Abstract
Despite increased efforts to improve gender diversity, women remain underrepresented and underserved across many Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in advanced and leadership positions. While previous research has extensively documented structural barriers such as gender bias, lack of mentorship, and work-life imbalance, the comprehensive understanding of the nuanced and diverse range of individual career experiences of women who succeed in these domains remains impoverished. This study addresses this gap by collecting and analyzing qualitative data from accomplished women in STEM along five thematic categories: personal traits, education and skills, career navigation, institutional barriers, and personal struggles, and organizing these patterns into three classes—established (well-documented in literature), developing (high research activity), and emerging (minimally or unaddressed in literature). By integrating the lived experiences of women in STEM, this work contributes to a comprehensive conceptual framework that enhances the understanding of women’s career journeys, highlights underexamined challenges and motivations, and provides an empirical basis for designing targeted mentorship initiatives and future research.
Keywords: women in STEM, STEM education, mentorship, career pathways, gender equity.
Introduction
In spite of numerous initiatives to promote gender equity, significant barriers still preclude many young women, especially those from underrepresented communities, from pursuing STEM careers. Globally, while women make up over half of all tertiary education students, they remain considerably less likely to choose STEM fields. According to data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, published in the 2024 GEM Gender Report (UNESCO 2024), women accounted for only 35% of STEM graduates between 2018 and 2023, showing no progress over the past decade. The significant disparity in STEM education is mirrored in the workforce, where women held less than 25% of science, engineering, and ICT jobs in 2022. This underrepresentation, along with persistent accounts of bias, discrimination, and harassment, highlights the pressing need for systemic efforts to improve the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in STEM (National Academies of Sciences 2020).
Recent reports on female students’ participation in STEM careers (Australian Academy of Science 2019; STEMWomen 2024; YouScience 2024), identify present barriers that discourage young women from pursuing careers in engineering, which include biases about women’s abilities in engineering, experiencing imposter syndrome, a lack of technical career exposure, and concerns about work-life balance in the field. These studies highlight the need to address the gendered disparities in STEM, specifically through collaboration among educational institutions, stronger connections with the job market, empowerment through professional associations, and expanded access to professional networks.
The City of Chicago, with its rich diversity and vibrant educational landscape, presents both challenges and opportunities for addressing gender equity in STEM (Talen 2006). This research project aims to gain a deeper understanding of the career pathways of accomplished women in STEM, identifying the categories that influenced their career choices and the key factors that contributed to their success. Previous research has shown that exposure to female role models significantly enhances students’ expectations of success, positively influencing their decisions to pursue STEM careers (González-Pérez, Mateos De Cabo, and Sáinz 2020). Preliminary findings from this project confirm the importance of mentorship, early encouragement, and community support in helping women overcome systemic and personal barriers.
By capturing a wide spectrum of career-shaping patterns—categorized into personal traits, skills, institutional challenges, and navigation strategies—this study provides a nuanced understanding of what contributes to women’s success in STEM. Drawing on real-life examples, the study offers insights that will inform the development of a scalable mentorship and outreach model. The ultimate goal is to inspire and empower the next generation of high school girls in Chicago to pursue STEM education and careers, contributing to a more diverse, equitable, and resilient STEM workforce.
Background
With decades of advocacy and institutional reform, the gender gap still persists across educational pathways and career stages, revealing systemic challenges that impede women’s full participation and advancement in STEM fields.
According to LinkedIn data cited in recent global reports, women comprise only 28.2% of the STEM workforce, compared to 47.3% in non-STEM sectors (World Economic Forum 2023). This disparity reflects a form of horizontal segregation, where women are less likely to enter STEM fields in the first place. Moreover, the well-documented “leaky pipeline” (Stefani et al. 2024) phenomenon shows that women who do enter STEM are more likely to exit the field before reaching senior roles. While women make up more than half of the workforce in non-STEM roles, they account for only a third in STEM, and this drops further at leadership levels—where they represent only around one-tenth of STEM leaders, compared to a quarter in non-STEM sectors (Chavatzia 2017).
Numerous studies have documented the barriers that contribute to this attrition, including gender stereotypes, bias in recruitment and promotion, lack of mentorship, and institutional cultures that undervalue women’s contributions (Hill, Corbett, and St Rose 2010). Childcare responsibilities, work-life imbalance, and mental health stressors further contribute to high dropout rates, especially in early and mid-career stages (Cech and Blair-Loy 2019).
While these structural factors are well-established, research on career patterns of women in STEM has been more limited and fragmented. Foundational work by Carlone and Johnson (2007) emphasized the importance of science identity and recognition by others as central to persistence. Subsequent research has explored various pathways and decision points, such as the role of early exposure, academic mentorship (Dennehy and Dasgupta 2017), and non-linear career trajectories (Blackburn 2017), particularly among women who enter STEM through unconventional routes or re-enter after career interruptions.
Studies by Clark Blickenstaff (2005) have also examined how factors like institutional climate, self-efficacy, and career confidence contribute to women’s persistence or departure from STEM. However, there remains a need for frameworks that integrate personal traits, skills, career navigation strategies, and barriers across the life course, particularly for women who have not only remained but also advanced in these fields.
This study contributes to the field by collecting extensive qualitative data on the lived experiences of accomplished women in STEM, identifying a wide array of patterns grouped into thematic categories. Furthermore, the research categorizes the patterns into three distinct classes, laying the foundation for future studies to validate these insights and support evidence-based interventions.
Research objectives
This project has two primary objectives:
To collect and analyze qualitative data on the career pathways of accomplished women in STEM.
To classify the identified patterns based on their representation in existing literature and empirical findings, and to highlight critical areas for future research and policy attention.
The insights generated through this study will serve as a foundation for developing sustainable mentorship networks that provide meaningful, long-term support to young women in STEM. By translating lived experiences into actionable frameworks, the project aims to inspire future generations, close equity gaps, and contribute to building a more inclusive and diverse STEM workforce.
Contribution
This research makes several key contributions to the understanding of women’s experiences in STEM:
Identification of a broad spectrum of career-shaping patterns based on the lived experiences of accomplished women in STEM. These patterns reflect common trajectories and unique, individualized pathways influencing success and persistence in STEM fields.
Categorization of patterns into five thematic domains: personal traits, education and skills, career navigation, institutional barriers, and personal struggles. This structure provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing the multifaceted influences on women’s STEM careers.
Classification of patterns into three research-based classes—established, developing, and emerging—based on their presence in existing literature and empirical data. This classification not only synthesizes current knowledge but also highlights key areas that require deeper exploration.
