A study of factors affecting women's lived experiences in STEM

The paper addresses persistent underrepresentation of women in STEM employment in Australia and shifts focus from educational access/retention to the lived experiences of women after higher education. Prior work often centers on the so-called leaky pipeline and educational stages, with less attention to women’s experiences in the STEM workforce. The study aims to identify enablers and barriers affecting women’s retention and progression in STEM careers in regional Australia. Research question: What do the experiences of our interviewees tell us about the nature and impact of barriers and enablers for 25 female STEM professionals in Australia? The work is motivated by low transition rates from STEM study to STEM occupations—particularly for women—and the need to inform strategies to retain women in STEM careers critical to national workforce needs.

The review distinguishes but critiques the separation of individual and structural barriers, arguing individual motivations are shaped by societal pressures. Barriers reviewed include: gendered cultures and informal exclusionary practices in academia and industry; lack of role models; isolation; perceptions of gendered ability; motherhood penalties; difficulties with work–life balance; salary and promotion inequities; and hostile or exclusionary climates such as the 'Old Boys' Club' and harassment. Structural issues persist across education and employment, affecting recruitment, retention, and advancement. Enablers discussed emphasize structural inclusion efforts rather than solely individual fixes: living-learning programs, supportive and inclusive academic environments, mentorship and local expert support, counseling, and professional experiences that signal value and belonging. Individual interest in STEM is influential but insufficient absent structural change; women’s resilience and proactive traits can help them persist, but systemic transformation is required to address entrenched inequities.

Design: Qualitative interview study. Sample: 25 women currently employed in STEM (academia or industry) in the Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia. Participants largely Australian with several born overseas. Demographic details beyond this were not explicitly collected. Recruitment: Purposeful recruitment using snowball sampling within a regional women-in-STEM network (N=32 members at the time). Outreach via email and word of mouth aimed to leverage interconnectedness. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews conducted Aug 2017–Jun 2018 by the first two authors, in person at workplaces or via telephone. Duration: 15–75 minutes (more than half >30 min). Interview guide covered (1) childhood aspirations, (2) perceptions of equal opportunities in STEM, and (3) experiences of barriers and enablers. Participants previewed questions and were informed of anonymity; transcripts were de-identified and returned to participants for member checking and optional edits/clarifications. Analysis: Transcripts analyzed in NVivo 12. Coding conducted deductively (informed by literature) and inductively (allowing emergent themes). First two authors led coding; the fifth author reviewed codes for consistency. Themes organized into Barriers and Enablers, with positive discrimination noted as not fitting neatly into either. Less frequent codes were not discussed in detail to focus on themes affecting a substantial portion of participants. Pseudonyms used to protect identities.

• Barriers (examples with number of references across participants from Table 1):
  • Gendered workplace: Old boys' club (77); Lack of confidence to complain (54); Isolation (62); Difficulty gaining promotion (38); Sexual harassment/abuse also reported (e.g., explicit harassment incidents).
  • Sexism and gender stereotypes: Perceptions of gendered ability (60); Few role models (45); Childhood conditioning/experiences (39); Being uninformed about STEM (70).
  • Expectations about women's responsibilities: Motherhood affecting professional status (76); Work–family balance challenges (56); Harassment (36).
• Enablers (examples with number of references across participants from Table 1):
  • Aptitude and personal traits: Determined/resilient nature (74); Belief in equal ability to men (43); Natural STEM aptitude (43); Broad skill base (41).
  • Role models and mentors: Mentor support (51); Female role models (49); Teachers (29); Supportive family environment (32).
  • Supportive workplace: Increased gender equity (36); Positive discrimination (19) noted but perceived variably.
  • Internal motivations: Lifelong interest in STEM (70); Interest as a young girl (32); Desire to do purposeful work (28).
• Top frequently mentioned factors included both barriers (Old boys' club, Motherhood, Isolation, Perceptions of gendered ability, Work–family balance) and enablers (Determined/resilient nature, Personal interest in STEM). Women often attributed survival and progression to individual traits (resilience, determination, sustained interest) amid structurally gendered environments.

Findings indicate a tension between individual enablers and structural barriers. The most cited enablers were individual characteristics (resilience, determination, long-standing interest), while the most cited barriers were structural (gendered workplace cultures, motherhood penalties, information deficits about STEM careers during youth). Women described negative workplace climates (discrimination, sexism, lack of flexibility, long-hours norms) that depress satisfaction and retention, aligning with prior research. Motherhood and societal expectations around caregiving place disproportionate burdens on women, shaping career interruptions and limiting advancement. Persistent societal stereotypes limit early exposure to and knowledge of STEM careers, influencing self-selection away from STEM. Positive discrimination (affirmative action) was polarizing: some experienced it as supportive and necessary to address inequity; others perceived stigma or questioned merit attributions, potentially undermining confidence and external respect. Literature suggests transparent, justified policies can mitigate perceived unfairness. Implications: Structural change is essential—dismantling gendered climates, providing flexibility and supportive policies around caregiving, improving inclusive cultures, and ensuring meaningful mentorship and visible role models. Interventions should also build self-efficacy and interest early, while avoiding framing STEM as inherently masculine. Regional networks (e.g., HunterWiSE) can create bridges and support systems to improve retention and progression.

Women’s experiences in this regional Australian sample are heterogeneous, yet commonly shaped by structural barriers in STEM workplaces and broader society. While many participants credited resilience, determination, and enduring interest as key enablers, such traits should not be prerequisites for success. Sustainable progress requires careful structural change to decouple gender from STEM identities and practices, improve workplace climates, and normalize flexible, family-supportive career pathways. Community and network initiatives can drive systemic change and provide support. Future work should examine perspectives of women who left or could not enter STEM roles, and further explore under-studied enablers such as supportive family/partner dynamics and effective organizational policies that reduce motherhood penalties.

• Timing: Data collected up to four years prior to publication; experiences may have since evolved.
• Sampling: Participants were members of a regional women-in-STEM network and currently employed in STEM; perspectives of women who left STEM or could not secure STEM roles are underrepresented.
• Generalizability: Regional, qualitative sample limits broader generalization; demographic details beyond employment context were not systematically collected.