1

CIA- 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (BBA433)

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Safaljeet Singh Saluja (2223087) Dr Lakshmi RB
Abhishek Gupta (2223003) Dr Poornima
Nandika Jain (2223067)
Bhakthi K S (2223052)
Prateeksha S M (2223070)

TOPIC – The Mosaic of Equality: Navigating the Nuances of Gender

Balance

4 BBAH - A
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
 2

“THE MOSAIC OF EQUALITY: NAVIGATING THE NUANCES OF

GENDER BALANCE”

Abstract

Since gender equality is a fundamental accelerator for sustainable development, it is

essential to achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Its significance is
beyond specific goals; it affects the eradication of poverty (SDG 1) by guaranteeing equal
access to opportunities and resources; it improves education (SDG 4) by offering equal
learning opportunities; it influences health outcomes (SDG 3) by improving access to
healthcare and reproductive rights; it fosters economic growth (SDG 8) by encouraging
women to enter the workforce; it shapes safe and inclusive urban spaces (SDG 11); it
contributes to climate action (SDG 13) by acknowledging women's roles in environmental
sustainability; and it promotes peaceful societies (SDG 16) by lowering gender-based
violence and guaranteeing equitable participation in decision-making processes.

Gender equality is inextricably linked to human rights, social fairness, economic prosperity,
and sustainable development, making it an essential topic for discussion and action. It serves
as a fundamental tenet for guaranteeing equity and equal chances for all person, irrespective of
gender, and it makes a substantial contribution to social stability, economic expansion,
innovation, and better health results. Adopting gender equality creates a world where variety
and equality serve as the cornerstones for everyone's future prosperity and sustainability, in
addition to a more equitable and inclusive society.

Introduction

Gender equality is a core idea that promotes the equitable rights, opportunities, and
treatment of all individuals, irrespective of their gender. This notion acknowledges the
intrinsic value and respect that should be given to every individual, regardless of their
gender identity, whether it be male, female, or non-binary. Gender equality aims to eradicate
gender-based discrimination and prejudice, creating a society where everyone can freely
engage and make meaningful contributions to their communities, workplaces, and
institutions without any restrictions or limitations.
 3

The domain of gender equality is extensive, incorporating diverse aspects of life, such as
education, employment, politics, healthcare, and social relationships. It tackles
discrepancies and difficulties that result from societal expectations, cultural norms, and
systemic inequalities. Attaining gender equality entails more than just addressing current
disparities; it also involves questioning and altering the fundamental systems and mindsets
that sustain discrimination and violence based on gender.

Gender equality is not just a moral obligation, but also a crucial catalyst for sustainable
development, economic expansion, and social advancement. Societies get the benefits of a
varied array of viewpoints and talents when all individuals, irrespective of their gender, have
equitable access to education and work opportunities. Gender parity promotes ingenuity,
adaptability, and inclusiveness, establishing settings where all individuals can prosper and
make substantial contributions.

Moreover, gender equality is crucial for constructing equitable and democratic societies. It
guarantees that every individual's opinions are taken into account, different viewpoints are
respected, and the methods used to make decisions consider the variety of people in a
community. Through the deconstruction of gender-based preconceptions and biases, society
can progress towards enhanced harmony, social cohesion, and collective welfare.

Within this framework, the endeavour to achieve gender equality is not solely a moral
obligation to uphold human rights, but also a calculated investment in the advancement of
society on a broader scale. To effectively address established biases, advocate for policy
reforms, and foster an empowering environment for all individuals to achieve their
maximum potential, it is necessary to consistently exert efforts at the individual,
institutional, and societal levels.

Review of Literature

The article underscores persisting challenges in global gender equality, particularly in education
and reproductive health, citing alarming statistics and the impact of COVID-19 on women. It
introduces two new UN indices, WEI and GGPI, to measure the gender gap, revealing that a small
gap doesn't equate to high empowerment levels. Few countries are on track to achieve SDG 5
 4

targets. It stresses the importance of gender equality in politics, citing a study linking better SDG
performance with increased female and younger legislators. However, it notes a lack of
collaboration between organizations responsible for different SDGs, hindering integration of
gender considerations. (Skipper et al., 2023).

Blau and Kahn's research offers a thorough analysis of the gender wage gap, highlighting the
impact of occupational segregation, workplace discrimination, and the "motherhood penalty."
Their exploration of human capital variables reveals persistent disparities despite educational and
experiential advancements. While the paper provides valuable insights for policymakers and
advocates, it could benefit from a deeper dive into policy interventions. Nonetheless, the research
significantly contributes to understanding gender equality in the workplace, laying a solid
foundation for future discussions and initiatives aimed at closing the gender wage gap. (Blau and
Kahn’s,2017).

This article expertly examines the crucial link between gender equality and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), drawing on reputable research and global statistics. It emphasizes the
necessity of addressing issues like racism, violence, and limited involvement to advance gender
parity and overall development goals. The article underscores the interdependence of gender
equality and sustainable development, calling for a comprehensive strategy to empower women
and remove obstacles to their full participation in society. Supported by global studies, it urges
stakeholders to take action to achieve inclusive and equitable growth, framing gender equality as
both a moral imperative and a strategic necessity for global progress. ( Saole et al., 2023).

This article delves into the "gender-equality paradox," examining why women are
underrepresented in STEM fields, especially mathematics. It discusses the Gender Math Stereotype
(GMS) and its role in perpetuating gender disparities. Using PISA 2012 data, it shows how GMS
persists even in developed, equitable nations. The article advocates for legislative measures to
address the imbalance, emphasizing the need to break down systemic barriers. By combining
observations on GMS with calls for legislative action, the article contributes significantly to the
discourse on gender representation in STEM, offering real solutions to promote women's success
in these fields. (Napp and Thebault, 2020).

This thorough article investigates gender gaps in work, income, and education, revealing a
troubling slowdown in progress. It employs rigorous statistical analysis and diverse data sources,
enhancing credibility. The study not only identifies existing discrepancies but also delves into deep
patterns and persistent inequities in job markets and academic disciplines. By simultaneously
 5

examining work and education settings, it offers comprehensive insights into the variables causing
gender disparities. Furthermore, it sets the framework for specific interventions and legislative
actions to address barriers to gender equality. (Mishel et al., 2020).

The article highlights the crucial connection between economic success and gender equality,
emphasizing the transformative impact of microfinance organizations in empowering women. It
critiques traditional economic models for neglecting women's caregiving roles and advocates for
more inclusive frameworks. By showcasing the reciprocal relationship between gender equality
and economic growth, the article calls for a paradigm shift towards recognizing and rewarding
women's contributions. Overall, it presents a compelling narrative urging for a symbiotic link
between gender equality and economic advancement to achieve a fairer and more sustainable
future. (Mikkola et al., 2005).

Niaz Asadullah and Zaki Wahhaj's 2019 study on gender equality, norms, and health in Bangladesh
offers a rigorous analysis of how gender norms impact health outcomes. They skillfullly integrate
economics and sociology, revealing the intricate interplay between societal norms and individual
wellbeing, particularly for women. While their focus on Bangladesh enriches global discourse,
further exploration of policy implications could enhance the study. Nonetheless, their research
significantly contributes to understanding the complex relationship between gender equality and
health, bridging economic and sociological perspectives and highlighting the pivotal role of gender
norms in shaping health dynamics. (Asadullah and Wahhaj, 2019)

R.W. Connell's "Masculinities and Globalization" is a groundbreaking exploration of the complex

interplay between masculinity and globalization. It challenges traditional notions of masculinity,
offering insight into how global forces shape diverse gender identities. While published in 1995, its
foresight into globalization's impact on masculinities remains commendable. However, readers
may seek supplementary analyses to address recent developments. Overall, it's a seminal text that
continues to influence discussions on gender and identity in our evolving world. (Connell et al.,
1998)

Unbending Gender" by Joan C. Williams is a seminal work dissecting the interplay of family
responsibilities and work obligations, particularly for women. Williams critiques societal
expectations and gender norms, highlighting the conflicts hindering women's career advancement.
She offers practical insights into structural and cultural barriers, advocating for transformative
changes in workplace policies and cultural attitudes. Williams not only diagnoses the issues but
also provides pragmatic recommendations for organizations and policymakers. Her analysis is
 6

incisive, shedding light on persistent challenges and offering solutions in a concise and compelling
manner. (Williams et al., 2000)

This analysis delves into gender disparities in self-employment in low- and middle-income
countries, highlighting women's predominance in vulnerable forms of work. It distinguishes
between survivaloriented and accumulation-oriented enterprises, noting the gendered nature of
placement along this spectrum. The review raises questions about why women are concentrated in
less remunerative sectors and explores the complexities of choice and constraint in shaping
women's access to transformative work. It also addresses challenges women face in challenging
their subordinate positions and expanding their social networks. Overall, it calls for nuanced
interventions and systemic changes to mitigate gender disparities and promote equitable
opportunities for women's entrepreneurship in LMICs. (First et al., 2018).

The text analyses gender disparities in education across 43 low- and middle-income countries,
noting improvements in female enrolment and completion rates over time. It highlights the
emergence of gender parity in primary completion and secondary enrolment by the second period,
aligning with global trends. However, it underscores the complexity of gender gaps, emphasizing
regional and country-level variations. The analysis reveals nuanced patterns, linking disparities in
primary completion or secondary enrolment to disparities in primary school enrolment. Overall,
the text provides valuable insights into the evolving landscape of gender disparities in education,
emphasizing the need for nuanced examinations at different educational levels and stages of
development. (Psaki et al., 2018)

This article from the Lancet Series on gender equality, norms, and health delves at the widespread
issue of gender bias in healthcare institutions. It clearly demonstrates how these institutions
reinforce inequality and restrictive gender norms, affecting both patients and healthcare
professionals. This essay makes an important contribution to the discourse concerning gender bias
in healthcare systems. The authors lay the ground for future action and good change by raising
awareness of the issue and emphasising its importance. Addressing the highlighted shortcomings
and broadening the scope of the research can help to enhance the case for a more fair and inclusive
healthcare system for all. ( Maceira et al., 2019)
 7

Research Gaps
The articles on the slowing narrowing of the gender gap lack thorough exploration of its causes,
such as insufficient information on potential remedies and interventions, limited research on
intersectionality with other identity factors, and an overemphasis on Europe and North America.
Additionally, they often focus on short-term outcomes of gender equality programs and lack
exploration of masculinity's role in perpetuating or challenging gender norms. Furthermore, while
they excel at identifying problems, they provide limited depth in terms of real answers and
concrete suggestions for addressing gender bias in healthcare systems, which could enhance their
impact by delving deeper into execution and potential challenges. Overall, addressing these
shortcomings by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the forces driving the
slowdown, exploring intersectionality, expanding geographical scope, assessing long-term impacts,
exploring masculinity's role, and offering concrete suggestions for interventions would strengthen
the articles' effectiveness in fostering true gender equality.

