the research science identity relied on

recognition from traditional, prototypical "meaningful others" in the science community, the

women with altruistic science identities valued recognition from those who shared their altruistic

commitments or who would benefit from their altruism (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In most

cases, altruistic meaningful others included the women's families, communities, and other people

of color.


Remaining active in their communities, working with other people of color, and

identifying opportunities in which they could serve humanity by way of studying science was

critical to the women's abilities to recognize themselves as scientists and satisfy the need to be

recognized by meaningful others (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Indeed, their redefinitions of

science and meaningful others supported their persistence and subsequent advancements in

science.

Disrupted scientist identity. Such was not the case for the women on the disrupted

scientist identity trajectory. The women with disrupted science identities recalled experiencing

instability throughout their pursuits to become scientists, and reported feeling overlooked,

neglected, and discriminated against by members of the scientific community, specifically during

their undergraduate and graduate studies (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Many of their experiences

echoed the challenges and barriers associated with the double bind; for example, discouraging

professors and invisibility among peers (Johnson, 2007; Malcom et al., 1976; Ong, 2005). Much

like their research and altruistic identity counterparts, the women in the disrupted science identity

were competent and capable of performing within their respective fields. However, recognition

was problematic.

The audience from which they sought recognition (mostly White males) and the

institutional and prototypical meanings associated with being a scientist complicated their bids

for recognition (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The women in the disrupted science identity

trajectory were not exposed to the same opportunities as the research scientists, and they had not

redefined science as had the women in the altruistic trajectory. Interestingly, the more a woman

ethnically or racially diverged from the prototypical scientist the more likely she had a disrupted

scientist identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2006). Among the women who achieved research scientist


identities were two Latinas, both of whom were lighter-skinned and periodically mistaken as

White, and two Asian-American women (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). While this does not suggest

that it was easier for these women to gain recognition as research scientists, the dynamic

resembles much of what Malcom et al. (1976) conveyed in their metaphor on the cost of

pursuing STEM. The more an individual resembles the typical or normal STEM professional the

lower the costs; the more a person deviates from the norm the higher the costs (Malcom et al.,

1976).

Recommendations: Using Recognition to Overcome the Double Bind

The science identity model provides a framework for colleges and universities to ensure

the development and advancement of women of color in STEM. Although Carlone and Johnson's

(2007) study primarily focused on women pursuing science degrees, it is appropriate that the

science identity model be applied across STEM disciplines; especially given the commonalities

among the cultures of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Carlone & Johnson,

2007), all of which have been historically rooted in White, male norms (Ong, 2014; Seymour &

Hewitt, 1997). Colleges and universities should aim to develop science identity among women of

color by implementing practices that support them in seeing themselves as STEM professionals

and offering opportunities for them to be recognized by meaningful others. In creating such

environments, colleges and universities can ensure the development and advancement of women

of color in STEM. The following discussion identifies practical actions colleges and universities

can take to create these supportive environments.

Supporting Recognition of Self: Intercollegiate Affinity Groups

The research underscored feelings of alienation, isolation, and the unmet need of

belonging as shared experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. Diversity and inclusion


administrators within colleges and universities should seek to address these experiences by

organizing intercollegiate support or affinity groups for women of color studying STEM. These

groups would not exist to replace student organizations such as the National Society of Black

Engineers (NSBE) or Women in Computer Science Engineering (WICSE), but would rather

serve as additional support to the women as they matriculate through their undergraduate and

graduate studies.

The women in the original double bind study recommended that professional societies

make efforts to target women of color specifically. Their call to action was met by organizations

such as the American Chemical Society, which developed an initiative to support women of

color chemists. Likewise, organizations such as Black Girls Code seek to engage girls of color

well before they reach college, but there seems to be a gap in the development of similar efforts

on college and university campuses.

