A Broken Pipeline: Effects of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Barriers on College Students’ Educational Aspiration

Abstract

This study examined the long-term effects of perceived educational and career barriers due to sexism and racism in college students’ pursuit of postgraduate education (PE) and how such effects were different across gender and racial majority/minority groups. With a sample of 2,717 undergraduate students, results from multinomial logistic regression showed that female and students of color not only perceived higher levels of barriers due to sexism and racism, such experiences further predicted the discrepancies between their precollege aspirations and actual pursuit for postgraduate degrees upon graduation. The higher the perceived barriers, the higher the odds of female and students of color not pursuing PE that they had aspired before college. This negative long-term effect was not observed in male students or White students. Moreover, when intersectionality was considered, women of color was the only group where perceived barriers had significant negative effects on the PE gap. Implications were discussed.

Keywords

perception of educational and career barriers postgraduate education college students gender race/ethnicity

Despite increasing diversity in the U.S. labor market, there is persistent achievement gap between women and men and White and racial/ethnic minorities (Byars-Winston et al., 2015). Educational attainment is one of the key elements for decreasing racial/ethnic and gender disparities in occupational outcomes, but educational systems in the United States have not provided equal access and resources to members of oppressed groups (Sólorzano et al., 2005). Particularly, the pipeline metaphor has been widely used to describe how students with marginalized social identities (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minorities, students from low social class) progress from high school to college, then to degree attainment, and to graduate school, and to professional career (Wolfinger et al., 2008). Sethna (2011) asserted that

at any stage of the pipeline, the higher education system is moving minorities to the next stage at least at the same rate as that for the majority, then a reasonable conclusion is that, at least that section of the pipeline is not exacerbating the problem. (p. 6)

However, despite growing efforts of inclusivity in the pipeline, students from marginalized groups still likely experience a greater gap between their initial educational aspirations and actual attainments (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).

Accordingly, we sought to examine whether female and racial/ethnic minority students experienced greater difficulty in planning and pursuing their academic goals in moving from college education to postgraduate education (PE; graduate/professional degrees) attainments compared to male and White peers, respectively. Graduate and postbaccalaureate professional degree attainments are critical educational milestones that provide a pathway to more prestigious and high-salary careers (Mullen et al., 2003; Pascarella et al., 2004). Students in advanced degree programs develop professional skills and establish formal and informal networks that can lead to greater opportunities for promotion and leadership. Using a longitudinal design, we examined the effects of perceived barriers on the discrepancy between initial educational expectations of incoming college students and their actual educational pursuit after 4 years. Specifically, we aimed to test how perceived barriers related to gender and race/ethnicity can predict the discrepancy between educational aspirations and actual educational pursuit with a sample of college students across gender and racial/ethnic groups.

Perception of Career and Educational Barriers

In career development literature, perception of educational and career barriers is one of the most salient factors that differentiate the academic and career outcomes between women and men and racial/ethnic minority and White students (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001). In general, career barriers refer to various factors that interfere with one’s academic and career development process (Swanson et al., 1996). College women and men in diverse racial/ethnic groups perceive various barriers in pursuing their academic and career goals including limited social support, lack of confidence, multiple role conflict, disapproval by significant others, or financial concerns (Lent et al., 2002; Swanson et al., 1996). However, the salience and impact of these barriers are different across gender and racial/ethnic groups. For example, existing studies revealed that women are more likely than men to experience a negative gender-related comment at workplaces, and workplace sexism can function as a barrier in women’s pursuit of career goals (Karami et al., 2019; Kim & O’Brien, 2018). Similarly, while both White students and students of color report intellectual awareness that racial discrimination can interfere with career development and achievements, students of color are much more likely to personally perceive or experience racial discrimination in their career trajectories than White students (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001). Therefore, barriers due to sexism and racism can be particularly detrimental for women and racial/ethnic minorities to achieve their full potentials at workplaces (Fassinger, 2008).

Gender-related barriers and sexism

Research has suggested that young women’s educational aspirations and attainments have increased over the past couple of decades (e.g., Mau & Bikos, 2000), but women are more likely to “leak out” from the pipeline than men as they progress through the academic ladder (Wolfinger et al., 2008). For example, women are more likely than men to enroll in either a submaster’s-level program or a master’s degree program but less likely than men to enroll in other types of graduate programs such as a professional degree or doctoral program (Mullen et al., 2003). Various factors including attitudes of socializers (e.g., faculty and peers) and perceived sexist events have been associated with female students’ graduate school aspirations, given that the patriarchal academic environment might not always encourage women to pursue an advanced degree (Davis et al., 2012; West, 2014).

Sexism is a major barrier for women’s academic and career development (Kim & O’Brien, 2018). In society, women are still overwhelmingly limited to stereotypically female jobs such as education and nursing and significantly underrepresented in male-dominated jobs such as positions in engineering and science fields (National Science Foundation, 2009). Such disproportionate representation and gender bias in careers are rooted in the way women are stereotyped and discriminated against during important developmental stages of their education (Boysen, 2013). Women are stereotyped as more of a “follower” with subordinate, passive, and agreeable traits while men are imbued with stereotypes of dominance, independence, and leader-like qualities (Kim & O’Brien, 2018). Studies have reported that women frequently experience sexism rooted in these stereotypical beliefs in classrooms and on campus during their college education (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009), which can lead to lower satisfaction in academic pursuits, dropouts from male-dominated majors such as engineering, and beliefs of academic inferiority to men in skillsets such as math that are essential for success in traditionally male-dominated careers (e.g., science; Leaper & Brown, 2008; Logel et al., 2009). Thus, although women may enter college with high expectations of academic and career pursuit, the accumulation of sexist events throughout college years might be a major barrier that can deter them from achieving their educational goals (Novakovic & Gnilka, 2015).