Definition and contextualization of discovered and underexplored patterns using real-life examples drawn from qualitative interviews. These examples illuminate emerging and overlooked challenges, enriching the narrative beyond what is typically addressed in mainstream research. Together, these contributions offer both a conceptual framework and empirical foundation for advancing future research, informing targeted interventions, and guiding mentorship initiatives that aim to support a more inclusive and equitable STEM ecosystem.
Methodology
The study employs a qualitative, data-driven approach, collecting and analyzing data to explore the career pathways of accomplished women in STEM. The procedures include participant recruitment, surveys and interviews, and data analysis.
Potential female study participants must meet at least two of the following criteria:
Academic achievements: associate, Bachelor’s, or Master’s degree in a STEM field.
Career longevity: at least 5-10 years of experience in a STEM field.
Significant achievements in STEM: a PhD degree, awards, published research, or impactful projects.
Professional recognition: leadership roles or active membership in STEM-related professional organizations.
Among similar candidates, preference is given to those who meet at least one of the following additional criteria:
Diverse Backgrounds: belonging to underrepresented ethnicities or socioeconomic groups, or representing non-traditional career paths.
Range of STEM Disciplines: the pool of candidates should represent a variety of STEM fields, including academia, industry, government, and entrepreneurship.
Mentorship experience: prior experience in mentorship roles.
Participants are recruited based on predefined inclusion criteria using a snowball sampling approach. Recruitment efforts leverage personal networks and connections within STEM communities by distributing invitation flyers and conducting targeted email outreach. Initially, participants complete an online demographic survey to collect information such as age, ethnicity, educational background, years of experience, professional achievements, and mentorship history, among other details, to ensure alignment with the inclusion criteria and provide context for analyzing their career experiences. Eligible candidates who consent to participate receive a follow-up enrollment email providing detailed information about the study and including the informed consent form. Responding to the enrollment email, participants specify their availability, preferred dates and times, and whether they prefer an online or in-person interview.
The in-depth, semi-structured interviews focus on participants’ experiences across the key stages: childhood, high school, university, and professional life, framed within the broader discourse on women’s careers in science and technology (Delamont 1994). This approach aims to understand the challenges and opportunities that women face at each stage of their career journey, providing insights into the factors that influence career development in STEM fields.
The interview structure contains open-ended questions designed to:
identify challenges faced by women in choosing STEM careers;
understand their motivations and goals;
examine their diverse career pathways;
explore how they overcome workplace challenges;
highlight the support systems they rely on;
identify key areas for mentorship.
The detailed list of interview questions is provided in Appendix Table 1.
The interviews are audio-recorded (with consent) and subsequently transcribed for analysis. To protect participant confidentiality, all data is de-identified by removing any personally identifiable information during transcription.
The collected anonymized data is analyzed using thematic analysis to uncover recurring patterns, critical success factors, and unique experiences that shape the STEM career journeys of accomplished women. The process begins with open coding of interview transcripts, followed by iterative refinement into broader themes. A coding framework has been developed to guide this analysis, enabling the capture of both common and outlier experiences. Qualitative analysis software is used to efficiently manage and organize data. This structured approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of influential factors and supports the design of a responsive mentorship framework.
Discussions
This study set out to explore the diverse and often underrepresented experiences of accomplished women in STEM, focusing on identifying the patterns that shape their career trajectories.
To contextualize the insights, a total of 7 survey responses and 6 interviews were collected from participants representing a broad range of backgrounds. Subjects ranged in age from 25 to over 55, with educational attainment spanning bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Ethnic identities included Caucasian/White, Hispanic/Latina, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Tunisian. Professionally, the participants held roles such as academic researchers, department heads, project managers, and industry professionals across disciplines, including architectural design, transportation engineering, chemical engineering, and data science.
This diversity reflects a wide spectrum of lived experiences and challenges, reinforcing the importance of acknowledging outliers and individual narratives in STEM career development. Rather than focusing on frequency, this study prioritized depth and nuance, recognizing that even unique or uncommon experiences may hold critical insights for mentorship and program design.
Through qualitative analysis, five key categories emerged as central to understanding these experiences: personal traits, education and skills, career navigation, institutional barriers, and personal struggles. Personal traits refer to inherent or developed characteristics—such as perseverance, adaptability, and ambition—that influence women’s ability to persist in STEM. Education and skills encompass formal learning experiences, technical competencies, and soft skills acquired throughout academic and professional development. Career navigation includes the strategies, motivations, and external influences that guide women’s decisions, transitions, and progress across different STEM pathways. Institutional barriers highlight structural and systemic challenges such as bias, exclusionary cultures, and lack of access to mentorship that disproportionately affect women’s advancement. Finally, personal struggles capture the internal and interpersonal difficulties women face, including mental health challenges, work-life conflict, and self-doubt. These five categories provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual agency and systemic constraints in shaping women’s STEM careers.
Pattern classification
To comprehensively capture the diverse experiences of women in STEM, the study categorized all identified traits, barriers, struggles, and career navigation elements into three research-based pattern types: established, developing, and emerging (Table 2 in the Appendix). This classification was developed through a review of existing literature and qualitative findings from the conducted research.
Established patterns are consistently supported by prior studies and widely cited in research on gender in STEM, forming the foundation of existing frameworks used to understand gender disparities in STEM fields.
Developing patterns include emergent insights that appeared either through anecdotal accounts in literature or directly from the participant narratives in this study. While these patterns have some grounding in prior research or observed behaviors, they remain less systematically studied and lack robust quantitative validation, signaling the need for further investigation.
Emerging patterns highlight gaps in the current research landscape. These elements emerged from firsthand accounts and context-specific narratives but are largely absent from scholarly literature, pointing to promising directions for future research.
This color-coding framework visually reflects the level of research maturity behind each pattern. Green denotes established categories—widely supported and well-documented in the literature. Yellow marks developing areas that show promise but need further validation. Blue signals emerging patterns—new or underexplored themes identified in qualitative data. The progression from green to blue aligns with increasing novelty and decreasing evidence, while ensuring accessibility and clear visual contrast.
By organizing patterns along this research-based continuum, the project maps the current state of knowledge and identifies where research expansion is most needed. This structure helps prioritize future efforts in policy, education, and mentorship design to better support the evolving and nuanced needs of women in STEM.
Personal traits
This study highlights a diverse and evolving spectrum of personal traits that contribute to women’s success in STEM. Drawing on both established literature and participant insights, the findings underscore the need to expand our understanding of what success entails in these fields.