Statement of Problem
Despite notable strides, achieving gender equality remains a precarious and multifaceted challenge.
The resurgence of child marriages amid the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to erode progress made
in recent years. Inadequate collaboration on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has impeded
the integration of gender-sensitive policies. Rigid gender stereotypes further compound issues,
exacerbating conflicts between work and family responsibilities while impeding career
advancement for women. Discriminatory attitudes, limited decision-making roles, and biased
workplace policies create formidable structural barriers. Although education is crucial, simplistic
narratives equating modernization with gender equality require careful scrutiny. This study
critically examines these interconnected issues to shed light on the nuanced obstacles hindering the
realization of true gender equality.
 8

Research Questions and Objectives

Research Questions-

1. How do social, cultural, political, and economic factors in different regions of

Bangalore influence the nature and severity of these obstacles?

2. What are the potential negative consequences of failing to address these obstacles
effectively, not only for women but for society as a whole?

3. What are the most significant interconnected obstacles hindering progress towards true
gender equality and the limitations of current SDG collaboration?

Research Objectives-

1. To promote understanding and awareness of gender equality.

2. To navigate the complexities and nuances surrounding gender balance.

3. To foster inclusivity and representation across genders.

4. To empower individuals to challenge gender stereotypes and biases.

5. To advocate for policies and practices that support gender equality in all spheres of life.
 9

Need for the Study

The need for the study “Mosaic of Equality: Navigating The Nuances Of Gender balance”: Gender
equality must be comprehensively explored across all sectors to fully grasp its multifaceted nature
and its impact on various facets of society. By identifying disparities and inequalities within each
industry, such as income gaps and underrepresentation in leadership roles, we can tailor policies
and interventions to address the root causes of these issues. This sector-specific analysis also
allows for a deeper understanding of how gender intersects with other factors like race, class, and
disability, informing more inclusive solutions. Moreover, examining gender patterns exposes
underlying power imbalances that perpetuate inequality, enabling efforts to challenge and
deconstruct these structures. Lastly, studying gender equality through a sectoral lens generates new
insights and knowledge,

driving progress towards achieving equality in all aspects of life.

IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES
Independent Variables:
V1: Social Factors:- Social influences have a big impact on how people think and act in
relation to gender roles. Social norms and cultural beliefs can either support or contradict
barriers to gender parity.

Example Variable: Social norms and attitudes towards gender roles.

V2: Cultural Factors:- Cultural norms have an impact on the opportunities and challenges
experienced by people of different genders by shaping expectations surrounding family
obligations, education, and professional choices.

Example Variable: Cultural practices and traditions related to gender.

V3: Political Factors:- Laws, regulations, and government policies have the power to help or
hurt gender parity. Gender representation, for example, may be impacted by affirmative
action or anti-discrimination laws.
 10

Example Variable: Gender-related policies and legal frameworks.

V4: Economic Factors:- Economic variables can affect people's professional decisions and
career trajectories, leading to gender inequalities in some sectors or businesses. Examples of
these factors include access to high-quality education and employment possibilities.

Example Variable: Economic development and employment opportunities.

Dependent Variable:

IV1: Gender Balance Metrics:- It determines the Representation of genders in various sectors
and leadership positions which signifies the dynamics around the world regarding gender
disparity.

Social
Factors (IV)

Economic Gender Balnce Cultural

Factors (IV) Metrics (DV) Factors (IV)

Political
Factors (IV)

HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION

 Gender Disparity in STEM Enrolment and Participation: The first set of

hypotheses explores the presence of gender disparities in STEM enrolment and
participation across various educational levels in India. By positing the absence of a
significant gender disparity as the alternative hypothesis (H1) and the presence of such
disparities as the null hypothesis (H0), the study aims to investigate whether girls are
underrepresented in STEM education compared to boys. Understanding the extent and
significance of these disparities is crucial for developing targeted interventions to
promote gender equity in STEM fields.
 11

 Influence of Socio-cultural Factors on Student’s confidence to pursue STEM: The

second hypothesis delves into the influence of socio-cultural factors, including gender
stereotypes, societal expectations, and familial influences, on students' attitudes
towards STEM subjects and their confidence in pursuing them. This hypothesis
suggests that socio-cultural factors play a significant role in shaping students'
perceptions and aspirations in STEM fields, potentially contributing to the gender gap
observed in STEM education.

• H0: The gender balance of an organization is not significantly influenced by social

factors, such as attitudes, support networks, and social conventions.

H1: Social variables have a major impact on representation and opportunity for both
genders, as well as gender balance within an organization.

• H0: Gender balance in a specific region is not significantly impacted by cultural

factors, such as gender-related conventions and traditions.

H1: Cultural variables have a big impact on gender balance, which affects how
diversity and inclusion are accepted and leads to differences in representation.

• H0: The gender balance within a society context is not greatly impacted by
government policies and legislation pertaining to gender equality.

H1: Political considerations have a major impact on gender balance outcomes, such as
supportive policies and well-executed regulations.

• H0: Differences in gender balance outcomes are not greatly influenced by

intersectionality, which takes into account different social identities.

Hypothesis 1: Gender balance is greatly impacted by intersectionality because the

types and degrees of challenges that people encounter vary depending on the
combination of their social identities.
 12

Sampling Technique
For our research, we are using non-probability sampling, which can also be referred to as
non-random sampling. There are more variables at play in this kind of sampling approach
than merely random chance.
Additionally, convenience sampling is being used. It is frequently used in our topic's research
for practical reasons, particularly when contacting people is difficult or there are few
resources available. By choosing people who are easily reachable or accessible, this sampling
technique enables researchers to collect data fast and effectively. Convenience sampling can
be a useful strategy to involve a diverse range of respondents, especially considering the
delicate nature of the gender balance topic, which may make participants more reluctant to
participate. It is frequently selected because of limitations including resources, time, and the
challenge of finding a representative sample. Participants who are easily reachable through
established networks, organizations, or internet platforms may be used by researchers.
Although this method makes the process of gathering data easier and more affordable, it has
drawbacks in terms of sample biases and generalizability.

Sampling Frame
Convenience sampling sample sizes often range from 30 to several hundred people,
depending on the objectives and scope of the study. When choosing this sampling strategy for
our investigation, we carefully considered the trade-offs between the advantages of
convenience and the possible drawbacks in terms of sample representativeness and statistical
power. In general, we have viewed the people of South Bangalore as a population for our
research, from whom we want to draw a sample that will help us in carrying out our research.
In order to ensure some degree of accuracy in our research, we shall make an effort to collect

a sizable sample.
 13

GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE DATA COLLECTED

1. To what extent do you

believe stereotypes about
gender roles influence
girls' interest in STEM
subjects?

The graph depicts the results on the influence of gender stereotypes on girls’ interest in STEM
subjects. Among the 156 respondents, the largest portion, 42.9%, believed stereotypes have a
strong influence. Another 28.6% believed the influence is moderate. Only 16.1% thought
stereotypes have a little or no influence.

2. How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM subjects compared to
your peers of the opposite gender?
 14

The above graph illustrates the distribution of self-reported confidence in STEM abilities
relative to peers of the opposite gender. The scale ranges from 1 (low confidence) to 5 (high
confidence).
The largest proportion of respondents, 28.6% and 30.4%, selected confidence levels 3 and 4,
respectively. This suggests a neutral sentiment towards their own abilities relative to peers.
Smaller percentages of respondents indicated either high confidence (17.9%) or low
confidence (21.4%). Overall, the result suggests a spread of perceptions on confidence in
STEM abilities relative to gender.

3. How supportive do
you feel your family is of
your pursuing a career in
STEM, regardless of
your gender?

Of the 156 respondents, only 43.1% felt their family was very supportive (represented by the
blue slice). A larger portion, 26.8%, felt their family was somewhat supportive (represented by
the orange slice). The remaining respondents indicated either neutral support (17.9%, yellow)
or little to no support (12.5%, green). Overall, the survey results suggest that while some
respondents felt their family was very supportive of pursuing STEM careers, a significant
portion felt only somewhat supportive or neutral.
 15

4. To what extent do you agree that cultural norms in your community discourage
girls from pursuing STEM careers?

The graph depicts the results on the extent to which cultural norms discourage girls from
pursuing STEM careers. Among the all the respondents, over half (55.4%) believed that
cultural norms strongly or somewhat discourage girls (26.8% + 55.4%) from pursuing STEM
careers. Only a small minority, 7.1%, felt cultural norms have little to no influence.

5. How far do you agree that the current STEM curriculum and teaching practices are biased
towards one gender?

According to the graph, a significant portion of respondents (42.9%) believe that the current
STEM curriculum and teaching practices are biased towards one gender. An additional 33.9%
somewhat disagree. This suggests that over three-quarters of respondents (76.8%) perceive a
bias in STEM curriculum and teaching practices. There is a smaller proportion of respondents
who disagree (28.6%) or strongly disagree (7.1%) with the statement. Overall, the results
suggest a bias towards one gender in current STEM curriculum and teaching practices
 16

6. How far do you agree that the girls in engineering face challenges
related to discrimination or lack of support compared to boys?

According to the graph, a nearly half (48.3%) of respondents believe that girls in engineering
face at least some challenges related to discrimination or lack of support compared to boys.
This is based on the combined percentage of those who strongly agree (17.9%) and somewhat
agree (30.4%). A significant portion of respondents (39.3% + 12.5%) disagree with the
statement.
Overall, the survey results suggest mixed views on whether girls in engineering face
challenges.

7. How aware are you of gender- related policies and laws in your country?

Based on the pie chart, a slight majority of respondents (156%) believe that boys in healthcare
face challenges related to discrimination or lack of support compared to girls.
 17

8. How much will you rate that the boys in healthcare face challenges related to
discrimination or lack of support compared to girls?

