UNDERSTANDING TEACHER QUALITY †
Do Faculty Serve as Role Models? The Impact of Instructor
Gender on Female Students
By ERIC P. BETTINGER
Although women have matched or surpassed
men in many educational outcomes such as
college access and persistence, female students
remain much less likely to major in quantitative,
technical, and science-related fields. While
women have made progress in recent years,
only 20 percent of engineering students are fe-
male, and the proportion of women receiving
degrees in the sciences and engineering in the
United States lags that of other industrialized
countries (National Center for Education Statis-
tics, 1995). This underrepresentation of women
may have serious implications for women’s re-
turns to education and may relate to occupa-
tional segregation and earnings inequality by
gender (Linda Loury, 1997). As the economy
shifts to favor these more male-dominated
fields, there is concern that women will not be
prepared to succeed. Moreover, the health of the
economy depends on the production of certain
kinds of degrees, and the underrepresentation of
women in certain areas may contribute to short-
ages in critical fields.
There have been many widely publicized
efforts by the government, companies, and
schools to increase female representation in
male-dominated fields. One focus has been to
increase mentoring opportunities for female stu-
dents by hiring more women faculty members.
Theory and evidence suggest that female in-
†
Discussants: Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell University;
Brian Jacob, Harvard University; Richard Murnane, Har-
vard University.
* Department of Economics, Case Western Reserve Uni-
versity, Cleveland, OH 44106, and Harvard Graduate
School of Education, Cambridge, MA 02138, respectively.
We thank the Ohio Board of Regents for their support
during this project. Rod Chu, Darrell Glenn, Robert Shee-
han, and Andy Lechler provided invaluable help with the
data. We thank Ron Ehrenberg and Richard Murnane for
helpful comments.
AND BRIDGET TERRY LONG*
structors may be instrumental in encouraging
women to enroll and excel in subjects in which
they are underrepresented. Female students may
avoid male-dominated fields due to biases
against women (Sandra Hanson, 1996), and the
presence of female faculty may mitigate these
effects. David Neumark and Rosella Gardecki
(1998) found that female doctoral students with
female mentors were more likely to succeed.
However, similar to student trends, women are
underrepresented on university faculties, partic-
ularly in the sciences and quantitative fields,
and many worry about the lack of potential role
models for female undergraduates. For exam-
ple, in 2003 Princeton University created a $10
million fund to hire and promote women faculty
in science and engineering departments while
Duke’s president pledged $1 million per year
for the same purpose (Robin Wilson, 2003). In
addition, the National Science Foundation’s
ADVANCE program continues to push for “in-
creased representation and advancement of
women in academic careers and engineering
careers” (National Science Foundation, 2004).
Does the presence of faculty members of the
same gender impact student interest in a sub-
ject? This paper answers this question by esti-
mating how having a female faculty member in
an initial course affects the likelihood that a
female student will take additional credit hours
or major in a particular subject. If students
choose their courses and major based on their
experiences during their initial exposure to a
subject, then the instructors they face early in a
discipline could influence these decisions. Such
an analysis is difficult because few data sets
allow researchers to link student outcomes to
faculty characteristics. However, using a com-
prehensive, longitudinal data set of nearly
54,000 students, this paper is among the first,
large-scale studies to estimate the impact of
faculty on the outcomes of students. Moreover,
152
VOL. 95 NO. 2 UNDERSTANDING TEACHER QUALITY 153

using detailed course information and an TABLE 1—SHARE OF FEMALE STUDENTS AND FEMALE
instrumental-variables strategy, we avoid biases FACULTY BY DEPARTMENT
due to course selection and student preferences. Female instructors in
The findings provide insight into the potential Female students initial courses
impacts of policies designed to increase female Percentage
representation on college faculties. The results Percentage Percentage of full-
suggest that female instructors do positively of course- Percentage of overall time
Department takers of majors faculty faculty
influence course selection and major choice in
some disciplines, thus supporting a possible Humanities
English 54.6 70.6 56.5 12.2
role-model effect. However, we fail to find History 51.8 39.5 32.2 11.8
positive and significant effects in some male- Social Sciences
dominated fields. Economics 47.0 29.8 24.9 10.9
Polit. 51.8 46.0 27.2 9.9
Science
I. Background: The Underrepresentation of Psychology 58.4 77.7 48.7 13.1
Sociology 59.0 61.8 48.9 17.4
Women and the Effect of Role Models
Journalism 58.0 60.5 43.9 21.7
In Table 1, we present some descriptive sta- Sciences
Biology 62.4 64.3 34.4 11.9
tistics on the enrollment patterns of women Chemistry 52.4 53.5 30.2 7.6
across disciplines. The data represent all first- Physics 43.5 24.0 15.5 2.9
Geology 53.8 14.2 32.3 6.0
time, full-time freshmen who are of traditional
Mathematics 51.0 41.6 30.8 6.8
age (18 –20 years old) and entered one of the 12
public, four-year colleges in Ohio during fall Business 47.1 44.6 32.2 18.3
1998 or fall 1999. The data are based on uni- Computers 45.9 14.4 26.5 6.5
versity records and student transcripts and in- Engineering 21.3 16.1 16.5 10.4
clude information on student demographics, test Education 63.3 76.8 57.7 2.1
scores, courses taken, and major. Additionally, Social Work 78.9 94.3 57.0 27.7
from ACT exam records, we have information
on each student’s intended college major. Be- Notes: The sample is restricted to first-time, full-time fresh-
men of traditional age who took the ACT, and entered a
cause this information is important in our em- public, four-year college in Ohio during fall 1998 or fall
pirical analysis to account for pre-college 1999. The subgroups shown under the major discipline
interests, we limit the sample to students with groupings are not a complete list of departments.
test information. Over 89 percent of students Source: Ohio Board of Regents HEI System.
took the ACT, and this restriction does not
significantly change the sample except in terms
of favoring Ohio residents. One advantage of clearly underrepresented. For example, only 14
the data is we can follow students across the 51 percent of computer science majors were
public colleges in Ohio, and so our analysis women in our data. Women are also underrep-
tracks outcomes even for transfer students. resented among economics majors. By contrast,
There may be some leakage if students transfer women tend to be overrepresented in terms of
to private or out-of-state institutions, but this is majors in English, psychology, education, and
likely small (Eric Bettinger and Bridget Long, social work. In engineering women are under-
2004). represented among students ever taking a course
Women comprise nearly 55 percent of the (21 percent) and majoring in the subject (16
sample, and as Table 1 illustrates, they are fairly percent).
represented in most disciplines in terms of The underrepresentation of women has been
whether they ever took a course. For example, the cause of concern among educators and poli-
almost 55 percent of the nearly 54,000 students cymakers. Many note the lack of same-gender
who ever took an English class were female. mentors that are available, as evidenced by the
Even in physics, mathematics, computer sci- paucity of female faculty members in most dis-
ence, and business, between 44 and 51 percent ciplines. As Table 1 shows, less than one-third
of students ever taking a course in these fields of all faculty teaching introductory courses in
were women; however, of the students who history, economics, political science, chemistry,
eventually majored in these fields, women are physics, math, business, computer science, and
154 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS
engineering were female. Female representation
among full-time faculty was even smaller. In
English, for example, while 57 percent of in-
structors teaching introductory courses were fe-
male, women professors comprised only 12
percent of the full-time faculty in this group.
Much of this difference comes from the use in
introductory courses of part-time, adjunct fac-
ulty, who are more likely to be women.
Policymakers have attempted to increase fe-
male representation among majors by increas-
ing the number of women professors, with the
hope of making it easier for female students to
find role models. Whether underrepresented
students benefit from instructors with similar
characteristics has been explored by many re-
searchers.1 For example, several studies of pri-
mary and secondary education have found that
African-American students who have African-
American instructors have higher test scores
(e.g., Ronald Ehrenberg and Dominic Brewer,
1995). Many scholars interpret these findings as
evidence that same-group instructors act as role
models, perhaps because they serve as examples
to students or can better empathize with their
particular needs.
A small number of studies also attempt to
identify the effects of instructor gender on stu-
dent outcomes in higher education, but the re-
sults from these studies are mixed. For example,
Brandice Canes and Harvey Rosen (1995) find
that the proportion of a department that is fe-
male had no effect on female major choice at
Princeton University, the University of Michi-
gan, and Whittier College. On the other hand,
Kevin Rask and Elizabeth Bailey (2002) and
John Ashworth and J. Lynne Evans (2001) find
that female faculty members encourage women
students to select a major. The authors argue
that the increased major choice is evidence that
female instructors are role models.
While the research on the role of gender in
higher education has produced conflicting re-
sults, each of the existing studies is relatively
1
This research is related to a larger literature examining the
effects of teacher characteristics on student outcomes. While
most of that literature focuses on primary and secondary edu-
cation, several recent studies extend this research to colleges.
Bettinger and Long (2004) compare the impact of adjunct and
graduate student instructors to full-time faculty on student
interests. George Borjas (2000) examines the impact of foreign
teaching assistants on student performance.
MAY 2005
small in scale. All are case studies or limited
analyses of a particular university. It is unclear
whether the results differ because their samples
vary, and few sources exist to perform large-
scale analyses that might be more informative
for larger populations. While there are major
data sets of faculty (e.g., National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty) and students (e.g., Na-
tional Education Longitudinal Study of 1988),
one is unable to link these sources. Another
limitation of the existing studies is that they do
not account for selection issues. One might
worry that certain kinds of female students may
be more likely to select women professors due
to preferences or interest in a particular disci-
pline. Such sorting may bias studies that simply
compare the outcomes of female students who
take classes from women versus men. A final
limitation is that the previous research fails to
control for whether a female instructor is an
adjunct or graduate student. Work by Bettinger
and Long (2004) shows that women are more
likely to serve in those positions, and adjuncts
and graduate students may have distinct effects
on student outcomes unrelated to gender.