Race/ethnicity-related barriers and racism

Race/ethnicity continues to be an important factor in predicting college students’ educational plans and achievements (Sólorzano et al., 2005). African American and Latinx students were more likely to lower their expectations for graduate degrees than White students (Pascarella et al., 2004). According to Carter’s (2002) conceptual model, students’ educational attainments are influenced by several factors: their precollege characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, age, or SAT scores), characteristics of the institution attended (e.g., predominantly White institute vs. historically Black colleges and universities), college academic and nonacademic experiences (e.g., interactions with faculty and peers), external contexts (e.g., family influences), and initial aspirations and plans (e.g., degree aspirations). Particularly, precollege aspirations and goals can be a key factor to predict their postbaccalaureate plans because it may reflect students’ stable academic self-concept and agency in shaping their educational experience in college. However, for students of color, race/ethnicity-related barriers may be salient challenges to fulfilling their initial educational aspirations and plans as they progress through college.

Racial/ethnic barriers are present at multiple levels throughout the college years. At the campus level, studies have found that negative campus racial climate was associated with poorer academic persistence and feelings of isolation and alienation among students of color especially in predominantly White institutions (Smith et al., 2011). Students of color in such environments may be more likely to feel discouraged from fulfilling their academic trajectories and goals compared to their White peers (Cabrera, 2014). At the individual level, studies have found that experiences of racism may adversely affect racial/ethnic minority students’ academic and career development. Reynolds and colleagues (2010) found that racism was associated with lower academic motivation for Black and Latinx college students. The risk appears to be greater for students who have less developed awareness of their racial/ethnic identities and racialized experiences, as Tovar-Murray, et al. (2012) found that the negative impact on Black students’ career aspirations was even worse for those with low ethnic identity. Additionally, racial/ethnic minority students reported significantly lower coping efficacy for perceived barriers than their White peers (Mejia-Smith & Gushue, 2017). When racial/ethnic minorities endorse more internalized racism, which can be one form of perceived barriers, they tend to show lower career aspirations than those who do not (D. L. Brown & Segrist, 2015). College is an important developmental period for students to foster their academic and career identities, yet barriers such as racism and negative racial climate may be major disadvantages for students of color and deter them from meeting their academic and career goals.

Long-Term Effects of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Barriers on Educational and Career Development

The detrimental long-term effects of gender and racial discrimination and marginalization have been theorized and discussed in a number of theoretical frameworks. The psychology of working theory (Duffy et al., 2016) posits that systemic marginalization and interpersonal discrimination are critical barriers that reduce equal access to resources and to decent work for people with disadvantaged identities including racial/ethnic minority, gender minority, people with disabilities, immigrants, and so on. Although this theory did not specifically write about the pursuit of advanced educational degrees but instead mostly focused on their core construct of decent work, their theorization and documentation of the negative consequences of marginalization broadly about an individual’s career development in securing decent work readily imply similar negative effects on one’s educational progression and achievement. For example, several studies found that racial marginalization led African American students to feel more disconnected from their K–12 and postsecondary institutions (Cohen et al., 2006; Walton & Cohen, 2011). Moreover, because of gender discrimination, young women reported feeling discouraged in pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields where women are traditionally underrepresented (Miyake et al., 2010). As an example, it was found that female students in engineering were likely to encounter negative stereotypes on their academic ability which in turn could increase the gap between their initial educational aspiration and actual pursuit of graduate training (Cadaret et al., 2017). Furthermore, in studies on workplace marginalization, cumulative findings showed that workplace discrimination against gender and sexual minorities is prevalent and is linked to negative psychological and health outcomes as well as negative work-related outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction and increased work withdrawal (e.g., McFadden, 2015; Velez & Moradi, 2012). Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that perceptions and experiences of racial- and gender-related discrimination, and barriers might have similarly discouraged or even prevented individuals with marginalized identities from their planned educational progresses—contributing to the “broken pipeline” phenomenon in educational and career development.

Similarly, the stigma consciousness theory also suggests that perception of barriers (POB) due to racism and sexism can have a long-term effect on one’s educational attainments (R. P. Brown & Pinel, 2003; Pinel, 1999). Pinel (1999) proposed that there is varying level of perceptions in the extent to which individuals in a marginalized group anticipate stereotypes or discriminations. When individuals with marginalized identities perceive higher probability of being stereotyped or discriminated, they are more likely to be influenced by discrimination or marginalization than those with lower stigma consciousness. For example, female undergraduates high in stigma consciousness performed worse than women low in stigma consciousness on a math test (R. P. Brown & Pinel, 2003). College women who are more aware of stereotypes toward women were less likely to present self-efficacy and career goals in science, agriculture, or engineering majors than those who are lower in stigma consciousness (Cadaret et al., 2017). Similarly, racial stigma consciousness was negatively associated with college grade point average (GPA) among academically stigmatized college students (college students who identified as Black and Latinx) but not for nonstigmatized students who identified as White and Asian (R. P. Brown & Lee, 2005). These findings imply that college women and students of color who perceive barriers due to sexism and racism in their academic and career development are likely to carry the burden of negative stereotypes and marginalization throughout their college years.

Furthermore, based on the intersectionality framework, students with multiple marginalized identities are likely to experience greater adversities against their academic pursuit and achievement. The framework of intersectionality is an analytical tool that describes how interlocking systems of oppression impact marginalized groups with regard to race, gender, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, religion, and other social identity groups (Crenshaw, 1989). The concept was first coined by Crenshaw (1989) to highlight the compounding oppression Black women face due to holding both a gender and racial minority identities. Accordingly, women of color are likely to face greater academic and career development challenges than other groups that hold fewer minority identities such as men of color or White women (Ong et al., 2011). Hence, over time, women of color might be at greater risk to internalize the negative stereotypes and marginalization due to both race/ethnicity and gender which may lead them to give up on their initial aspirations of pursuing an advanced degree program (e.g., master’s, PhD) because they might anticipate and associate such programs with persistent experiences of stigma and discrimination.