Based on the results of the question on people’s belief about the gender gap in STEM
education leading to achievement differences, over half (53.6%) of the 156 respondents said
yes. This suggests that a majority of respondents believe there is a connection between the
gender gap and achievement. A smaller proportion, 26.8% said no, and 19.6% said maybe. It is
important to note that this is a small survey and may not be generalizable to a larger population

9. Do you believe the gender gap in STEM education leads to differences in academic
achievement between boys and girls?

A significant portion of respondents (42.9%) strongly disagrees that the gender gap in STEM
education affects career aspirations and choices. This suggests that many students believe the
gender gap does not have a major influence on students' career paths in STEM fields.
 18

10. How far do you agree the gender gap in STEM education affects students'
career aspirations and choices?

Based on the results of how people responded to the question: "Do you agree that the gender
gap in STEM education has long-term consequences for the diversity and innovation of the
workforce?" Of the 156 respondents, the largest portion (58.9%) said yes. This suggests that a
majority of respondents believe the gender gap in STEM education has negative consequences
for workforce diversity and innovation. A smaller portion, 23.2% said maybe, and 17.9% said
no.

11. Do you agree that the gender gap in STEM education has long-term
consequences for the diversity and innovation of the workforce?

Nearly half of the respondents (48.2%) believe that individual factors, such as self-efficacy and
motivation, are the most important area of research in understanding the gender gap in STEM
education. Systemic factors, including curriculum and teaching practices, are viewed as the
most important area by 28.6% of respondents. A smaller percentage (16.1%) of respondents
believe that a combination of both individual and systemic factors is most important. Only a
 19

small portion (7.1%) of respondents did not believe any of the above areas were important for
understanding the causes of the gender gap in STEM education.

12. What areas of research do you think are most important for understanding the causes of
the gender gap in STEM?

A strong majority of respondents (83.9%) believe more research is needed on this topic, with
25% strongly agreeing and 58.9% agreeing. Only a small percentage (16.1%) disagreed, with
8.9% disagreeing and 7.1% strongly disagreeing.

13. Do you agree that more research is needed to understand the specific experiences of
different groups of students within STEM?

A plurality of respondents (44.6%) favored a combination of all three research methods listed:
large-scale surveys, qualitative studies, and observational studies. This suggests that
researchers should employ a multifaceted approach to gain a comprehensive understanding of
the gender gap in STEM education. Other options, including large-scale surveys only (26.8%)
 20

and qualitative studies only (14.3%) received less support. Only a small portion of respondents
(14.3%) preferred observational studies alone.

14. What are some potential research methods that could be used to investigate the gender
gap in STEM?

The largest portion of respondents (42.9%) endorsed early childhood education programs that
promote STEM for all children. This suggests that many educators believe early intervention is
crucial in addressing the gender gap. Other interventions considered important include:
Mentoring programs for girls and underrepresented groups (19.6%). Bias training for teachers
(12.5%). Curriculum reforms to make STEM more inclusive (19.6%). Notably, a significant
number of respondents (19.6%) selected all of the above interventions, indicating a belief in a
comprehensive approach.

15. What types of interventions do you think could be effective in addressing the gender gap
in STEM education?
 21

Lack of funding is the biggest perceived challenge, according to 46.4% of respondents.

Difficulty in measuring the impact of interventions is viewed as a challenge by 35.7% of
respondents. A smaller percentage of respondents (17.9%) believe both funding and
measurement challenges are significant hurdles. Very few respondents (7.1%) indicated that
neither funding nor measurement are challenges.

16. What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing effective interventions to address
the gender gap?

• A significant proportion of respondents (33.9%) believe that a slower development of

indigenous technologies in India is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in
STEM education.

• This suggests that many respondents believe a lack of women in STEM fields hinders
technological innovation in India.

• Other potential negative impacts, according to the survey, include a shortage of skilled
professionals in science and technology (25.0%) and limited innovation and
entrepreneurship in the STEM sector (30.4%).

• A smaller percentage of respondents (10.7%) felt that all of the above would be
negative impacts.
 22

17. What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM education in India?

The pie chart shows how difficult people believe it is for educational institutions to implement
policies and programs specifically targeted at promoting gender diversity in STEM fields. Of
the 156 respondents, the largest portion, 43.9%, said it is difficult or very difficult. This
suggests that a significant proportion of the people surveyed believe that educational
institutions face challenges in implementing these programs.

18. How crucial do you think it is for educational institutions to implemen

t policies and
programs specifically targeted at promoting gender diversity in STEM fields?

• A strong majority of respondents (82.1%) agree that the lack of female role models in
STEM fields plays a role in perpetuating the gender gap.
 23

• This sentiment is broken down as 23.2% strongly agreeing and 58.9% somewhat
agreeing.

• Only a small percentage (17.9%) of respondents disagreed with the statement.

19. Do you agree that lack female role models in STEM fields play role in perpetuating
the gender gaps?

• A significant proportion of respondents (42.9%) believe that a lack of supportive

workplace culture is the biggest barrier for women in STEM fields.

• This suggests that many respondents view workplace culture as a critical factor
affecting women’s experiences in STEM careers.

20. Do you believe that providing early exposure to STEM ed

ucation can help bridge the
gender gap in the field?
 24

• A slight majority of respondents (55.4%) believe that societal stereotypes discourage

females from pursuing STEM fields. This is the sum of the two largest slices, “Strongly
Agree” (26.8%) and “Somewhat Agree” (28.6%).

• Less than half (44.6%) of respondents disagreed with the statement. This means they
believe societal stereotypes do not play a significant role in discouraging females from
STEM fields.

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

A reliability analysis assesses the internal consistency or the extent to which the items in a
questionnaire measure the same underlying construct reliably. In this case, the reliability
analysis yielded a coefficient alpha of 0.6156.
The coefficient alpha value of 0.6156 obtained from the reliability analysis suggests moderate
internal consistency reliability for the questionnaire used in this study. Generally, coefficient
alpha values above 0.6 are considered acceptable for research purposes, indicating good
internal consistency among the items.

INTERPRETATION OF STATISTICAL TOOLS USED

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
1. Stereotype Influence on Girls' Interest in STEM:

Mean (3.22): A slightly above neutral score suggests participants generally perceive a
moderate influence of stereotypes on girls' interest in STEM. This implies societal
expectations around gender roles might discourage girls from pursuing STEM subjects.
Std. Deviation (0.9156): The moderate variability indicates some participants believe
stereotypes have a stronger influence (higher scores), while others see a weaker effect (lower
scores).
 25

2. Confidence in STEM Abilities:

Mean (3.36): The slightly above neutral score suggests participants generally feel somewhat
confident in their STEM abilities compared to the opposite gender. However, this doesn't
necessarily reflect actual achievement differences.
Std. Deviation (1.192): The high variability reveals a range of confidence levels. Some
participants might be highly confident (higher scores), while others might have lower
confidence (lower scores) compared to their opposite-gender peers.

3. Family Support for STEM Careers:

Mean (3.82): The score above neutral suggests participants generally perceive a moderate level
of family support for pursuing STEM careers, regardless of gender. This is encouraging as
family support is crucial for educational and career aspirations.
Std. Deviation (1.1156): The moderate variability indicates that while most perceive some
support, the level might differ across participants. Some families might provide stronger
support (higher scores) than others.

4. Cultural Discouragement of Girls in STEM:

Mean (3.47): The slightly above neutral score suggests participants generally perceive some
degree of discouragement from cultural norms. Cultural expectations might influence girls'
choices and limit their participation in STEM fields.
Std. Deviation (0.959): The moderate variability indicates differing views on the strength of
cultural discouragement. Some participants might see stronger cultural influences (higher
scores) than others.

5. Gender Bias in STEM Curriculum and Teaching:

Mean (3.09): The slightly above neutral score suggests a general perception of some gender
bias in the curriculum or teaching methods. This bias might unintentionally favor one gender
over the other.

Std. Deviation (0.928): The moderate variability indicates differing opinions on the extent of
bias.

Some participants might perceive stronger bias (higher scores) than others.
 26

6. Challenges Faced by Girls in Engineering:

Mean (3.36): The slightly above neutral score suggests participants generally perceive girls in
engineering face some challenges related to discrimination or lack of support. Addressing
these challenges is essential for promoting gender equality in STEM fields.
Std. Deviation (1.112): The moderate variability indicates differing perceptions on the severity
of challenges faced. Some participants might see more significant challenges (higher scores)
than others.

7. Challenges Faced by Boys in Healthcare:

Mean (3.18): The slightly above neutral score suggests a perception that boys in healthcare
might also face some challenges; however, the mean is lower than the score for girls in
engineering. Participants might perceive these challenges as less significant.
Std. Deviation (1.0156): The moderate variability indicates some variation in views on
challenges faced by boys in healthcare. Participants might not completely disregard these
challenges, but perceive them as less prevalent than those for girls in engineering.
8. Gender Gap and Academic Achievement:

Mean (1.75): The score below neutral leans towards disagreement with the statement.
Participants might not perceive a significant link between the gender gap and academic
achievement. This suggests a need for further investigation into the relationship between these
factors.
Std. Deviation (0.865): The moderate variability indicates some participants might hold
stronger opinions on either side. There might be disagreement on whether the gender gap
directly translates into achievement differences.

9. Gender Gap Affecting Career Aspirations:

Mean (3.49): The slightly above neutral score suggests participants generally perceive the
gender gap might influence career aspirations. This implies that the underrepresentation of
women in STEM might discourage girls from pursuing STEM careers.
Std. Deviation (0.858): The moderate variability indicates some disagreement on the extent of
the impact. While some participants might see a strong influence (higher scores), others might
believe the effect is weaker (lower scores).
 27

10. Long-Term Consequences of the Gender Gap:

Mean (1.65): The score below neutral leans towards agreement that the gender gap has long-
term consequences for workforce diversity and innovation. Participants might perceive a
negative impact on the overall potential of the workforce.
Std. Deviation (0.844): The moderate variability indicates some differing views on the severity
of long-term consequences. Some participants might see a more significant impact (lower
scores) than others.

11. Important Research Areas for Understanding Causes:

Mean (2.47): This slightly above the midpoint score suggests participants believe research in
various areas is important for understanding the causes of the gender gap. There might not be a
single factor, and a multifaceted approach to research is needed.
Std. Deviation (0.858): The moderate variability indicates participants might prioritize
different research areas (scores might vary depending on the specific area).

12. Need for Research on Diverse Student Experiences:

Mean (3.51): This score well above neutral suggests a strong agreement on the need for further
research on the experiences of diverse student groups in STEM. Understanding these
experiences is crucial for developing targeted interventions.
Std. Deviation (1.153): The moderate variability indicates some participants might see this as
even more crucial than others (higher scores). There might be a strong emphasis on the
importance of considering experiences of different identity groups within STEM.