Our analysis addresses these concerns in sev-
eral ways. First, using a student-level data set of
an entire state’s higher-education system, we
provide a large-scale analysis that is more rep-
resentative of the national population of four-
year college students and includes selective and
nonselective institutions. Moreover, we control
for other faculty characteristics including the
rank and position of the instructor. Finally, the
wealth of longitudinal data used in this analysis
allows us to identify exogenous variation in the
proportion of a department that is female, and
so we are able to address selection issues.
II. Empirical Strategy
To identify the effects of faculty gender on
course-taking behavior and major choice, we
focus on female students’ first experiences in a
subject and whether they had female instructors
in these initial courses. These classes are often
introductory, and the experience with faculty in
them may affect student interest and success in
subsequent courses. The key explanatory vari-
able is defined as the proportion of the courses
in subject k that student i took from female
instructors during the first semester student i
was exposed to the department. For example, if
VOL. 95 NO. 2 UNDERSTANDING TEACHER QUALITY
a student took her first course in subject k from
a female professor, the variable would equal 1.
For cases in which students take multiple
courses in a subject during the first semester of
exposure, we set the variable equal to the pro-
portion of faculty that were female, weighted
by number of credits for each course. The
analysis then tracks subsequent behavior, y ik ,
in subject k after this introductory course (or
set of courses) and tests whether there are
differences by instructor gender using the fol-
lowing equation:
(1) y ik ⫽ ␣ ⫹ ␤ 共Female Instructor兲ik
⫹ ␥X i ⫹ ␦Zik ⫹ ␧ik
where Xi includes controls for student demo-
graphics and ability (age, gender, race, state of
residency, and ACT score), and Zik controls for
individuals’ interactions with a particular sub-
ject including whether the subject is in the stu-
dent’s intended major, the semester the student
took the course, and the number of credit hours
students attempted that semester. Because we
have multiple observations per student, we con-
trol for within-student correlation by clustering
the standard errors throughout the paper. Addi-
tionally, because different kinds of instructors
may affect student interest as shown by
Bettinger and Long (2004), we also include
controls for whether the faculty member is a
part-time (i.e., adjunct) or graduate-student in-
structor. The sample excludes remedial courses
in which students are placed.
The distribution of students across courses
taught by faculty members of different genders
may not be random. For example, if female
instructors are more likely to teach in particular
majors, then students with particular interests
will be more likely to have them in courses.
While we do control for the student’s intended
college major, students seeking potential men-
tors may also choose courses based on a pref-
erence for an instructor of the same gender. In
fact, the preference for a particular type of in-
structor may be strongest within a student’s
intended major. For these reasons, students who
have female professors may be systematically
different from other students, and this would
cause our basic model to be biased.
The analysis uses an instrumental-variables
155
(IV) strategy to deal with this potential endoge-
neity. Due to sabbaticals, hirings, retirements,
and temporary shifts in the number of sections
offered in a particular course, there is variation
term-by-term in the proportion of courses
taught by female faculty in a department. There-
fore, while a particular department may staff 30
percent of their classes with female professors
in “steady-state,” this fluctuates term-to-term.
We use this variation as the IV that is related to
a student’s likelihood of having a female in-
structor but unrelated to a student’s pre-college
interest in a subject.2 We augment this instru-
mental strategy by including course fixed ef-
fects to compare students who take the same
courses but have different types of instructors
due to multiple sections being offered or the fact
that the course was taken in different years.
With this framework, we run the following first-
stage equation to explain the likelihood a stu-
dent has a female instructor:
(2) 共Female Faculty兲ik
⫽ ␣ ⫹ ␩共Deviation from Steady-State
Female Composition)ik ⫹ ␥Xi ⫹ ␧ik
where ␩ measures the effect of a deviation from
the steady-state composition of female instruc-
tors in department k.3 The model includes con-
trols for school and department, so we are
identifying off deviations from a department’s
steady state rather than differences across sub-
jects or schools.
III. The Impact of Female Faculty on Female
Students
To determine the impact of female faculty on
female students, we examine three outcomes:
whether the student took any additional courses
2
The departmental steady states are defined over five
years (fall 1998 –spring 2003), while student outcomes are
observed over four years. The analysis calculates term-
specific steady states so that the fall norm differs from the
spring norm, thereby utilizing even more variation.
3
We also treat the controls for whether the instructor is
part-time or a graduate student as endogenous. As described
in Bettinger and Long (2004), we use deviations in the
proportion of the department made up of tenure-track fac-
ulty to instrument for the likelihood that a student has an
adjunct or graduate student instructor. However, our results
are not sensitive to this specification.
156 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MAY 2005

in the subject, the total number of subsequent TABLE 2—INSTRUMENTAL-VARIABLES ESTIMATES OF THE
credit hours taken, and major choice. Estimat- EFFECTS OF FEMALE FACULTY ON FEMALE STUDENTS
ing equation (1) using ordinary least squares Subsequent credit hours
(OLS) gives a simple comparison of the out-
comes of female students who did and did not Any
additional Major
have female instructors in their first course in a Department hours Total hours choice
subject. When not accounting for differences in
course selection, the OLS estimates suggest that Science, Quantitative, and Technical Fields:
the presence of female faculty members slightly Biology ⫺0.5015** 1.208 ⫺0.0964
increases the likelihood a female student majors (0.2287) (2.622) (0.0929)
Chemistry 0.8359 10.007 ⫺0.1091
in the subject. Once we include course fixed (0.6435) (8.325) (0.1573)
effects to compare students who took the same Physics ⫺0.6623** ⫺2.144 0.022
classes, we find small positive effects in terms (0.2662) (1.581) (0.0279)
of course selection. However, due to concerns Geology 0.1514* 1.384** 0.0005
about student preferences between different (0.0838) (0.4237) (0.0081)
Mathematics and 0.8298** 5.203* 0.0054
types of instructors, we employ the IV strategy statistics (0.3105) (2.688) (0.0272)
described in the above section. Table 2 displays Engineering ⫺0.4735 ⫺3.901 ⫺0.4472
the IV estimates of the impact of female faculty (0.4034) (16.638) (0.2749)
on the interests of female students. Computer science ⫺0.3098 ⫺1.106 0.0921
(0.1892) (1.560) (0.0566)
The estimates suggest that female instructors Business 0.2112 1.026 0.0118
have mixed effects on the interests of female (0.3842) (13.202) (0.2933)
students. In the sciences, female students who
initially had women professors were less likely Humanities and Social Sciences:
to take additional courses in biology and phys- Humanities ⫺0.0578 ⫺0.9175 0.0135
ics than similar female students who had male (0.0744) (0.785) (0.0124)
faculty members in their first course. On the Economics ⫺0.1057 0.1447 ⫺0.0353**
(0.1221) (0.8464) (0.0159)
other hand, female instructors positively im- Political science ⫺0.9604** ⫺15.200** ⫺0.045
pacted the likelihood of taking an additional (0.4178) (6.165) (0.1255)
course and the total number of subsequent credit Psychology 0.1501** 0.4919 ⫺0.0951**
hours in geology and mathematics and statistics. (0.0623) (0.889) (0.0308)
Sociology 0.0488 2.175** 0.0589**
Particularly in the most quantitative major, (0.0865) (1.069) (0.0246)
women students who initially had a female fac- Journalism and 0.1704 6.101** 0.1882
ulty member were nearly twice as likely to take communications (0.1467) (3.042) (0.1496)
an additional course and on average took 5.2 Education 0.5268** ⫺29.850** ⫺0.7428**
more credits than other female students. In (0.1448) (4.970) (0.1194)
terms of major choice, we find no positive or * Statistically significant at the 5-percent level.
negative effects. ** Statistically significant at the 1-percent level.
In the humanities and social sciences, women
faculty members increased either the likelihood
female students took an additional course or the chology, and education, while increasing the
total number of subsequent credits hours in psy- probability in sociology.
chology, sociology, journalism and communi- The results suggest that female faculty
cations, and education. For example, female members do have the potential to increase
students who initially had a female faculty student interest in a subject as measured by
member took six additional credits hours more course selection and major choice. The results
than similar female students who initially had a are particularly positive and strong in mathe-
male professor. Only in political science and in matics and statistics, geology, sociology, and
terms of total credit hours in education did journalism. Most notably, women are under-
female instructors negatively impact the course represented as majors in mathematics and ge-
selection of female students. Less-favorable ef- ology, and so the results support the notion of
fects were found in terms of major choice. Hav- female faculty serving as role models. How-
ing a female faculty member initially reduced ever, in other fields in which women are un-
the likelihood of majoring in economics, psy- derrepresented, such as engineering, physics,
VOL. 95 NO. 2 UNDERSTANDING TEACHER QUALITY
and computer science, we do not find fe-
male faculty to have statistically significant
effects. The small proportions of female fac-
ulty (especially once course fixed effects
are included) make it difficult to estimate
accurately the effects of women in these dis-
ciplines. The results could change as the
proportion of females in a department in-
creases to near equity with males. Moreover,
additional analysis is necessary to measure
whether female faculty influence male student
outcomes as well.
IV. Do Male Faculty Serve as Role Models for
Male Students?
