Author:
Edwards Kathryn Anne,Acheson-Field Hannah,Rennane Stephanie,Zaber Melanie A.
Abstract
AbstractThis paper investigates to what extent there is a ‘traditional’ career among individuals with a Ph.D. in a science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) discipline. We use longitudinal data that follows the first 7–9 years of post-conferral employment among scientists who attained their degree in the U.S. between 2000 and 2008. We use three methods to identify a traditional career. The first two emphasize those most commonly observed, with two notions of commonality; the third compares the observed careers with archetypes defined by the academic pipeline. Our analysis includes the use of machine-learning methods to find patterns in careers; this paper is the first to use such methods in this setting. We find that if there is a modal, or traditional, science career, it is in non-academic employment. However, given the diversity of pathways observed, we offer the observation that traditional is a poor descriptor of science careers.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Lucena, J. C. Making women and minorities in science and engineering for national purposes in the United States. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 6(1), 1–31 (2000).
2. Metcalf, H. Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature. InterActions UCLA J. Educ. Inf. Stud. 6(2), 681. https://doi.org/10.5070/D462000681 (2010).
3. Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E. & Harris, K. N. Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Sci. Educ. 98(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108 (2014).
4. White, J. Pipeline to pathways: New directions for improving the status of women on campus. Liber. Educ. 91, 22 (2005).
5. Hill, W. The Myth of the STEM Pipeline. Inside Higher Ed. (2019).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献