___

• 1. Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Paul Robinson, J. (2012). Using Virtual Field Trips to Connect Students with University Scientists: Core Elements and Evaluation of zipTripsTM. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9350-z
• 2. Alawi, W. S. S., & Al Mubarak, M. M. (2019). Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (Stem): Barriers and Solutions. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(6), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.8908
• 3. Aycock, L. M., Hazari, Z., Brewe, E., Clancy, K. B. H., Hodapp, T., & Goertzen, R. M. (2019). Sexual harassment reported by undergraduate female physicists. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 10121. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010121
• 4. Azmat, G., & Petrongolo, B. (2014). Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments? Labour Economics, 30, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.06.005
• 5. Barthelemy, R. S., McCormick, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020119
• 6. Benitez-Herrera, S., Spinelli, P. F., Mano, S., & Paula Germano, A. (2019). Pursuing gender equality in Astronomy in basic education: the case of the project “Girls in the Museum of Astronomy and Related Sciences”. EPJ Web of Conferences, 200, 02010. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920002010
• 7. Bettio, F., & Verashchagina, A. (2009). Gender segregation in the labour market: Root causes, implications and policy responses in the EU. European Commission, 1–120. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4028&langId=en
• 8. Blackburn, H. (2017). The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017. Science and Technology Libraries, 36(3), 235–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2017.1371658
• 9. Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2017). the Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations†. Journal of Economic Literature, LV. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1tm7gsm.15
• 10. Bleier, R., & Engle, I. M. (1987). Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women . American Journal of Physics, 55(2), 188–188. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15202
• 11. Carlana, M. (2019). Implicit Stereotypes : Evidence From Teachers. The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 134(3), 1163-1224. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz008.Advance
• 12. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y. A., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
• 13. Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Baier Manwell, L., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., Ford, C. E., … Sheridan, J. (2015). The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine, 90(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552
• 14. Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2019). The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(10), 4182–4187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810862116
• 15. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
• 16. Cha, Y. (2013). Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society, 27(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212470510
• 17. Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(37), 7228–7243. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0475-18.2019
• 18. Chiu, M. H., & Duit, R. (2011). Globalization: Science education from an international perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20427
• 19. Cimpian, J. R., Kim, T. H., & McDermott, Z. T. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7377
• 20. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. A. (2015). Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. Dabla-Norris, E., & Kochhar, K. (2019). Closing the gender gap. Finance and Development (C. 56). https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x12458911
• 21. Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
• 22. Dawson, A. E., Bernstein, B. L., & Bekki, J. M. (2015). Providing the Psychosocial Benefits of Mentoring to Women in STEM: Career WISE as an Online Solution . New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(171), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20142
• 23. Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Cox, W. T. L., Kaatz, A., Sheridan, J., & Carnes, M. (2017). A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73(July), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002
• 24. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
• 25. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199
• 26. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender Segregation in Elite Academic Science. Gender and Society, 26(5), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212451904
• 27. Emelianova, O., & Milhomem, C. (2019). Women on Boards Progress Report 2019. Msci, (DECEMBER), 30. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/36ef83ab-ed68-c1c1-58fe-86a3eab673b8
• 28. Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Carpenter, T., & Lubinski, C. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about g i r l s , boys, a n d m a t h e m a t i c s, 55–69.