Similar to their female counterparts, men are
underrepresented in certain fields such as edu-
cation and social work. For example, men com-
prised only 23 percent of majors in education,
and male instructors comprised only 42 percent
of the department. We repeated the analysis to
determine whether having a male faculty mem-
ber in a female-dominated disciplined had a
positive effect on the interests of male students.
While no effect was found in any other disci-
pline except business, strong effects were found
in education. Male students with male profes-
sors initially in education courses took 12.9
more subsequent credit hours and were much
more likely to major in the subject. These re-
sults further lend support to the idea that same-
gender faculty may positively impact student
interest in a subject. More research is needed to
explore further the impact faculty may have on
students interests and performance.
REFERENCES
Ashworth, John and Evans, J. Lynne. “Modeling
Student Subject Choice at Secondary and
Tertiary Level: A Cross-Section Study.”
Journal of Economic Education, 2001, 32(4),
pp. 311–22.
Bettinger, Eric P. and Long, Bridget Terry. “Do
College Instructors Matter? The Effects of
Adjuncts and Graduate Assistants on Stu-
dents’ Interests and Success.” National Bu-
reau of Economic Research (Cambridge,
157
MA) Working Paper No. 10370, March
2004.
Borjas, George. “Foreign-Born Teaching Assis-
tants and the Academic Performance of Un-
dergraduates.” American Economic Review,
2000 (Papers and Proceedings), 90(2), pp.
355–59.
Canes, Brandice and Rosen, Harvey. “Following
in Her Footsteps? Faculty Gender Composi-
tion and Women’s Choices of College Ma-
jors.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
1995, 48(3), pp. 486 –504.
Ehrenberg, Ronald and Brewer, Dominic. “Do
School and Teacher Characteristics Matter?
Evidence from the High School and Be-
yond.” Economics of Education Review,
1994, 13(1), pp. 1–17.
Hanson, Sandra L. Lost talent: Women in the
sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univer-
sity Press, 1996.
National Center for Education Statistics. “Educa-
tional Progress of Women.” Archived infor-
mation, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, 2004. Online: 具http://www.
ed.gov/pubs/CondOfEd_95/ovw3.html典.
National Science Foundation. “ADVANCE: In-
creasing the Participation and Advancement
of Women in Academic Science and Engi-
neering Careers.” Program information, Na-
tional Science Foundation, Arlington, VA,
2004. Online: 具http://www.nsf.gov典.
Loury, Linda Datcher. “The Gender Earnings
Gap among College-Educated Workers.” In-
dustrial and Labor Relations Review, 1997,
50(4), pp. 580 –93.
Neumark, David and Gardecki, Rosella. “Women
Helping Women? Role Model and Mentoring
Effects on Female Ph.D. Students in Eco-
nomics.” Journal of Human Resources, 1998,
33(1), pp. 220 – 46.
Rask, Kevin N. and Bailey, Elizabeth M. “Are
Faculty Role Models? Evidence from Major
Choice in an Undergraduate Institution.”
Journal of Economic Education, 2002, 33(2),
pp. 99 –124.
Wilson, Robin. “Duke and Princeton Will Spend
More to Make Female Professors Happy.”
Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 October
2003.
This article has been cited by:

1. Broden Bunnell, Lauren LeBourgeois, James Doble, Brian Gute, Jacob W. Wainman. 2023.
Specifications-Based Grading Facilitates Student–Instructor Interactions in a Flipped-Format General
Chemistry II Course. Journal of Chemical Education 1330. . [Crossref]
2. DaHee Shon, Elissa L. Perry, Joshua Elmore, David B. Mendelsohn. 2023. Representation Matters:
Review and Examination of Demographic Matching Effects on Organizational Outcomes. Journal of
Business and Psychology 193. . [Crossref]
3. Aliza Forman-Rabinovici, Hadas Mandel, Anne Bauer. 2023. Legislating gender equality in academia:
direct and indirect effects of state-mandated gender quota policies in European academia. Studies in
Higher Education 23, 1-17. [Crossref]
4. Xiaodan Hu, Frank Fernandez. 2023. An ADVANCE for Whom? A National Study of Initiatives to
Improve Faculty Gender Equity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1989. . [Crossref]
5. Hua-Xu Zhong, Chin-Feng Lai, Jui-Hung Chang, Po-Sheng Chiu. 2023. Developing creative
material in STEM courses using integrated engineering design based on APOS theory. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education 33:4, 1627-1651. [Crossref]
6. Gustav Hägg, Diamanto Politis, Gry Agnete Alsos. 2023. Does gender balance in entrepreneurship
education make a difference to prospective start-up behaviour?. Education + Training 65:4, 630-653.
[Crossref]
7. María Paola Sevilla, Paola Bordón, Fernanda Ramirez-Espinoza. 2023. Reinforcing the STEM pipeline
in vocational-technical high schools: The effect of female teachers. Economics of Education Review
95, 102428. [Crossref]
8. Dominic Charles Henri, Kirra Coates, Katharine Hubbard. 2023. I am a scientist: Overcoming biased
assumptions around diversity in science through explicit representation of scientists in lectures. PLOS
ONE 18:7, e0271010. [Crossref]
9. Gizem Karaali. 2023. Whose Math and for What Purpose? A Community Seminar on Identity,
Culture, and Mathematics. PRIMUS 33:6, 569-601. [Crossref]
10. Hannah Lina Gartner, Alyssa Schneebaum. 2023. An Analysis of Women’s Underrepresentation in
Undergraduate Economics. Review of Political Economy 35:3, 593-613. [Crossref]
11. Juebei Chen, Anette Kolmos, Nicolaj Riise Clausen. 2023. Gender differences in engineering students’
understanding of professional competences and career development in the transition from education
to work. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 33:3, 1121-1142. [Crossref]
12. Monique Löwe, Ulf Rinne, Hendrik Sonnabend. 2023. Gender role models and early-career decisions.
Applied Economics Letters 30:11, 1526-1530. [Crossref]
13. Thomas Breda, Julien Grenet, Marion Monnet, Clémentine Van Effenterre. 2023. How Effective are
Female Role Models in Steering Girls Towards STEM? Evidence from French High Schools. The
Economic Journal 133:653, 1773-1809. [Crossref]
14. Ai Leen Choo, Naomi Gurevich, Nana Dadzie, Kayla Reidenbach, Malini Laxman, Kelley Ngo. 2023.
Factors Related to College Major Selection in Communication Sciences and Disorders: Application
of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 8:3, 576-593.
[Crossref]
15. Giulia Rossello, Robin Cowan, Jacques Mairesse. 2023. Ph.D. publication productivity: the role of
gender and race in supervision in South Africa. Journal of Productivity Analysis 103. . [Crossref]
16. Sasha Scambler, Tasnim Aniqa Ahmed, Jesutomisin Aiyere, Emily Cheng. 2023. Diversifying the
dental curriculum: A review of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree reading lists in a UK dental
school. European Journal of Dental Education 62. . [Crossref]
17. Annesha Mukherjee, Satyaki Dasgupta. 2023. Female Enrollment in Higher Education in India: Does
Hostel Accommodation Play a Role?. Journal of Economic Issues 57:2, 546-554. [Crossref]
18. My Nguyen, Kien Le. 2023. Racial/ethnic match and student–teacher relationships. Bulletin of
Economic Research 75:2, 393-412. [Crossref]
19. Hannah Uckat. Leaning in at Home: Women's Promotions and Intra-Household Bargaining in
Bangladesh 57, . [Crossref]
20. Ozkan Eren. 2023. Potential in-group bias at work: Evidence from performance evaluations. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 206, 296-312. [Crossref]
21. Daniel M. Oliver. 2023. Underrepresented Minority Students in College: The Role of Classmates.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 84, 016237372211431. [Crossref]
22. Tania Babina, Alex Xi He, Sabrina T Howell, Elisabeth Ruth Perlman, Joseph Staudt. 2023. Cutting
the Innovation Engine: How Federal Funding Shocks Affect University Patenting, Entrepreneurship,
and Publications. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 39. . [Crossref]
23. Joyce B. Main. 2023. Family formation and the career trajectories of women engineering PhDs. Studies
in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education 14:1, 26-46. [Crossref]
24. Giulia Rossello, Robin Cowan, Jacques Mairesse. 2023. Ph.D. Publication Productivity: The Role of
Gender and Race in Supervision in South Africa. SSRN Electronic Journal 103. . [Crossref]
25. Shiang-Hung Hu, Joseph Tao-yi Wang. 2023. Discrimination Under Non Gender-Blind Tests:
Evidence from the Taiwan College Admission. SSRN Electronic Journal 95. . [Crossref]
26. Susan Dynarski, Aizat Nurshatayeva, Lindsay C. Page, Judith Scott-Clayton. Addressing nonfinancial
barriers to college access and success: Evidence and policy implications 319-403. [Crossref]
27. Ella Peltonen. 2022. The role of gender in the International Conference on Pervasive Computing and
Communications. Frontiers in Computer Science 4. . [Crossref]
28. Rawan Abdulrahman T. Harun, Reem Almustafa, Zainab AlKhalifah, Abdullah Nammazi,
Abdalmohsen AlBaqami, Nourah Mohammed ALSaleh, Mai Kadi, Ali Farsi, Nadim Malibary. 2022.
