“Squeezing the Life Out of Each Day”: Emerging Adult Women’s Work-Family Expectations in STEM

Abstract

Work-family conflict can create challenges for women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers. Little is known, however, about how young women in STEM reason about future work-family conflict. The current study examines work-family conflict expectations among undergraduate and graduate women in STEM. Participants (N = 156) responded to open- and closed-ended survey questions about work-family conflict and academic attitudes. Qualitative analyses revealed two orientations relative to work-family conflict. Women with a challenge orientation anticipated work and family strain, whereas women with an opportunity orientation anticipated that balancing work and family would enhance their lives. Women differed in the strategies they planned to employ to resolve future work-family conflict and in their levels of quantitative constructs such as STEM identity. Findings suggest avenues for improving STEM retention such as mentoring interventions with exposure to role models who are balancing work and family.

Keywords

women in STEM work-family conflict emerging adult mixed method STEM careers

If I go into academia, there’s the pressure to obtain tenure, which is difficult enough without having children. Specifically, being the person who would actually be pregnant and bear children, that would limit what I could do in the lab. Further, there’s a negative stigma associated with women of childbearing ages because there’s a “chance” they will have children, and that’s a drain on a company’s resources, so why hire someone who could possibly cost you more? Or do I get into a good career position first and delay having children, increasing the risk of birth defects and pregnancy complications?

—Emily, STEM graduate student

Despite increasing demand for qualified STEM workers in the U.S. (Fayer et al., 2017), women remain underrepresented in STEM fields (Landivar, 2013). Evidence suggests that gender differences in STEM career attainment are due in part to challenges that women encounter when they attempt to balance family obligations with demanding STEM careers (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 2011; Jean et al., 2015; see also Mason & Goulden, 2004); however, most of this work focuses on women who are already in the STEM workforce. By contrast, relatively little research has examined how emerging adult women such as Emily anticipate balancing work and family obligations when they look ahead to their future STEM careers. To this end, the current study uses a mixed methods approach to assess expectations about future work-family conflict among childless women who are pursuing STEM degrees.

Work-Family Conflict in STEM: A Constrained Choice

Difficulty in navigating career and family roles is often referred to as work-family conflict (WFC; Carlson et al., 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Shockley & Singla, 2011), which occurs when dual demands of career and personal pursuits are at odds with one another (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Empirically, WFC is typically subdivided into two facets: work interfering with family, which is the strain that work inflicts on family life, and family interfering with work, which is the strain that family inflicts on career pursuits (Carlson et al., 2000). Both facets are associated with a variety of negative correlates such as stress, lower job satisfaction, and higher turnover (Allen et al., 2000; Ernst Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Michel et al., 2011).

Women’s underrepresentation in STEM is often attributed to WFC and, similarly, family-related decisions that prompt career slow-downs or exits (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 2011; Fouad et al., 2011; Wang & Degol, 2016). STEM career progression—particularly within academia—can coincide with societal and biological pressures for women to begin family planning. Thus, women’s “fertility choices” may constrain their retention and advancement in STEM (p. 5, Ceci & Williams, 2011). Similarly, family obligations can result in women working fewer hours, forgoing career advancements, or staying home with children if a male romantic partner earns more than the woman (Fox et al., 2011; Mason & Goulden, 2004; Wolfinger et al., 2008).

These family-centric choices may seem like personal preferences; however, feminist theory suggests that women’s decision-making is often constrained by gender-role norms and social-structural power differentials between women and men (e.g., McCarver, 2011). Although these constraints impact women in many occupational fields, their negative implications may be particularly acute in STEM fields. This is because such implications coincide with other challenges (e.g., sexism; chilly climate) that appear to be more common in STEM fields—especially the math-intensive areas—than they are in others (Leaper & Starr, 2019; Moss-Racusin et al., 2018; Robnett, 2016; Settles et al., 2006).

Expectations about work-family conflict during emerging adulthood

Although WFC appears to be a key challenge for some women in the STEM workforce, it is plausible that challenges associated with WFC take root while young women are still in the academic pipeline. In the current study, we examine this possibility in a sample of emerging adult women pursuing STEM degrees. This is an apt sample given that emerging adults often weigh both personal and professional goals when making decisions about the future (Ranta et al., 2014). Further, emerging adults’ ability to balance individual and relational roles impacts their satisfaction with their college pursuits (Bishop et al., 2018). These developmental experiences can be formative in shaping goals and expectations for adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Erikson, 1968). Thus, it is likely that women’s expectations about WFC during emerging adulthood lay the foundation for the career and family roles women will adopt in the future.

Many emerging adults anticipate experiencing gendered patterns of WFC. For example, undergraduate women plan to marry and have children despite expecting both marital and employment inequality (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011). Such inequality disproportionately compromises women’s opportunities for career advancement (i.e., Wolfinger et al., 2008) and reduces their likelihood of pursuing prestigious and time-intensive careers (Coyle et al., 2015). For instance, college-aged women in one study planned to reduce working hours while their children were young, potentially leaving women financially vulnerable and their careers at risk (Coyle et al., 2015; see also Sandberg & Scovell, 2013). Along a similar vein, another study illustrated that emerging adult women in engineering experienced unease leaving family members to pursue job positions in distant geographic locations (Huff et al., 2019). Thus, at least some emerging adult women anticipate difficulty accommodating work and family, which may in turn influence their career decision-making.

Correlates of expected work-family conflict

In addition to examining how emerging adult women reason about future WFC in STEM, the current study also examined whether women who reason about WFC in different ways also vary from one another along other dimensions. Specifically, we considered three sets of correlates. First, because attitudes about work-family balance and gender-role adherence often show sociodemographic variation (e.g., Kane, 2000; Matthews et al., 2010; Ojeda et al., 2020; Pepin & Cotter, 2018), we examined several individual-level correlates: age, relationship status, ethnicity, phase of education, and STEM field of study. STEM field of study was characterized as math-intensive (e.g., physics, engineering, computer science) or not (e.g., life and health sciences). Consistent with prior research (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 2010; Eccles & Wang, 2016; Robnett, 2016; Wang & Degol, 2016), we draw this distinction because gender gaps favoring men are especially pronounced in math-intensive STEM fields (National Science Foundation, 2016). Second, we considered two academic attitudes that have been linked to STEM persistence in prior work with undergraduates and graduate students: STEM identity and STEM career commitment (see Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2011; Robnett et al., 2015). STEM identity is an individual’s personal association with their STEM pursuits, whereas STEM career commitment is an individual’s intent to persist in STEM. Although STEM identity and career commitment continue to spark research on women’s persistence and retention in STEM (e.g., Starr, 2018; Williams & George-Jackson, 2014), and WFC scholars have assessed similar constructs in workforce populations (Michel et al., 2011), to our knowledge research has yet to connect STEM identity or STEM career commitment to WFC constructs. Third, because present experiences often influence future expectations, we assessed participants’ current WFC and their current level of concern about balancing their career and family roles.