The Current Study

Although both psychology of working theory and stigma consciousness theory posit that the presence of marginalization based on one’s disadvantaged identities and the awareness of one’s stigmatized status can have a stable and persistent impact on their academic, educational, and vocational development outcomes, little empirical research has directly and specifically tested the long-term effects of perceived educational and career barriers due to sexism and racism in college students’ pursuit of postbaccalaureate degrees. Moreover, there is little evidence on how the effects of perceived barriers might be different across majority and minority groups regarding gender and racial/ethnic identities. To address these gaps in the literature, we examined the phenomenon of “broken pipeline,” that is, the discrepancy between college students’ expected and actual educational pursuit. Specifically, we tested whether perceived educational and career barriers due to sexism and racism could partially account for the gap between initial educational aspirations of incoming college students and their actual pursuit of advanced degrees when they graduate from college, especially for women and students of color. To test the longitudinal effect, Time 1 data were collected before participants started their first semester in college, and Time 2 data were collected after 4 years during their graduation.

Based on our review of relevant theories and empirical studies, we tested three hypotheses. First, regarding gender, we hypothesized that higher POB due to gender discrimination would be associated with higher discrepancy between expected and actual educational pursuit. This would be particularly true for women but not necessarily for men (Hypothesis 1). Second, regarding race/ethnicity, higher POB due to racism would be associated with higher discrepancy between expected and actual educational pursuit. This would be particularly true for racial/ethnic minority students but not necessarily for White students (Hypothesis 2). Third, for a more nuanced intersectional inquiry on both gender and race, we examined how perception of race- and gender-related barriers predicted the aspiration–pursuit discrepancy among the four race by gender groups (women of color, men of color, White women, and White men). We hypothesized that the role of both barriers would be the strongest for women of color and minimal for White men and moderate for men of color and White women (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Participants

Participants were 2,717 undergraduate students who completed a new student census in the summer of Year 2010 (1,132 students) and 2011 (1,585 students) before starting their first semester at a university in Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. These students completed a follow-up graduation survey at their typical 4-year graduation time (at summer of Year 2014 and 2015). The graduation survey data were collected by the Career Center of that university and were combined with their new student census data to create the data set for analysis in this study. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Among the 2,717 participants, 1,491 (54.9%) were female, 1,213 (44.6%) were male, and 13 (0.5%) reported other gender identification or did not report their gender. In terms of race/ethnicity, 1,723 (63.4%) identified as White and 985 (36.2%) identified as racial/ethnic minority. Specifically, 422 (15.5%) identified as Asian/Asian American, 234 (8.6%) as Black/African American, 45 (1.7%) as Latinx, 6 (0.2%) as Native American, and 278 (10.2%) as biracial or multiracial. In addition, nine (0.3%) did not report their race/ethnicity.

Measures

Demographic variables

Participants’ demographic variables were collected in the new student census they completed prior to the beginning of their first semester. The demographic variables used in this study were participants’ gender and race/ethnicity.

The POB Scale

POB Scale was administered to assess participants’ perception of barriers in pursuing their career and educational aspirations (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001). It is anchored in a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived barriers. Example items include “In my future career, I will probably experience negative comments about my gender” and “My ethnic background is currently a barrier to my educational aspirations.” The original scale assessed participants’ POB in both career development and educational pursuit from different sources: barriers due to sexism, due to racism, due to children and future family, due to financial concerns, etc. Kim and O’Brien (2018) identified nine oblique factors from the original POB Scale, and for the research purpose of this study, we focused on perceived barriers particularly related to two identity variables: gender and race/ethnicity. To measure gender-related POB (POB-Gender for short hereafter), we combined the two gender-related barriers subscales from Kim and O’Brien (2018)—the Career Barriers due to Sexism subscale (four items) and the Educational Barriers due to Gender Discrimination subscale (two items). To measure race-related POB (POB-Race), we combined the two race-related barriers subscales from their revised factor model—the Career Barriers due to Racism subscale (four items) and the Educational Barriers due to Racial Discrimination subscale (two items). This decision to combine subscales was based on several important considerations. First, each of the subscales only tapped partially into the constructs of gender- and race-related career and educational barriers. For example, regarding sexism and gender discrimination, one subscale with four items assesses only career barriers and the other subscale with two items only assesses educational barriers. Therefore, combining the two subscales may help us more comprehensively assess the constructs of gender- and race-related career and educational barriers that this study was interested in examining. Second, perhaps due to the small number of items, some subscales (e.g., the Educational Barriers subscales have only two items) were reported to lack needed variances or did not fully differentiate the differences between majority and minority groups (Kim & O’Brien, 2018). The combination of closely related subscales would help increase the number of items and ensure the comprehensiveness of the measured construct.

Kim and O’Brien (2018) reported satisfactory internal reliabilities for the two POB-Gender subscales (Cronbach α = .90 for both) and the two POB-Race subscales (Cronbach α = .93 for both). In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the six items for POB-Gender was .88 and for the six items of POB-Race was .89.

Expectation and actual pursuit of PE

The expectation of PE was measured in the new student census before the participants started their first year in college. The standalone question asked participants to indicate their expected highest level of education (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or doctoral degree). The “ExpectPE” variable was coded as 0 if the participant selected bachelor’s degree option and was coded as 1 if the participant selected master’s or doctoral degree options. The actual pursuit of PE was measured in the graduation survey these participants completed at graduation after 4 years of college. The question asked participants about their placement status after graduation, examples including employment—full-time, employment—part-time, PE, military. The “ActualPE” variable was coded as 1 if the participant endorsed the PE option in the placement question and was coded as 0 if the participant endorsed other options than the PE option.