Role models as a factor influencing career choice among female surgical residents in Saudi Arabia: a
cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education 22:1. . [Crossref]
29. Enzo Brox, Tommy Krieger. 2022. Birthplace diversity and team performance. Labour Economics 79,
102288. [Crossref]
30. Nicholas A. Bowman, Christine Logel, Jennifer LaCosse, Lindsay Jarratt, Elizabeth A. Canning,
Katherine T. U. Emerson, Mary C. Murphy. 2022. Gender representation and academic achievement
among STEM‐interested students in college STEM courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
59:10, 1876-1900. [Crossref]
31. Natalia Maloshonok, Kseniia Vilkova, Irina Shcheglova. 2022. If I ignore it, maybe it will go away: how
Russian engineering students perceive the gender inequality issue. European Journal of Engineering
Education 47:6, 1315-1334. [Crossref]
32. Seth Gershenson, Cassandra M. D. Hart, Joshua Hyman, Constance A. Lindsay, Nicholas W.
Papageorge. 2022. The Long-Run Impacts of Same-Race Teachers. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy 14:4, 300-342. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
33. Elissa L. Perry, Carol T. Kulik, David B. Mendelsohn, DaHee Shon. 2022. Faculty Gender Diversity,
Institutional Performance, and the Role of Diversity Climate. Research in Higher Education 63:7,
1204-1236. [Crossref]
34. Eray KARA, Temel ÇALIK. 2022. ÖĞRETİM ELEMANLARININ YURT DIŞI
DENEYİMLERİ: YAŞAM ÖYKÜSEL BİR ANALİZ. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE
Dergisi 12:2, 758-772. [Crossref]
35. Puskar R. Joshi, Sheetal Digari, Marlon C. James. 2022. The Difference a Female Teacher Makes:
Analysis of Girls’ School Achievement in Nepal. Educational Studies 58:4, 511-529. [Crossref]
36. Julie Riise, Barton Willage, Alexander Willén. 2022. Can Female Doctors Cure the Gender STEMM
Gap? Evidence from Exogenously Assigned General Practitioners. The Review of Economics and
Statistics 104:4, 621-635. [Crossref]
37. Steven W. Bradley, James R. Garven, Wilson W. Law, James E. West. 2022. The impact of chief
diversity officers on diverse faculty hiring. Southern Economic Journal 89:1, 3-36. [Crossref]
38. Shilpa Jain, Bhavna Bajaj, Aarushi Singh. Are Indian Higher Education Institutions Doing Their Bit
Towards Empowerment of Mid-Career Women? 119-143. [Crossref]
39. Jennifer Hall, Travis Robinson, Jennifer Flegg, Jane Wilkinson. 2022. First-year and final-year
undergraduate students’ perceptions of university mathematics departments. Mathematics Education
Research Journal 34:2, 189-214. [Crossref]
40. Michèle Müller-Itten, Aniko Öry. 2022. Mentoring and the Dynamics of Affirmative Action.
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 14:2, 402-444. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
41. Olga Victoria Dulce-Salcedo, Darío Maldonado, Fabio Sánchez. 2022. Is the proportion of female
STEM teachers in secondary education related to women’s enrollment in tertiary education STEM
programs?. International Journal of Educational Development 91, 102591. [Crossref]
42. Prashant Loyalka, Zhaolei Shi, Guirong Li, Elena Kardanova, Igor Chirikov, Ningning Yu, Shangfeng
Hu, Huan Wang, Liping Ma, Fei Guo, Ou Lydia Liu, Ashutosh Bhuradia, Saurabh Khanna, Yanyan
Li, Adam Murray. 2022. The Effect of Faculty Research on Student Learning in College. Educational
Researcher 51:4, 265-273. [Crossref]
43. Emmanuelle Auriol, Guido Friebel, Alisa Weinberger, Sascha Wilhelm. 2022. Underrepresentation of
women in the economics profession more pronounced in the United States compared to heterogeneous
Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:16. . [Crossref]
44. Mohammad Al-Abbas, Samer S. Saab. Gender Inequity in Engineering Higher Education: A Case
Study of an American University in a Middle Eastern Country 345-354. [Crossref]
45. Eitan Frachtenberg, Rhody D. Kaner. 2022. Underrepresentation of women in computer systems
research. PLOS ONE 17:4, e0266439. [Crossref]
46. Vidhi Chhaochharia, Mengqiao Du, Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi. 2022. Counter-stereotypical female
role models and women’s occupational choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 196,
501-523. [Crossref]
47. Andrew Hussey, Sheena Murray, Wendy Stock. 2022. Gender, coauthorship, and academic outcomes
in economics. Economic Inquiry 60:2, 465-484. [Crossref]
48. Victoria Kim, Cynthia M. Alcantar, Robert T. Teranishi. 2022. The AANAPISI-funded STEM
Program: An Institutional Response to the Needs of Asian American Community College Students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice 45, 1-15. [Crossref]
49. Xueli Wang, Yen Lee, Xiwei Zhu, Ayse Okur Ozdemir. 2022. Exploring the Relationship Between
Community College Students’ Exposure to Math Contextualization and Educational Outcomes.
Research in Higher Education 63:2, 309-336. [Crossref]
50. Paul A. Gompers, Vladimir Mukharlyamov, Emily Weisburst, Yuhai Xuan. 2022. Gender Gaps in
Venture Capital Performance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 57:2, 485-513. [Crossref]
51. Andreas Born, Eva Ranehill, Anna Sandberg. 2022. Gender and Willingness to Lead: Does the Gender
Composition of Teams Matter?. The Review of Economics and Statistics 104:2, 259-275. [Crossref]
52. Sam Flanders, Melati Nungsari. 2022. A textual analysis of the effect of short-term volunteering on
attitudes toward refugees in Malaysia. The Social Science Journal 34, 1-23. [Crossref]
53. Rebecca L. Hite, Jill White. 2022. Hispanic elementary students’ improved perceptions of science
and scientists upon participation in an environmental science afterschool club. Applied Environmental
Education & Communication 21:1, 73-86. [Crossref]
54. Tammara Petrill Thomas, Michelle Lee Maultsby. Mentoring African American Women at
Historically Black Colleges/Universities 729-750. [Crossref]
55. Peter Brečka, Monika Valentová, Drahoslav Lančarič. 2022. The implementation of critical thinking
development strategies into technology education: The evidence from Slovakia. Teaching and Teacher
Education 109, 103555. [Crossref]
56. Grace Gahlon, Hannah Acheson-Field, Kathryn Edwards, Stephanie Rennane, Melanie Zaber. 2022.
‘Leaking’ Female Doctorates in the U.S. Stem Academy: A Review and Thematic Synthesis. SSRN
Electronic Journal 12. . [Crossref]
57. Hani Mansour, Daniel I. Rees, Bryson M. Rintala, Nathan Wozny. 2022. The Effects of Professor
Gender on the Post-Graduation Outcomes of Female Students. SSRN Electronic Journal 95. .
[Crossref]
58. José De Sousa, Muriel Niederle. 2022. Trickle-Down Effects of Affirmative Action: A Case Study in
France. SSRN Electronic Journal 107. . [Crossref]
59. Takao Kato, Yang Song. 2022. Advising, gender, and performance: Evidence from a university with
exogenous adviser–student gender match. Economic Inquiry 60:1, 121-141. [Crossref]
60. Kennedy Casey, Kylee Novick, Stella F. Lourenco. 2021. Sixty years of gender representation in
children’s books: Conditions associated with overrepresentation of male versus female protagonists.
PLOS ONE 16:12, e0260566. [Crossref]
61. Sulema Torres-Ramos, Nicte Selene Fajardo-Robledo, Lourdes Adriana Pérez-Carrillo, Claudia
Castillo-Cruz, Patricia del R. Retamoza-Vega, Verónica M. Rodríguez-Betancourtt, Cristina Neri-
Cortés. 2021. Mentors as Female Role Models in STEM Disciplines and Their Benefits. Sustainability
13:23, 12938. [Crossref]
62. Amanda L. Griffith, Joyce B. Main. 2021. The role of the teaching assistant: Female role models in
the classroom. Economics of Education Review 85, 102179. [Crossref]
63. Paulo Arvate, Sergio Firpo, Renan Pieri. 2021. Can women's performance in elections determine
the engagement of adolescent girls in politics?. European Journal of Political Economy 70, 102045.
[Crossref]
64. Michael R. Romano, Erika Díaz-Almeyda, Tenzin Namdul, Yeshi Lhundup. 2021. Dialogue-
Based Learning: A Framework for Inclusive Science Education and Applied Ethics. Frontiers in
Communication 6. . [Crossref]
65. Jennifer M. Blaney, Annie M. Wofford. 2021. Fostering Ph.D. aspirations among upward transfer
students in computing. Computer Science Education 31:4, 489-511. [Crossref]
66. Leire Gartzia, Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K. Ryan, Kim Peters. 2021. Testing the motivational
effects of attainable role models: Field and experimental evidence. Journal of Theoretical Social
Psychology 5:4, 591-602. [Crossref]
67. Lelys Dinarte Diaz, Marina Bassi. Quality Determinants of Short-Cycle Programs in Latin America
and the Caribbean 123-159. [Crossref]
68. Aliza Forman-Rabinovici, Lilach Nir. 2021. Personalism or party platform? Gender quotas and
women’s representation under different electoral system orientations. PLOS ONE 16:9, e0257665.
[Crossref]
69. Daniel Oliver, Robert Fairlie, Glenn Millhauser, Randa Roland. 2021. Minority student and teaching
assistant interactions in STEM. Economics of Education Review 83, 102125. [Crossref]
70. Kareem Haggag, Richard W. Patterson, Nolan G. Pope, Aaron Feudo. 2021. Attribution bias in major
decisions: Evidence from the United States Military Academy. Journal of Public Economics 200, 104445.