Several traits are firmly established in the literature and were echoed across interviews. These include adaptability, altruism, autonomy, career aspiration, diligence, grit, perseverance, continuous learning, purpose orientation, self-awareness, self-discipline, and social responsibility. These traits are frequently cited in research as essential for academic success, professional resilience, and advancement in STEM environments (Coenen, Borghans, and Diris 2021; Dickson and Alharthi 2025).
Several traits in this study are categorized as developing, reflecting growing attention in academic discourse, but still lacking comprehensive validation. For example, while the technical mindset is often assumed as a baseline in STEM, it remains underexplored in terms of how women cultivate and apply it uniquely in their roles (Gill 2012). Also, risk-taking was characterized by fearlessness, openness to new experiences, and a willingness to take unconventional paths (Petzel and Casad 2022; Taylor 2023). Additionally, geographic mobility—the willingness to relocate or work internationally—was identified as an increasingly relevant, yet underexamined, trait influencing women’s career choices (Rosenfeld and Jones 1987; Shauman and Xie 1996).
The research also uncovered an emerging trait that is minimally addressed in existing STEM literature but surfaced consistently in interviews. The ability to thrive in fast-paced environments reflects the capacity to function in high-pressure, high-demand STEM work cultures (Britt and Jex 2015; Coenen, Borghans, and Diris 2021). While not traditionally recognized as indicators of success, they may reflect the adaptability and dynamism required in today’s global, innovation-driven STEM landscape.
Taken together, this classification provides a more comprehensive view of the internal strengths and motivations that support women’s persistence and leadership. It calls for broader definitions of success that reflect not only academic and technical excellence but also courage, flexibility, and purpose-driven engagement—traits that may be particularly vital across different life stages and career transitions.
Education and Skills
This study reinforces the significant role of education and skills in shaping women’s entry and advancement in STEM fields. The traits and competencies discussed by participants align with multiple levels of academic validation, ranging from long-established themes to newer and underexplored areas.
A number of skills are well-established in the literature and frequently cited as core to success in STEM. These include academic performance in the sciences, confidence, collaboration, attainment of a doctoral degree, experiential learning, an inclusive environment, leadership, and professional networking (Blackburn 2017). These skills are supported by extensive research demonstrating their relevance in reducing gender gaps, enhancing retention, and improving academic and career outcomes for women in STEM. For example, collaborative learning environments and hands-on inquiry-based experiences are especially effective in engaging female students (Jiang 2021). Similarly, cultivating leadership and professional networks is critical for navigating systemic barriers and supporting long-term progression (Sanni 2025).
Several other skills appeared in this study as developing, including creativity, digital skills, emotional intelligence, problem-solving skills, public speaking, self-learning, and teamwork. Participants emphasized the value of these competencies, particularly in leadership, communication, and adapting to new digital demands. For example, emotional intelligence was often described as essential for navigating interpersonal dynamics and advancing in collaborative or managerial roles, yet remains underexamined in traditional STEM literature.
Finally, several elements surfaced as emerging skills—those which are only recently beginning to appear in the literature or were highlighted by participants despite minimal academic coverage. These include critical thinking, building long-term professional relationships, English language proficiency, and interdisciplinary training. These skills reflect changing expectations within the STEM landscape, where global collaboration, cross-disciplinary thinking, and sustained mentorship are increasingly vital for innovation and career mobility. For example, English proficiency and interdisciplinary training are especially relevant for international scholars and women entering cross-sectoral or global research roles, yet are not often prioritized in current STEM gender-equity programs.
Altogether, this categorization underscores the need for a broader and more inclusive understanding of the educational pathways and professional skills that enable women to thrive in STEM. It also points to gaps where further research and programmatic attention are needed to support diverse learning styles, communication strengths, and long-term professional development strategies for women in these fields.
Institutional Barriers
The study highlights a complex and layered set of institutional barriers that continue to shape women’s participation and persistence in STEM fields. These barriers range from long-documented societal and structural limitations to newer, underexamined forms of bias that reflect evolving workplace and educational contexts. Several barriers are established in the literature and consistently cited as core contributors to the gender gap in STEM. These include sociocultural barriers, family discouragement, gender stereotypes, government policy barriers, limited STEM exposure, and media representation bias (Smeding 2012). For instance, sociocultural barriers often manifest in environments with strong traditional gender norms that restrict girls’ educational and professional aspirations. Similarly, gender stereotypes and family discouragement remain well-documented obstacles, where women are often subtly or overtly dissuaded from pursuing technical careers. Institutional factors such as limited STEM exposure—particularly in early education—and media representation bias also shape STEM identity formation by limiting access to relatable role models and reinforcing narrow representations of who “belongs” in these fields. In addition, government policy barriers, such as rollbacks of diversity initiatives or a lack of gender-sensitive funding, have been shown to exacerbate structural inequities, especially for women from underrepresented groups.
At the same time, the study identifies a set of emerging barriers that, although not yet widely explored in the STEM literature, were frequently raised by participants and warrant further investigation, including language barriers (non-native language) and religious constraints. Language barriers pose unique challenges for non-native English speakers in publishing, instruction, and academic collaboration—yet this issue remains largely overlooked in policy and program design. Religious constraints may influence women’s choice of field or participation levels, but remain underexplored as a systemic factor.
Among emerging themes are age-related bias, appearance-based bias, and physical capabilities stereotypes. Age-related bias was cited by some participants who entered STEM at a nontraditional age or were perceived as “too young” for leadership positions, often facing skepticism about their competence or readiness. Appearance-based bias—primarily directed at women whose physical presentation doesn’t conform to STEM’s stereotypical expectations—reflects how credibility can be undermined based on superficial judgment rather than ability. This subtle but potent form of discrimination adds to the psychological burden and visibility pressure that many women experience in the field. Physical capabilities stereotypes, which suggest women are less suited for physically intensive STEM roles, can potentially limit access to certain disciplines like field-based engineering or lab sciences.
Together, these barriers—both established and emerging—underscore the enduring systemic inequities that women face in STEM environments. Addressing these issues requires not only policy reform and inclusive pedagogies but also a deeper cultural shift within institutions to challenge subtle forms of exclusion and to validate the diverse identities and trajectories of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Personal struggles
The findings from this study illuminate the often-overlooked but deeply impactful personal struggles that many women in STEM face throughout their educational and professional journeys.
Several struggles are established in the literature and have been widely studied as significant barriers to women’s advancement, comprising credibility bias, doctoral student challenges, imposter syndrome, and work-life imbalance (Wilkins-Yel et al. 2022). Work–life imbalance has emerged as a leading challenge, often forcing women to navigate between career ambitions and caregiving duties, which in turn contributes to attrition in STEM roles. The imposter syndrome—a feeling of self-doubt or intellectual fraudulence—is another well-established struggle, frequently cited among high-achieving women in male-dominated environments. It is often accompanied by credibility struggles, wherein women must continuously prove their competence to gain equal recognition—a pattern known as the “prove-it-again” bias. This phenomenon not only undermines confidence but also adds cognitive and emotional burden to already demanding roles.