The Current Study

The current study explores expectations about future work-family conflict in a sample of childless emerging adult women pursuing STEM degrees. Emerging adult women are an apt sample given that they are at a pivotal time in their career trajectories and actively exploring future roles in the realms of work and love (Arnett, 2000). We employed a convergent or concurrent mixed methods design, which means that we collected quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously and merged the results to triangulate findings (Driscoll et al., 2007; Fetters et al., 2013). The overarching goals of this exploratory research were to examine women’s experiences and expectations relative to WFC and investigate whether women who reason about WFC in different ways also vary from one another in other meaningful ways. Specifically, our research questions were as follows:
What orientations characterize emerging adult women’s expectations about future WFC?

How do women pursuing STEM degrees plan to address WFC as their careers progress?

Do women who reason differently about WFC differ in terms of their sociodemographic background (i.e., age, relationship status, ethnicity, phase of education, and STEM field of study), academic attitudes (STEM identity; STEM career commitment), or current experiences with WFC?

Method

Participants

Participants attended a large, diverse, public university in the southwestern United States. Our sample of 156 women consisted of undergraduate STEM majors (n = 130, 83.3%) and graduate students (n = 26, 16.7%) in STEM fields. All participants received a $10 gift card to a national retailer in exchange for participation. Our initial recruiting target was 200 undergraduate and graduate women. We fell short of this target because we overestimated the number of eligible graduate students. Informal feedback from participants also suggests that the $10 incentive was less compelling for graduate students than it was for undergraduates.

The majority of women (n = 98, 62.8%) were pursuing degrees in non-math intensive areas of STEM such as the life and health sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, pre-professional health sciences, STEM education); the remainder (n = 58; 37.2%) were pursuing degrees in math-intensive fields (e.g., physical science, computer science, engineering). Among the undergraduate women, the sample was evenly split between those who were in their 1st or 2nd years of school (n = 65, 50.0%) as compared to their 3rd, 4th, or 5th years (n = 65, 50.0%). Among graduate students, more women were in their 1st or 2nd years of school (n = 16, 61.5%), as compared to their 3rd, 4th, or 5th years (n = 10, 38.5%).

Participants were 22 years of age on average (SD = 3.72). Women identified as European American (n = 49, 31.4%), East Asian (n = 38, 24.4%), Latina (n = 34, 21.8%), African American (n = 6, 3.8%), South Asian (n = 5, 3.2%), American Indian/Pacific Islander (n = 3, 1.9%), Middle Eastern (n = 3, 1.9%), or Other/Multiracial (n = 18, 11.5%). Most were first-generation college students; some (n = 58, 37.1%) had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

The majority of women identified as heterosexual (n = 143, 91.7%). Over half (n = 74, 57.7%) indicated that they were currently involved in a serious, committed romantic relationship, and a minority were married (n = 12, 7.7%). When asked about future family planning, some participants indicated plans for marriage (n = 52, 33.3%) or plans for children (n = 19, 12.1%) within the next 3 years. None of the women had children at the time of the study.

Researcher Positionality

Because researchers’ identities influence data interpretation, we share information on our backgrounds below. All three authors contributed to developing the coding manual and to data analysis and had academic backgrounds in the social sciences and/or communication studies. The first author is a cis-gender, European American/white woman in her thirties. She has a doctoral degree, studied gender and career development, and has conducted research on women in STEM. The second author is a cis-gender, European American/white woman in her twenties. She has a master’s degree and conducted research on gender and romantic relationship experiences as well as women in STEM. She works in market research. The third author is a cis-gender, European American/white woman in her thirties. She has a doctoral degree and studies gender inequities in STEM fields. All three authors identify as intersectional feminists.

Research Approach

Design

The study utilized a mixed methods approach. More specifically, we employed a convergent or concurrent mixed methods design, which occurs when quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously and results are merged to triangulate findings (Driscoll et al., 2007; Fetters et al., 2013), thus enabling holistic insight into novel phenomena (Bradt et al., 2013; Creswell, 2015). This research approach was guided by our belief that WFC can be empirically measured, but is situated and experienced within the context of gender socialization. This combined positivist and social constructivist perspective calls for a mixed method design (Bradt et al., 2013). The current study primarily employs quantitative analyses and uses qualitative analyses to provide additional context and conceptual insight. Specifically, we use the qualitative data to depict women’s overarching view of WFC in STEM. This provides a lens through which to understand key differences in the quantitative data. Then we use quantitative data to illuminate trends suggestive of what may be occurring in the larger population of emerging adult women in STEM. These trends then connect to qualitative steps women may take per WFC as their careers evolve. Taken in combination, the findings add nuance to women’s WFC perceptions early in the STEM pipeline.

Procedure

Data were collected via an online survey in the spring of 2015. To recruit participants, undergraduate research assistants made study announcements during STEM college courses, posted flyers in STEM departments, and emailed STEM students. The recruiting materials explained that the purpose of the research was to “shed light on the experiences students have as they pursue degrees in STEM fields.” Participants were not aware that gender was a focus of the study. This was done to ensure that we did not inadvertently prime biases related to gender and gender identity among participants.

Measures

The survey included a variety of measures designed to assess women’s experiences in STEM fields (e.g., research mentoring, experiences with gender bias in STEM). The current research focuses on questions specific to work-family conflict, STEM identity, and STEM career commitment. Below, we summarize the qualitative and quantitative measures and related processes.

Qualitative measures and analysis

To examine how participants reason about future WFC, we asked them to explain whether or not they agree with the following statement: I am concerned that having children will make it more difficult to obtain the career I want. Responses to the prompt were analyzed holistically using thematic analysis and coding. Thematic analysis involves extracting concepts from qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Coding describes using key words or phrases to interpret and/or summarize textual data (Saldaña, 2015). Themes or codes can arise from either an inductive (data-driven) or deductive (theory-guided) examination of the data (Bradley et al., 2007; Braun & Clarke, 2006).With respect to deductive coding, certain themes (see orientation) were derived according to the characterization of WFC and work-family enrichment in the literature (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000, 2006). The breadth of data elements analyzed allowed for a converging constellation of related views and experiences among the women (i.e., meaningful data narrative; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Inductive coding focused on concepts derived from the data directly (see perspective and strategy), which were often identified by key phrases or words (i.e., codes; Saldaña, 2015). The inductive codes may or may not have connections to prior literature. For instance, some of the strategies (i.e., delay, balance) appear to overlap with prior work discussing ways women time the onset of childrearing and career advancement (e.g., Coyle et al., 2015), but were inductively derived from the dataset and unique to participants’ experiences in STEM.