To quantify the gap between expectation and actual pursuit of PE, a new dependent variable named “PEGap” was created from the cross-tabulation of the binary ExpectPE and ActualPE. PEGap was coded as 1 to indicate the group of students who expected PE before starting college and actually pursued PE at the graduation of college (N1 = 574, accounting for 21.1%). PEGap was coded as 2 to indicate students who did not expect PE but actually pursued PE (N2 = 63, accounting for 2.3%). PEGap was coded as 3 to represent students who did not expect PE and actually did not pursue PE (N3 = 425, accounting for 15.6%). PEGap was coded as 4 to indicate the students who did expect PE before college but did not actually pursue PE at graduation (N4 = 1,632, accounting for 60.1%). In addition, there were 23 missing cases in the PEGap variable, accounting for 0.8% of the total sample. The fourth group represented the students who showed the expected–actual PE discrepancy and was the focal group of this study.

Analysis and Results

Preliminary Analysis

All the investigated variables were inspected for missing values, and none of them had more than 5% of missing cases (missing percentage ranged from 0.3% to 3.2%), which was argued to be negligible in statistical texts (Hair et al., 2006). Further, the inspection of the underlying distribution for the continuous variables of POB-Gender and POB-Race showed that their skewness and kurtosis estimates were all within the −2 to 2 range (estimates ranging from −.431 to .502), which supported their univariate normality (George & Mallery, 2010). Given these, it was not anticipated that the data would manifest missing value or nonnormality problems, and we used robust maximum likelihood estimators in the subsequent analysis following statistical recommendations (Muthen & Muthen, 2017).

Descriptive statistics of the study variables in subsequent analyses were then calculated. Overall, the participants reported a moderate level of POB-Gender (M = 2.14, SD = 0.80) and a moderate level of POB-Race (M = 2.09, SD = 0.80). Specifically, female students reported significantly higher levels of POB-Gender than male students, female M = 2.47, male M = 1.73, F(1, 2619) = 710.85, p < .01, and students of color reported significantly higher levels of POB-Race than White students, students of color M = 2.50, White students M = 1.86, F(1, 2622) = 462.30, p < .01.

POB-Gender

To test the effect of POB-Gender on PEGap and how this effect might differ across the gender groups, we conducted a multinomial logistic regression using Mplus Version 8.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017). The multinomial logistic regression analysis was employed because our outcome variable PEGap was a nonordered categorical variable with four categories. We entered the grand-mean-centered POB-Gender, the binary gender variable (0 = female, 1 = male), and their interaction term as the predictors and selected PEGap as the multinomial dependent variable with the PEGap = 4 as the reference category. The selection of PEGap = 4 as the reference group was because this would allow for comparisons between this group (which is the focal group of interest in this study) to all the other three groups. We were particularly interested in the comparison between the PEGap = 4 group with the PEGap = 1 group since both groups indicated students who expected to have PE before college, but the PEGap = 1 group actually pursued PE and PEGap = 4 group did not pursue PE after graduation.

Results of the multinomial logistic regression analyses are presented in Table 1. First, there was a significant interaction between gender and POB-Gender (B = .38, t = 2.64, p = .008) in predicting the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (please note the significant “main effect” of POB-Gender was implied in this interaction). Specifically, for female students, POB-Gender significantly and negatively predicted the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (B = −.23, t = −2.56, p = .011, odds ratio = 0.79). This suggested that female students who perceived one unit score higher in POB-Gender were less likely (at 79%) to be in the PEGap = 1 (expecting and actually pursuing PE) group in reference to being in the PEGap = 4 group (expecting PE but not actually pursuing PE). Equivalently, for female students, one unit score increase in POB-Gender was related to greater likelihood (at 126%) to be in the PEGap = 4 group in reference to the PEGap = 1 group. However, for male students, POB-Gender did not predict the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (B = .15, t = 1.34, p = .179, odds ratio = 1.16). In other words, increases in male students’ perception of gender-related barriers did not predict the likelihood of their being in the expecting but not pursuing PE group in reference to the expecting and actually pursuing PE group. Second, we also observed a significant main effect of gender (B = −.34, t = −3.01, p = .003, odds ratio = 0.71) in predicting the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4. This suggested that, holding POB-Gender constant (at the value of the grand mean), compared with female students, male students were less likely (at only 71%) to be in the PEGap = 1 group (expecting and actually pursuing PE) in reference to being in the PEGap = 4 group (expecting but not pursuing PE). Equivalently, compared to female students, male students were more likely (at 140%) to be in the PEGap = 4 group in reference to the PEGap = 1 group.

Table 1.
Multinomial Logistic Regression Results.

Variable Predictor Estimate SE t p

For POB-Gender

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 Gender −0.34 .11 −3.01 .003

POB-Gender −0.23 .09 −2.56 .011

Interaction 0.38 .15 2.64 .008

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 Gender −0.47 .38 −1.23 .218

POB-Gender 0.16 .26 0.66 .513

Interaction −0.57 .48 −1.19 .236

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 Gender 0.29 .13 2.27 .023

POB-Gender −0.08 .11 −0.76 .449

Interaction 0.13 .16 0.83 .409

For POB-Race

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 Race 0.03 .11 0.30 .762

POB-Race −0.22 .09 −2.31 .021

Interaction 0.36 .13 2.77 .006

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 Race 0.41 .34 1.21 .227

POB-Race −0.06 .32 −0.20 .844

Interaction −0.32 .43 −0.75 .456

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 Race 0.79 .14 5.46 .000

POB-Race −0.01 .13 −0.04 .971

Interaction −0.15 .16 −0.91 .363

For POB-Total and Intersectionality

Women of color

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −0.36 .14 −2.68 .007

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.02 .45 0.05 .964

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.07 .20 0.33 .739

White women

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −0.10 .15 −0.66 .507

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.07 .38 0.19 .853

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −0.29 .16 −1.77 .076

Men of color

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −0.02 .20 −0.10 .919

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.05 .59 0.08 .940

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.30 .22 1.38 .168

White men

Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4 POB-Total 0.25 .14 1.75 .080

Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −1.07 .61 −1.75 .080

Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4 POB-Total −0.01 .13 −0.08 .935

Note. POB = Perception of barriers; POB-Gender = gender-related POB; POB-Race = race-related POB; POB-Total = total score of gender- and race-related barriers; PE = postgraduate education. Binary variables: Gender (0 = female, 1 = male); race (0 = racial minority, 1 = White). Categorical dependent variable: PEGap = 1: expected PE and pursued PE; PEGap = 2: did not expect PE but pursued PE; PEGap = 3: did not expect PE and did not pursue PE; PEGap = 4: expected PE but did not pursue PE. Continuous variables POB-Gender and POB-Race were centered on their respective grand means.

POB-Race

Regarding POB-Race, we ran a similar model parallel to POB-Gender. Specifically, we entered grand-mean-centered POB-Race variable, the binary variable of race (0 = students of color, 1 = White), and the interaction term of POB-Race and race as the predictor variables. PEGap was again the multinomial dependent variable with PEGap = 4 as the reference category. Results of the multinomial model are presented in Table 1. There was a significant interaction between Race and POB-Race (B = .36, t = 2.77, p = .006) in predicting the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (note that the significant “main effect” of POB-Race was implied in this interaction). Specifically, for students of color, POB-Race significantly and negatively predicted the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (B = −.22, t = −2.31, p = .021, odds ratio = 0.80). This suggested that students of color who perceived one unit score higher in POB-Race were less likely (at 80%) to be in the PEGap = 1 group (expecting and actually pursuing PE) in reference to being in the PEGap = 4 group (expecting but not pursuing PE), which was equivalent to a greater likelihood (at 125%) to be in the PEGap = 4 group in reference to the PEGap = 1 group. However, for White students, POB-Race did not predict the log odds of PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (B = .14, t = 1.59, p = .111, odds ratio = 1.15). In other words, increases in White students’ perception of race-related barriers did not predict the likelihood of their membership in the PEGap = 4 group (expecting but not pursuing PE) in reference to the PEGap = 1 group (expecting and pursuing PE).

Exploring Intersectionality of Gender and Race

For the inquiry on intersectionality, we combined the gender and race variables to form four groups (women of color, White women, men of color, and White men) and calculated the total score of gender- and race-related barriers (POB-Total). To explore whether POB-Total related to PEGap differently across the four intersectional groups, we conducted a multigroup multinomial logistic regression in Mplus Version 8.0 and compared the model fit between the baseline model (where the association between POB-Total and PEGap was fixed to be the same across the four intersectional groups) and the enhanced model (the aforementioned association was allowed to vary across the four groups). Log-likelihood ratio difference test indicated that the enhanced model showed significant improvement than the baseline model (Satorra–Bentler corrected −2ΔLL = 19.378, df = 9, p = .022), suggesting that the POB-Total to PEGap link indeed varied across the four groups. Specific results are presented in Table 1. In support of our third hypothesis, POB-Total significantly predicted PEGap only for the women of color group, differentiating PEGap = 1 in reference to PEGap = 4 (B = −.36, t = −2.68, p = .007, odds ratio = 0.70). This suggested that, only for women of color, one unit higher in POB-Total score significantly predicted less likelihood (at 70%) to be in the PEGap = 1 (expecting and actually pursuing PE) group in reference to being in the PEGap = 4 (expecting PE but did not actually pursue PE) group, which equivalently meant a greater likelihood (at 143%) to be in the PEGap = 4 group in reference to the PEGap = 1 group. None of the other regression coefficients reached significance for the other three identity groups.

Discussion

Along the theoretical propositions of the psychology of working theory (Duffy et al., 2016) and stigma consciousness theory (Pinel, 1999), we examined the phenomenon of “broken pipeline” and investigated the longitudinal effects of the perception of gender and racial/ethnic career and educational barriers on college students’ “PE gap”—the discrepancy between their aspirations for PE attainment before college and their actual pursuit of PE when they graduated from college and how these effects may be different for students from privileged and marginalized gender and racial groups. This study contributes to existing scientific literature by adding to the scarce empirical research testing the long-term effects of perceived educational and career barriers due to sexism and racism in college students’ pursuit of PE beyond college. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind. Our study also uniquely adds to existing literature by operationalizing and investigating the notion of intersectionality and how POB related to PE gap for individuals at the different intersections of privileged and marginalized identities, which has been argued as critically important but largely unaddressed in most existing empirical research (Rosenthal, 2016).

Results regarding the gender-related barriers and PE gap fully supported the proposed Hypothesis 1 that only female students’ perceptions of educational and career barriers due to sexism and gender discrimination significantly predicted the discrepancy between their expected level of education before college and their actual pursuit of continuing education by the time they graduated from college. For male students, perception of gender-related educational and career barriers was not predictive. The findings revealed that not only did female students with their disadvantaged gender identity experience higher levels of barriers due to sexism in their educational and career development, with reference to their male peers, these barriers actually translated into longer term negative impacts as they did not pursue their original educational aspirations. One unit score increase in their POB was associated with a marked 26% increase in odds ratio that female students “leak out” from the pipeline and “miss out” on their previously aspired career dreamland. The results were consistent with previous studies (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001; Pinel, 1999) demonstrating the negative effects of POB for women and further illustrated that the negative effects of POB on the pursuit of continuing education only existed for the female group with disadvantaged gender identity. It also supports a theoretical model of the impact of gender stigma on female students’ choices (Pinel, 1999).