Some issues are developing, such as anxiety, emotional regulation, work-related stress, and mental health problems. While mental health disparities among professional women have been increasingly acknowledged—especially around stress, depression, and burnout—there is still a lack of research focused specifically on women in STEM. Emotional regulation—the unspoken expectation for women to perform emotional labor by maintaining composure and empathy—also surfaced as a burden, especially in male-majority teams or high-pressure environments. Anxiety, though prevalent, remains underrepresented in STEM-specific studies, despite its significant impact on performance and persistence. Work-related stress is a common theme in research, with women in STEM reporting higher levels of daily stress compared to men, particularly when managing intense workloads alongside disproportionate domestic responsibilities. Women in STEM PhD programs described a complex interplay of emotional, financial, and supervisory stressors that affect their well-being and progress.
The study also identified several emerging struggles that are under-theorized but were reported by participants as having a significant impact. These include overcommitment (difficulty saying “no”) and insomnia. Overcommitment, particularly the difficulty in setting boundaries or declining tasks, was reported as a subtle but pervasive issue, contributing to burnout. Insomnia, often linked to chronic stress and anxiety, was cited as a frequent yet rarely addressed health concern among STEM professionals.
These findings demonstrate that women’s struggles in STEM are multifaceted, spanning psychological, emotional, and social dimensions. Addressing these challenges requires a more nuanced understanding of women’s lived experiences and the invisible emotional labor they often carry. Future research and institutional support systems must aim to destigmatize these struggles and develop proactive interventions that prioritize well-being alongside performance and achievement.
Controversial patterns: motherhood and success in STEM
Motherhood remains a significant and often contentious factor in the career trajectories of women in STEM. Extensive research has shown that having biological children is strongly associated with career disruptions. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 43% of women leave full-time STEM employment after their first child, compared to 23% of men (Cech and Blair-Loy 2019). Factors contributing to this attrition include:
Lack of institutional support Many workplaces lack adequate parental leave policies and flexible work arrangements, making it challenging for mothers to balance work and family responsibilities.
Cultural expectations The prevailing culture in STEM fields often expects employees to prioritize work above all else, which can conflict with caregiving responsibilities.
Childcare responsibilities Women often shoulder a disproportionate share of childcare duties, impacting their career progression (Hong et al. 2025).
While specific studies on adopted children are limited, research suggests that the challenges faced by adoptive mothers in STEM are similar to those of biological mothers. The demands of parenting, regardless of biological relation, can lead to career interruptions or shifts to part-time work (Cech and Blair-Loy 2019).
Advanced maternal age (typically defined as 35 years and older) is increasingly common among women in STEM, as many delay childbirth to establish their careers (Cech and Blair-Loy 2019). While this delay can allow for career advancement before starting a family, it may also coincide with increased work responsibilities, making the balance between career and family more complex. Additionally, advanced maternal age is associated with higher risks during pregnancy, which can further complicate work-life balance.
Despite the substantial body of evidence linking motherhood to career barriers, findings from this study introduce a more nuanced and potentially controversial perspective. Among the successful women interviewed, there was no clear correlation between having children and reduced career achievement. In fact, the data suggest that women with biological or adopted children were equally represented among high achievers as those without. This divergence raises important questions about generalizations in existing literature. It suggests that institutional context, socio-economic status, partner involvement, and individual resilience may mediate the motherhood penalty in STEM careers. While the broader data reflect systemic challenges, individual experiences can vary widely—highlighting the importance of context-sensitive, rather than universally deterministic, interpretations of career impact.
In summary, while motherhood remains a significant factor in STEM career navigation, the patterns observed in this study challenge some of the dominant narratives. They call for a more differentiated understanding of how women balance family and career—and for future research that accounts for the diverse structures of support, agency, and adaptation that shape those outcomes. 7 Challenges and Limitations
The research aimed to uncover a broad and nuanced spectrum of patterns shaping women’s journeys in STEM; however, several methodological and contextual challenges were encountered throughout the process.
Access to participants and recruitment bias
A significant challenge was reaching out to moderately successful women in STEM who might not be part of visible professional networks or public platforms. The study primarily relied on referrals, social networks, and professional organizations, which may have skewed the participant pool toward more established or accessible individuals. As a result, some career paths—particularly those marked by early dropout or transitions away from STEM—may be underrepresented. This impacts the completeness of the “indirect paths” or “hidden exits” narratives that are critical for a comprehensive analysis.
Small sample size
The study was conducted with a small, focused sample, which makes it difficult to determine the statistical prevalence of the identified patterns across the broader population of women in STEM. However, the depth and richness of individual stories provided crucial insights that contributed to identifying newly discovered and underexplored categories.
Limitations in pattern visibility
Another key limitation involved the interpretive nature of self-reported data. Many patterns, especially those related to mental health struggles, insomnia, or internal conflicts such as imposter syndrome or emotional regulation, may remain unspoken due to stigma, discomfort, or self-perception biases. Their absence in a participant’s account doesn’t necessarily imply their absence in experience. This creates an interpretive challenge in defining the commonality and validity of such patterns. Some traits or struggles might be underreported, not because they are rare, but because they are harder to articulate or socially silenced.
Ambiguity in classification
One key limitation of this study lies in the inherent complexity of classifying patterns within evolving and nuanced career narratives. Due to varying degrees of research coverage and the subjective nature of qualitative data, some traits and barriers did not fit neatly into a single classification tier. For example, self-awareness emerged consistently in participant accounts but lacks robust representation in the literature, positioning it ambiguously between “established” and “developing.” Similarly, participant-reported barriers such as unconventional appearance and uncommon age were described in detail but remain largely absent from scholarly sources, rendering their “emerging” status provisional. Additionally, thematic overlap across categories created classification challenges—for instance, motivation for contribution to society could be interpreted as both a personal trait and a career navigation goal, depending on the context in which it was expressed. These ambiguities reflect the interconnected nature of women’s experiences in STEM but also underscore the subjectivity involved in thematic coding. As such, future research should aim to validate and refine these classifications through larger, mixed-methods studies, cross-disciplinary comparisons, and iterative coding frameworks that can better capture the fluid and intersecting dimensions of these patterns.