The rationale for themes and codes was the result of discussion and reflection among the three authors with respect to work-family constructs (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000, 2006), and the idea that women prioritize family thus impeding their STEM retention (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 2011). After reading the full corpus of data and conducting preliminary coding, the research team worked together to develop a coding manual. The coding manual outlined the prominent themes or codes, how they presented in the data, and when a data element merited or did not merit a code. Analyses occurred until themes or codes reached saturation (e.g., Fusch & Ness, 2015). Reliability coding was conducted by two women undergraduates who were research assistants with an interest in STEM equity. Both women were unfamiliar with the study and not involved in the creation of the coding manual. After being trained with the coding manual, they double-coded nearly half (44.6%) of the responses. Inter-rater reliability was indexed with Cohen’s κ.

Orientation coding

The coding process yielded two overarching orientations pertaining to women’s expectations about future WFC: challenge and opportunity. κ for orientation was excellent (K = .95). Women with the challenge orientation focused on difficulties associated with blending family and career responsibilities. In contrast, women with the opportunity orientation focused on how blending family and career responsibilities would enable them to live more fulfilling lives. Orientation was fairly self-evident in the data due to expressed potential distress (e.g., “Having children will put strains on my achieving a PhD” challenge) or optimism (“Frankly, having children wouldn’t really make it more difficult to obtain the career I want” opportunity). Note that a response was classified as a particular orientation based on its overall affective tone related to WFC. Challenge and opportunity responses frequently acknowledged a range of anticipated difficulties regarding work-family; however, challenge responses negatively appraised difficulties, whereas opportunity responses considered difficulties surmountable.

The challenge and opportunity coding categories were mutually exclusive; a given response could not be classified as both. Occasionally, a response would present some elements of both orientations. For example, Karlena explained, “Having children will make it difficult to obtain the career I desire but not impossible, especially if I choose a good spouse that will support me in my goals.” Karlena’s response acknowledges that pursuing both career and family goals may be challenging; however, for responses like this, the research team coded based on the overarching view expressed, which in this case was optimistic and therefore opportunity.

Perspective coding

Responses also evidenced a personal or general perspective. κ for perspective was excellent (K = .94). Responses with a personal perspective explicitly framed WFC as a self-relevant consideration, whereas responses with a general perspective discussed WFC in broader, more generic terms. Perspective coding was often determined by the presence of key words or phrases such as “I” or “my,” which designated a personalized response (e.g., “I think that having children will require me to make sacrifices”), whereas the lack thereof typically signaled a general perspective (e.g., “In computer science, a lot of work can be done from home”). The general and personal coding categories were mutually exclusive; a given response could not be classified as both.

Strategy coding

Personal perspective responses were further subdivided according to the specific strategy that the woman planned to employ to mitigate WFC. Strategy coding interested the research team from a feminist theoretical perspective. Specifically, we wondered how women would respond when faced with a gendered conundrum like WFC. More generally, we were interested in the strategy responses because they provide initial insight into possible future behavior.

κ for strategy was very good (K = .83). We limited our analysis of strategies to personal perspective responses (see above) because these responses often provided insight into actions women planned to take. In contrast, general perspective responses did not. Coding yielded the following three strategies: (1) opt-out, where participants intend to forego children or family; (2) delay, where participants would wait to start a family until after key career milestones; and (3) balance, where participants plan to simultaneously pursue career and family objectives. These strategies corresponded with women’s explicit courses of action, such as: “I do not plan on having children,” (opt-out), or “I want to be established at my job and then have children” (delay), or “I will make the time for my children,” or “I plan on juggling career and parenthood” (balance). Note that most strategy responses tended to discuss how women were going to adjust family desires to accommodate work, rather than the reverse. This may be because women in our sample were surveyed in an academic setting. It may also be because none of the women currently had children and only some had partners; thus, women were largely thinking about the addition of family to their existing career pursuits.

Quantitative measures

We used several quantitative measures to examine whether participants who reasoned differently about future WFC also varied along other dimensions. Where applicable, the wording of the survey items was tailored to participants’ STEM field. For the sake of simplicity, all of the sample items presented here use the term “science.” Additional information about the measures is provided below. Unless otherwise noted, the measures were previously developed and validated in prior research as cited.

STEM identity

We assessed STEM identity with a scale that Chemers and colleagues (2011) developed. This scale included five items, which were rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores reflected higher levels of the construct. Sample items included “In general, being a scientist is an important part of my self-image” and “I am a scientist.” The internal reliability of the items was very good (α = .88).

STEM career commitment

We assessed STEM career commitment with a scale that Chemers and colleagues (2011) developed. The scale included six items, which were rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher values reflected higher levels of the construct. Sample items included “I intend to work in a job related to science” and “I feel that I am on a definite career path in science.” Internal reliability of the items was excellent (α = .92).

Current work-family conflict

We adapted a measure created by Carlson and colleagues (2000) to assess two dimensions of current work-family conflict: work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW). The WIF and FIW measures each had six items, which were rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher values reflected higher levels of WFC. Sample items assessing WIF included “My academic obligations keep me from spending time with important people in my life” and “When I get home from school or the lab, I am often too frazzled to have meaningful interactions with my romantic partner or family.” Sample items assessing FIW included “The time I spend with important people in my life often causes me to be less productive in my academic pursuits” and “I often have a hard time concentrating on my academic work due to stress from important interpersonal relationships.” Internal reliabilities for the WIF (α = .90) and FIW (α = .88) items were very good.

Current concern over career/family balance

We developed our own scale to assess women’s current level of concern about balancing work and family. The scale was composed of four items that were derived from relevant theoretical and empirical work (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000; Cinamon, 2006). Specifically, the scale included the following items: “I worry about my ability to balance being a parent with academic obligations,” “my career goals are influenced by my desire to be a good parent or spouse,” “in my field, parents are at a disadvantage compared to non-parents,” and “I am concerned that having children will make it more difficult to obtain the career I want.” Participants rated the items from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores reflected higher concern. Internal reliability of the items was adequate (α = .68).

Results

Orientations and Corresponding Strategies

We begin by presenting qualitative data that illustrate women’s orientations about future work and family experiences (Research Question 1). Analyses revealed that women’s views were characterized according to two orientations: challenge and opportunity. Alongside our discussion of these orientations, we also highlight the strategies that women plan to use to mitigate WFC (Research Question 2). Note that all names used in reference to participants are pseudonyms.