This research proves that the collegiate experience is critical to the development of

women of color into STEM professionals. Intercollegiate affinity and support groups would not

only fill this gap by providing academic and professional development opportunities for women

of color, but they would also offer forums for women of color to share their experiences,

challenges, and successes in safe spaces among like-minded women. Many of the women may be

among the few women of color on their campuses and in their respective areas of study. An

intercollegiate approach would allow the women to foster relationships across area universities,

and even community colleges. As seen in the altruistic science identity trajectory, women of

color look to members of their ethnic and racial groups as meaningful others.

Intercollegiate affinity groups would also afford opportunities for the women to gain

exposure to research, lab work, or internship opportunities, in addition to opportunities to serve


their communities. All of these opportunities are emphasized as critical factors to the persistence

and development of women of color in STEM. These affinity groups would also serve as

pipelines for STEM-related organizations seeking to address the underrepresentation of women

of color in their workforces. Government science and health agencies could also potentially

recruit from these groups for fellowship and research opportunities.

Similarly, some academic institutions and corporate organizations have chartered affinity

groups as part of diversity and inclusion strategies to recruit and retain underrepresented people

within their workforces. An example is included in Appendix B. Many organizations within

STEM industries use these similar groups to further personal and professional development and

promote diversity within their organizations. However, the exclusionary appearance of affinity

groups calls for particular caution. Colleges and universities, much like organizations, should not

limit membership in such groups to students who are women of color. These groups should

instead be leveraged as forums to foster awareness of the experiences of women of color among

members of dominant groups, especially whites and males. This is an appropriate segue into the

next section, which recommends colleges and universities develop culturally aware meaningful

others.

Developing Culturally Aware "Meaningful Others"

Also emphasized throughout this research was the unmet need for recognition from

faculty and professors, as well as healthy relationships with them. While the women in the

original double bind study often encountered overt forms of discrimination from their professors,

the women in the contemporary studies experienced subtle challenges and barriers, some of

which were unbeknownst to the educators. Though unintentional, the impact of culturally

incompetent and unaware professors can be detrimental. To be effective, professors must be


attuned to the unique experiences of their women of color students. They must also be aware of

their own implicit biases and the influence these biases have on how they view and support

students.

College and university administrators must ensure their faculty members and professors

are aware of these nuances. Diversity and human resource leaders within academic institutions

should incorporate discussions on identity, intersectionality, dominant and subordinate group

membership, and systems of oppression into the diversity-learning curriculum required of faculty

and professors. Broadening awareness will not only strengthen educators' abilities to meet the

needs of their female students of color, it will also prepare them to meet the needs of all students.

This relates back to Crenshaw's (1989) position on intersectionality: efforts aimed to support the

most disadvantaged will also benefit the privileged. A model for potential training content is

included in Appendix C.

Likewise, tools such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) should be used to increase

awareness among faculty and professors of their own implicit biases. The IAT measures the

strength of the individual's associations between groups (e.g., black people) and the individual's

evaluation or stereotypes of these groups (e.g., good or bad) (Project Implicit, 2011). Implicit

biases can compromise equity in the classroom, and awareness is fundamental to addressing

implicit biases.

Chapter Conclusion

This chapter identified ways in which colleges and universities could support women of

color in overcoming the double bind and create environments that encourage these women's

advancement and development in STEM. Carlone and Johnson's (2007) science identity model


provides an appropriate foundation for understanding the multiple trajectories women of color

take in pursuing science and the factors that contribute to their development.

This work showed that recognition is significant to the experiences of women of color as

they advance in their STEM pursuits and navigate the double bind. Women of color must

recognize themselves as STEM professionals and must be recognized as such by meaningful

others, such as faculty and professors. Accomplishing this is two-fold. Intercollegiate affinity

groups would serve to create supportive environments where women of color could develop and

empower each other. Implementing training that broadens awareness among professors and

faculty is a start to addressing the subtle barriers that can impede the development and

advancement of women of color studying STEM.


Conclusion

The Question Remains: Ain’t I a woman?

Sojourner Truth’s (1851) historic inquiry is still relevant to the experiences of many

women of color. More than a century after Truth’s address, Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976)

were echoing similar sentiments in their study, The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority

Woman in Science. Much like Truth, the women in the double bind study became the voice of

unheard and overlooked women of color, particularly those in science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics (STEM).