Future work
Building upon the findings and limitations of this exploratory study, several avenues for future research are proposed to further develop and substantiate the patterns influencing women’s success in STEM. First, quantitative validation of underexplored categories is essential to move beyond anecdotal evidence. Large-scale surveys and statistical analyses can assess the prevalence, distribution, and significance of the themes identified as emerging. Applying this method across diverse STEM disciplines, career stages, and cultural contexts will enhance the generalizability of these findings and help establish their relevance at scale.
Second, thematic deepening through in-depth qualitative inquiry is recommended for the patterns labeled as “developing”. These represent themes with preliminary recognition in literature or a consistent presence across interviews, but they lack sufficient scholarly attention. Conducting structured interviews using theory-informed protocols will enable a richer understanding of the origins, lived experiences, and contextual variations of these patterns, ultimately refining their conceptual clarity and practical implications.
Third, future research should adopt a time-sensitive lens, integrating the identified patterns into the “get in – get by – get on” framework. This approach situates women’s experiences within distinct career phases:
Entry (Get In) Focused on early childhood and primary/secondary education, this stage examines the foundational influences on STEM interest—including family dynamics, media exposure, and early academic tracking. Investigating these factors will help clarify how early-stage disparities originate and persist.
Persistence (Get By) Encompassing higher education and early career, this stage highlights how women navigate academic hurdles, gain access to mentorship, and resist institutional barriers. Research in this area should examine the cumulative impact of structural inequities and cultural expectations during the formative years of professional identity development.
Advancement (Get On) Addressing mid-to-late career experiences, this phase focuses on leadership, recognition, and achieving a work-life balance. Studies should explore how established women in STEM manage visibility, navigate institutional politics, and sustain long-term career satisfaction, and identify interventions that can support retention and promotion.
Applying this staged framework will help map when and where different patterns manifest most strongly, offering critical insight into the timing, type, and targets of effective interventions. Longitudinal, mixed-methods research, combining quantitative breadth with qualitative depth, will be crucial in building a more comprehensive, actionable understanding of the systemic and personal factors shaping women’s STEM careers.
Conclusion
This study provides a versatile understanding of the career experiences of accomplished women in STEM by identifying and classifying patterns across five key categories: personal traits, education and skills, career navigation, institutional barriers, and personal struggles. By organizing these patterns into established, developing, and emerging classes, the research bridges the gap between what is well-known in existing literature and what remains to be further explored. The integration of real-life examples offers nuance to the narrative, highlighting both common success strategies and unique, often overlooked, challenges.
The findings underscore that women’s pathways into and through STEM are rarely linear. Instead, they are shaped by a complex interplay of personal motivation, structural opportunity, and systemic constraint. While some traits and barriers, such as perseverance, gender stereotypes, and mentorship, are consistently validated, emerging and developing patterns, such as forming a technical mindset and increasing English proficiency, promoting interdisciplinary training, providing volunteering opportunities, and maintaining long-term relationships, reveal critical areas in need of further research and institutional attention.
Future work will apply a time-based and career-stage-sensitive lens, aligned with the “get in – get by – get on” framework, to understand how these patterns manifest at different phases of a woman’s STEM journey. This approach will enable educators, employers, and policymakers to design more targeted interventions and support mechanisms that respond to women’s evolving needs across their educational and professional lives.
Ultimately, these insights lay the foundation for developing sustainable mentorship and outreach programs that promote gender equity and recognize the diversity of pathways to success in STEM in diverse cities such as Chicago. Fostering environments that value varied experiences, address hidden barriers, and amplify new forms of leadership will be essential to building a more inclusive and resilient STEM workforce.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have offered invaluable guidance, encouragement, and insight throughout this journey. I am especially thankful to Prof. Joseph Renow for his unwavering support, encouragement, and for providing a critical perspective from the social sciences. I am also deeply grateful to Prof. Sonja Petrovic for creating opportunities to pursue our shared passion for projects with social impact. Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to Prof. Gorjana Popovic for her thoughtful insights and expertise from the fields of mathematics and statistics.
References
Appendix
Table 1. Interview questions
| Section | Questions |
|---|---|
| Section 1: Background and career path | Q1. To start, could you tell me about
your educational background and how it led you to your current position
in STEM? Q2. What motivated you to pursue a career in STEM, and how did you first become interested in your field? Q3. Could you describe your career journey, including any pivotal moments or major decisions that shaped your path? Q4. Were there any specific mentors or role models who influenced your career? How did they impact your journey? |
| Section 2: Challenges and overcoming barriers | Q5. What challenges did you face as a
woman in STEM, particularly during your education or early career? Q6. How did you overcome those challenges, and what strategies or support systems helped you the most? Q7. Were there any moments when you considered changing your career path? If so, what made you decide to stay? |
| Section 3: Current role and experiences | Q8. What do you enjoy most about your
work in STEM, and what keeps you motivated in your current role? Q9. Are there any specific projects or achievements that you’re particularly proud of? Q10. Balancing work-life responsibilities can be challenging. How do you manage this, and what advice would you give to young women who may be concerned about this aspect of pursuing a STEM career? |
| Section 4: Advice for future generations | Q11. In your opinion, what skills or
experiences are most valuable for young women wanting to enter a STEM
field? Q12. What advice would you give to high school girls interested in STEM but who may feel hesitant or unsure about their abilities? Q13. Are there any common misconceptions about STEM careers that you wish more young women understood? |
| Section 5: The role of mentorship and community | Q14. How important do you think
mentorship is for women in STEM? How has mentorship played a role in
your own career? Q15. In what ways do you think having visible role models can impact the next generation of women in STEM? Q16. If you could go back in time, what advice would you give your younger self as you were starting your journey in STEM? |
| Section 6: Diversity, equity, and inclusion | Q17. What changes would you like to
see in the STEM community to make it more inclusive for women and
underrepresented groups? Q18. How can educational institutions and companies better support young women in STEM? Q19. What role do you see yourself playing in encouraging and supporting the next generation of women in STEM? |
| Section 7: Personal reflections | Q20. Can you share a moment when you
felt like you truly made a difference in your field or helped inspire