Challenge orientation

The challenge orientation characterized the majority of the participants (n = 125, 80.1%). Women with a challenge orientation cited the joint pursuit of family and a STEM career as a significant negative hurdle and emphasized possible difficulties as a source of unavoidable strain. A key example of a challenge orientation comes from Kaitlyn, who expressed concerns about conflict between her future engineering career and childrearing:
I…want to be present as the mother of my children; this will require me to work less. My husband and I plan that when we start having children, I will take a break from working until our kids are old enough to attend school for a full day. Then I will only work while they’re at school. I often feel that women in engineering have two choices—be a mom or be an engineer—there is no overlap. I also feel nervous that employers will look at my dedication to my family as time not spent working and thus, a waste of money.
For Kaitlyn, parenting and career represent almost dichotomous choices. Hannah expresses a similar sentiment:
Experimental physics involves long workdays and lots of travel. I wouldn’t want to burden my (future) family with that. I wouldn’t want the primary responsibilities for taking care of my kids to be put on my partner/spouse; rather, I’d want parenting to be directly equal. I don’t think [it] can happen, with the career I want.
Finally, Linny echoed Kaitlyn and Hannah:
In this field [STEM] you cannot have family obligations, we are expected to want to be in the lab 24/7. Family, friends and emotional well-being are all second place to research. That’s why literally ¾ [of the] profs in my department are divorced.
Thus, Kaitlyn, Hannah, and Linny are emphasizing the negative aspects of WFC and expect one domain will suffer in service of the other. Similar to Kaitlyn and Hannah, most women expressing a challenge orientation discussed WFC from a personal perspective, in that they wrote about their direct or anticipated direct experiences (n = 98, 78.4%). Fewer women (n = 27, 21.6%) indicated a challenge orientation from a general, not self-relevant, perspective, such as Lila:
In the STEM field, you often have to put in a lot of time and energy. You are often exhausted from the academic work and stressed about how to deal and balance everything out. Having children will only add to the stress.
This statement communicates anticipated difficulty in work-family pursuits, but not Lila’s personalized experiences.

Women expressing a challenge orientation from a personal perspective were further analyzed with respect to their intended strategy for addressing WFC. Of the three strategies previously mentioned (i.e., opt-out, delay, or balance), the majority of women with a challenge orientation indicated plans to either opt-out of or delay children and family (n = 61, 87.1%). Tanya’s response highlights her decision to forgo children in favor of advancing her career:
Considering how I have absolutely no intention of participating in any form of child-rearing whatsoever, I intend to use my time to further my education/career, and not waste a single second on having kids. Starting a family would interfere with my plans of achieving a career that would pay me an adequate amount that would let me live a comfortable, worry-free lifestyle.
Tanya communicated inherent barriers to her career pursuits and therefore is not engaged in family formation, preferring to focus on career. In contrast, women such as Jill anticipated difficulty with regard to their simultaneous pursuits of family and career, but intend to plan for family and child-rearing around career milestones:
I plan on going to veterinary school after completing my undergraduate studies. If I were to have children during veterinary school, I believe it would be near impossible to complete. I do not plan on starting a family until I’ve completed graduate school.
Jill depicts the inherent struggle indicative of a challenge orientation and describes her decision to complete veterinary school first before pursuing a family, illustrating a delayed approach.

Opportunity orientation

In contrast to participants with a challenge orientation, participants with an opportunity orientation were aware of potential work-family difficulties but tended to be optimistic about their ability to blend family with work and often saw opportunities for fulfillment at work and home. Approximately 20% (n = 31) of the participants expressed opportunity sentiments. The following statement from Rebecca illustrates an opportunity response: “One reason I plan to pursue pharmacy instead of research is so I can have the time to take care and spend time with my loved ones and future family.” This demonstrates Rebecca’s anticipated ability to successfully navigate both career and family and hints at an attitude of hope. Likewise, Maxine’s comments echoed Rebecca’s sentiments:
I want to become a radiologist. As such, I can participate in…“night-hawking” and work when my family is asleep—or just when I have free time. That will allow me to spend quality time with my family and still have the career I want. It is going to be exhausting, but it will be worth it.
Maxine illustrates how she plans to choose a medical specialty in concert with family aims to address her work and family goals. Finally, Ruth indicated how being a mother may further her professional success (e.g., problem solving skills) and that her children will help her rejuvenate:
I am pursuing a career in engineering and therefore innovation and problem solving. Having children will not hinder that, in fact, they might help me realize [a] simple matter or help me unwind at the end of a long workday.
Similar to Rebecca, Maxine, and Ruth, the majority of women expressing an opportunity orientation discussed WFC from a personal perspective, providing their direct or anticipated direct experiences (n = 24, 77.4%). Fewer women expressed a general, non-self-relevant view (n = 7, 22.6%), such as Hope: “In Computer Science, a lot of work can be done from home,” which communicates perceived work-family flexibility but is not directly applicable to Hope herself.

Women expressing an opportunity orientation from a personal perspective were further analyzed with respect to their intended strategy for mitigating WFC. The majority of women with an opportunity orientation indicated plans to balance career and family (n = 17, 81.0%) as illustrated in the responses from Anna and Bailey:
Anna: I think that having children will require me to make sacrifices as far as sleep and social obligations go and therefore may increase the flexibility/adaptability necessary to obtain the career I want. I don’t think, however, that will necessarily equate to making it more “difficult.” Having children is an important and exciting thing for me…the goodness of it will outweigh the sacrifices necessary and not feel like a burden…I am determined to set an example that women can be simultaneously good mothers and good scientists.

Bailey: Balancing work and being a mom is something that many strong wom[e]n do without problem and being a doctor/dentist will not be determined by whether or not I have children!
Anna demonstrates that pursuing both a career and a family may entail compromises, but child-rearing is worthwhile. She also plans to act as a work-family role model for others. Relatedly, Bailey indicates that she will not allow her reputation and ability as a healthcare provider to be driven by her child-rearing choices. Both of these women illustrate a sense of optimism that the careers and family life they seek can be jointly obtained.

Quantitative Findings

The following analyses assess whether women with different orientations systematically vary in their background characteristics, academic attitudes, and current experiences with WFC (Research Question 3). We begin by reporting preliminary correlations and tests of mean differences. Then we discuss the main analyses focusing on comparisons between women with each orientation. It merits noting that our data largely met the assumptions for multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). We did, however, identify two outliers (both within the Challenge orientation group) using Mahalanobis distance. Removing these participants does not change the findings reported.

Preliminary analyses

As seen in Table 1, work interfering with family (WIF) and family interfering with work (FIW) were positively correlated with each other. In addition, WIF and FIW were positively correlated with concern about future career/family balance. Lastly, STEM identity was positively correlated with STEM career commitment.

Table 1.
Correlations Among Study Variables.

M Mdn SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Work interfering with family (WIF) 4.10 4.17 1.01 — .63 .33 −.07 .06

2. Family interfering with work (FIW) 3.57 3.67 1.19 — .28 −.05 .04

3. Concern over career/family balance 3.77 3.67 1.38 — .01 .12

4. STEM identity 4.35 4.40 1.07 — .57

5. STEM career commitment 5.19 5.33 0.77 —

Note. N = 156, *p < .05 **p < .01.