Similar to POB-Gender, results regarding the race-related barriers and PE gap also fully supported the proposed Hypothesis 2 that only racial/ethnic minority students’ perceptions of educational and career barriers due to racism and racial discrimination significantly predicted the discrepancy between their expected level of education precollege and their actual pursuit of continuing education in their postcollege plans. For White students, perception of race-related educational and career barriers was not predictive. Collectively with the results from comparing the descriptive statistics between racial minority and White students, it was revealed that not only did racial/ethnic minority students experience higher levels of barriers in their educational and career development due to racism, in contrast to their White peers, but these barriers were further associated with longer term negative impacts in the pursuit of their original educational aspirations. One unit score increase in their perceived level of barriers was associated with a prominent 25% greater likelihood of racial/ethnic minority students’ leak out from the pipeline toward their previously aspired educational dreamland. These results provided direct evidence to the detrimental effects of racism and racial discrimination in the world of work and also corroborated existing studies (D. L. Brown & Segrist, 2015; Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001) showing the negative effects of perceived career and educational barriers due to racism and racial discrimination (Kim & O’Brien, 2018) on career aspiration, development, and attainment for racial/ethnic minority individuals.

Our intersectional inquiry partially supported our Hypothesis 3 that when gender and race were considered together from an intersectional framework, women of color was the only group in which one’s higher perception of gender and racial barriers predicted their “leaking out” from the pipeline at a marked 43% increase in odds. This finding was consistent with existing literature suggesting the greater academic and career challenges for women of color (Ong et al., 2011), who are marginalized in both the two identity aspects investigated in this study. Findings also supported Hypothesis 3 in that the association between POB-Total and PEGap was not found for the White men group. However, it is interesting that we did not find such negative effects for the men of color or White women groups either. One possible explanation is that, when gender and race are considered together, while both men of color and White women have one aspect of marginalized identity, perhaps they are able to rely on the other privileged identity to ward off the negative impacts of discrimination and barriers (Rosenthal, 2016) and that privileged identity could become a “protective shield” to enable them to continue their educational aspiration and pursuit. Although this study only covered the gender and racial/ethnic identities, we believe that this finding is particularly important in putting under spotlight the elevated barriers and challenges in career and educational development for individuals with multiple marginalized identities.

It is worth noting that there could be numerous reasons that may explain college students’ discrepancy between PE aspiration and actual PE pursuit or attainment (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006), including changes in career interests or vocational objectives, or other personal or familial factors. Furthermore, due to the design of this study, no causal relationship could be established that POB was the cause of female or racial minority students’ discrepancy between PE aspiration and pursuit. This being said, results of this study highlighted the cumulative negative effects of daily exposure to sexism, racism, gender and racial discrimination, or gender and racial stereotypes and stigma in academic and educational settings, which may have deterred or prevented female or racial/ethnic minority students from pursuing their educational aspirations and fully achieving their academic and vocational potentials. Moreover, the long-term negative effects of gender and racial/ethnic barriers may be an important factor accounting for the gender or racial/ethnic disparities in social–economic status at workplaces since obtainment of graduate or postbaccalaureate professional degrees is a critical stepping-stone to more prestigious and high-salary careers (Mullen et al., 2003; Pascarella et al., 2004).

It is interesting to note that there was a main effect of gender in predicting the PEGap variable and that holding perception of POB-Gender constant at the grand mean value level for both women and men, in comparison to male students, female students were actually having a larger odds ratio of pursuing PE which they aspired before college. This result may be explained by the current “achievement gap,” where female college students academically outperformed their male peers in general (Goldin et al., 2006; Kuh et al., 2006), and the higher average college GPA would seemingly provide female students greater chances to obtain entry into postbaccalaureate or graduate programs. More importantly, the finding suggested that, if female and male students hypothetically were to have the same level of POB-Gender, female students, perhaps due to their better academic performance in college, were in fact less likely to “leak out” from their professional or academic “pipeline” than male students. This main effect of gender on the PEGap variable, from another angle, lent itself to supporting the negative and detrimental effects of gender-related career and educational barriers for women who could otherwise have thrived academically and professionally.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Several important limitations must be considered in light of our findings, which have implications for future research along this important line of inquiry. The first limitation is related to the binary gender categories for the gender variable. In this study, 0.5% participants reported gender identities that did not fall into the traditional binary gender categories. For lack of sample size, we were not able to include these respondents into the subsequent analysis; however, it should be recognized that because of their nonbinary or transgender identities, they may be even more vulnerable to discrimination, biases, and oppression in social or work contexts and may experience worse gender-related career and educational barriers. Additionally, our study used a categorical gender and race/ethnicity variable, so we were not able to address how individuals’ attitudes toward their gender and racial membership (e.g., racial/ethnic identity development, internalized sexism and racism) impact their experience (Helms et al., 2005). Future studies may focus on the experiences and challenges for gender nonbinary or transgender individuals or including a psychological construct that reflects students’ attitudes toward their gender or racial groups.

Second, the students of color in our study consist of several racial/ethnic minority groups, but this study combined individuals from different minority groups together to form a “students of color” group. This was based on the rationale that all the individuals in this group shared the identity of being people of color and regardless of the specific racial/ethnic group identification were all susceptible to racism and racial discrimination in their education and work environments. However, it is important to note that all minority racial/ethnic groups’ experiences are not equal. Future studies should examine the POB specific to each racial/ethnic group separately to shed light on the possible differences.