This study has shown that the interests of women of color have not been fully addressed

in efforts that seek to increase the representation of women and people of color in STEM. Many

of these efforts do not account for the unique experiences of women of color, which further

perpetuates their underrepresentation. Unlike White women and men of color, women of color

who pursue STEM experience the double bind. They are subject to the burden of racism and

sexism, and subsequent challenges and barriers. While legislation and some programs have been

successful in removing overt barriers and increasing interest in STEM, women of color remain

underrepresented in STEM disciplines and professions.

Given the necessity of STEM to the United States’ global and economic competitiveness,

it behooves the nation to invest in building a domestic pool of STEM talent; and women of color

represent a valuable, potential source. This research has shown that colleges and universities play

a critical role in producing women of color in STEM. However, the culture of these

environments can be challenging and discouraging for women of color. For colleges and

universities to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM, they must cultivate

environments and institute practices that develop and advance women of color into STEM


professionals. The recommendations provided in this research are a start at accomplishing what

has not been an easy feat. Thirty-eight years later, this study adds to the body of research that

seeks to eliminate barriers for future generations of women of color in the double bind.


References

American Association of Medical Colleges. (2010) FACTS Table 29: Total U.S. medical school

graduates by race and ethnicity within sex, 2002–2010 [Data file]. Retrieved from

https://www.aamc.org/download/321536/data/2012factstable29.pdf

American Chemical Society. (2012). Minority women still most underrepresented in science

despite progress [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/march/minority-women-

still-most-underrepresented-in-science-despite-progress.html

Bayer Corporation. (2013). The Bayer facts of science education: XVI: U.S. STEM workforce

shortage—myth or reality? Media, PA: Internal Communications Research.

Black Girls Code. (2014). About Black girls code. Retrieved from

http://www.blackgirlscode.com/about-bgc.html

Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain't I a woman? revisiting intersectionality. Journal of

International Women's Studies, 5(3), 75.

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful

women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237

Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation

in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.8 (2011): 3157-3162.

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How

stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/march/minority-women-still-most-underrepresented-in-science-despite-progress.html

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/march/minority-women-still-most-underrepresented-in-science-despite-progress.html

http://www.blackgirlscode.com/about-bgc.html


College Board. (2013). AP data: Archived data 2013. Retrieved from

http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/2013

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique

of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago

Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/1229039

Deemer, E., Thoman, D., Chase, J., & Smith, J. (2014). Feeling the threat: Stereotype threat as a

contextual barrier to women's science career choice intentions. Journal of Career

Development, 41, 141. doi:10.1177/0894845313483003

Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors

and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review,

81(2), 209–241.

Google. (2014). Our workforce demographics. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and

stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4.

Greenwood, R. M., & Christian, A. (2008). What happens when we unpack the invisible

knapsack? Intersectional political consciousness and inter-group appraisals. Sex Roles,

59(5–6), 404–417.

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?

Washington DC: Association of American Colleges.

http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/2013


http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech


Hammonds, E. (2011, June 29). 35 years after the double bind: The price of being a minority

woman in science [Web log]. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/blog/35-years-after-the-

double-bind-the-price-of-being

Hammonds, E., & Sands, A. (1986). Never meant to survive: A Black woman's journey: An

interview with Evelyn Hammonds. The Radical Teacher, 30, 8–15.

Hancock, A. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics & Gender,

(2), 248–254.

Hancock, A. (2007). When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining

intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/20446350

Harding, S. (Ed.) (1993). The "racial" economy of science: Toward a democratic future.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization

studies. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 248–277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

0432.2008.00400.x

Hurtado, S., Han, J. C., Sáenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O. S. (2007).

Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants'

and minority students' first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 841–887.

Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of

color. Science Education, 91(5), 805–821.

Justin-Johnson, C. (2004). Good fit or chilly climate: An exploration of the persistence

experiences of African-American women graduates of predominantly White college science

http://hepg.org/blog/35-years-after-the-double-bind-the-price-of-being

http://hepg.org/blog/35-years-after-the-double-bind-the-price-of-being



programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/305172242?accountid=11091. (305172242).

Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes and women's math performance:

How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women's susceptibility to stereotype threat.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 825–832.

http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004

Ko, L. T., Kachchaf, R. R., Ong, M., & Hodari, A. K. (2013). Narratives of the double bind:

Intersectionality in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy.

AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513(1), 222–225. doi:10.1063/1.4789692

Landivar, L. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin (No.

ACS-24). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Landivar, L. (2013). The relationship between science and engineering education and

employment in STEM occupations (No. ACS-23). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., & Brown, J. W. (1976). The double bind: The price of being a

minority woman in science (No. 76-R-3). Washington, DC: American Association for the

Advancement of Science. Retrieved from:


Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M. (2011). The double bind: The next generation. Harvard

Educational Review, 81(2), 162–171, 388–389.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture &

Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/305172242?accountid=11091

http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004



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 of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479.

Nash, J. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1. doi:10.1057/fr.2008.4

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

(2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in

science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Nettles, M., & Millett, C. (2008). Student access in community colleges. Ann Arbor, MI: Center

for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan. Retrieved

from

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/studentaccessinccs.a

spx

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A.,... Greenwald, A.

G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex

differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593–10597.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106

O'Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2014). Ethnic variation in

gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Advance

online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037944

Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender,

race, and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617.

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/studentaccessinccs.aspx

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/studentaccessinccs.aspx


Ong, M. (2011). Broadening participation: The status of women of color in computer science.

Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 32–34. doi:10.1145/1965724.1965737

Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis

of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–208, 389–390.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/874155317?accountid=11091

Project Implicit. (2011). About the IAT. Retrieved from

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html.

Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at liberal arts college: The importance of grades and

pre-collegiate preferences (Working paper). Retrieved from Cornell University ILR School

website:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=workingpa

pers

Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from community

colleges to universities. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 241–262, 390.

Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high skill U.S. labor market:

An analysis of supply, employment and wage trends (No. 359). Washington, DC: Economic

Policy Institute.

Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership:

Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171.

Scott, A, & Martin, A. (2014). Perceived barriers and endorsement of stereotypes among

adolescent girls of color in STEM. Oakland, CA: Level Playing Field Institute. Retrieved

from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/874155317?accountid=11091


http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/perceived_barriers_and_endorsement_of_stereotypes_

among_adolescent_girls_of_color_in_stem.pdf

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the

sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Simard, C. (2009). Obstacles and solutions for underrepresented minorities in technology. Palo

Alto, CA: Anita Borg Institute.

Smooth, W. (2010). Intersectionalities of race and gender and leadership. In K. O'Connor (Ed.),

Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook (31–41). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math

performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.

Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A tool for gender and economic justice. Retrieved from

http://www.awid.org/Library/Intersectionality-A-Tool-for-Gender-and-Economic-Justice

Tsapogas, J. (2004). The role of community colleges in the education of recent science and

engineering graduates. (InfoBrief No. NSF 04-315). Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). STEM, STEM-related, and non-STEM occupation code list 2010.

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public

workforce system in a national solution for competitive science, technology, engineering,

http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

http://www.awid.org/Library/Intersectionality-A-Tool-for-Gender-and-Economic-Justice


and mathematics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by the president at the national

academy of sciences annual meeting. Retrieved from

http://www.Whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-

Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting

Williams, M. (2014). Building a more diverse Facebook. Retrieved from

http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/06/building-a-more-diverse-facebook/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting

http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/06/building-a-more-diverse-facebook/


Appendix A

Science Identity Model

Source: Carlone & Johnson, 2007


Appendix B

Although the groups below focus on employees in the workforce, a similar framework could

be applied when developing Intercollegiate Affinity groups for women of color students in

STEM.

Source: MIT, 2013


Appendix C

Sample Curriculum Content

Who Am I?

Human Behaviors

Unconscious Biases & Micro-

Aggressions

Cross-Cultural

Competence

Cultural and Social

Identity

revisiting the double bind: ensuring the development and advancement of women of color in stem

Documents