someone else? Q21. How has being a woman shaped your perspective in your STEM career, and how has that perspective influenced your approach to problem-solving or leadership? |
Table 2. Pattern Classification
| Pattern |
Description |
|---|---|
| Personal traits | |
| Established | |
| Adaptability | Women’s adaptation to STEM domains has been shown to promote resilience (Mondo et al. 2021). Interventions like online resilience training have improved women PhD students’ ability to persist in STEM programs (Peila-Shuster 2017). |
| Altruism (helping others) | The study shows that women in STEM highly value helping others and societal impact. These communal goals (social values) involve valuing work that allows one to directly help people and contribute to society (Weisgram and Bigler 2006). |
| Autonomy (independence) | Autonomy is gaining attention as a career value for women in STEM. Studies of STEM doctoral students show that both women and men place high value on becoming autonomous in their work (women often discuss “autonomy,” while men more frequently use the term “independence”). The desire for independent work and decision-making is recognized as a motivator in women’s STEM career trajectories (Sobieraj and Krämer 2019). |
| Career aspiration | Aspiration is identified as a valued trait among women in STEM education – studies note that female students often develop strong ambition during rigorous studies (Dasgupta, Scircle, and Hunsinger 2015; Makarova, Aeschlimann, and Herzog 2019). Research indicates that career ambition (aspirations) is a motivator for women’s persistence in STEM fields. |
| Continuous learning | In STEM professions, women often mention the importance of continuous learning to keep up with rapid advances (Jaeger et al. 2017). Women STEM professionals describe teamwork and continuous learning as key to growth and development in their careers. Lifelong learning is encouraged as a means for women in STEM to remain current and advance professionally. |
| Diligence (hard work) | Qualitative studies show that women in STEM emphasize hard work and diligence as keys to success. This strong work ethic is frequently cited as a valued quality among women pursuing STEM careers (Merritt 2021). |
| Grit | The concept of grit – defined as passion and perseverance toward long-term goals – is increasingly studied in women’s STEM education. Grit framework shows how female engineering students sustained their drive and perseverance despite obstacles. Higher grit has been linked to better retention and performance for women in STEM majors (Watson 2020). |
| Perseverance (persistence) | Perseverance is a well-documented trait for women’s success in STEM. Studies on the “leaky pipeline” demonstrate that women who persist in STEM have often overcome significant challenges. Female STEM graduates cite resilience and perseverance in the face of challenges as crucial to completing engineering programs. Likewise, fostering resilience has been shown to improve women’s persistence in STEM doctoral programs (Jungert et al. 2019). |
| Purpose orientation (goal alignment) | Recent research suggests that women in STEM often develop a strong sense of purpose and alignment with their field. Recent studies found that female STEM students had greater commitment to their career path, indicating clarity of purpose in their goals. This purpose-driven outlook is linked to higher career commitment among women in STEM (Diekman and Steinberg 2013). |
| Self-awareness | Emerging literature in women’s STEM leadership highlights self-awareness as important for career development. Leadership development programs for women in STEM report increases in participants’ self-awareness and self-efficacy. Enhancing self-awareness is beneficial for women’s professional growth and persistence in STEM fields (Backstrom 2023; W. S. Smith 1976; Sturm et al. 2014). |
| Self-discipline | Women in STEM tend to score higher on conscientiousness (self-discipline), a trait linked to academic success. Higher conscientiousness of female students is associated with better grades than predicted, suggesting that strong self-discipline contributes to their performance (Duckworth and Seligman 2006). |
| Social responsibility | The literature robustly shows that women in STEM seek social responsibility in their work. They tend to prefer jobs that allow them to work with and help other people and emphasize societal contributions. This orientation toward social values (wanting to benefit society) is a well-established factor influencing women’s participation in various STEM fields (Reig-Aleixandre, García-Ramos, and De la Calle-Maldonado 2023). |
| Developing | |
| Geographic mobility (willingness to relocate) | The willingness to relocate or work internationally is minimally covered in STEM literature. Global mobility is increasingly relevant: recent data show more women scientists are moving abroad for opportunities than ever before (though still fewer than men). Challenges around mobility (e.g. relocating for jobs or fieldwork) have been noted as potential barriers, but the topic is still emerging in research on women’s STEM career paths (Rosenfeld and Jones 1987; Shauman and Xie 1996). |
| Risk-taking | Traits related to being adventurous – such as risk-taking and openness to new experiences – are only beginning to be addressed in the context of women in STEM. A recent academic study is examining the risk-taking behaviors of graduate women in STEM programs, indicating growing research interest. Encouraging calculated risk-taking and a “fearless” attitude is often mentioned anecdotally as beneficial for women navigating STEM careers, but empirical literature on this trait remains minimal (Petzel and Casad 2022; Taylor 2023). |
| Technical mindset (things-oriented) | Researchers have long examined interest profiles in STEM. A technical mindset often corresponds to a “things-oriented” interest. Meta-analyses find that men, on average, show a substantially higher preference for working with technical systems, whereas women show a higher preference for working with people. Such differences in technical interest (systemizing vs. people-oriented interests) help explain gender gaps across STEM subfields (Gill 2012). |
| Emerging | |
| Thriving in fast-paced environments (high-workload tolerance) | The notion of thriving in a fast-paced lifestyle (hectic, high-pressure work common in STEM industries) is not well-studied as a distinct trait, but appears in discussions about work culture. Workplace studies indicate that many women leave STEM careers due to rigid and fast-paced work environments – for example, citing a lack of flexibility and long hours as key sources of dissatisfaction. This suggests that the ability or willingness to endure fast-paced, less flexible work conditions is an emerging consideration in women’s STEM retention (Britt and Jex 2015). |
| Education and skills | |
| Established | |
| Academic performance in Sciences | Research indicates that successful women in STEM fields often demonstrate academic performance equal to or surpassing that of their male counterparts (Herrmann et al. 2016). This study indicated that being high school students, women demonstrated initial interest in technical sciences in contrast to social sciences. |
| Confidence (STEM self-efficacy) | Gender stereotypes erode women’s STEM self-efficacy; literature widely documents lower confidence among female students and emphasizes the importance of developing it through outreach programs (Rittmayer and Beier 2008). |
| Collaboration | Research shows women often excel in collaborative learning (e.g., better listening/talking in group work), and benefit from group-oriented, communal STEM activities (Bear and Woolley 2011). |
| Doctoral degree attainment | The “leaky pipeline” is well documented: women earn about 41% of STEM PhDs but remain underrepresented in senior positions. Numerous studies track women’s PhD attainment and progression (Ma and Liu 2017). |
| Experiential learning (hands-on learning) | Hands-on, inquiry-based STEM learning is well-documented to engage girls by benefiting from labs and practical activities, improving achievement and interest (Chen et al. 2011). |