Last but not least, the POB was measured together with the students’ aspirations for PE before they started their first semester in college. As discussed previously, students’ POB may change based on their experiences in college life. Therefore, this study only serves as preliminary evidence regarding the potential detrimental effects of perceived educational and career barriers for individuals with marginalized gender and racial/ethnic identities. Future research may assess students’ POB at different time points during college, to better capture the changes in their perceived barriers, and to relate POB to their long-term career development outcomes in a more nuanced manner. Relatedly, we assessed college students’ career and educational aspiration before their first semester, and their actual educational pursuit at the time of graduation, and calculated the discrepancy based on these two specific time points. Two specific cautions are warranted about this measurement strategy. First, as aforementioned, some students may see changes in their career aspirations during college, and thus, their “discrepancy” may be a manifestation of their changing career plans. This being said, our findings that POB significantly predicted the aspiration–pursuit discrepancy only for students with marginalized gender and racial/ethnic identity, but not for White and male students, are still telling about the additional detrimental effects of POB consistent with the reviewed existing literature in this area. Second, it is possible that some students may have decided to take a gap year for various reasons (e.g., gaining more work-related experience, improving research background) and then pursue PE. Practical limitations in this study precluded us from conducting follow-up assessments on students’ career plans (e.g., decide not to pursue graduate school or take a gap year before applying for graduate school) throughout their college period or after graduation to eliminate these possible confounding factors. Future researchers may consider administering such follow-up surveys and account for the effects of these extraneous variables.

Implications

Limitations notwithstanding, our findings have important implications for administrators and mental health professionals in higher education. The results may serve as direct evidence for unique additional challenges for female and racial/ethnic minority students in their academic and career development specifically due to their perceived barriers related to sexism, racism, and discrimination. Results also highlight the needs to address social injustice and practical barriers at the systemic level and advocate for students with disadvantaged gender and racial/ethnic identities. In particular, early interventions for reducing perceived barriers in higher education system for incoming students may be important. For example, student affairs or mental health professionals can help incoming students to get connected with campus resources or mentors in coping with perceived barriers due to sexism and racism. A campus climate that actively attempts to address discrimination and biases originating from sexism and racism may help students with marginalized identities feel a sense of support, respect, inclusiveness, and equity in their academic and career opportunities. In turn, such campus culture may help reduce minority students’ perception of career and educational barriers and empower them to freely pursue their academic aspirations. Finally, it may also be important to incorporate diversity-related components and critical consciousness training (Watts et al., 2011) into career education programs in high school or colleges to raise the critical awareness of the negative impacts of race- and gender-related career and educational barriers in order to better prepare women and students of color to cope with and manage these challenges at the individual level. We believe that concerted efforts at both the systemic and individual levels are needed to combat the harmful effects of racism and sexism that may have contributed to the “broken pipeline” and discouraged or even prevented women and people of color from pursuing their aspirations.

Variable	Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p
For POB-Gender
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	Gender	−0.34	.11	−3.01	.003
POB-Gender	−0.23	.09	−2.56	.011
Interaction	0.38	.15	2.64	.008
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	Gender	−0.47	.38	−1.23	.218
POB-Gender	0.16	.26	0.66	.513
Interaction	−0.57	.48	−1.19	.236
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	Gender	0.29	.13	2.27	.023
POB-Gender	−0.08	.11	−0.76	.449
Interaction	0.13	.16	0.83	.409
For POB-Race
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	Race	0.03	.11	0.30	.762
POB-Race	−0.22	.09	−2.31	.021
Interaction	0.36	.13	2.77	.006
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	Race	0.41	.34	1.21	.227
POB-Race	−0.06	.32	−0.20	.844
Interaction	−0.32	.43	−0.75	.456
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	Race	0.79	.14	5.46	.000
POB-Race	−0.01	.13	−0.04	.971
Interaction	−0.15	.16	−0.91	.363
For POB-Total and Intersectionality
Women of color
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−0.36	.14	−2.68	.007
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.02	.45	0.05	.964
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.07	.20	0.33	.739
White women
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−0.10	.15	−0.66	.507
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.07	.38	0.19	.853
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−0.29	.16	−1.77	.076
Men of color
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−0.02	.20	−0.10	.919
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.05	.59	0.08	.940
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.30	.22	1.38	.168
White men
Log odds of PEGap = 1/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	0.25	.14	1.75	.080
Log odds of PEGap = 2/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−1.07	.61	−1.75	.080
Log odds of PEGap = 3/PEGap = 4	POB-Total	−0.01	.13	−0.08	.935

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Xu Li

Brian T. H. Keum

References

Boysen

G. A.

(2013). Confronting math stereotypes in the classroom: Its effect on female college students’ sexism and perceptions of confronters. Sex Roles, 69(5–6), 297–307.

Brown

D. L.

Segrist

(2015). African American career aspirations: Examining the relative influence of internalized racism. Journal of Career Development, 43, 177–189. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894845315586256

Brinkman

B. G.

Rickard

K. M.

(2009). College students’ descriptions of everyday gender prejudice. Sex Roles, 61(7-8), 461–475.

Brown

R. P.

Lee

M. N.

(2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic achievement. Self and Identity, 4, 149–157. http://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000227

Brown

R. P.

Pinel

E. C.

(2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626–633. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00039-8

Byars-Winston

Fouad

Wen

(2015). Race/ethnicity and sex in U. S. occupations, 1970 – 2010: Implications for research, practice, and policy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 54–70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.12.003

Cabrera

N. L.

(2014). Exposing whiteness in higher education: White male college students minimizing racism, claiming victimization, and recreating White supremacy. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 30–55.

Cadaret

M. C.

Hartung

P. J.

Subich

L. M.

Weigold

I. K.

(2017). Stereotype threat as a barrier to women entering engineering careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 40–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.002

Carter

(2002). College students’ degree aspirations: A theoretical model and literature review with a focus on African American and Latino students. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 17, pp. 129–171). Agathon Press.

