logo

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022): Autoethnography in online doctoral education

An invisible fork in the road: The autoethnography of a female social scientist

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.6f3a736c
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Research has shown that girls' confidence and ability perception are critical to their beliefs, attitudes, and interests concerning the pursuit of mathematics and science. In historically male-dominated fields, females often have a tenuous relationship with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) disciplines. This autoethnographic study explores one girl's trajectory away from a keen interest in mathematics and science in favour of social sciences. Four central themes were identified as critical to females' interest, pursuit, and advancement into STEM careers, including gender-based socialisation; confidence, ability, and achievement; classroom environment and school curriculum; and family 'curriculum making'. The findings that impacted the divergence from STEM are revealed through interviews with the author's parents and expressed through a reflexive narrative. The findings in this paper suggest several actions that families and schools might take to support the STEM aspirations of young female students.

References

  1. Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. In New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Alhaddab, T. A., & Alnatheer, S. A. (2015). Future scientists: How women’s and minorities’ math self-efficacy and science perception affect their STEM major selection. 2015 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference, 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2015.7119946
  3. Alper, J. & Gibbons, A. (1993). Leaking Women All the Way Along. Science, 260 (5016), 409–412.
  4. Archard, N. (2012). Adolescent girls and leadership: the impact of confidence, competition, and failure. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 17(4), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2011.649431
  5. Aspray, W. (2016). Women and Underrepresented Minorities in Computing A Historical and Social Study (M. Campbell-Kelly & G. Alberts (eds.). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
  6. Bancroft, A., Bratter, J., & Rowley, K. (2017). Affirmation effects on math scores: The importance of high school track. Social Science Research, 64, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.001
  7. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods (4th ed.). AltaMira Press.
  8. Britzman, D. (1989). Who Has the Floor? Curriculum, Teaching, and the English Student Teacher’s Struggle for Voice. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(2), 143–162.
  9. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 297–331. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034002297
  10. Campbell, K. (2015). The Feminist Instructional Designer: An Autoethnography. In The Design of Learning Experience (Vol. 231, pp. 231–249). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_16
  11. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Left Coast Press.
  12. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the Equation-The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. In American Association of University Women. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.063427
  13. Craig, C., Verma, R., Stokes, D., Evans, P., & Abrol, B. (2018). The influence of parents on undergraduate and graduate students’ entering the STEM disciplines and STEM careers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1431853
  14. De Vita, L., & Giancola, O. (2017). Between education and employment: Women’s trajectories in STEM fields. Polis (Italy), 31(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1424/86079
  15. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (N. Lincoln, Yvonna S; Denzin (eds.). Sage.
  16. Dreves, C., & Jovanovic, J. (1998). Male Dominance in the Classroom: Does it Explain the Gender Difference in Young Adolescents’ Science Ability Perceptions? Applied Developmental Science, 2(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0202_3
  17. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273–290.
  18. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject. In Y. Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  19. Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave STEM Pipeline after Calculus Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit. PloS One, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
  20. Gedro, J., & Mizzi, R. C. (2014). Feminist Theory and Queer Theory: Implications for HRD Research and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314543820
  21. Gilbert, M. C. (1996). Attributional patterns and perceptions of math and science among fifth-grade through seventh-grade girls and boys. Sex Roles, 35(7–8), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544133
  22. Hanushek, E. A. (2016). What Matters for Student Achievement. Education Next, 16(2), 18–26.
  23. Hartsock, N. (1983). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. In M. Harding, Sandra; Hintikka (Ed.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 283–310). Springer Netherlands.
  24. Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1086/495159
  25. Hirudayaraj, M., & Shields, L. (2019). Feminist Theory: A Research Agenda for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422319851286
  26. Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, Legitimation, and Autoethnography: An Autoethnographic Writing Story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200102
  27. Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent Girls’ Experiences and Gender-Related Beliefs in Relation to Their Motivation in Math/Science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z
  28. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<613::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-M
  29. Lugones, M., & Spelman, E. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice.’ Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 573–581.
  30. Patterson, J. V., & Johnson, A. T. (2017). High School Girls’ Negotiation of Perceived Self-Efficacy and Science Course Trajectories. Journal of Research in Education, 27(1), 79–113. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1142363&site=ehost-live
  31. Perleth, C., & Heller, K. A. (1994). The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. Ablex.
  32. Pringle, R. M., Brkich, K. M., Adams, T. L., West-Olatunii, C., & Archer-Banks, D. A. (2012). Factors Influencing Elementary Teachers’ Positioning of African American Girls as Science and Mathematics Learners. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00137.x
  33. Ruth, S. (2001). Issues in Feminism An Introduction to Women’s Studies. Mayfield Publishing Company.
  34. Schuster, C., & Martiny, S. E. (2017). Not Feeling Good in STEM: Effects of Stereotype Activation and Anticipated Affect on Women’s Career Aspirations. Sex Roles, 76(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3
  35. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790406
  36. Shapiro, M., Grossman, D., Carter, S., Martin, K., Deyton, P., & Hammer, D. (2015). Middle School Girls and the “Leaky Pipeline” to Leadership. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2015.11461919
  37. Shaw, S., & Lee, J. (2004). Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings (B&B (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill Companies.
  38. Smeding, A. (2012). Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Investigation of Their Implicit Gender Stereotypes and Stereotypes’ Connectedness to Math Performance. Sex Roles, 67(11–12), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4
  39. Smyth, F. L., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by Scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
  40. VanLeuvan, P. (2004). Young Women’s Science/Mathematics Career Goals From Seventh Grade to High School Graduation. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(5), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.5.248-268
  41. Weber, K., & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based Preferences toward Technology Education Content, Activities, and Instructional Methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55–71. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v16n2/pdf/weber.pdf
  42. Zhao, C.-M., Carini, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Searching for the Peach Blossom Shangri-La: Student Engagement of Men and Women SMET Majors. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2005.0054
  43. Zhou, Y., Fan, X., Wei, X., & Tai, R. H. (2017). Gender Gap Among High Achievers in Math and Implications for STEM Pipeline [Article]. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(5), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0346-1