[Crossref]
71. Lelys Dinarte Diaz, Maria Marta Ferreyra, Sergio Urzua, Marina Bassi. What makes a Program Good?
Evidence from Short-Cycle Higher Education Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean 33, .
[Crossref]
72. Stephanie Lunn, Monique Ross. Ready to Work: Evaluating the Role of Community Cultural Wealth
during the Hiring Process in Computing 1-11. [Crossref]
73. Donald K Detchou, Alvin Onyewuenyi, Vamsi Reddy, Andre Boyke, Nnenna Mbabuike, William
W Ashley, Edjah K Nduom. 2021. Letter: A Call to Action: Increasing Black Representation in
Neurological Surgery. Neurosurgery 88:5, E469-E473. [Crossref]
74. Oded Gurantz. 2021. How College Credit in High School Impacts Postsecondary Course-Taking:
The Role of Advanced Placement Exams. Education Finance and Policy 16:2, 233-255. [Crossref]
75. Maryam A. Andalib. 2021. Simulation of the leaky pipeline: Gender diversity in U.S. K-graduate
education. Journal of Simulation 15:1-2, 38-50. [Crossref]
76. Adriana D. Kugler, Catherine H. Tinsley, Olga Ukhaneva. 2021. Choice of majors: are women really
different from men?. Economics of Education Review 81, 102079. [Crossref]
77. Jack Blumenau. 2021. The Effects of Female Leadership on Women's Voice in Political Debate. British
Journal of Political Science 51:2, 750-771. [Crossref]
78. Jean-Paul Bryant, Diana I. Nwokoye, MaKayla F. Cox, Nnenna S. Mbabuike. 2021. The progression
of diversity: Black women in neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Focus 50:3, E9. [Crossref]
79. Judith M. Delaney, Paul J. Devereux. 2021. Gender differences in college applications: Aspiration and
risk management. Economics of Education Review 80, 102077. [Crossref]
80. Jordi Brandts, Christina Rott. 2021. Advice from women and men and selection into competition.
Journal of Economic Psychology 82, 102333. [Crossref]
81. Kelly M. Mack, Kate Winter, Claudia M. Rankins. Faculty Professional Development for Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy in STEM Higher Education 151-171. [Crossref]
82. Kelly M. Mack, Kate Winter, Claudia M. Rankins. Faculty Professional Development for Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy in STEM Higher Education 998-1018. [Crossref]
83. Monique Löwe, Ulf Rinne, Hendrik Sonnabend. 2021. Gender Role Models and Early Career
Decisions. SSRN Electronic Journal 95. . [Crossref]
84. Jiale Yang, Wenqin Shen. 2020. Master’s Education in STEM Fields in China: Does Gender Matter?.
Higher Education Policy 33:4, 667-688. [Crossref]
85. Igor Chirikov, Evgeniia Shmeleva, Prashant Loyalka. 2020. The role of faculty in reducing academic
dishonesty among engineering students. Studies in Higher Education 45:12, 2464-2480. [Crossref]
86. Star W. Lee, Marsha Ing. 2020. Does the Match between Gender and Race of Graduate Teaching
Assistants and Undergraduates Improve Student Performance in Introductory Biology?. CBE—Life
Sciences Education 19:4, ar57. [Crossref]
87. Martha Cecilia Bottia, Elizabeth Stearns, Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Stephanie Moller, Cayce Jamil.
2020. The Importance of Community Colleges in Students’ Choice to Major in STEM. The Journal
of Higher Education 91:7, 1116-1148. [Crossref]
88. A. Geoffrey Crane, Michelle L. Cormier, Robyn N. Taylor, James D.A. Parker. 2020. Teaching
emotional and social competencies: Efficacy of a work readiness program designed for vulnerable
youth. Work 67:2, 407-418. [Crossref]
 89. Lucas Coffman, Paul Niehaus. 2020. Pathways of persuasion. Games and Economic Behavior 124,
239-253. [Crossref]
90. Diane Dechief. Designing for a diverse classroom 92-104. [Crossref]
91. René F. Kizilcec, Anna Kambhampaty. 2020. Identifying course characteristics associated with
sociodemographic variation in enrollments across 159 online courses from 20 institutions. PLOS ONE
15:10, e0239766. [Crossref]
92. Shao-Hsun Keng. 2020. Gender bias and statistical discrimination against female instructors in
student evaluations of teaching. Labour Economics 66, 101889. [Crossref]
93. Joyce B. Main, Li Tan, Monica F. Cox, Ebony O. McGee, Andrew Katz. 2020. The correlation
between undergraduate student diversity and the representation of women of color faculty in
engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 109:4, 843-864. [Crossref]
94. Gabriella Tisza, Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Dimitra Christidou, Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula, Iro
Voulgari. 2020. Patterns in informal and non-formal science learning activities for children–A Europe-
wide survey study. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 25, 100184. [Crossref]
95. Nhung Hong Thi Nguyen. De-Gendering Communicative English Classrooms in Vietnam 113-139.
[Crossref]
96. Moses Shayo. 2020. Social Identity and Economic Policy. Annual Review of Economics 12:1, 355-389.
[Crossref]
97. Alex Eble, Feng Hu. 2020. Child beliefs, societal beliefs, and teacher-student identity match.
Economics of Education Review 77, 101994. [Crossref]
98. Ismaël Mourifié, Marc Henry, Romuald Méango. 2020. Sharp Bounds and Testability of a Roy Model
of STEM Major Choices. Journal of Political Economy 128:8, 3220-3283. [Crossref]
99. Izaskun Zuazu. 2020. Graduates’ Opium? Cultural Values, Religiosity and Gender Segregation by Field
of Study. Social Sciences 9:8, 135. [Crossref]
100. Bobby W. Chung. 2020. Peers’ parents and educational attainment: The exposure effect. Labour
Economics 64, 101812. [Crossref]
101. Chris Birdsall, Seth Gershenson, Raymond Zuniga. 2020. The Effects of Demographic Mismatch in
an Elite Professional School Setting. Education Finance and Policy 15:3, 457-486. [Crossref]
102. Barbara Bruno, Cherryle Heu, Grady Weyenberg. 2020. How Do Advisor Assessments of Diverse
Undergraduate Researchers Compare with the Students’ Self-Assessments? And What Does This
Imply for How We Train and Assess Students?. Oceanography 33:2. . [Crossref]
103. John M. Carey, Kevin R. Carman, Katherine P. Clayton, Yusaku Horiuchi, Mala Htun, Brittany Ortiz.
2020. Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences
for gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Politics, Groups, and Identities 8:3, 535-553. [Crossref]
104. K. Schucan Bird, Lesley Pitman. 2020. How diverse is your reading list? Exploring issues of
representation and decolonisation in the UK. Higher Education 79:5, 903-920. [Crossref]
105. Uta K. Schier. 2020. Female and male role models and competitiveness. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization 173, 55-67. [Crossref]
106. Tabitha C. Peck, Laura E. Sockol, Sarah M. Hancock. 2020. Mind the Gap: The Underrepresentation
of Female Participants and Authors in Virtual Reality Research. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics 26:5, 1945-1954. [Crossref]
107. Alice Evans. 2020. “ROCKING OUR PRIORS”: FUN, ENTHUSIASTIC, RIGOROUS, AND
GLORIOUSLY DIVERSE. PS: Political Science & Politics 53:2, 320-322. [Crossref]
108. . The Production of Knowledge 20, . [Crossref]
109. Kevin W. Curry, Dan Spencer, Ondra Pesout, Kimberly Pigford. 2020. Utility value interventions in a
college biology lab: The impact on motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57:2, 232-252.
[Crossref]
110. Ashley Harlow, Stanley M. Lo, Kem Saichaie, Brian K. Sato. 2020. Characterizing the University
of California’s tenure-track teaching position from the faculty and administrator perspectives. PLOS
ONE 15:1, e0227633. [Crossref]
111. Kimberly A. Griffin. Institutional Barriers, Strategies, and Benefits to Increasing the Representation
of Women and Men of Color in the Professoriate 1-73. [Crossref]
112. Kimberly A. Griffin. Institutional Barriers, Strategies, and Benefits to Increasing the Representation
of Women and Men of Color in the Professoriate 277-349. [Crossref]
113. Catherine Riegle-Crumb, Menglu Peng, Tatiane Russo-Tait. 2020. Committed to STEM?
Examining Factors that Predict Occupational Commitment among Asian and White Female Students
Completing STEM U.S. Postsecondary Programs. Sex Roles 82:1-2, 102-116. [Crossref]
114. Jimmy R. Ellis, Seth Gershenson. 2020. Gender, peer advising, and college success. Labour Economics
62, 101775. [Crossref]
115. Geoffrey Odaga. 2020. Gender in Uganda’s tertiary educational distribution. Social Sciences &
Humanities Open 2:1, 100023. [Crossref]
116. Andrew C. Johnston. 2020. Teacher Preferences, Working Conditions, and Compensation Structure.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
117. Rafael Perez Ribas, Breno Sampaio, Giuseppe Trevisan. 2020. Do Relative Disadvantages in College
Reinforce Women's Glass Ceiling?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
118. Tania Babina, Alex Xi He, Sabrina Howell, Elisabeth Perlman, Joseph Staudt. 2020. Does Funding
Source Matter for University R&D? The Effect of Government vs. Industry Grants. SSRN Electronic
Journal 39. . [Crossref]
119. Prasanna Parasurama, Anindya Ghose, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2020. Gender and Race Preferences
in Hiring in the Age of Diversity Goals: Evidence from Silicon Valley Tech Firms. SSRN Electronic
Journal 4. . [Crossref]
120. Chen Chen, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip M. Sadler. 2020. The effect of first high school science teacher's
gender and gender matching on students' science identity in college. Science Education 104:1, 75-99.