| Inclusive environment (cultural diversity) | It is well established that an inclusive, culturally diverse environment improves women’s STEM outcomes. Diverse, equitable STEM ecosystems foster creativity and innovation, and numerous studies link supportive culture to women’s retention and success (Lewis 2015). |
| Leadership | Research consistently highlights the underrepresentation of women in STEM leadership roles, attributing this to systemic barriers such as the “leaky pipeline,” where women exit STEM careers before reaching leadership positions. Despite these challenges, successful women in STEM often exhibit traits like high self-efficacy and engagement in task-oriented behaviors, which are linked to leadership emergence (Van Oosten, Buse, and Bilimoria 2017). |
| Professional networking | The current study highlights mentoring and professional networks as vital for women’s success and inclusion in STEM. Building supportive peer and professional networks helps women navigate systemic barriers (Xu and Martin 2011). |
| Developing | |
| Creativity (Creative self-efficacy (CSE)) | Recent work posits creative self-efficacy as crucial for STEM to boost female participation (Vieira et al. 2024). This is a new focus linking creativity with women’s STEM engagement. |
| Digital skills (ICT/technical skills) | Digital skills are increasingly studied as a factor in girls’ STEM pathways. Recent evidence: teen girls with strong ICT skills are far more likely to pursue STEM careers – a relationship not seen in boys, highlighting active research into tech proficiency and the gender gap (Peila-Shuster 2017; Van Laar et al. 2019). |
| Emotional intelligence (EI) | Initial studies suggest female STEM students exhibit higher emotional intelligence and empathy than males, leveraging these skills in leadership and teamwork contexts (Rahmatika 2022). |
| Problem-solving skills | Generally valued in STEM education, but rarely gender-specific. New approaches (e.g. design thinking) aim to improve girls’ problem-solving skills, marking a developing research avenue (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007). |
| Public speaking skills (presentations) | Few studies focus on women’s public speaking in STEM. One finding: female scientists are less likely to seek high-visibility talk presentations, reducing their professional visibility (Tripon 2022). |
| Self-learning (self-directed learning (SDL)) | Self-directed learning is crucial for STEM success, but it’s not often examined specifically for women in STEM. It’s an emerging consideration as lifelong learning skills grow in importance for all STEM students (Asyhari et al. 2023). |
| Teamwork | Inclusive pedagogy emphasizes teamwork for engaging girls. Design-thinking programs, for example, stress collaborative teamwork to support female students. Research on gender and team dynamics is growing (Grover and Miller 2014). |
| Emerging | |
| Building long-term professional relationships (e.g., mentoring, alliances) | Aside from mentoring/networking, sustained professional relationships have little dedicated research. Some evidence suggests women benefit from collaborating with other women and strong support networks over time (Beddoes and Panther 2018; Stelter, Kupersmidt, and Stump 2021). This study found that some women face challenges in forming purely business-oriented connections—an approach more common among men—and instead often prioritize building deeper, long-term relationships. Unlike mentoring, this aspect is only minimally addressed explicitly. |
| Critical thinking | Studies indicate that engaging in STEM fields can enhance critical thinking skills among women. This development is attributed to the analytical nature of STEM disciplines, which require problem-solving and evidence-based decision-making (Tripon and Gabureanu 2020). Though recognized as a 21st-century STEM skill, the role of critical thinking in STEM has not yet been outlined in the literature regarding gender, indicating an emerging research area. |
| English language proficiency | The global nature of STEM means English fluency can impact participation. This is rarely noted in gender-STEM literature. However, female scientists from non-English countries face added barriers – most science is written in English, posing an obvious bias (Saffie-Robertson 2020). Thus, language proficiency is an emerging consideration in a global context. |
| Interdisciplinary training | Although this study supports the common nature of interdisciplinary training among accomplished women, the idea of importance of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary STEM training is relatively new. Research is mixed on whether women engage more in interdisciplinary work (Esfahani 2023). |
| Career navigation | |
| Established | |
| Communal goals (desire to help society via STEM) | Research indicates many women are drawn to STEM by communal or impact-driven goals – i.e., using science/tech to help others or society. Women tend to value making a difference, and STEM fields historically have been seen as lacking in communal fulfillment. Several studies show that highlighting the social impact of STEM (“helping others”) significantly increases women’s interest and participation, underlining this well-established motivational factor (Diekman, Weisgram, and Belanger 2015). |
| Intrinsic motivation (passion for STEM work) | Intrinsic interest or passion for STEM is a widely recognized factor in career choice and persistence. Research consistently shows that personal interest plays a significant role in shaping STEM career decisions. In fact, intrinsic motivation – a genuine passion to understand and solve problems – drives many women toward STEM and sustains their long-term commitment in these fields (J. L. Smith et al. 2013). |
| Mentorship (as mentor and/or mentee) | Mentorship is a well-documented driver of women’s STEM success. Studies show robust mentoring relationships (including women mentoring women) provide critical support, increase belonging, and help women persist in STEM (Marshall et al. 2022). |
| Role models (female or male) | The influence of role models on women’s STEM aspirations is well documented. Exposure to successful female STEM role models can inspire women and girls, boosting their confidence and sense of belonging. Female role models act as “social vaccines” against stereotypes, reducing self-stereotyping and motivating young women to pursue STEM careers (Herrmann et al. 2016). |
| Developing | |
| Career calling | The idea of an early or “premature” calling to STEM is sparsely covered. Some vocational research explores “career calling” in women (e.g., a study of female STEM graduates in the Middle East) and finds that personal beliefs (intellect, faith, sense of purpose) shape their career calling (Kemp et al. 2021). However, such studies are few, and the notion of an early calling driving women’s STEM paths (Kaminsky and Behrend 2015). |
| Family support (spouse/parents) | Extensive research shows that family support (from parents or partners) is crucial for women’s STEM career entry and persistence (Moors, Malley, and Stewart 2014). Parental STEM support boosts girls’ motivation to pursue STEM, and having a spouse in a STEM field correlates with higher retention of women in STEM careers. |
| Fortuitous events (happenstance) | Career theory recognizes chance or serendipity as influential (the “planned happenstance” perspective), but it’s not heavily specific to women in STEM (Lang 2010). General studies show that unplanned opportunities significantly shape careers (every woman interviewed had at least one impactful chance event in her career path). There is active interest in how people capitalize on fortuitous events, making this a developing theme in career research (now being applied to STEM contexts). |
| Non-linear career path | Recent research in academia notes that nonlinear career paths are increasingly common and that women pursuing such paths often face negative career impacts (De Vita and Giancola 2017). However, few studies specifically examine non-linear STEM career routes for women, making this a worthwhile topic. |