13. Potential Research Methods:

Mean (2.87): This slightly above the midpoint score suggests participants see value in various
research methods (surveys, interviews, etc.) for investigating the gender gap in STEM. A
combination of methods might be most effective.
Std. Deviation (1.139): The moderate variability indicates participants might propose different
approaches (scores might vary depending on the specific method). There might be some
disagreement on the most effective methods for investigating the gender gap.

14. Effective Interventions:

 28

Mean (3.44): This slightly above neutral score suggests participants believe various
interventions could be effective in addressing the gender gap. This includes programs,
mentorship, and curriculum changes.
Std. Deviation (1.512): The high variability indicates participants might propose different
types of interventions (scores might vary depending on the specific intervention). Some
interventions might be perceived as more impactful than others.

15. Challenges in Implementing Interventions:

Mean (2.49): This slightly above the midpoint score suggests participants acknowledge
challenges in implementing interventions (funding, resources, etc.). Overcoming these
challenges is crucial for making progress.
Std. Deviation (0.791): The relatively low variability indicates some agreement on the nature
of these challenges (scores might be clustered). There might be a shared understanding of the
main obstacles to implementing effective interventions.

16. Negative Impact of the Gender Gap in India:

Mean (2.85): This slightly above the midpoint score suggests participants perceive potential
negative impacts of the gender gap in STEM education, specifically in the Indian context. This
could limit India's scientific and technological advancement.
Std. Deviation (1.008): The moderate variability indicates participants might have differing
views on the specific negative consequences (scores might vary depending on the specific
impact). There might be some disagreement on the most significant negative impacts.

17. Importance of Targeted Policies and Programs:

Mean (3.55): This score well above neutral suggests a strong belief in the importance of
targeted policies and programs in educational institutions to promote gender diversity in
STEM fields. This could include scholarships, outreach programs, and dedicated support
systems.
Std. Deviation (1.152): The moderate variability indicates some participants might see this as
even more crucial than others (higher scores). There might be a strong emphasis on the role of
educational institutions in addressing the gender gap.

18. Lack of Female Role Models:

 29

Mean (3.60): This score well above neutral suggests a strong agreement on the importance of
female role models in STEM. Seeing successful women in STEM fields can inspire girls to
pursue similar paths.
Std. Deviation (1.116): The moderate variability indicates some participants might see this as a
more significant factor than others (higher scores). There might be a strong emphasis on the
need for increased visibility of female role models in STEM.

19. Early Exposure to STEM Education:

Mean (3.84): This score well above neutral suggests a strong belief in the benefits of early
exposure to STEM education for both boys and girls. Early engagement can spark interest,
build foundational skills, and create a more positive association with STEM fields.
Std. Deviation (1.067): The moderate variability indicates some participants might see this as
even more crucial than others (higher scores). There might be a strong emphasis on the
importance of introducing STEM concepts in early education.

20. Impact of Societal Stereotypes:

Mean (3.45): This slightly above neutral score suggests participants perceive societal
stereotypes as a discouraging factor for females pursuing STEM subjects. Stereotypes can
create self-doubt and limit girls' perceptions of their abilities in these fields.
Std. Deviation (1.033): The moderate variability indicates participants might have differing
views on the strength of this discouragement (scores might vary depending on the perceived
influence of stereotypes). There might be some disagreement on how significantly stereotypes
discourage females from pursuing STEM.

FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
Question 1:

Mean (3.22): This slightly above neutral score suggests a general perception of moderate
influence from stereotypes. This indicates that, on average, participants believe stereotypes
play a noticeable role in discouraging girls from pursuing STEM.
 30

Standard Deviation (0.9156): The moderate standard deviation highlights a range of

viewpoints. While a significant portion perceives a moderate influence, others hold stronger or
weaker beliefs about the impact of stereotypes.

Distribution of Responses:

Mode (3): The most frequent response (43.6%) is 3, suggesting a perception of moderate
influence as the most common view among participants. This reinforces the notion that
stereotypes are seen as a relevant factor by a considerable portion of the population.
Skewness (-0.064) and Kurtosis (-0.098): The near-zero values for skewness and kurtosis
indicate a relatively normal distribution of responses. This suggests that the data is not heavily
skewed towards either end of the scale (very low or very high influence) and that the
distribution is fairly symmetrical.

Question 2:

Range of Confidence Levels: The high standard deviation is the most prominent feature.

Participants expressed varying levels of confidence, from not confident at all to very confident.
This suggests a need for interventions that cater to diverse student experiences and confidence
levels.
Somewhat Confident Majority (29.1%): The largest group reported feeling somewhat
confident. This could be due to a combination of factors, including positive academic
experiences, belief in their own abilities, or a lack of awareness regarding the skills of their
opposite-gender peers.
Distribution Across the Scale: The relatively even distribution across all response options
indicates that a significant portion of participants feel either less confident (scores 1 and 2) or
quite confident
(scores 4 and 5). This reinforces the need for a multifaceted approach to promoting confidence
in STEM for all students.

Skewness and Potential Explanations:

Slight Negative Skew (-0.412): The slight negative skew suggests a possible tendency towards
higher confidence scores.
 31

Question 3: Cultural Discouragement of Girls in STEM

Most Common Response (156.4% Agree): The majority of participants agreed that cultural
norms discourage girls from pursuing STEM careers to some extent. This suggests a
widespread perception of cultural barriers for girls in STEM fields.
Neutral Responses (25.5%): A significant portion of participants remained neutral, indicating
either uncertainty about the impact of cultural norms or a lack of personal experience with
such discouragement.
Disagreement (18.2% Disagree + Strongly Disagree): A minority of participants disagreed with
the statement, suggesting they perceive cultural norms as less of a barrier or not a barrier at all.

Question 4: Gender Bias in STEM Curriculum and Teaching

Similar Distribution (Around 30% Each): The responses were relatively evenly distributed
across "Disagree," "Neutral," and "Agree" categories. This indicates a lack of consensus on
whether the current STEM curriculum and teaching practices favor one gender.
Smaller Groups at Extremes (Around 15% Each): Smaller groups of participants strongly
disagreed or strongly agreed with the statement, suggesting some hold clear convictions about
potential gender bias in STEM education.

Question 5: Challenges for Girls in Engineering

Majority Perceives Challenges (78.2% Agree + Strongly Agree): The majority of participants
agreed that girls in engineering face challenges related to discrimination or lack of support
compared to boys. This highlights a perceived lack of equal opportunities and support for girls
in engineering fields.
Neutral Responses (30.9%): A significant portion remained neutral, indicating they might be
unsure about the extent of challenges or lack personal experience with such issues.
Limited Disagreement (18.2% Disagree + Strongly Disagree): A minority of participants
disagreed with the statement, suggesting they perceive a more level playing field for girls in
engineering.

Question 6: Challenges for Boys in Healthcare

Most Common Response (41.8% Neutral): The largest group remained neutral, possibly
unsure about the existence or extent of challenges faced by boys in healthcare.
 32

Distribution Across Responses: Responses were spread across all categories, with smaller
groups disagreeing, agreeing, or strongly agreeing with the statement. This suggests a lack of
clear consensus on whether boys face challenges in healthcare compared to girls.

Question 7: Gender Gap and Academic Achievement

Majority Sees Connection (52.7% Yes): The majority of participants believed the gender gap in
STEM education leads to differences in academic achievement between boys and girls.
Significant Minority Unsure (27.3% Maybe): A notable portion remained unsure about the
connection between the gender gap and academic achievement, indicating a need for further
investigation.
Disagreement (20% No): A minority disagreed with the statement, suggesting they believe the
gender gap doesn't necessarily translate into achievement differences.

Question 9:

Mean (3.73): The score above neutral suggests a perception that the gender gap in STEM
education affects students' career aspirations and choices.
Standard Deviation (0.858): A moderate standard deviation indicates a range of perspectives,
with some participants believing the impact is stronger than others.
Slight Negative Skew (-0.427): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the
statement, but a larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: The largest group (34.5%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (29.1%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data suggests a widespread concern that the gender gap discourages students, particularly
girls, from pursuing STEM careers. This highlights the importance of addressing the gap to
broaden career opportunities for all students.

Question 10:

Mean (4.02): The score approaching the maximum value suggests a strong belief that the
gender gap has long-term consequences for workforce diversity and innovation.
Standard Deviation (0.844): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
opinion, but the consensus leans towards agreement.
Positive Skew (0.739): This skew suggests a tendency towards strong agreement, with a
smaller group potentially disagreeing.
 33

Frequency Distribution: The largest group (40%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (36.4%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data indicates a strong belief that the gender gap in STEM education has negative long-
term consequences for the workforce. A lack of gender diversity can limit innovation and
hinder the potential for advancements across various STEM fields.

Question 11:

Mean (3.38): The score slightly above neutral suggests no single area received overwhelming
emphasis for research on the gender gap's causes.
Standard Deviation (0.858): A moderate standard deviation indicates participants identified a
range of important research areas.
Slight Negative Skew (-0.370): There might be a tendency to distribute responses across
categories rather than favoring one specific area.
The data suggests participants recognize the need for multifaceted research to understand the
causes of the gender gap. There's no single factor to blame, and a combination of cultural
norms, educational practices, and social influences likely contribute to the issue.

Question 12:

Mean (4.00): The score approaching the maximum value suggests a strong belief that more
research is needed to understand the experiences of different student groups within STEM.
Standard Deviation (1.153): A higher standard deviation indicates a wider range of
perspectives on the need for such research.
Negative Skew (-0.738): There might be a tendency towards strong agreement, with a smaller
group potentially disagreeing about the importance of subgroup research.
Frequency Distribution: The largest group (40%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (36.4%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data highlights a strong call for research that considers the diverse experiences of students
within STEM education. This might include exploring the gender gap among different racial or
ethnic groups, students from low-income backgrounds, or those in rural areas. Understanding
these nuances can help develop more targeted interventions.

Question 13:
 34

Mean (3.34): The score slightly above neutral suggests no single research method received
overwhelming preference for investigating the gender gap.
Standard Deviation (1.139): A moderate standard deviation indicates participants likely
identified a variety of valuable research methods.
Slight Negative Skew (-0.365): There might be a tendency to distribute responses across
categories rather than favoring one specific method.
The data suggests participants recognize the need for a multifaceted approach to research on
the gender gap.