We used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether participant background attributes were associated with mean differences in STEM identity, STEM career commitment, WIF, and FIW. The MANOVA revealed no significant differences on the basis of women’s age, ethnicity, or STEM field (i.e., math-intensive vs. other fields). We did, however, obtain a significant multivariate effect of participant phase of education (F (6, 149) = 12.57, Wilk’s Λ = .66, p < .001, partial η² = .34). Follow-up univariate ANOVAs illustrated that undergraduates reported significantly higher mean levels of FIW (F (1,154) = 8.08, p = .005, partial η² = .05) and WIF (F (1,154) = 6.57, p = .01, partial η² = .04) than graduate students. In addition, graduate students indicated significantly higher STEM identity (F (1,154) = 18.05, p <.001, partial η² = .11) than undergraduate students.

Comparisons between women with challenge and opportunity orientations

As detailed in Table 2, the challenge orientation women and the opportunity orientation women shared similar background characteristics. Specifically, analyses revealed no significant differences with respect to age (F (1,153) = .36, p = .55; partial η² = .002), ethnicity (X² (7) = 8.1, p = .33, Φ = .23), phase of education (X² (1) = .97, p = .32, Φ = −.07), math intensity of STEM degree (X² (1) = 2.08, p = .15, Φ = .12), or romantic relationship status (X² (1) = .59, p = .44, Φ = .06).

Table 2.
Participant Demographics by Orientation.

Demographic Category Challengen = 125 Opportunityn = 31

Age M = 21.7 (SD = 3.4) M = 22.1 (SD = 4.8)

Committed romantic relationship Yes = 74 (59.2%)No = 51 (40.8%) Yes = 16 (51.6%)No = 15 (48.4%)

Ethnicity Black/African (4.0%)East Asian (26.4%)European American (28.0%)Latina (24.8%)Middle Eastern (1.6%)Native American (1.6%)South Asian (2.4%)Other/Multiracial (11.2%) Black/African (3.2%)East Asian (16.1%)European American (45.2%)Latina (9.7%)Middle Eastern (3.2%)Native American (3.2%)South Asian (6.5%)Other/Multiracial (12.9%)

Phase of education Undergraduate = 106 (84.8%)Graduate = 19 (15.2%) Undergraduate = 24 (77.4%)Graduate = 7 (22.6%)

STEM field of study Non-math intensive = 82 (65.6%)Math intensive = 43 (34.4%) Non-math intensive = 16 (51.6%)Math intensive = 15 (48.4%)

Note. N = 156. MANOVA revealed no significant differences between groups.

Although the challenge and opportunity orientation women did not significantly differ with regard to their background characteristics, a MANOVA indicated that these two groups of women did significantly differ with respect to their academic attitudes and current work-family experiences (F (5, 150) = 22.10, Wilk’s Λ = .58, p < .001, partial η² = .42; see Table 3 for a summary). Women with a challenge orientation reported significantly higher current levels of WIF (F (1,154) = 8.08, p =.005; partial η² = .05) and FIW (F (1,154) = 5.28, p = .02; partial η² = .03) than those with an opportunity orientation. In addition, women expressing a challenge orientation indicated higher levels of overall concern about balancing work with family (F (1,154) = 91.47, p =.00; partial η² = .37) than those with an opportunity orientation. Lastly, women with a challenge orientation also reported significantly lower STEM identity than those of an opportunity orientation (F (1,154) = 6.27, p =.01; partial η² = .04). STEM career commitment did not differ on the basis of orientation (F (1,154) = 2.34, p = .13; partial η² = .02).

Table 3.
Mean Differences Between Women With a Challenge Versus Opportunity Orientation.

Challenge Orientation Opportunity Orientation

M SD M SD

Work interfering with family (WIF) 4.21_a 0.97 3.64_b 1.06

Family interfering with work (FIW) 3.68_a 1.18 3.13_b 1.14

Concern over work-family 4.19_a 1.16 2.09_b 0.77

STEM career identity 4.24_a 1.06 4.77_b 1.02

STEM career commitment 5.14 0.80 5.38 0.57

Note. Means in the same row with different subscripts are significantly different at the p < .05 level.

Discussion

Although prior work has examined work-family conflict in emerging adults (e.g., Basuil & Casper, 2012; Coyle et al., 2015; Ezzedeen et al., 2018), the current study is one of the first to examine expectations about WFC in a sample of emerging adult women within STEM fields. In addition, through the use of mixed methods, this study provides novel insight into how women’s current and anticipated WFC may influence future action and STEM persistence. As Emily’s comments at the outset of this paper illustrate, many emerging adult women in STEM are actively considering how (and whether) to pursue future work and family roles. As detailed below, our findings suggest that these cognitions may have lasting implications for women’s future work and family experiences.

Challenge and Opportunity Orientations

Participants tended to be characterized by one of two overarching orientations: challenge or opportunity. Women with a challenge orientation anticipated experiencing role strain and WFC (Carlson et al., 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hegelson, 2012; Shockley & Singla, 2011). In contrast, women with an opportunity orientation anticipated experiencing role expansion (Hegelson, 2012), whereby motherhood and career pursuits were ways to enhance the woman’s life.

The majority of the sample (80%) evidenced a challenge orientation. Regarding strategies to cope with WFC, women with the challenge orientation plan to delay having children until reaching major career milestones or intend to forgo having children altogether. Some of these strategies also included women’s plans to reduce their working hours, temporarily leave the workforce, or pursue less ambitious career pathways. In some regard, these patterns align with prior work indicating that WFC contributes to a variety of challenges, and perhaps even attrition, for women in STEM (Ceci & Williams, 2011; Rosser & Lane, 2002; Rosser, 2004; Sallee & Pascale, 2012). Findings also relate to research demonstrating that emerging adult women who experience more negative experiences at work also tend to report more negative experiences in their personal lives (i.e., spillover; Shulman et al., 2014). Specifically in the current study, a sentiment uniting the challenge responses is that simultaneously pursuing an ambitious STEM career as a woman is incompatible with having children, whereas pursuing both can be beneficial for men (Mason et al., 2013). Yet as described later, this sentiment cannot be fully understood without also considering the broader social context.

Collectively, the qualitative findings both replicate and extend prior research. These findings join a small body of research indicating that women are actively deliberating how to navigate work and family responsibilities early in their careers—even prior to fully entering the workforce (e.g., Basuil & Casper, 2012; Coyle et al., 2015). Our analyses further demonstrated that undergraduates in the current study had higher mean levels of WIF and FIW than did graduate students. Possible explanations for this unexpected finding include housing circumstances (e.g., higher FIW among undergraduates because many may be living with family members) or work flexibility (e.g., lower WIF in graduate students due to greater flexibility/autonomy over their work). Inductive coding indicates that strategy findings (e.g., delay, balance) also connect to and replicate prior research regarding strategies women intend to employ to accommodate child rearing (e.g., reduce working hours; Basuil & Casper, 2012; Coyle et al., 2015).

