↓ Skip to main content

Looking through the Glass Ceiling: A Qualitative Study of STEM Women’s Career Narratives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Looking through the Glass Ceiling: A Qualitative Study of STEM Women’s Career Narratives
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary J Amon

Abstract

Although efforts have been directed toward the advancement of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) positions, little research has directly examined women's perspectives and bottom-up strategies for advancing in male-stereotyped disciplines. The present study utilized Photovoice, a Participatory Action Research method, to identify themes that underlie women's experiences in traditionally male-dominated fields. Photovoice enables participants to convey unique aspects of their experiences via photographs and their in-depth knowledge of a community through personal narrative. Forty-six STEM women graduate students and postdoctoral fellows completed a Photovoice activity in small groups. They presented photographs that described their experiences pursuing leadership positions in STEM fields. Three types of narratives were discovered and classified: career strategies, barriers to achievement, and buffering strategies or methods for managing barriers. Participants described three common types of career strategies and motivational factors, including professional development, collaboration, and social impact. Moreover, the lack of rewards for these workplace activities was seen as limiting professional effectiveness. In terms of barriers to achievement, women indicated they were not recognized as authority figures and often worked to build legitimacy by fostering positive relationships. Women were vigilant to other people's perspectives, which was costly in terms of time and energy. To manage role expectations, including those related to gender, participants engaged in numerous role transitions throughout their day to accommodate workplace demands. To buffer barriers to achievement, participants found resiliency in feelings of accomplishment and recognition. Social support, particularly from mentors, helped participants cope with negative experiences and to envision their future within the field. Work-life balance also helped participants find meaning in their work and have a sense of control over their lives. Overall, common workplace challenges included a lack of social capital and limited degrees of freedom. Implications for organizational policy and future research are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 261 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 21%
Student > Master 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 62 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 55 21%
Social Sciences 37 14%
Psychology 32 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Engineering 11 4%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 69 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,468,177
of 23,460,553 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,986
of 31,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,628
of 311,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#77
of 489 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,460,553 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 489 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.