| Recognition (seeking acknowledgement) | There is minimal direct research on women in STEM being recognition-driven. Literature more often notes the lack of recognition women receive (the Matilda effect). Women scientists often find their achievements undervalued and must fight an uphill battle for recognition (Jackson et al. 2019). While recognition as a motivator is mentioned anecdotally, it’s a developing research theme. |
| Tech entrepreneurship | A growing but still limited body of work examines women entrepreneurs in STEM. Recent studies highlight unique barriers and call for more research on women-led STEM startups (Kuschel et al. 2020). |
| Trailblazer (token pioneer, first/only woman as a pioneer) | The phenomenon of being a lone “trailblazing” woman in a male field has been studied for decades under tokenism theory (Bailey 2025). Kanter’s classic work noted that token women (often the first or only in a group) face heightened visibility and performance pressures. Subsequent research confirms that these pioneering women encounter unique challenges (and opportunities), solidifying this as an established concept in gender and organization literature. |
| Emerging | |
| Innovation leadership | While women’s innovative contributions are acknowledged, the concept of women explicitly navigating careers as “innovators” is only minimally addressed in the literature. Diversity studies note that engaging women as innovators is critical for driving innovation, yet few academic works focus on “innovator identity” among women in STEM (Van Oosten, Buse, and Bilimoria 2017). This theme is emerging, often discussed in the context of diversity’s benefits to innovation rather than as a separate research topic. |
| Self-exploration (identity development) | The notion of self-discovery in STEM career development is not a prominent standalone topic in the literature. Some recent programs emphasize personal identity exploration (e.g., integrating girls’ “lived experiences” into STEM learning), suggesting that facilitating self-discovery can engage underrepresented groups (Shah et al. 2024). However, academic studies linking “self-discovery” explicitly to women’s STEM career navigation are minimal, indicating this theme is emerging. |
| Volunteering (volunteer mentoring/outreach) | Women’s career-related volunteering (e.g., mentoring youth, STEM outreach) is a relatively new research focus. Some studies indicate that women volunteer in STEM outreach for altruistic and career-development motives (Llewellyn et al. 2016). Mentors often cite personal growth and giving back as reasons to volunteer. Still, academic coverage of how volunteering shapes STEM career paths is limited. |
| Institutional barriers | |
| Established | |
| Family discouragement | Research identifies family encouragement as one of the main factors influencing girls’ decisions to pursue STEM, whereas lack of support discourages them (Jean, Payne, and Thompson 2014). |
| Gender stereotypes | Gender stereotypes are well-documented drivers of the STEM gender gap, reinforcing biases that dissuade women from STEM paths (Eagly and Steffen 1984). |
| Government policy | Inadequate or hostile policy environments (e.g., rollbacks of diversity initiatives) have intensified the need to remove structural barriers and advance equitable access for women in STEM (Blackburn 2017). |
| Limited STEM exposure | Studies show that a lack of exposure to STEM fields (e.g., absence of role models and hands-on STEM experiences) is a significant barrier contributing to the gender gap (Elizabeth Kurz, Yoder, and Zu 2015). |
| Media representation bias | Gender‐stereotyped media images of STEM professionals perpetuate biases; media often underrepresents or misrepresents women in STEM, influencing girls’ STEM identity formation (Corsbie-Massay and Wheatly 2022). |
| Sociocultural barriers | Differences in women’s STEM participation are more pronounced in societies with strong gender stereotypes or restrictive cultural norms (Owuondo 2023). |
| Developing | |
| Language barriers (non-native language) | Language accessibility is an often overlooked factor – women from non-English-speaking backgrounds face additional hurdles in STEM due to linguistic barriers in education and publishing (Esfahani 2023). |
| Religious constraints | The influence of religious values on women’s STEM participation has been minimally addressed – recent studies note that prior research often overlooked how religiosity can affect women’s choice of STEM majors (Lissitsa, Ben-Zamara, and Chachashvili-Bolotin 2023). |
| Emerging | |
| Age-related bias | Women who pursue STEM careers at non-traditional ages—typically significantly younger than typical expectations—may experience skepticism regarding their competence, credibility, or readiness for advanced roles, creating additional challenges in being recognized and respected in professional STEM environments. |
| Appearance-based bias | The study found that women scientists with more feminine or atypical appearances are often perceived as less likely to be scientists, revealing a “you don’t look like a scientist” bias that can undermine credibility. |
| Physical capabilities stereotypes | Stereotypes portraying women as less strong or unsuited for physically demanding STEM work persist in certain fields, reflecting a bias that discourages women from equal fieldwork opportunities. |
| Personal struggles | |
| Established | |
| Creditability (“Prove-it-again bias”) | Women’s struggle for credibility in STEM is well documented as part of gender-bias research. Studies show women often must prove their ability repeatedly to be seen as equally capable – a phenomenon known as the “prove-it-again” bias. This credibility gap is pervasive: about two-thirds of women in STEM report having to constantly prove their competence in male-dominated workplaces (Williams, Phillips, and Hall 2016). |
| Doctoral student challenges (financial, emotional, supervisory challenges) | Female STEM PhD students often endure unique hardships – from silent gender biases and demanding programs to struggling with home–family–school balance, which can impede completion and well-being (Fisher et al. 2019). |
| Imposter syndrome | The imposter phenomenon – doubting one’s abilities and feeling like a fraud – is widely observed among women in STEM, with negative effects on well-being and career development (Collins et al. 2020). |
| Work–life imbalance | Difficulty achieving work–life balance is a top challenge for women in STEM. Women cited work–life balance as a major career challenge (ranked #1, above bias and workload). Many women remain career-oriented yet must prioritize caregiver roles, coping with home duties that conflict with work (Brue 2019). |
| Developing | |
| Anxiety | Research and this study indicate that women in STEM fields often experience higher levels of anxiety compared to their male counterparts, influenced by a combination of academic pressures, societal stereotypes, and institutional challenges (Ayuso et al. 2020). |
| Emotional regulation | Women in STEM often perform more emotional labor, i.e., self-regulating their emotions to meet others’ needs at work. This gendered pressure to manage emotions remains an issue in STEM contexts (Rozek et al. 2019). |
| Work-related stress | Work-related stress is a prevalent issue. Surveys show women in STEM report significantly higher daily work stress than men, partly due to juggling intense jobs with disproportionate unpaid care duties (Pedersen and Minnotte 2017). |
| Mental health problems (psychological distress) | Recent research highlights a mental health gap: the majority of career women report mental health challenges (e.g., depression, anxiety), more frequently than men, with work and family stressors cited as key contributors (Reilly et al. 2019). |
| Emerging | |
| Overcommitment (difficulty saying “No”) | Anecdotally, women struggle to say “no” to extra tasks, leading to overcommitment. However, very little empirical research has addressed this phenomenon to date. |
| Insomnia (sleep difficulties) | Stress in STEM can manifest in sleep deprivation. Studies link poor sleep quality with higher depression and stress in students (Peretti-Watel et al. 2009), but this issue has received minimal direct focus regarding women’s STEM careers. |