Findings expand on prior research by revealing a novel subset of women who reported that they intend to forgo having children in order to meet the demands of their future careers. These reproductive choices run counter to prevailing gender norms and thus may illustrate potential feminist in-roads for the women in the current study (see Morell, 2000). However, opting out of motherhood may also indicate a perceived dichotomy: Namely, women may feel the need to choose between prestigious careers and fulfilling gender-role norms. From a feminist standpoint (Meyers, 1987), this pressure likely originates at least in part from entrenched patriarchal social systems (e.g., capitalism; Budgeon, 2015). Given that the current study is one of the first to examine reasoning about WFC among emerging adult women in STEM fields, future research could examine whether the “opt-out” strategy for mitigating WFC also exists in samples of women pursuing other demanding careers (e.g., law).

The WFC strategies enumerated by the women in the current study also have important applied implications. Plans to delay childbearing and childrearing may be influenced by new employee benefits in STEM such as those offered by some technology companies to retain women employees (e.g., egg freezing; Bennett, 2014; Carpenter, 2017). Importantly, scholars suggest that decisions about egg freezing and reproduction may mainly be accessible to highly educated women (Petropanagos, 2010). Thus, reproductive justice scholars advocate for a holistic approach to women’s health and family formation choices such that pregnancy termination; contraception; and safe, equitable options for child-rearing are truly available to all women with an eye to intersectional identities and power structures (Ross, 2017).

Variation Associated With Orientations

An important objective of the current research was to identify quantitative correlates of the challenge and opportunity orientations. The majority of our sample indicated a challenge orientation, and we did not find significant demographic differences between orientations. Note, however, that our fairly homogenous sample prevents conducting high-powered tests of ethnic variation.

In addition, findings illustrated that women with a challenge orientation reported significantly higher levels of current WFC and work-family concern compared to women with an opportunity orientation. Cinamon (2006) found that college women and men raised in egalitarian households anticipated less future WFC (i.e., WIF) than those whose parents upheld traditional gender roles. Perhaps women with a challenge orientation anticipate managing work and family alone, whereas those with an opportunity orientation anticipate an egalitarian approach to childrearing and therefore less WFC. Stacy’s sentiment directly expresses this type of arrangement: “I feel that my future husband will be very supportive and encourage me to pursue the career I desire and will do anything he can to help, like take care of our children.” Stacy’s response is emblematic of prior research, which shows that conflict caused by family obligations interfering with work decreases as spousal support increases (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Thus, for some women, anticipated partner support may provide greater confidence in their ability to achieve career and family goals simultaneously.

Women with an opportunity orientation also reported significantly higher levels of STEM identity than did those with a challenge orientation. This is notable due to the strong association between STEM identity and STEM career commitment found in this study and prior work (e.g., Chemers et al., 2011; Robnett, 2013), as well as research indicating that science identity positively influences science occupational pursuits (Stets et al., 2017). Perhaps women who perceive STEM careers as professions in which they can fulfill both work and family goals, are more likely to commit to and pursue STEM careers. However, note that our findings cannot speak to causal direction (i.e., that an opportunity orientation causes persistence), nor do they preclude additional explanations for women’s retention in STEM.

Implications for Theory and Practice

The current study’s findings add nuance to several theoretical models. For example, social-cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2000) and expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) implicate contextual inputs (e.g., gender roles) in an individual’s career decision-making process. In contrast, models focusing on WFC (e.g., Carlson et al., 2000, 2006) contain career and personal life conflict inputs, but often do not include broader social-systemic factors (e.g., gender roles and norms). Our findings suggest that it would be worthwhile to blend aspects of academic/career motivation models and WFC models (for an example, see Adams et al., 1996).

A theoretical model that blends WFC components with social-structural forces also aligns with a feminist-informed perspective. Specifically, a blended model would embed women’s WFC and related career decision-making within the gender norms operating under power structures and social systems beyond women’s personal preferences. Even in an era where women maintain positions in the workforce as well as the home front (i.e., multiple roles; Barnett & Hyde, 2001), challenge orientation responses appeared to consider enacting dual roles in concert with stereotypical gender roles (e.g., Halpern et al., 2007). These gender roles may contribute to greater perceived strain and lower STEM identification in women with a challenge orientation. In contrast, opportunity orientation responses in our sample reflect some of the benefits of maintaining multiple roles (e.g., many avenues for success, buffering; Barnett & Hyde, 2001), and dispel notions that women are happiest in the home or that women do not value career pursuits as much as family responsibilities (e.g., Barnett, 2004; Ely et al., 2014). Thus, women with a challenge orientation may reveal the lack of freely made family and career “choices,” whereas women with an opportunity orientation may represent feminist in-roads.

Beyond theoretical contributions, the current study’s results point to potential interventions to increase women’s STEM participation and retention. Prior research has shown that career-focused college women often expect to experience high levels of WFC and report fairly low efficacy in their ability to navigate this conflict (Cinamon, 2010). Perhaps a woman’s challenge orientation and strategies will shift if she learns that efforts in one arena can serve to support growth in the other. Mentoring could convey this information. For example, face to face communication with STEM role models could help demonstrate to women that family roles can co-occur with STEM pursuits (Diekman et al., 2015; see also Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). In addition, scholars such as Deutsch (2007) suggest considering the ways in which individuals can actively “undo gender” in systems and power structures. The current study points to the need for universities and STEM students to work together in dismantling barriers to healthy work-family balance, thereby addressing the concerns of women with a challenge orientation. For example, universities and STEM departments could more explicitly strive to accommodate parenting needs such as providing easily accessible areas for breast-pumping (e.g., Basu, 2012), encouraging parental and family leave participation (e.g., Wolfers, 2016), and providing childcare support. Changes like these may aid in abating the concerns of challenge orientation women, while also “undoing gender” in STEM.

Limitations and Future Directions

Findings from the current research should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, women self-selected to participate in the study. Their decision to volunteer may coincide with characteristics (e.g., greater motivation) that covary with our constructs of interest, thus limiting generalizability. In addition, women with children, and men more generally, were not included in the analyses. It would be worthwhile to conduct a similar study with men and parents in the future. This is because men appear to conceptualize WFC differently than do women (e.g., Coyle et al., 2015) and because parenthood appears to influence STEM career development among emerging adults (e.g., Ferriman et al., 2009). Accordingly, it would be interesting to examine whether the high prevalence of the challenge orientation among women in the current study also emerges among men and parents pursuing future STEM careers.

Second, although our sample was ethnically diverse, we could not examine the findings from an intersectional perspective (i.e., variation on the basis of multiple social categories; Cho et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1990) due to insufficient sample size. More intersectional work relative to women in STEM is needed (Johnson, 2011). This is particularly the case given that prior research points to the unique experiences that women of color have in STEM fields (e.g., Johnson et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2011) and in their family roles (e.g., Constantine & Flores, 2006). Scholars also call for further intersectional approaches to work-family research (e.g., Özbilgin et al., 2011). Therefore, future work that expands upon this study’s findings using an intersectional approach is warranted.

