STEM Fields and Gender Gap
Sarah,
You need to take another run at the lit review. Toss what you submitted and start over. Use subheadings to divide it up into sections if that helps you stay on track. If you need an extension on the deadline, you may have until Friday, Oct. 9 at noon.
A review of literature includes many references to research studies or articles. Lead off with phrases such as “In a study by Watanabe and Compton (2012), they found . . .” or “The research findings published by Dupuis, Romanowski, and Brewer (2014) maintains . . .” or “Campanelli and Rodriguez (2013) conducted an assessment of . . .” or Sims, Gupta, and Zang (2015) agreed with Richter and Nevirosky (2013) on one point only: that women in STEM are . . .”
The lit review is a discussion of your research findings. The paper is not about the topic (in your case that means it’s not about women in STEM per se). It’s about your research findings on women in STEM.
The key to understanding this assignment is to understand its purpose:
"A literature review is an evaluative report of studies found in the literature related to your [focused topic]. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify this literature" (from What exactly is a Review of Lit?). Notice the definition stresses evaluation of sources with an emphasis on their relationships. Another word for that is synthesis.
Line out what various sources say based on the categories you have chosen. Identify when the research information has connecting points (synthesis) and when it demonstrates sharp disagreement (synthesis), etc. Organize your research not just by categories but also in a way that makes connecting the dots easier. Synthesize the research with transitions such as these: Although Lee and Huang (2010) found XYZ in their study, Robertson, McEnnis, and Horowitz (2014) challenged those findings in their study. OrSimilar to the study conducted by Rosen and Rickert (2012), Quinn and Olson (2014) . . .
It’s not hard once you get the hang of
You need to take another run at the lit review. Toss what you submitted and start over. Use subheadings to divide it up into sections if that helps you stay on track. If you need an extension on the deadline, you may have until Friday, Oct. 9 at noon.
A review of literature includes many references to research studies or articles. Lead off with phrases such as “In a study by Watanabe and Compton (2012), they found . . .” or “The research findings published by Dupuis, Romanowski, and Brewer (2014) maintains . . .” or “Campanelli and Rodriguez (2013) conducted an assessment of . . .” or Sims, Gupta, and Zang (2015) agreed with Richter and Nevirosky (2013) on one point only: that women in STEM are . . .”
The lit review is a discussion of your research findings. The paper is not about the topic (in your case that means it’s not about women in STEM per se). It’s about your research findings on women in STEM.
The key to understanding this assignment is to understand its purpose:
"A literature review is an evaluative report of studies found in the literature related to your [focused topic]. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify this literature" (from What exactly is a Review of Lit?). Notice the definition stresses evaluation of sources with an emphasis on their relationships. Another word for that is synthesis.
Line out what various sources say based on the categories you have chosen. Identify when the research information has connecting points (synthesis) and when it demonstrates sharp disagreement (synthesis), etc. Organize your research not just by categories but also in a way that makes connecting the dots easier. Synthesize the research with transitions such as these: Although Lee and Huang (2010) found XYZ in their study, Robertson, McEnnis, and Horowitz (2014) challenged those findings in their study. OrSimilar to the study conducted by Rosen and Rickert (2012), Quinn and Olson (2014) . . .
It’s not hard once you get the hang of
References: Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S. S., & Williams, W. (2014). Women in academic science: Explaining the gap. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236 Huge, M., Glynn, C., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2013) The matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication. 35(5) 603-625. doi: 10.1177/1075547012472684 Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T.R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education 17(3) 419-38. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5 McLoughlin, L.A. (2009). Success, recruitment, and retention of academically elite women students without STEM backgrounds in US undergraduate engineering education. Engineering Studies. 1, 151-168. doi:10.1080/19378620902911592 Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into stem college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048-1073. doi: 10.3102/0002831211435229 Saucerman, J. K. (2014). Psychological barriers to stem participation for women over the course of development. Adultspan Journal, 13(1), 46-64. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0029.2014.00025.x.