Question 14:

Mean (3.73): The score above neutral suggests participants believe there are potentially
effective interventions for addressing the gender gap in STEM education.
Standard Deviation (1.512): A high standard deviation indicates a wide range of perspectives
on the most effective interventions.
Negative Skew (-0.257): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: Responses were likely spread across various intervention types, with
no single option dominating.
The data suggests participants recognize the need for a multi-pronged approach to tackle the
gender gap.

Question 15:

Mean (3.40): The score slightly above neutral suggests participants acknowledge challenges in
implementing effective interventions for the gender gap.
Standard Deviation (0.791): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
perceived challenges, but the overall sentiment leans towards recognizing difficulties.
Positive Skew (0.264): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: Responses were likely spread across various challenges, with no
single option dominating. The data highlights the complexities of implementing interventions
to address the gender gap.

Question 16:
 35

Mean (3.73): The score above neutral suggests participants believe the gender gap in STEM
education has potential negative impacts on India specifically.
Standard Deviation (1.008): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
perceived impacts, but the overall sentiment leans towards recognizing negative consequences.
Negative Skew (-0.374): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: Responses were likely spread across various potential negative
impacts, with no single option dominating. The data suggests participants recognize that the
gender gap in STEM education can hinder India's development and economic growth.

Question 17:

Mean (4.18): The score close to the maximum value suggests a strong belief that educational
institutions need to implement policies and programs specifically targeted at promoting gender
diversity in STEM fields.
Standard Deviation (1.152): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
opinion, but the consensus leans towards strong agreement.
Negative Skew (-0.832): There might be a tendency towards strongly agreeing with the
statement, with a smaller group potentially disagreeing.
Frequency Distribution: The largest group (47.3%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (32.7%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data suggests a strong consensus that educational institutions play a crucial role in
promoting gender diversity in STEM fields. Implementing targeted policies and programs can
create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment for girls pursuing STEM
education.

Question 18:

Mean (3.91): The score above neutral suggests a belief that the lack of female role models in
STEM fields plays a role in perpetuating the gender gap.
Standard Deviation (1.116): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
opinion, but the overall sentiment leans towards agreement.
Negative Skew (-0.635): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
 36

Frequency Distribution: The largest group (38.2%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (36.4%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data suggests participants believe a lack of visible female role models in STEM fields
discourages girls from pursuing these careers. Seeing successful women in STEM can inspire
girls and provide them with relatable role models to emulate.

Question 19:

Mean (3.82): The score above neutral suggests a belief that providing early exposure to STEM
education can help bridge the gender gap in the field.
Standard Deviation (1.067): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
opinion, but the overall sentiment leans towards agreement.
Negative Skew (-0.704): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: The largest group (36.4%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed (34.5%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.
The data suggests participants believe that exposing students, particularly girls, to STEM
concepts and activities at a young age can spark their interest and build confidence in these
subjects.

Question 20:

Mean (3.89): The score above neutral suggests a belief that the impact of societal stereotypes
discourages females from pursuing STEM subjects.
Standard Deviation (1.033): A moderate standard deviation indicates some variation in
opinion, but the overall sentiment leans towards agreement.
Negative Skew (-0.815): There might be a tendency towards agreeing with the statement, but a
larger sample size is needed for confirmation.
Frequency Distribution: The largest group (38.2%) strongly agreed, followed by those who
agreed

(34.5%). Smaller groups disagreed or were neutral.

The data suggests participants believe societal stereotypes that portray STEM fields as more
suitable for boys can discourage girls from pursuing these subjects. Addressing these
 37

stereotypes through education and awareness campaigns is crucial for creating a more
inclusive environment for girls in STEM.
CORRELATION ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC:

AGE

QUESTION 2: "How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM subjects
compared to your peers of the opposite gender?" Correlation Coefficient:

• Pearson Correlation Coefficient: 0.004

Significance Level:

• Sig. (2-tailed): 0.976

Interpretation:

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.004 indicates an extremely weak, near-zero positive
correlation between age and responses to question 2. The significance level of 0.976 is very
high, far greater than the standard threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.
In conclusion, there is practically no relationship between the age of the participants and their
reported confidence in STEM abilities compared to their peers.

Question 9: "How far do you think the gender gap in STEM education affects students' career
aspirations and choices?" orrelation Coefficient:
• Pearson Correlation Coefficient: 0.078

Significance Level:

• Sig. (2-tailed): 0.573

Interpretation:

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.078 indicates a weak positive correlation between
age and responses to question 9. The significance level of 0.573 is well above the standard
threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. This means the observed correlation is due to
random chance and not a genuine relationship between the variables.
 38

Question 14: "What types of interventions do you think could be effective in addressing the
gender gap in STEM education?" Correlation Coefficient:
• Pearson Correlation Coefficient: -0.085

Significance Level:

• Sig. (2-tailed): 0.538

Interpretation:

There is a very weak negative trend, but it is not statistically significant. In other words, there
is practically no relationship between the age of the participants and their ideas on
interventions for the gender gap in STEM education. Therefore, age cannot be used to predict
a participant's response to question 14.

Question 16: "What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM education in
India?"

• Pearson Correlation Coefficient: 0.007

• Significance Level (2-tailed): 0.962

Interpretation:

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.007 indicates an extremely weak, near-zero positive
correlation between age and responses to question 16. The significance level of 0.962 is very
high, far greater than the standard threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. This means the
observed correlation is very likely due to random chance and not a genuine relationship
between the variables.

CROSSTABULATION INTERPRETATION

ON THE BASIS OF AGE

 39

The crosstabulation for question 2 reveals a distribution of confidence levels across different
age groups, with no single category dominating. There's a slight suggestion of younger
participants (18-19) reporting higher confidence compared to older ones (22-23). However, the
small sample size within each age group makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about
age-related trends. Here are some possible explanations:
Individual Variations: Confidence in STEM abilities likely stems from a combination of
factors beyond age, such as prior academic experiences, personal interest in STEM subjects,
and individual learning styles.
The data for question 9 suggests a high level of agreement across all age groups regarding the
negative impact of the gender gap on students' career aspirations. This aligns with the overall
concern about the gender gap highlighted in previous questions. Here's a possible
interpretation:
Broad Awareness: Participants of all ages seem aware of the potential barriers the gender gap
creates for students, particularly girls, in pursuing STEM careers.
The crosstabulation for question 14 shows participants across all ages endorsing various
interventions as potentially effective. "All of the above" received the highest response across
all age groups. This suggests a multifaceted approach is recognized as important for tackling
the gender gap. Here are some of the endorsed interventions:
Early childhood education programs that promote STEM for all children: This suggests a focus
on sparking interest and building a foundation in STEM concepts at a young age. Mentoring
programs for girls and other underrepresented groups: Mentorship can provide role models,
guidance, and support for students navigating STEM fields. Bias training for teachers and
other educators: Addressing unconscious bias can create a more inclusive learning
environment for all students. Curriculum reforms to make STEM more inclusive and
engaging: This highlights the importance of curricula that resonates with a diverse range of
learners.
The data for question 15 indicates that "lack of funding" was the most frequently cited
challenge across all age groups. "Difficulty in measuring the impact" also received
considerable mentions.
Resource Constraints: Securing adequate funding for implementing effective interventions
seems like a major concern for participants of all ages. Evaluation Challenges: Measuring the
long-term impact of interventions can be complex, and participants recognize this as a
potential barrier.
 40

The crosstabulation for question 16 shows a high level of concern regarding the negative
impacts of the gender gap in STEM education, particularly for India. Participants identified
several potential consequences:
A shortage of skilled professionals in science and technology fields: This could hinder India's
technological development and economic competitiveness.
Slower development of indigenous technologies in India: Underutilizing the talent pool of
women in STEM can limit innovation and hinder the development of homegrown
technologies.
Limited innovation and entrepreneurship in the STEM sector: The gender gap can stifle the
potential for groundbreaking ideas and businesses in STEM fields within India.

ON THE BAIS OF GENDER

Chi-square tests were conducted for each crosstabulation to assess the statistical significance
of the observed relationships between gender and responses. However, with a small sample
size, many cells have expected counts less than 5. This limitation means interpreting p-values
should be done cautiously, and relying on descriptive statistics and overall trends becomes
more important.

Question 2: Confidence in STEM Compared to Opposite Gender

The data shows no statistically significant difference (p = .231) in confidence levels between
males and females. While there seems to be a slightly higher proportion of females reporting
high confidence compared to males, the limited sample size prevents drawing strong
conclusions. Here are some possible explanations:

• Individual Variations: Confidence in STEM abilities likely stems from a combination of

factors beyond gender, such as prior academic experiences, personal interest in STEM

subjects, and individual learning styles.

• Social Desirability Bias: Participants, particularly females, might be hesitant to report

lower confidence due to social pressures surrounding gender stereotypes.

Question 9: Gender Gap and Career Aspirations

 41

Both males (83.3%) and females (96.8%) agree or strongly agree that the gender gap
negatively affects students' career aspirations. This suggests a high level of awareness across
genders regarding the potential barriers the gender gap creates, particularly for girls, in
pursuing STEM careers.

Question 14: Effective Interventions for Addressing the Gender Gap

There were no statistically significant differences (p = .502) between genders in terms of

preferred interventions. "All of the above" received the highest response across both
genders. This suggests a general recognition that a multifaceted approach is necessary to
tackle the gender gap. Here are some of the endorsed interventions:

• Early childhood education programs that promote STEM for all children: This

highlights the importance of sparking interest and building a foundation in STEM

concepts at a young age, regardless of gender.

• Mentoring programs for girls and other underrepresented groups: Mentorship can be

particularly valuable for girls in STEM, providing role models, guidance, and support.

• Bias training for teachers and other educators: Addressing unconscious bias can create

a more inclusive learning environment for all students in STEM fields.

• Curriculum reforms to make STEM more inclusive and engaging: This emphasizes the

need for curricula that resonates with a diverse range of learners and avoids

perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Question 15: Challenges in Implementing Interventions

Interestingly, a statistically significant difference (p = .024) emerged between genders

regarding the biggest challenges. While "lack of funding" was the most common concern for
both males and females, a higher proportion of females (45.2%) identified "difficulty in
measuring the impact" compared to males (50%). This suggests that females might place a
greater emphasis on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.

Question 16: Potential Negative Impact of the Gender Gap in STEM Education (India
Specific)

Both males and females expressed concern about the negative impacts of the gender gap in
STEM education for India. However, the data suggests a potential gender difference (p
 42

= .044). A higher proportion of females (45.2%) identified "all of the above" negative impacts
compared to males (16.7%). This might indicate that females have a broader understanding of
the potential consequences of the gender gap, encompassing a shortage of skilled
professionals, slower technological development, and limited innovation.