[Crossref]
121. Mary Doyle Kent, Fahmida N. Chowdhury, Orlagh Costello, Brenda O’Neill, John Organ, Peter
Kopacek, Larry Stapleton. 2020. TECIS Inclusion and Diversity working group vision. IFAC-
PapersOnLine 53:2, 17415-17420. [Crossref]
122. Amanda McFarland, Sarah Pearlman. 2019. Knowledge Obsolescence and Women’s Occupational
Sorting: New Evidence from Citation Data. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 20:1. .
[Crossref]
123. Marcella Alsan, Owen Garrick, Grant Graziani. 2019. Does Diversity Matter for Health? Experimental
Evidence from Oakland. American Economic Review 109:12, 4071-4111. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
124. Gabriel Burks, Jennifer R. Amos. 2019. Impact of Ethics and Social Awareness Curriculum on the
Engineering Identity Formation of High School Girls. Education Sciences 9:4, 250. [Crossref]
125. Alexandra Graddy-Reed, Lauren Lanahan, Jonathan Eyer. 2019. Gender discrepancies in publication
productivity of high-performing life science graduate students. Research Policy 48:9, 103838.
[Crossref]
126. Kristina S. Brown. 2019. #metoo: Sexual Harassment within Psychology, Social Work, and Marriage/
Couple and Family Therapy Training Programs. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 31:4, 195-210.
[Crossref]
127. Erin Morris, Ryan Vooris, Tara Q. Mahoney. 2019. You Study Like a Girl: Experiences of Female
Sport Management Students. Sport Management Education Journal 13:2, 63-72. [Crossref]
128. Janire Salazar, Carlos Dominguez-Carrió, Josep-Maria Gili, Stefano Ambroso, Jordi Grinyó, Begoña
Vendrell-Simón. 2019. Building a New Ocean Literacy Approach Based on a Simulated Dive in a
Submarine: A Multisensory Workshop to Bring the Deep Sea Closer to People. Frontiers in Marine
Science 6. . [Crossref]
129. John R. Swinton, Chris Clark. 2019. Do Teacher Credentials and Characteristics Affect Teacher
Effectiveness in High School Economics?. The American Economist 9, 056943451987447. [Crossref]
130. Eiji Yamamura. 2019. Gender wage gap and its effect on test scores of immigrant students. Journal
of Economic Studies 46:4, 872-887. [Crossref]
131. Michela Carlana. 2019. Implicit Stereotypes: Evidence from Teachers’ Gender Bias*. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 134:3, 1163-1224. [Crossref]
132. Joseph Vecci, Tomáš Želinský. 2019. Behavioural challenges of minorities: Social identity and role
models. PLOS ONE 14:7, e0220010. [Crossref]
133. Kevin J. Pugh, Michael M. Phillips, Julie M. Sexton, Cassendra M. Bergstrom, Eric M. Riggs. 2019.
A quantitative investigation of geoscience departmental factors associated with the recruitment and
retention of female students. Journal of Geoscience Education 67:3, 266-284. [Crossref]
134. James V. Koch, Ziniya Zahedi. 2019. The effects of role models on college graduation rates. Journal
of Economics and Finance 43:3, 607-617. [Crossref]
135. Sonja Hyrynsalmi, Erkki Sutinen. The role of women software communities in attracting more
women to the software industry 1-7. [Crossref]
136. Dario Sansone. 2019. Teacher Characteristics, Student Beliefs, and the Gender Gap in STEM Fields.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41:2, 127-144. [Crossref]
137. Amanda L. Griffith, Joyce B. Main. 2019. First impressions in the classroom: How do class
characteristics affect student grades and majors?. Economics of Education Review 69, 125-137.
[Crossref]
138. Philip Rosenbaum. 2019. The Family Earnings Gap Revisited: A Household or a Labor Market
Problem?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
139. Mila Getmansky Sherman, Heather Tookes. 2019. Female Representation in the Academic Finance
Profession. SSRN Electronic Journal 108. . [Crossref]
140. Kiran Gangwani, Jennifer Landin. 2018. The Decline of Insect Representation in Biology Textbooks
Over Time. American Entomologist 64:4, 252-257. [Crossref]
141. Joyce B. Main. 2018. Kanter’s Theory of Proportions: Organizational Demography and PhD
Completion in Science and Engineering Departments. Research in Higher Education 59:8, 1059-1073.
[Crossref]
142. Di Xu, Qiujie Li. 2018. Gender achievement gaps among Chinese middle school students and the role
of teachers’ gender. Economics of Education Review 67, 82-93. [Crossref]
143. Mette Gørtz, Eva Rye Johansen, Marianne Simonsen. 2018. Academic achievement and the gender
composition of preschool staff. Labour Economics 55, 241-258. [Crossref]
144. Sule Alan, Seda Ertac, Ipek Mumcu. 2018. Gender Stereotypes in the Classroom and Effects on
Achievement. The Review of Economics and Statistics 100:5, 876-890. [Crossref]
145. Emily A. Holt, T. Heath Ogden, Susan L. Durham. 2018. The positive effect of role models in
evolution instruction. Evolution: Education and Outreach 11:1. . [Crossref]
146. Loukas Balafoutas, Helena Fornwagner, Matthias Sutter. 2018. Closing the gender gap in
competitiveness through priming. Nature Communications 9:1. . [Crossref]
147. Anika Gupta, Deepak Garg, Parteek Kumar. 2018. Analysis of Students’ Ratings of Teaching Quality
to Understand the Role of Gender and Socio-Economic Diversity in Higher Education. IEEE
Transactions on Education 61:4, 319-327. [Crossref]
148. Maame Afua Nkrumah. 2018. The relevance of teacher factors in understanding tertiary students’
performances. Quality Assurance in Education 26:4, 476-488. [Crossref]
149. Christian Dustmann, Hyejin Ku, Do Won Kwak. 2018. Why Are Single-Sex Schools Successful?.
Labour Economics 54, 79-99. [Crossref]
150. Matt Brucker, Emma Price, David Freeman, Jeremy M. Goodman, Yevgeniya V. Zastavker. Going
Beyond Gender Balance: Understanding the Intersection of Gender and the Engineering Experiences
of Alumni 1-8. [Crossref]
151. Rhonda Vonshay Sharpe. 2018. We’ve to Build the Pipeline. What’s the Problem? What’s Next? The
Remix. The Review of Black Political Economy 45:3, 191-215. [Crossref]
152. Sabrina M. Solanki, Di Xu. 2018. Looking Beyond Academic Performance: The Influence of
Instructor Gender on Student Motivation in STEM Fields. American Educational Research Journal
55:4, 801-835. [Crossref]
153. Michelle D. Evans. 2018. Gender representation in MPA ethics courses. Journal of Public Affairs
Education 24:3, 342-360. [Crossref]
154. Sebastian Berger, Christoph Feldhaus, Axel Ockenfels. 2018. A shared identity promotes herding in
an information cascade game. Journal of the Economic Science Association 4:1, 63-72. [Crossref]
155. Jie Gong, Yi Lu, Hong Song. 2018. The Effect of Teacher Gender on Students’ Academic and
Noncognitive Outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics 36:3, 743-778. [Crossref]
156. Brian J. Miller, William L. Skimmyhorn. 2018. I Want You! Expanding College Access through
Targeted Recruiting Efforts. Education Finance and Policy 13:3, 395-418. [Crossref]
157. Ying Shi. 2018. The puzzle of missing female engineers: Academic preparation, ability beliefs, and
preferences. Economics of Education Review 64, 129-143. [Crossref]
158. Christine Min Wotipka, Mana Nakagawa, Joseph Svec. 2018. Global linkages, the higher education
pipeline, and national contexts: The worldwide growth of women faculty, 1970–2012. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology 59:3, 212-238. [Crossref]
159. Hans Fricke, Jeffrey Grogger, Andreas Steinmayr. 2018. Exposure to academic fields and college major
choice. Economics of Education Review 64, 199-213. [Crossref]
160. Maryam Tanwir, Nitya Khemka. 2018. Breaking the silicon ceiling: Gender equality and information
technology in Pakistan. Gender, Technology and Development 22:2, 109-129. [Crossref]
161. Patrick Gaule, Mario Piacentini. 2018. An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers
in science. Research Policy 47:4, 805-813. [Crossref]
162. Patrick A. Puhani. 2018. Do boys benefit from male teachers in elementary school? Evidence from
administrative panel data. Labour Economics 51, 340-354. [Crossref]
163. Lester Lusher, Doug Campbell, Scott Carrell. 2018. TAs like me: Racial interactions between graduate
teaching assistants and undergraduates. Journal of Public Economics 159, 203-224. [Crossref]
164. Steven Bednar, Dora Gicheva. 2018. Career Implications of Having a Female-Friendly Supervisor.
ILR Review 71:2, 426-457. [Crossref]
165. Hyunjoon Park, Jere R. Behrman, Jaesung Choi. 2018. Do single-sex schools enhance students’
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) outcomes?. Economics of Education Review
62, 35-47. [Crossref]
166. Mike Thelwall, Amalia Mas-Bleda. 2018. YouTube science channel video presenters and comments:
female friendly or vestiges of sexism?. Aslib Journal of Information Management 70:1, 28-46. [Crossref]
167. Jeanette Morehouse Mendez, Jesse Perez Mendez. 2018. The Gender Effect in Student Selection of
Professors for Classes. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 11:1, 74-88. [Crossref]
168. Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, Jessica McCloskey. Gender and Academics 5116-5133. [Crossref]
169. Hélène de Ribaupierre, Kathryn Jones, Fernando Loizides, Yulia Cherdantseva. Towards gender
equality in software engineering 10-13. [Crossref]
170. Andreas Born, Eva Ranehill, Anna Sandberg. 2018. A Man's World? The Impact of a Male Dominated
Environment on Female Leadership. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
171. My Nguyen. 2018. The Relationship between Race-Congruent Students and Teachers: Does Racial
Discrimination Exist?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
172. Christopher Birdsall, Seth Gershenson, Raymond Zuniga. 2018. Stereotype Threat, Role Models,
and Demographic Mismatch in an Elite Professional School Setting. SSRN Electronic Journal 28. .