Third, this study’s qualitative data came from responses to an open-text prompt embedded within a larger survey. Coding open-text survey data enabled a better understanding of participants’ work-family perceptions and experiences when combined with the quantitative data (e.g., Castro et al., 2010; Driscoll et al., 2007). However, interview methods may have enriched the study’s conclusions by allowing for additional context and depth of insight (e.g., see Huff et al., 2019). Thus, future research could build on this study by examining women’s work-family experiences and expectations by way of an interview-based approach.

Lastly, the experiences of women as potential spouses and/or as potential parents, merit both individual and joint attention. Items in our survey such as “My career goals are influenced by my desire to be a good parent or spouse” fail to distinguish between the ways in which parenting and romantic partnership distinctly contribute to women’s experiences and decisions (see Day & Chamberlain, 2006). Perhaps relatedly, internal reliability for our work-family concern items was somewhat low. This may be partly due to the conflation of parent and partner experiences within the measure. Future research should further probe these distinctions.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-eax-10.1177_2167696821990910 - “Squeezing the Life Out of Each Day”: Emerging Adult Women’s Work-Family Expectations in STEM

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-eax-10.1177_2167696821990910 for “Squeezing the Life Out of Each Day”: Emerging Adult Women’s Work-Family Expectations in STEM by Sarah E. Thoman, Amber K. Stephens and Rachael D. Robnett in Emerging Adulthood

	M	Mdn	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Work interfering with family (WIF)	4.10	4.17	1.01	—	.63**	.33**	−.07	.06
2. Family interfering with work (FIW)	3.57	3.67	1.19		—	.28**	−.05	.04
3. Concern over career/family balance	3.77	3.67	1.38			—	.01	.12
4. STEM identity	4.35	4.40	1.07				—	.57**
5. STEM career commitment	5.19	5.33	0.77					—

Demographic Category	Challengen = 125	Opportunityn = 31
Age	M = 21.7 (SD = 3.4)	M = 22.1 (SD = 4.8)
Committed romantic relationship	Yes = 74 (59.2%)No = 51 (40.8%)	Yes = 16 (51.6%)No = 15 (48.4%)
Ethnicity	Black/African (4.0%)East Asian (26.4%)European American (28.0%)Latina (24.8%)Middle Eastern (1.6%)Native American (1.6%)South Asian (2.4%)Other/Multiracial (11.2%)	Black/African (3.2%)East Asian (16.1%)European American (45.2%)Latina (9.7%)Middle Eastern (3.2%)Native American (3.2%)South Asian (6.5%)Other/Multiracial (12.9%)
Phase of education	Undergraduate = 106 (84.8%)Graduate = 19 (15.2%)	Undergraduate = 24 (77.4%)Graduate = 7 (22.6%)
STEM field of study	Non-math intensive = 82 (65.6%)Math intensive = 43 (34.4%)	Non-math intensive = 16 (51.6%)Math intensive = 15 (48.4%)

	Challenge Orientation	Opportunity Orientation
Work interfering with family (WIF)	4.21_a	0.97	3.64_b	1.06
Family interfering with work (FIW)	3.68_a	1.18	3.13_b	1.14
Concern over work-family	4.19_a	1.16	2.09_b	0.77
STEM career identity	4.24_a	1.06	4.77_b	1.02
STEM career commitment	5.14	0.80	5.38	0.57

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for helpful feedback from three anonymous reviewers during the peer review process. We would also like to thank Carrie Underwood, Jennifer John, and the UNLV Social Development Lab for their feedback and input on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also appreciate Jessie Smith and Pamela Green for their assistance in data coding. We are deeply grateful to all of the women in STEM fields of study who made our research possible and voiced their experiences.

Author Contributions

Thoman, S. contributed to conception and design, as well as analysis and interpretation, drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript, gave final approval, and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. Stephens, A. contributed to analysis and interpretation, drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript, gave final approval, and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. Robnett, R. contributed to conception and design, contributed to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript, gave final approval, and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sarah E. Thoman

Open Practices

Data and materials for this study have not been made publicly available. The design and analysis plans were not preregistered. The raw data, analysis syntax, and coding manual used in this study are not openly available but are available upon request to the corresponding author. The data collection and analysis were not pre-registered.

References

Adams

G. A.

King

L. A.

King

D. W.

(1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.411

Allen

T. D.

Herst

D. E.

Bruck

C. S.

Sutton

(2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.278

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Barnett

R. C.

(2004). Women and multiple roles: Myths and reality. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12(3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10673220490472418

Barnett

R. C.

Hyde

J. S.

(2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.10.781

Basu

(2012, September 26). Got milk? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/26/many-universities-still-have-ad-hoc-policies-about-lactation-resources

Basuil

D. A.

Casper

W. J.

(2012). Work–family planning attitudes among emerging adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.017

Bennett

(2014, October 15). Company-paid egg freezing will be the great equalizer. Time. http://time.com/3509930/company-paid-egg-freezing-will-be-the-great-equalizer/

Bishop

J. L.

Roberson

P. N.

Norona

J. C.

Welsh

D. P.

(2018). Does role balance influence the effect of personality on college success? A mediation model. Emerging Adulthood, 6(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817711341

10.

Bradley

E. H.

Curry

L. A.

Devers

K. J.

(2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x

11.

Bradt

Burns

D. S.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Mixed methods research in music therapy research. Journal of Music Therapy, 50(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/50.2.123

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

13.

Budgeon

(2015). Individualized femininity and feminist politics of choice. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506815576602

14.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Wayne

J. H.

Grzywacz

J. G.

(2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

15.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Williams

L. J.

(2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

16.

Carpenter

(2017, December 4). What it’s like to freeze your eggs—And have your company pay for it. CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/pf/company-egg-freezing/index.html

17.

Castro

F. G.

Kellison

J. G.

Boyd

S. J.

Kopak

(2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916

18.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410383241

19.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157–3162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108

20.

Chemers

M. M.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Syed

Goza

B. K.

Bearman

(2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x

21.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

22.

Cinamon

R. G.

(2006). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00152.x

23.

Cinamon

R. G.

(2010). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of role salience and self-efficacy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880903408620

24.

Constantine

M. G.

Flores

L. Y.

(2006). Psychological distress, perceived family conflict, and career development issues in college students of color. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706286491

25.

Coyle

E. F.

Van Leer

Schroeder

K. M.

Fulcher

(2015). Planning to have it all: Emerging adults’ expectations of future work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 72(11-12), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0492-y

26.

Crenshaw

(1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.

28.

Day

A. L.

Chamberlain

T. C.

(2006). Committing to your work, spouse, and children: Implications for work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.001

29.