10.

Cohen

G. L.

Garcia

Apfel

Master

(2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1126/science.1128317

11.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–168. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

12.

Davis

S. D.

Amelink

Hirt

J. B.

Miyazaki

(2012). Women’s educational opportunities: Factors that influence their graduate school aspirations. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 5, 141–165. http://doi.org/10.1515/njawhe-2012-1108

13.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

14.

Fassinger

R. E.

(2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for psychology. The American Psychologist, 63, 252–268. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.252

15.

Fouad

N. A

Byars-Winston

A. M.

(2005). Cultural context of career choice : Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. Career Development Quarterly, 53, 223–234. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00992.x

16.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide and reference. Pearson Education.

17.

Goldin

Katz

L. F.

Kuziemko

(2006). The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4), 133–156.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

19.

Helms

J. E.

Jernigan

Mascher

(2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. The American Psychologist, 60, 27–36. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.27

20.

Karami

Swan

S. C.

White

C. N.

Ford

(2019). Hidden in plain sight for too long: Using text mining techniques to shine a light on workplace sexism and sexual harassment. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000239

21.

Kim

Y. H.

O’Brien

K. M.

(2018). Assessing women’s career barriers across racial/ethnic groups: The Perception of Barriers Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(2), 226.

22.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

J. L.

Buckley

J. A.

Bridges

B. K.

Hayek

J. C.

(2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

23.

Leaper

Brown

(2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01151.x

24.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Talleyrand

McPartland

E. B.

Davis

Chopra

S. B.

Alexander

M. S.

Suthakaran

Chia-May

(2002). Career choice barriers, supports, and coping strategies: College students’ experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 61–72. http://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1814

25.

Logel

Walton

G. M.

Spencer

S. J.

Iserman

E. C.

von Hippel

Bell

A. E.

(2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015703

26.

Luzzo

D. A.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the perception of educational and career-relate barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 61–67.

27.

Mau

Bikos

(2000). Educational and vocational aspirations of minority and female students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 186–194.

28.

McCarron

G. P.

Inkelas

K. K.

(2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 534–549. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0059

29.

McFadden

(2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender careers and human resource development: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 125–162. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1534484314549456

30.

Mejia-Smith

Gushue

G. V.

(2017). Latina/o college students’ perceptions of career barriers: Influence of ethnic identity, acculturation, and self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 95(2), 145–155.

31.

Miyake

Kost-Smith

L. E.

Finkelstein

N. D.

Pollock

S. J.

Cohen

G. L.

Ito

T. A.

(2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1126/science.1195996

32.

Mullen

A. L.

Goyette

K. A.

Soares

J. A.

(2003). Who goes to graduate school? Social and academic correlates of educational continuation after college. Sociology of Education, 76, 143–169. http://doi.org/10.2307/3090274

33.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B. O.

(2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (version 8). Muthén & Muthén.

34.

National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

35.

Novakovic

Gnilka

P. B.

(2015). Dispositional affect and career barriers: The moderating roles of gender and coping. The Career Development Quarterly, 63(4), 363–375.

36.

Ong

Wright

Espinosa

Orfield

(2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209.

37.

Pascarella

E. T.

Wolniak

G. C.

Pierson

C. T.

Flowers

L. A.

(2004). The role of race in the development of plans for a graduate degree. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 299–320. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0006

38.

Pinel

E. C.

(1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114.

39.

Reynolds

A. L.

Sneva

J. N.

Beehler

G. P.

(2010). The influence of racism-related stress on the academic motivation of Black and Latino/a students. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 135–149.

40.

Rosenthal

(2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity. American Psychologist, 71(6), 474–485. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0040323

41.

Sethna

B. N.

(2011). Minorities in higher education: A pipeline problem? Research in Higher Education, 13, 1–18.

42.

Smith

W. A.

Yosso

T. J.

Solórzano

D. G.

(2011). Challenging racial battle fatigue on historically White campuses: A critical race examination of race-related stress. In Coates

R. D.

(Ed.), Covert racism (pp. 211–237). Brill.

43.

Sólorzano

D. G.

Villalpando

Oseguera

(2005). Educational inequities and Latina/o undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of their educational progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 272–294. http://doi.org/10.1177/1538192705276550

44.

Swanson

J. L.

Daniels

K. K.

Tokar

D. M.

(1996). Assessing perceptions of career-related barriers : The Career Barriers Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 219–244.

45.

Tovar-Murray

Jenifer

E. S.

Andrusyk

D’Angelo

King

(2012). Racism-related stress and ethnic identity as determinants of African American college students’ career aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 60(3), 254–262.

46.

Velez

B. L.

Moradi

(2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person-organization fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 399–407. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0028326

47.

Walton

G. M.

Cohen

G. L.

(2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1126/science.1198364

48.

Watts

R. J.

Diemer

M. A.

Voight

A. M.

(2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43–57.

49.

West

L. M.

(2014). “Something’s gotta give”: Advanced-degree seeking women’s experiences of sexism, role overload, and psychological distress. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 7, 226–243. http://doi.org/10.1515/njawhe-2014-0015

50.

Wolfinger

N. H.

Mason

Goulden

(2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the Ivory Tower. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 388–405. http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0015

A Broken Pipeline: Effects of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Barriers on College Students’ Educational Aspiration–Pursuit Gap

Abstract

Keywords

Perception of Career and Educational Barriers

Gender-related barriers and sexism

Race/ethnicity-related barriers and racism

Long-Term Effects of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Barriers on Educational and Career Development

The Current Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Demographic variables

The POB Scale

Expectation and actual pursuit of PE

Analysis and Results

Preliminary Analysis

POB-Gender

POB-Race

Exploring Intersectionality of Gender and Race

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Implications

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References