[Crossref]
173. Sima Jannati. 2018. Do Brokerages Benefit From All-Star Females?. SSRN Electronic Journal 94. .
[Crossref]
174. Hani Mansour, Daniel I. Rees, Bryson Rintala, Nathan Wozny. 2018. The Effects of Professor Gender
on the Post-Graduation Outcomes of Female Students. SSRN Electronic Journal 80. . [Crossref]
175. Mette Gørtz, Eva Rye Johansen, Marianne Simonsen. 2018. Academic Achievement and the Gender
Composition of Preschool Staff. SSRN Electronic Journal 33. . [Crossref]
176. Lester Lusher, Vasil Yasenov. 2018. GENDER PERFORMANCE GAPS: QUASI-
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SLEEP
CYCLES. Economic Inquiry 56:1, 252-262. [Crossref]
177. Tisha L. N. Emerson, KimMarie McGoldrick, John J. Siegfried. 2018. The Gender Gap in Economics
Degrees: An Investigation of the Role Model and Quantitative Requirements Hypotheses. Southern
Economic Journal 84:3, 898-911. [Crossref]
178. Dario Sansone. 2017. Why does teacher gender matter?. Economics of Education Review 61, 9-18.
[Crossref]
179. Kimberly Grau Talley, Araceli Martinez Ortiz. 2017. Women’s interest development and motivations
to persist as college students in STEM: a mixed methods analysis of views and voices from a Hispanic-
Serving Institution. International Journal of STEM Education 4:1. . [Crossref]
180. Lauren Russell. 2017. Can learning communities boost success of women and minorities in STEM?
Evidence from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Economics of Education Review 61, 98-111.
[Crossref]
181. Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Sanyukta Baluni, Carey Whitehair. Investigating strategies of pre-tenure
women engineering faculty to overcome microaggressions in the classroom 1-5. [Crossref]
182. Diyi Li, Cory Koedel. 2017. Representation and Salary Gaps by Race-Ethnicity and Gender at Selective
Public Universities. Educational Researcher 46:7, 343-354. [Crossref]
183. SANDRA E. BLACK, PAUL J. DEVEREUX, PETTER LUNDBORG, KAVEH MAJLESI. 2017.
On the Origins of Risk‐Taking in Financial Markets. The Journal of Finance 72:5, 2229-2278.
[Crossref]
184. Shane Thompson. 2017. COLLEGE ADVISING AND GENDER. Economic Inquiry 55:2,
1007-1016. [Crossref]
185. Michał Krawczyk. 2017. Are all researchers male? Gender misattributions in citations. Scientometrics
110:3, 1397-1402. [Crossref]
186. Anne Boring. 2017. Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics 145,
27-41. [Crossref]
187. Natalia Reich-Stiebert, Friederike Eyssel. (Ir)relevance of Gender? 166-176. [Crossref]
188. John M. Carey, Kevin Carman, Katherine Clayton, Yusaku Horiuchi, Mala N. Htun, Brittany Ortiz.
2017. Diversity in Faculty Hiring on Two University Campuses: A Comparison of Faculty and Student
Preferences using Conjoint Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
189. Patrick Gaull, Mario Piacentini. 2017. An Advisor Like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-Graduate
Careers in Science. SSRN Electronic Journal 39. . [Crossref]
190. Michhle MMller-Itten, Aniko Oery. 2017. Mentoring and the Dynamics of Affirmative Action. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
191. Ulf ZZlitz, Jan Feld. 2017. The Effect of Peer Gender on Major Choice. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
192. Kristina Meier, Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi, Stefan Ruenzi. 2017. The Impact of Role Models on
Women's Self-Selection in Competitive Environments. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
193. Seo-Young Cho. 2017. Gender-Matching School Effects on Girlss Cognitive and Non-Cognitive
Performance Empirical Evidence From South Korea. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
194. Seth Gershenson, Cassandra Hart, Constance Lindsay, Nicholas W. Papageorge. 2017. The Long-
Run Impacts of Same-Race Teachers. SSRN Electronic Journal 33. . [Crossref]
195. Ken Chung. 2016. Moral muteness of faculty in management education. The International Journal of
Management Education 14:3, 228-239. [Crossref]
196. Nausheen Pasha-Zaidi, Ernest Afari. 2016. Gender in STEM Education: an Exploratory Study of
Student Perceptions of Math and Science Instructors in the United Arab Emirates. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 14:7, 1215-1231. [Crossref]
197. Chad M. Topaz, Shilad Sen. 2016. Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the
Mathematical Sciences. PLOS ONE 11:8, e0161357. [Crossref]
198. Cait Unkovic, Maya Sen, Kevin M. Quinn. 2016. Does Encouragement Matter in Improving Gender
Imbalances in Technical Fields? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial. PLOS ONE 11:4,
e0151714. [Crossref]
199. Corey Lee Wrenn. 2016. An Analysis of Diversity in Nonhuman Animal Rights Media. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29:2, 143-165. [Crossref]
200. Jamie Johnston, Prashant Loyalka, James Chu, Yingquan Song, Hongmei Yi, Xiaoting Huang. 2016.
The Impact of Vocational Teachers on Student Learning in Developing Countries. Comparative
Education Review 60:1, 131-150. [Crossref]
201. Elizabeth Stearns, Martha Cecilia Bottía, Eleonora Davalos, Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Stephanie
Moller, Lauren Valentino. 2016. Demographic Characteristics of High School Math and Science
Teachers and Girls’ Success in STEM. Social Problems 63:1, 87-110. [Crossref]
202. Mark Maier, W. Edward Chi. 2016. Community college economics instruction: Results from a
National Science Foundation Project. The Journal of Economic Education 47:1, 84-88. [Crossref]
203. Susan Murcott. D-Lab and MIT IDEAS Global Challenge: Lessons in Mentoring,
Transdisciplinarity and Real World Engineering for Sustainable Development 213-233. [Crossref]
204. Eiji Yamamura. 2016. Gender Wage Gap and Its Effect on Test Scores of Immigrant Students. SSRN
Electronic Journal 46. . [Crossref]
205. Joe Vecci, Tomas Zelinsky. 2016. Social Identity and Role Models. SSRN Electronic Journal 115. .
[Crossref]
206. Jie Gong, Yi Lu, Hong Song. 2016. The Effect of Teacher Gender on Students' Academic and
Noncognitive Outcomes. SSRN Electronic Journal 114. . [Crossref]
207. Jimmy Ellis, Seth Gershenson. 2016. LATE for the Meeting: Gender, Peer Advising, and College
Success. SSRN Electronic Journal 15. . [Crossref]
208. Kamila Danilowicz-GGsele. 2016. 'A' is the Aim?. SSRN Electronic Journal 93. . [Crossref]
209. Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, Jessica McCloskey. Gender and Academics 1-18. [Crossref]
210. Thomas Breda, Son Thierry Ly. 2015. Professors in Core Science Fields Are Not Always Biased
against Women: Evidence from France. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7:4, 53-75.
[Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
211. Megan M. Henley. 2015. Women's Success in Academic Science: Challenges to Breaking Through
the Ivory Ceiling. Sociology Compass 9:8, 668-680. [Crossref]
212. Sam Allgood, William B. Walstad, John J. Siegfried. 2015. Research on Teaching Economics to
Undergraduates. Journal of Economic Literature 53:2, 285-325. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF
with links]
213. Otmar E Varela, John J Cater III, Norbert Michel. 2015. Learner-instructor similarity: a social
attribution approach to learning. Journal of Management Development 34:4, 460-475. [Crossref]
214. Martha Cecilia Bottia, Elizabeth Stearns, Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Stephanie Moller, Lauren
Valentino. 2015. Growing the roots of STEM majors: Female math and science high school faculty
and the participation of students in STEM. Economics of Education Review 45, 14-27. [Crossref]
215. Anna J. Egalite, Brian Kisida, Marcus A. Winters. 2015. Representation in the classroom: The effect
of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review 45, 44-52. [Crossref]
216. Martha Cecilia Bottia, Elizabeth Stearns, Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Stephanie Moller, Ashley Dawn
Parler. 2015. The Relationships among High School STEM Learning Experiences and Students’
Intent to Declare and Declaration of a STEM Major in College. Teachers College Record: The Voice
of Scholarship in Education 117:3, 1-46. [Crossref]
217. Heather Antecol, Ozkan Eren, Serkan Ozbeklik. 2015. The Effect of Teacher Gender on Student
Achievement in Primary School. Journal of Labor Economics 33:1, 63-89. [Crossref]
218. Elizabeth Patitsas, Michelle Craig, Steve Easterbrook. Scaling up Women in Computing Initiatives
61-69. [Crossref]
219. Michael S. Kofoed, Elizabeth McGovney. 2015. The Effect of Same-Gender and Same-Race Role
Models on Occupation Choice: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Mentors at West Point. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
220. Stephen J. Ceci, Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, Wendy M. Williams. 2014. Women in Academic
Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15:3, 75-141. [Crossref]
221. Marisa K. Orr, Christa Swafford, Sara Hahler, David Hall. Factors that influence confidence:
Untangling the influences of gender, achievement, and hands-on activities 1-5. [Crossref]
222. Robert W. Fairlie, Florian Hoffmann, Philip Oreopoulos. 2014. A Community College Instructor
Like Me: Race and Ethnicity Interactions in the Classroom. American Economic Review 104:8,
2567-2591. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
223. Thomas Breda. 2014. 5. Pourquoi y a-t-il si peu de femmes en science ?. Regards croisés sur l'économie
n° 15:2, 99-116. [Crossref]
224. Amanda L. Griffith. 2014. Faculty Gender in the College Classroom: Does It Matter for Achievement
and Major Choice?. Southern Economic Journal 81:1, 211-231. [Crossref]
225. Steven Bednar, Dora Gicheva. 2014. Are Female Supervisors More Female-Friendly?. American
Economic Review 104:5, 370-375. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
226. Valentina Paredes. 2014. A teacher like me or a student like me? Role model versus teacher bias effect.
Economics of Education Review 39, 38-49. [Crossref]
227. Kristen Renwick Monroe, Jenny Choi, Emily Howell, Chloe Lampros-Monroe, Crystal Trejo,
Valentina Perez. 2014. Gender Equality in the Ivory Tower, and How Best to Achieve It. PS: Political
Science & Politics 47:02, 418-426. [Crossref]
228. Lena E. Hensvik. 2014. Manager Impartiality: Worker-Firm Matching and the Gender Wage Gap.
ILR Review 67:2, 395-421. [Crossref]
229. Reshma Jagsi, Kent A. Griffith, Rochelle A. DeCastro, Peter Ubel. 2014. Sex, Role Models, and
Specialty Choices Among Graduates of US Medical Schools in 2006–2008. Journal of the American
College of Surgeons 218:3, 345-352. [Crossref]
230. Paul A. Gompers, Vladimir Mukharlyamov, Emily Weisburst, Yuhai Xuan. 2014. Gender Effects in
Venture Capital. SSRN Electronic Journal 8. . [Crossref]
231. Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, Amber Settle. A Framework for Addressing Gender Imbalance
in the Game Industry through Outreach 186-205. [Crossref]
232. Jolene K. Teske, Phyllis Gray, Julie L. Klein, Audrey C. Rule. 2014. Making Dioramas of Women
Scientists Help Elementary Students Recognize Their Contributions. Creative Education 05:23,
1984-2002. [Crossref]
233. Zahra Hazari, Geoff Potvin, Robynne M. Lock, Florin Lung, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip M. Sadler.
2013. Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common
hypotheses. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 9:2. . [Crossref]
234. Joyce B. Main. Institutional benefits policies and family formation among engineering faculty 608-610.
[Crossref]
235. Kelly Mack, Claudia Rankins, Kamilah Woodson. 2013. From Graduate School to the STEM
Workforce: An Entropic Approach to Career Identity Development for STEM Women of Color. New
Directions for Higher Education 2013:163, 23-34. [Crossref]
236. Michael Bromley. 2013. The ‘new majority’ and the academization of journalism. Journalism 14:5,
569-586. [Crossref]
237. Hyunjoon Park, Jere R. Behrman, Jaesung Choi. 2013. Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on
College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools.
Demography 50:2, 447-469. [Crossref]
238. Cassandra Michele Benson, Daniel K. N. Johnson, Kristina M. Lybecker. 2013. Bidding for Classes:
Course Allocation Under the Colorado College Auction System. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
239. Sonia Bhalotra, Irma ClotssFigueras, Lakshmi Iyer. 2013. Path-Breakers: How Does Women's
Political Participation Respond to Electoral Success?. SSRN Electronic Journal 114. . [Crossref]
240. Elaine Howard Ecklund, Anne E. Lincoln, Cassandra Tansey. 2012. Gender Segregation in Elite
Academic Science. Gender & Society 26:5, 693-717. [Crossref]
241. W.Z. Wan Chik, Y. Salamonson, B. Everett, L.M. Ramjan, N. Attwood, R. Weaver, Z. Saad, P.M.
Davidson. 2012. Gender difference in academic performance of nursing students in a Malaysian
university college. International Nursing Review 59:3, 387-393. [Crossref]
242. Sarah R. Brauner‐Otto. 2012. Schools, Their Spatial Distribution and Characteristics, and Fertility
Limitation*. Rural Sociology 77:3, 321-354. [Crossref]
243. Carol Frieze, Jeria L. Quesenberry, Elizabeth Kemp, Anthony Velázquez. 2012. Diversity or
Difference? New Research Supports the Case for a Cultural Perspective on Women in Computing.
Journal of Science Education and Technology 21:4, 423-439. [Crossref]
244. Sabine Severiens, Geert ten Dam. 2012. Leaving College: A Gender Comparison in Male and Female-
Dominated Programs. Research in Higher Education 53:4, 453-470. [Crossref]
245. Sari Mullola, Niklas Ravaja, Jari Lipsanen, Saija Alatupa, Mirka Hintsanen, Markus Jokela, Liisa
Keltikangas‐Järvinen. 2012. Gender differences in teachers’ perceptions of students’ temperament,
educational competence, and teachability. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82:2, 185-206.
[Crossref]
246. Ronald G. Ehrenberg, George H. Jakubson, Mirinda L. Martin, Joyce B. Main, Thomas Eisenberg.
2012. Diversifying the faculty across gender lines: Do trustees and administrators matter?. Economics
of Education Review 31:1, 9-18. [Crossref]
247. Rose M. Marra, Kelly A. Rodgers, Demei Shen, Barbara Bogue. 2012. Leaving Engineering: A Multi-
Year Single Institution Study. Journal of Engineering Education 101:1, 6-27. [Crossref]
248. Adrianna Kezar, Cecile Sam. 2011. Understanding Non-Tenure Track Faculty. American Behavioral
Scientist 55:11, 1419-1442. [Crossref]
249. ŞEnay Purzer. 2011. The Relationship Between Team Discourse, Self-Efficacy, and Individual
Achievement: A Sequential Mixed-Methods Study. Journal of Engineering Education 100:4, 655-679.
[Crossref]
250. Keith J. Bowman. 2011. Gender diversity changes in a small engineering discipline: materials science
and engineering. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:2, 127-144. [Crossref]
251. Heinz Leitgöb, Johann Bacher, Norbert Lachmayr. Ursachen der geschlechtsspezifischen
Benachteiligung von Jungen im österreichischen Schulsystem 149-176. [Crossref]
252. Bertrand Marianne. New Perspectives on Gender 1543-1590. [Crossref]
253. Amanda L. Griffith. 2010. Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school
that matters?. Economics of Education Review 29:6, 911-922. [Crossref]
254. Joshua Price. 2010. The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields.
Economics of Education Review 29:6, 901-910. [Crossref]
255. Maria L. Loureiro, Anna Sanz-de-Galdeano, Daniela Vuri. 2010. Smoking Habits: Like Father,
Like Son, Like Mother, Like Daughter?*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 72:6, 717-743.
[Crossref]
256. Heike Diefenbach. Jungen – die „neuen“ Bildungsverlierer 245-271. [Crossref]
257. Jaya Chitranshi, Shailja Agarwal. Knowledge Transfer: Do Instructor Characteristics Matter?
648-655. [Crossref]
258. Cynthia Bansak, Martha Starr. 2010. Gender Differences in Predispositions towards Economics.
Eastern Economic Journal 36:1, 33-57. [Crossref]
259. Bridget Terry Long. 2010. Beyond Admissions: Reflections and Future Considerations. The ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627:1, 216-225. [Crossref]
260. Robert C. Tatum, Keisha L. Childers. 2010. The Distribution and Utilization of Class Time: How
Long Should Class be and Should Students Even Attend?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
261. 2010. Table of Contents. ASHE Higher Education Report 36:5, 1-91. [Crossref]
262. Murray Webster, Lisa Slattery Rashotte. 2009. Fixed Roles and Situated Actions. Sex Roles 61:5-6,
325-337. [Crossref]
263. Helena Holmlund, Krister Sund. 2008. Is the gender gap in school performance affected by the sex
of the teacher?. Labour Economics 15:1, 37-53. [Crossref]
264. Stefanie Behncke, Markus Froelich, Michael Lechner. 2008. A Caseworker Like Me - Does the
Similarity between Unemployed and Caseworker Increase Job Placements?. SSRN Electronic Journal
74. . [Crossref]
265. Gerhard Sonnert, Mary Frank Fox, Kristen Adkins. 2007. Undergraduate Women in Science and
Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions Over Time *. Social Science Quarterly 88:5,
1333-1356. [Crossref]
266. Andreas Ammermueller, Peter Dolton. 2006. Pupil-Teacher Gender Interaction Effects on Scholastic
Outcomes in England and the Usa. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
267. Tammara Petrill Thomas, Michelle Lee Maultsby. Mentoring African American Women at
Historically Black Colleges/Universities 97-125. [Crossref]