Deutsch

F. M.

(2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21(1), 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293577

30.

Diekman

A. B.

Weisgram

E. S.

Belanger

A. L.

(2015). New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12010

31.

Driscoll

D. L.

Appiah-Yeboah

Salib

Rupert

D. J.

(2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 19–28. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18

32.

Eccles

J. S.

Wang

M. T.

(2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415616201

33.

Ely

R. J.

Stone

Ammerman

(2014). Rethink what you “know” about high-achieving women. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 100–109. https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women

34.

Erikson

E.E.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton.

35.

Ernst Kossek

Ozeki

(1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139

36.

Estrada

Woodcock

Hernandez

P. R.

Schultz

P. W.

(2011). Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020743

37.

Ezzedeen

S. R.

Budworth

M. H.

Baker

S. D.

(2018). Can I have it all? Emerging adult women’s positions on balancing career and family. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(6), 566–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-2017-0138

38.

Fayer

Lacey

Watson

(2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf

39.

Ferriman

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016030

40.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Eagly

A. H.

(2011). Do young women expect gender equality in their future lives? An answer from a possible selves experiment. Sex Roles, 65(1-2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9981-9

41.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6.2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

42.

Fouad

Fitzpatrick

Liu

J. P.

(2011). Persistence of women in engineering careers: A qualitative study of current and former female engineers. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v17.i1.60

43.

Fox

M. F.

Fonseca

Bao

(2011). Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711417730

44.

Fusch

P. I.

Ness

L. R.

(2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://works.bepress.com/d101mentor/4/

45.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352

46.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625

47.

Grzywacz

Marks

(2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111

48.

Halpern

D. F.

Benbow

C. P.

Geary

D. C.

Gur

R. C.

Hyde

J. S.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

49.

Hegelson

V. S.

(2012). Psychology of gender (4th ed.). Routledge.

50.

Huff

J. L.

Smith

J. A.

Jesiek

B. K.

Zoltowski

C. B.

Oakes

W. C.

(2019). Identity in engineering adulthood: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of early-career engineers in the United States as they transition to the workplace. Emerging Adulthood, 7(6), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818780444

51.

Jean

V. A.

Payne

S. C.

Thompson

R. J.

(2015). Women in STEM: Family-related challenges and initiatives. In Mills

(Ed.), Gender and the work-family experience: An intersection of two domains (pp. 291–311). Springer.

52.

Johnson

Brown

Carlone

Cuevas

A. K.

(2011). Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20411

53.

Johnson

D. R.

(2011). Women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(152), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.410

54.

Kane

E. W.

(2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.419

55.

Landivar

L. C.

(2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Education Review, 29(6), 911–922. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf

56.

Leaper

Starr

C. R.

(2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302

57.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36

58.

Mason

M. A.

Goulden

(2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204268744

59.

Mason

M. A.

Wolfinger

N. H.

Goulden

(2013). Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. Rutgers University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290194884_Do_Babies_Matter_Gender_and_Family_in_the_Ivory_Tower

60.

Matthews

R. A.

Bulger

C. A.

Barnes-Farrell

J. L.

(2010). Work social supports, role stressors, and work-family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011

61.

McCarver

(2011). The rhetoric of choice and 21st-century feminism: Online conversations about work, family, and Sarah Palin. Women’s Studies in Communication, 34(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2011.566532

62.

Meyers

D. T.

(1987). Personal autonomy and the paradox of feminine socialization. The Journal of Philosophy, 84(11), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil198784117

63.

Michel

J. S.

Kotrba

L. M.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Clark

M. A.

Baltes

B. B.

(2011). Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.695

64.

Morell

(2000). Saying no: Women’s experiences with reproductive refusal. Feminism & Psychology, 10(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010003002

65.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Sanzari

Caluori

Rabasco

(2018). Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79(11-12), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z

66.

National Science Foundation. (2016). Science and engineering indicators. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report

67.

Ojeda

Lopez

Sharer

(2020). A gendered look at work-family conflict among diverse U.S. immigrants. In Nagayama Hall

G.C.

(Ed.), Mental and behavioral health of immigrants: Cultural, environmental, and structural factors (pp. 95–112). Elsevier.

68.

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. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2

69.

Özbilgin

M. F.

Beauregard

T. A.

Tatli

Bell

M. P.

(2011). Work–life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00291.x

70.

Pepin

J. R.

Cotter

D. A.

(2018). Separating spheres? Diverging trends in youth’s gender attitudes about work and family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12434

71.

Petropanagos

(2010). Reproductive ‘choice’ and egg freezing. In Woodruff

Zoloth

Campo-Engelstein

Rodriguez

(Eds.), Oncofertility (pp. 223–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_17

72.

Ranta

Dietrich

Salmela-Aro

(2014). Career and romantic relationship goals and concerns during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813515852

73.

Robnett

R. D.

(2013). The role of peer support for girls and women in STEM: Implications for identity and anticipated retention in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology, 5, 232–253.

74.

Robnett

R. D.

(2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315596162

75.

Robnett

R. D.

Chemers

M. M.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 847–867. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21221

76.

Ross

L. J.

(2017). Reproductive justice as intersectional feminist activism. Souls, 19(3), 286–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999949.2017.1389634

77.

Rosser

S. V.

(2004). Using POWRE to advance: Institutional barriers identified by women scientists and engineers. NWSA Journal, 16(1) 50–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4317034

78.

Rosser

S. V.

Lane

E. O. N.

(2002). Key barriers for academic institutions seeking to retain female scientists and engineers: Family-unfriendly policies. Low numbers, stereotypes, and harassment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v8.i2.40

79.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

80.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

81.

Sallee

M. W.

Pascale

A. B.

(2012). Multiple roles, multiple burdens: The experiences of female scientists with children. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2012001669

82.

Sandberg

Scovell

(2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. Alfred A. Knopf.

83.

Settles

I. H.

Cortina

L. M.

Malley

Steward

A. J.

(2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58.

84.

Seymour

Hewitt

N. M.

(1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press.

85.

Shockley

K. M.

Singla

(2011). Reconsidering work—Family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 861–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394864

86.

Shulman

Laursen

Dickson

D. J.

(2014). Gender differences in the spillover between romantic experiences, work experiences, and individual adjustment across emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813515853

87.

Starr

C. R.

(2018). “I’m Not a Science Nerd!” STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318793848

88.

Stets

J. E.

Brenner

P. S.

Burke

P. J.

Serpe

R. T.

(2017). The science identity and entering a science occupation. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016

89.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

J. L.

(2016). Gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x

90.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

91.

Williams

M. M.

George-Jackson

(2014). Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014004477

92.

Wolfers (2016, June 26). A Family-friendly policy that’s friendliest to male professors. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/business/tenure-extension-policies-that-put-women-at-a-disadvantage.html

93.

Wolfinger

N. H.

Mason

M. A.

Goulden

(2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772108

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB