Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33869497›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2020

Differentiations in Visibility-Male Advantages and Female Disadvantages in Gender-Segregated Programmes.

Mia Heikkilä, Anna Isaksson, Frida Stranne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mia HeikkiläFaculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Ȧbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Anna IsakssonSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Frida StranneSchool of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article stresses the importance of understanding that women and men in gender-segregated programmes experience their gender minority positions very differently. It stems from an interest in the kind of interventions that academia should address in order to reduce gender segregation and provide women and men with the same educational opportunities and personal development. In relation to the obvious and continuing gender differences along a horizontal dimension, previous research seems to have had a limited impact in breaking gender stereotypes and promoting women and men to more atypical fields. The empirical data consists of 25 semi-structured, individual interviews from underrepresented students' gender-related experiences/thoughts about their programmes. By using the concepts of "visibility," "sense of belonging," and "negotiating otherness" to analyze how negotiation and belonging are part of students' everyday university lives this study's most important contributions are its findings regarding the differentiations in visibility. A continuum of visibility experiences is explored, from men who receive positive attention to women who are being considered as less knowledgeable. Our visibility scale indicates, as does previous research, that there are differences between how female and male students become visible, but the differences can also appear within both groups of students. This knowledge is crucial when designing interventions so as to provide positive study environments for both women and men. Also-in a broader perspective-it is important in order to recruit and ensure that gender minority students remain in the programs.

Indexed as

experiencesgender minoritygender segregationhigher educationnegotiating othernesssense of belongingvisibility

Identifiers

PMID33869497
PMCPMC8022530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.