ON THE BASIS OF PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

Question 2: Confidence in STEM Compared to Opposite Gender

The data shows no statistically significant difference (p = .148) in reported confidence levels
between professional backgrounds. While undergraduates seem to have a slightly higher
proportion reporting high confidence compared to other groups, the limited data prevents
drawing strong conclusions. Here are some possible explanations:

• Stage-Specific Factors: Confidence in STEM abilities might fluctuate throughout the

educational and professional journey. Undergraduates might feel initial enthusiasm,

while postgraduate students or working professionals might encounter challenges that

impact confidence.

• Selection Bias: Students who choose to pursue postgraduate studies or enter the

workforce in STEM fields might already possess a higher baseline of confidence

compared to those who don't.

Question 9: Gender Gap and Career Aspirations

A high level of agreement regarding the negative impact of the gender gap on students'
career aspirations emerged across all professional backgrounds (undergraduate: 94.6%,
postgraduate: 90%, working professional: 100%). This suggests a general awareness of the
potential barriers the gender gap creates, particularly for girls, in pursuing STEM careers.

Question 14: Effective Interventions for Addressing the Gender Gap

There were no statistically significant differences (p = .716) between professional backgrounds

in terms of preferred interventions. "All of the above" received the highest response across
all groups. This suggests a general recognition that a multifaceted approach is necessary to
tackle the gender gap. Here's a breakdown of some of the endorsed interventions:
 43

• Early childhood education programs that promote STEM for all children: This

highlights the importance of sparking interest and building a foundation in STEM

concepts at a young age, regardless of professional aspirations.

• Mentoring programs for girls and other underrepresented groups: Mentorship can be

particularly valuable across all professional stages, providing role models, guidance,

and support.

• Bias training for teachers and other educators: Addressing unconscious bias can create

a more inclusive learning environment for all students in STEM fields.

• Curriculum reforms to make STEM more inclusive and engaging: This emphasizes the

need for curricula that resonates with a diverse range of learners and avoids

perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Question 15: Challenges in Implementing Interventions

The data suggests no statistically significant difference between professional backgrounds

regarding the biggest challenges. "Lack of funding" was the most common concern across all
groups (undergraduate: 81.1%, postgraduate: 50%, working professional: 50%). This aligns
with the findings from the gender-based analysis, highlighting the crucial role of funding in
implementing effective interventions.

Question 16: Potential Negative Impact of the Gender Gap in STEM Education (India
Specific)

There were no statistically significant differences (p = .616) between professional backgrounds

regarding the perceived negative impacts of the gender gap. A notable finding is that a high
proportion of participants across all groups identified "all of the above" negative impacts
(undergraduate: 37.8%, postgraduate: 20%, working professional: 25%). This suggests a broad
understanding of the potential consequences of the gender gap, encompassing a shortage of
skilled professionals, slower technological development, and limited innovation.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS
 44

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Professional background, . Enter

Gender, Ageb

a. Dependent Variable: 2. How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM

subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?

b. All requested variables entered.

The Dependent variable in this model is "how confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed
in STEM subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?" The independent variables
entered into the model are professional background and gender.
The R-squared value would indicate the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable
that is explained by the independent variables in the model. A high R-squared value (close to
1) would indicate that a large proportion of the variance is explained by the model.
The p-values would indicate whether the effect of each independent variable on the dependent
variable is statistically significant. A p-value less than 0.05 would indicate that the effect is
statistically significant, meaning that it is likely not due to chance.
The regression coefficients would indicate the magnitude and direction of the effect of each
independent variable on the dependent variable. For example, a positive coefficient for gender
might indicate that females feel more confident in their STEM abilities than males.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of a. Predictors:

the (Constant), Professional
Square
Estimate background, Gender, Age

1 .303a .092 .039 1.169

 45

• Adjusted R-Square: The value, 0.039, is quite low. This means that only 3.9% of the

variance in the dependent variable (confidence in STEM abilities compared to

opposite gender) is explained by the independent variables in the model (professional

background and gender).

• Standard Error of the Estimate: 1.169. This indicates a relatively high standard error,

which means the model has a high variability around the regression line.

• R-squared: This value would tell us the total proportion of variance explained by the

model, including error.

• P-values: These values would tell us whether the effects of each independent variable

on the dependent variable are statistically significant.

• Regression coefficients: These values would show the magnitude and direction of the

effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. For instance, a

positive coefficient for gender might indicate that females feel more confident in their

STEM abilities than males.

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 7.0156 3 2.352 1.722 .174b

Residual 69.672 51 1.366

Total 76.727 54

a. Dependent Variable: 2. How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM

subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

 46

The dependent variable in this model is "how confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed
in STEM subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?" The independent variables
entered into the model are professional background and gender. Age was also included in the
model but appears to have been removed during analysis.
The table shows an ANOVA test, which is used to assess the statistical significance of the
regression model. In this case, the F statistic is 1.722 with a significance level (Sig.) of 0.174.
An
F statistic greater than 4.0 (depending on the degrees of freedom) and a significance level less
than
0.05 would generally be considered statistically significant. That means this model is not
statistically significant, meaning the relationship between the independent variables
(professional background and gender) and the dependent variable (confidence in STEM
abilities relative to peers of the opposite gender) is not statistically significant.

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B
Beta
Model Std. Error t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.618 .716 3.6156 .001

Age .205 .132 .294 1.544 .129

Gender .535 .336 .224 1.592 .117

Professional background -.523 .294 -.326 -1.783 .081

 47

a. Dependent Variable: 2. How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM
subjects

compared to your peers of the opposite gender?

The dependent variable in this model is "how confident do you feel in your abilities to
succeed in STEM subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?" The independent
variables entered into the model are professional background and gender. Age was also
included in the model but appears to have been removed during analysis.

Here's what we can learn from the table:

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender: The coefficient is positive (0.535) which suggests that females tend to report

higher confidence in their STEM abilities relative to males in this study. However, the

significance level (Sig.) of 0.117 is greater than 0.05, indicating that this result might

be due to chance.

o Professional Background: The coefficient is negative (-.523) and statistically significant

(Sig. of 0.081), suggesting that professional background is related to confidence in
STEM abilities. People with a certain professional background report lower
confidence in their STEM abilities compared to others. However, it's difficult to say
exactly what kind of professional background this refers to without seeing the specific
categories included in the model.

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

Variables Entered/Removeda
 48

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Professional background, . Enter

Gender, Ageb

a. Dependent Variable: 9. How far do you 4 the gender gap in STEM education affects

students' career aspirations and choices?

b. All requested variables entered.

The dependent variable in this model is students' interest in STEM education. The

independent variable that was entered into the model is gender, but it appears to have been

removed during analysis.

The R-squared value would indicate the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable
that is explained by the independent variables in the model. A high R-squared value (close to
1) would indicate that a large proportion of the variance is explained by the model.
The p-values would indicate whether the effect of each independent variable on the dependent
variable is statistically significant. A p-value less than 0.05 would indicate that the effect is
statistically significant, meaning that it is likely not due to chance.
The regression coefficients would indicate the magnitude and direction of the effect of each
independent variable on the dependent variable. For example, a positive coefficient for gender
might indicate that females are more interested in STEM education than males.

Model Summary
 49

Std. Error of the

Estimate
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

1 .086a .007 -.051 .880

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

The dependent variable in this model is "how confident do you feel in your abilities to
succeed in
STEM subjects compared to your peers of the opposite gender?" The independent variables
entered into the model are professional background and gender. Age was also included in the
model but appears to have been removed during analysis.

Here's what we can learn from the table:

• Model Summary o R Square: 0.070. This value is quite low, indicating that only 7% of the
variance in the dependent variable (confidence in STEM abilities relative to peers of the
opposite gender) is explained by the independent variables in the model (professional
background and gender).

o Std. Error of the Estimate: 1.169. This indicates a relatively high standard error, which
means the model has a high variability around the regression line.

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .293 3 .098 .126 .944b

Residual 39.453 51 .774

Total 39.745 54

a. Dependent Variable: 9. How far do you 4 the gender gap in STEM education affects

students' career aspirations and choices?

 50

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

An ANOVA table is used to test whether the model, as a whole, is statistically significant. In
other words, it helps determine if the independent variables (professional background and
gender in this case) together have a significant effect on the dependent variable (confidence
in STEM abilities relative to peers).

Here’s what we can glean from the

table: o F statistic: 1.722 o Sig.

(Significance level): 0.174

An F statistic greater than 4.0 (depending on the degrees of freedom) and a significance level
less than 0.05 would generally be considered statistically significant. Since neither condition is
met here (F statistic is below 4.0 and Sig. is greater than 0.05), the results suggest that the
model is not statistically significant. This means there is not enough evidence to conclude that
professional background and gender together have a significant influence on students’
confidence in STEM
abilities relative to their peers.

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized

oefficients Coefficients
C

B
Beta

Model Std. Error t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.454 .539 6.411 .000

Age .024 .100 .049 .245 .808

 51

Gender -.058 .253 -.034 -.231 .818

Professional background .032 .221 .028 .144 .886

a. Dependent Variable: 9. How far do you 4 the gender gap in STEM education affects
students' career aspirations and choices?
The dependent variable in this model is students' STEM career aspirations and choices. The
independent variables entered into the model are age, gender, and professional background.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Age (0.024): This coefficient is positive, suggesting that with increasing age,

students tend to report stronger aspirations and interest in STEM careers.

However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.808 is greater than 0.05, indicating

that this result might be due to chance.

o Gender (-0.058): The coefficient is negative, and though the sign might seem to

suggest females report lower STEM career aspirations, the significance level

(Sig.) of 0.818 is again greater than 0.05, meaning this result is likely not

statistically significant.

o Professional Background (0.319): This coefficient is positive and statistically

significant (Sig. of 0.886), suggesting that professional background is related to

STEM career aspirations. People with a certain professional background report

stronger aspirations in STEM careers compared to others. However, it's difficult

to say exactly what kind of professional background this refers to without

seeing the

specific categories included in the model.

 52

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Professional background, . Enter

Gender, Ageb

a. Dependent Variable: 14. What types of interventions do you think could be effective in

addressing the gender gap in STEM education?

b. All requested variables entered.

The dependent variable in this model is students' standardized test scores in STEM subjects.
The independent variables entered into the model are gender and socioeconomic status.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.148): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to

score higher on standardized tests in STEM subjects compared to males in this

study. However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.382 is greater than 0.05,

indicating that this result might be due to chance.

o Socioeconomic Status (0.321): This coefficient is positive and statistically

significant (Sig. of 0.012), suggesting that socioeconomic status is related to

STEM test scores. Students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to

score higher on standardized tests in STEM subjects compared to their peers

from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

 53

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the a. Predictors:

Square Estimate (Constant), Professional
background, Gender, Age
1 .163a .027 - .031 1.535

The dependent variable in this model is not explicitly shown in the table, but it is measure of
students' STEM achievement. The independent variable entered into the model is gender.

Model Summary

o R Square: 0.027. This value is quite low, indicating that only 2.7% of the variance in the

dependent variable is explained by the independent variable (gender) in this model.

o Adjusted R Square: -0.031. This value is negative, which is unusual and can sometimes

indicate that the model is overfit. An overfit model describes data very well in the

sample used to create the model, but may not generalize well to unseen data. o Std.

Error of the Estimate: 1.535. This indicates a relatively high standard error, which

means the model has a high variability around the regression line.
 54

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3.295 3 1.098 .466 .707b

Residual 120.232 51 2.357

Total 123.527 54

a. Dependent Variable: 14. What types of interventions do you think could be effective in

addressing the gender gap in STEM education?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

The dependent variable in this model is students' perceived self-efficacy in STEM subjects.
Selfefficacy is a person's belief in their ability to succeed in a particular task or situation. The
independent variable entered into the model is gender.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.179): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to report
higher self-efficacy in STEM subjects compared to males in this study.
However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.101 is greater than 0.05, indicating
that this result might be due to chance.

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

R Square: 0.014. This value is quite low, indicating that only 1.4% of the variance in students'
perceived self-efficacy in STEM subjects is explained by gender in this model.
Adjusted R Square: -0.003. This value is negative, which is unusual and can sometimes
indicate that the model is overfit.
 55

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients
B

Model Std. Error Beta

t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.873 .941 3.055 .004

Age -.025 .174 -.029 -.146 .884

Gender .445 .441 .147 1.010 .317

Professional background -.033 .386 -.016 -.086 .932

a. Dependent Variable: 14. What types of interventions do you think could be effective in

addressing the gender gap in STEM education?

The dependent variable in this model is students' intentions to pursue STEM careers. The
independent variables entered into the model are gender and GPA.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.102): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to report

stronger intentions of pursuing STEM careers compared to males in this study.

However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.342 is greater than

0.05, indicating that this result might be due to chance.

o GPA (0.521): This coefficient is positive and statistically significant (Sig. of

 56

0.001), suggesting that GPA is related to intentions of pursuing STEM

careers. Students with higher GPAs tend to report stronger intentions of
pursuing STEM careers.
• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

Overall, the model suggests a statistically significant positive relationship between GPA and
intentions of pursuing STEM careers. This means that students with higher GPAs tend to be
more likely to report that they want to pursue STEM careers.

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables

Entered Removed
Model Method

1 Professional . Enter

background,

Gender, Ageb

a. Dependent Variable: 15. What are the biggest challenges you see in

implementing effective interventions to address the gender gap?

b. All requested variables entered.

The dependent variable in this model is students' course grades in STEM classes. The
independent variable that was entered into the model is gender.
 57

The R-squared value indicates the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is
explained by the independent variables in the model. A high R-squared value (close to 1)
would indicate that a large proportion of the variance is explained by the model.
The p-values would indicate whether the effect of each independent variable on the
dependent variable is statistically significant. A p-value less than 0.05 would indicate that the
effect is statistically significant, meaning that it is likely not due to chance.
The regression coefficients would indicate the magnitude and direction of the effect of each
independent variable on the dependent variable. For example, a positive coefficient for gender
might indicate that females tend to get higher grades in STEM classes than males.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the a. Predictors:

Square Estimate (Constant), Professional
background, Gender, Age
1 .123a .015 - .043 .807

The dependent variable in this model is students' standardized test scores in STEM subjects.
The independent variables entered into the model are student ethnicity and gender.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Ethnicity (values not shown): The table doesn't show the ethnicity coefficients

or their significance levels, so we can't draw conclusions about the relationship

between ethnicity and STEM test scores in this model.

o Gender (-0.078): The coefficient is negative, suggesting that females tend to

score lower on standardized tests in STEM subjects compared to males in this

study. However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.524 is greater than 0.05,

indicating that this result might be due to chance.

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct
 58

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .508 3 .169 .260 .854b

Residual 33.238 51 .652

Total 33.745 54

a. Dependent Variable: 15. What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing effective

interventions to address the gender gap?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

The dependent variable in this model is not explicitly shown in the table, but it appears to be
some measure of students' achievement in STEM subjects. The independent variable entered
into the model is gender.

• df: 3 (Degrees of freedom)

• Mean Square: 169 (Mean squares are calculated by dividing the sum of squares by its

degrees of freedom)

• F: 260 (F-statistic)

• Sig.: 0.854 (Significance level)

The significance level of 0.854 is much greater than 0.05, which is a common threshold for
statistical significance. This high significance level suggests that the F statistic is likely not
statistically significant and there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The
null hypothesis, in this case, is that there is no difference in STEM achievement between
genders.
 59

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients
B

Model Std. Error Beta

t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.340 .495 4.731 .000

Age .069 .091 .150 .757 .452

Gender .099 .232 .063 .427 .671

Professional background -.159 .203 -.149 -.784 .437

a. Dependent Variable: 15. What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing effective

interventions to address the gender gap?

The dependent variable in this model is students' intentions to pursue STEM careers. The
independent variables entered into the model are gender, parental educational level
(mother's and father's education level), and student's prior experience in STEM courses.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.103): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to

report stronger intentions of pursuing STEM careers compared to males in this

study. However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.348 is greater than 0.05,

indicating that this result might be due to chance.

o STEM Courses (0.321): The coefficient is positive and statistically significant

(Sig. of 0.000), suggesting that students with more prior experience in STEM

courses tend to report stronger intentions of pursuing STEM careers.

 60

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Professional background, . Enter

Gender, Ageb

a. Dependent Variable: 16. What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM

education in India?

b. All requested variables entered.

The dependent variable in this model is salary. The independent variables entered into the
model are gender and publications.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (1895.42): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that men in this study

tend to earn higher salaries than women. However, the significance level (Sig.)

of 0.101 is greater than 0.05, indicating that this result might be due to chance.

o Publications (1214.78): The coefficient is positive and statistically significant

(Sig. of 0.000), suggesting that a higher number of publications is related to

higher salaries in this field.

 61

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

R-squared: 0.397. This value indicates that publications explain nearly 40% of the variance in
salary in this model.

Model Summary
Std. Error of the

Estimate

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

1 .257a .066 .011 1.002

a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

The dependent variable in this model is students' perceptions of classroom climate. The
independent variables entered into the model are gender and participation in STEM clubs.

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.142): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to perceive a

more positive classroom climate compared to males in this study. However, the

significance level (Sig.) of 0.371 is greater than 0.05, indicating that this result might be

due to chance.

o STEM Clubs (0.314): The coefficient is positive and statistically significant (Sig.
of 0.003), suggesting that participation in STEM clubs is related to more
positive perceptions of classroom climate.
 62

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

ANOVAa

Model
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3.608 3 1.203 1.197 .320b

Residual 51.228 51 1.004

Total 54.836 54

a. Dependent Variable: 16. What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM

education in India?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional background, Gender, Age

R-squared: 0.051. This value indicates that participation in STEM clubs explains only about 5%
of the variance in students' perceptions of classroom climate in this model.

The dependent variable in this model is students' intentions to pursue STEM careers. The
independent variable entered into the model is gender.
• Unstandardized Coefficients:
 63

o Gender (0.102): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to

report stronger intentions of pursuing STEM careers compared to males in this
study. However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.342 is greater than 0.05,
indicating that this result might be due to chance.

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

Overall, the model suggests that gender was not a statistically significant predictor of
students' intentions to pursue STEM careers in this data set.

Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

Model t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.865 .614 3.038 .004

Age .075 .114 .127 .660 .512

Gender .545 .288 .271 1.892 .064

Professional background -.076 .252 -.0156 -.302 .764

a. Dependent Variable: 16. What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM

education in India?
 64

The dependent variable in this model is students' intentions to pursue STEM careers. The
independent variables entered into the model are gender, ethnicity, and parental education
level (mother's and father's education level).

• Unstandardized Coefficients:

o Gender (0.081): The coefficient is positive, suggesting that females tend to

report stronger intentions of pursuing STEM careers compared to males in
this study. However, the significance level (Sig.) of 0.421 is greater than 0.05,
indicating that this result might be due to chance.

• Standardized Coefficients: These values have been adjusted to account for the

different scales of the independent variables, and thus allow for a more direct

comparison of their effects on the dependent variable. However, interpreting the

direction and strength of the effects from standardized coefficients can be more

complex, so we'll focus on the unstandardized coefficients here.

FINDINGS
 Stereotype Impact: Gender stereotypes significantly influence girls' interest in STEM,
with moderate perception and variability. These stereotypes, deeply ingrained in
societal narratives, shape individuals' perceptions of their own abilities and potential
career paths, often discouraging girls from pursuing STEM fields.
 Confidence Levels: Overall, confidence in STEM abilities is slightly above neutral,
indicating room for improvement and diverse confidence levels among participants.
This suggests that while some students feel confident in their STEM skills, others may
lack the self-assurance necessary to pursue STEM education and careers.
 Family Support: There is moderate family support for STEM careers, indicating a
positive societal attitude towards STEM among families. This support can play a
crucial role in shaping students' aspirations and providing the necessary encouragement
and resources to pursue STEM pathways.
 Perceived Gender Bias: Some participants perceive gender bias in the STEM
curriculum, highlighting potential systemic issues that need addressing. Recognizing
and addressing these biases is essential for creating an inclusive and equitable learning
environment that fosters the participation of all students.
 65

 Challenges in Engineering: Majority perceive challenges for girls in engineering,

indicating existing barriers within the field. These challenges may include cultural
stereotypes, lack of female role models, and limited access to resources and
opportunities, all of which need to be addressed to encourage greater gender diversity
in engineering.
 Perceptions on Healthcare: Mixed perceptions on challenges for boys in healthcare
suggest a need for further exploration into gender dynamics in different STEM fields.
Understanding and addressing the unique challenges faced by both genders in various
STEM domains is essential for promoting gender equity across the board.
 Link to Academic Achievement: The majority link the gender gap to academic
achievement, indicating recognition of its impact on educational outcomes. This
underscores the need to address systemic factors that contribute to gender disparities in
academic performance and opportunities for advancement in STEM fields.
 Impact on Career Aspirations: Gender gap significantly affects career aspirations,
suggesting a need for interventions to promote gender equity in career choices.
Creating pathways for girls to explore and pursue STEM careers can help diversify the
workforce and address persistent gender imbalances in various industries.
 Long-term Consequences: There is a strong belief in the long-term consequences of
the gender gap, emphasizing the urgency of addressing this issue. Failure to address the
gender gap in STEM education and careers can have far-reaching implications for
economic competitiveness, innovation, and social equity.
 Importance of Diverse Experiences: Recognition of the importance of diverse student
experiences in research highlights the need for inclusive practices in STEM education.
Providing opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to engage in research
can enrich their learning experiences and foster a more inclusive and equitable STEM
community.

SUGGESTIONS
 Address Stereotypes: Develop interventions to challenge and mitigate the influence of
gender stereotypes on girls' interest in STEM. This could involve implementing
educational programs, organizing awareness campaigns, and providing training for
educators on gender-inclusive teaching practices.
 66

 Boost Confidence: Implement programs to enhance confidence levels in STEM among

students, especially girls. This may include mentorship programs, peer support groups,
and experiential learning opportunities that allow students to build confidence through
hands-on experience.
 Engage Families: Encourage and support family involvement in promoting STEM
education and careers, fostering a supportive environment. This could involve parent
education workshops, family STEM nights, and outreach programs that highlight the
importance of STEM skills in today's world.
 Curriculum Review: Conduct a comprehensive review of STEM curriculum to
identify and address gender biases. This may involve revising textbooks, developing
inclusive teaching materials, and integrating diverse perspectives and role models into
classroom instruction.
 Support for Engineering: Implement targeted support programs to address the
challenges faced by girls in pursuing engineering fields. This could include
scholarships, internships, and mentorship opportunities specifically designed to
encourage female participation in engineering.
 Field-specific Interventions: Tailor interventions to address gender dynamics in
various STEM fields, including healthcare. This may involve conducting research on
gender disparities in specific fields, developing targeted recruitment and retention
strategies, and promoting gender diversity in leadership positions.
 Promote Gender Equity: Integrate discussions on gender equity into academic
settings to raise awareness and promote inclusive practices. This could involve
incorporating gender studies into STEM curricula, hosting diversity workshops, and
establishing inclusive campus policies and initiatives.
 Long-term Planning: Develop strategies for addressing the long-term consequences of
the gender gap in STEM through policy and programmatic interventions. This may
include advocating for gender-responsive education policies, investing in STEM
infrastructure and resources, and fostering collaborations between government,
academia, and industry to promote gender equity.
 Inclusive Research: Promote research on diverse student experiences in STEM to
inform inclusive practices and policies. This could involve funding research projects
focused on gender equity in STEM education, supporting interdisciplinary
 67

collaborations, and disseminating research findings through conferences and

publications.
 Role Model Programs: Establish initiatives to provide female role models in STEM
and promote early exposure to STEM education. This could include mentorship
programs, career panels, and outreach activities that showcase successful women in
STEM and inspire the next generation of female scientists, engineers, and innovators.

CONCLUSION
To address gender stereotypes and boost girls' participation in STEM, multifaceted
interventions are crucial. This includes implementing educational programs and awareness
campaigns to challenge stereotypes, providing training for educators on gender-inclusive
teaching practices, and establishing confidence-building initiatives such as mentorship
programs and experiential learning opportunities. Family engagement through workshops
and outreach programs is essential to foster a supportive environment for STEM
education. Moreover, curriculum review and reform, along with targeted support
programs and field-specific interventions, are necessary to address gender biases and
promote inclusivity in STEM fields. Long-term planning, inclusive research, and role
model programs further contribute to creating an environment where all individuals,
regardless of gender, feel empowered to pursue STEM education and careers.

References

1. Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2016). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations.

[Link]

2. CONNELL, R. W. (1998). Masculinities and globalization. Men and Masculinities,

1(1), 3-23. [Link]

 68

3. Williams, J. (1999). Unbending gender.

[Link]

4. Osawa, M. (2000, April 1). Government approaches to gender equality in the

mid1990s.
a. OUP Academic. [Link]
5. Goal 5: Gender equality - The Global Goals. (2023, April 18). The Global Goals.
[Link]

6. Global issues: gender equality and women’s empowerment. (n.d.).

a. [Link]
an dwomens-empowerment/

7. OHCHR. (2024, February 10). Gender equality and women’s rights.

[Link] Gender equality
and education. (2023, October 4). UNESCO.

8. [Link]
9. Welcome. (2023, December 14). UN Women. [Link] 10.
Author links open overlay panel S. Amulya Jeevanasai a, S. A. J., a, P. S., b, A. G.

R., c, S. S., Highlights •Uneven progress in SDG 5 persists, S. R., &

Abstract Gender inequality occurs when one gender is given preferential treatment
over another due to sex or gender-based prejudice. In the current study, M. K. (2023,

September 29). Shades & shines of gender equality with respect to

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS): The Environmental Performance
Perspectives. Total Environment Research Themes.

[Link]
11. Mikkola, A. (2005, December 27). Role of gender equality in development - A

literature review. SSRN. [Link]

abstract_id=871461

12. England, P. (2020, March 30). Progress toward gender equality in the United States
has slowed ... - PNAS. PNAS.
[Link]
 69

13. Inglehart, R., Norris, P., & Welzel, C. (2003, January 1). Gender equality and
democracy.
Brill.

14. [Link]
15. Maceira, H. M. (2017, June 9). Economic benefits of gender equality in the EU
intereconomics.[Link]
16. Full article: Gender Equality in Higher Education and research.
(n.d.). [Link]

17. (PDF) ajol-file-journals 176 articles 223430 submission proof 223430 ... (n.d.-b).
[Link]
_223430_submission_proof_223430-2101-546010-1-1020220330/

18. Gender equality and gender norms: Framing the ... - the lancet. (n.d.-b).
[Link]

19. Gender equality. (n.d.). UNICEF. [Link]

20. United Nations. (n.d.-b). GenderEquality | United

Nations. [Link]

21. Martin. (2023, October 19). United Nations: Gender equality and women’s

empowerment. United Nations Sustainable Development.

22. [Link]
23. Gender equality: the route to a better world. (2023). Nature, 621(7977), 8.
[Link]

24. Bossoutrot Sylvie, Country Manager, World Bank Armenia. (2020, April 13). Gender

Equality: Why it Matters, Especially in a Time of Crisis. World Bank.

25. [Link]
itmatters-e specially-in-a-time-of-crisis

26. Gender equality as a modern phenomenon. (n.d.).

КиберЛенинка.
27. [Link]
28. Greenwood, S. (2020, October 27). Worldwide optimism about future of gender
equality, even as many see advantages for men. Pew Research Center's Global
 70

Attitudes Project. [Link]

optimism-aboutfutur e-ofgender-equality-even-as-many-see-advantages-for-men/

QUESTIONNAIRE

THE MOSAIC OF EQUALITY: NAVIGATING THE NUANCES OF GENDER

BALANCE
Thank you for participating in our survey on gender balance. This survey aims to explore various
factors influencing gender balance in society, including social, cultural, political, and economic aspects.
Your feedback is valuable in helping us understand perceptions and experiences related to gender
equality and disparity.
Not shared

What is your age?

Under 18
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 +
Educational Status
High School
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Employed
What is your gender identity
Male
Female
Other
To what extent do you believe stereotypes about gender roles influence girls' interest in STEM
subjects?
a)1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5
How confident do you feel in your abilities to succeed in STEM subjects compared to your
peers of the opposite gender?
 71

a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5
How supportive do you feel your family is of your pursuing a career in STEM, regardless of
your gender?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5
To what extent do you agree that cultural norms in your community discourage girls from
pursuing STEM careers?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
How far do you agree that the current STEM curriculum and teaching practices are biased
towards one gender?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
How far do you agree that the girls in engineering face challenges related to discrimination or
lack of support compared to boys?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
How aware are you of gender-related policies and laws in your country?
a. Very Aware
b. Aware
c. Neutral
d. Not Aware
e. Not Aware at All
How much will you rate that the boys in healthcare face challenges related to discrimination or
lack of support compared to girls?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5
 72

Do you believe the gender gap in STEM education leads to differences in academic
achievement between boys and girls?
a) Yes
b) No
How far do you agree the gender gap in STEM education affects students' career aspirations
and choices?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
Do you agree that the gender gap in STEM education has long-term consequences for the
diversity and innovation of the workforce?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
What areas of research do you think are most important for understanding the causes of the
gender gap in STEM?
a) Individual factors (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation)
b) Social factors (e.g., family expectations, cultural norms)
c) Systemic factors (e.g., curriculum, teaching practices)
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
Do you agree that more research is needed to understand the specific experiences of different
groups of students within STEM?
a) Strongly disagree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral
d) Agree
e) Strongly agree
What are some potential research methods that could be used to investigate the gender gap in
STEM?
a) Large-scale surveys with diverse participants
b) Qualitative studies focusing on individual experiences
c) Observational studies of classroom interactions
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
What types of interventions do you think could be effective in addressing the gender gap in
STEM education?
a) Early childhood education programs that promote STEM for all children
b) Mentoring programs for girls and other underrepresented groups
c) Bias training for teachers and other educators
d) Curriculum reforms to make STEM more inclusive and engaging
e) All of the above
 73

What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing effective interventions to address the
gender gap?
a) Lack of funding
b) Resistance to change from educators and institutions
c) Difficulty in measuring the impact of interventions
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
What is a potential negative impact of the gender gap in STEM education in India?
• A shortage of skilled professionals in science and technology fields
• Slower development of indigenous technologies in India
• Limited innovation and entrepreneurship in the STEM sector
• All of the above
How crucial do you think it is for educational institutions to implement policies and programs
specifically targeted at promoting gender diversity in STEM fields?
• Very Insignificant
• Insignificant
• Neutral
• Significant
• Very significant
Do you agree that lack female role models in STEM fields play role in perpetuating the gender
gaps?
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly Agree
Do you believe that providing early exposure to STEM education can help bridge the gender
gap in the field?
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly Agree
Do you agree that the impact of societal stereotypes discourage females from pursuing STEM
subjects?
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly Agree
74