• 29. Forscher, P. S., Mitamura, C., Dix, E. L., Cox, W. T. L., & Devine, P. G. (2017). Breaking the prejudice habit: Mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72(September 2016), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.009
• 30. Frank, K. (2019). Analytical studies branch research paper series: A gender analysis of the occupational pathways of STEM graduates in Canada. Statistics Canada. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019017-eng.htm
• 31. Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity. Pew Research Center, (January), 1–19. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/#fn-24050-6
• 32. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
• 33. González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2020). Girls in STEM: Is It a Female Role-Model Thing? Frontiers in Psychology, 11(September). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
• 34. González, M. J. C., Cortina, C., & Rodríguez, J. (2019). The role of gender stereotypes in hiring: A field experiment. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy055
• 35. Good, J. J., Woodzicka, J. A., & Wingfield, L. C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366552
• 36. Greenwald, A. G., Mcghee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test Anthony. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
• 37. Greenwald, A. G., Rudman, L. A., Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., Farnham, S. D., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3
• 38. Herrmann, S. D., Adelman, R. M., Bodford, J. E., Graudejus, O., Okun, M. A., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2016). The Effects of a Female Role Model on Academic Performance and Persistence of Women in STEM Courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757
• 39. Hewlett, S. A., Carolyn Buck, L., Servon, L. J., Laura, S., Peggy, S., Sosnovich, E., … C. (2008). The Athena factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and technology. Harvard Business Review, (10094), 100. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi http://rachelappel.com/media/downloads/w_athena_factor.pdf 40. J. Wu, D. U. (2020). Beyond the Leaky Pipeline : Developmental Pathways That Lead College Students to Join or Return to STEM Majors, 6(2), 64–90.
• 41. Kim, N. J. E., Vásquez, V. B., Torres, E., Nicola, R. M. B., & Karr, C. (2016). Breaking the Silence: Sexual Harassment of Mexican Women Farmworkers. Journal of Agromedicine, 21(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2016.1143903
• 42. Kitzinger, J., Haran, J., Chimba, M., & Boyce, T. (2008). Role Models in the Media: An Exploration of the Views and Experiences of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi www.ukrc4setwomen.org
• 43. Kong, S., Carroll, K., Lundberg, D., Omura, P., & Lepe, B. (2020). Reducing gender bias in STEM. MIT Science Policy Review, 1, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.11kp6lqr0a
• 44. Korkut-owen, F., Didem, K., Serap, Ö., Özlem, U., & Yilmaz, O. (2012). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Bölüm Seçme Nedenleri. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8(3), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.87701
• 45. Kübler, D., Schmid, J., & Stüber, R. (2018). Gender Discrimination in Hiring Across Occupations: A Nationally-Representative Vignette Study. Labour Economics, 55, 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.10.002
• 46. Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of stem career ads. Management Science, 65(7), 2966–2981. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093
• 47. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
• 48. Litson, K., Blaney, J. M., & Feldon, D. F. (2015). Understanding the Transient Nature of STEM Doctoral Students ’ Research Self-Efficacy Across Time : Considering the Role of Gender , Race , and First-Generation College Status, 12(January). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617060
• 49. Lund, S., Manyika, J., Segel, L. H., Dua, A., Hancock, B., Rutherford, S., & Macon, and B. (2019). The future of work in Latin The Future of Work in America: People and Places, Today and Tomorrow. McKinsey Global Institute, (July), p.8. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/newsitem/wcms_617754.pdf
• 50. Lundberg, S., & Stearns, J. (2019). Women in economics: Stalled progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.1.3
• 51. Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Krishnan, M., Ellingrud, K., Yee, L., Woetzel, J., … Balakrishnan, S. (2019). The future of women at work: age of automation Transitions in the. McKinsey Global Institute, (June), 38-39. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured Insights/Gender Equality/The future of women at work Transitions in the age of automation/MGI-The-future-of-women-at-work-Exec-summary.ashx
• 52. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (2016). A Schematic Processing Model of Sex Typing and Stereotyping in Children Author ( s ): Carol Lynn Martin , Charles F . Halverson and Jr . Published by : Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stab. Society for Research in Child Development, 52(4), 1119–1134.
• 53. McKinsey and Lean. (2020). Women in the workplace, 63. https://doi.org/10.1049/et.2009.0920
• 54. Meena, K. (2016). Blind Recruitment: the New Hiring Buzz for Diversity Inclusion. International Journal of Business and General Management (IJBGM), 5(5), 25–28. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi http://www.iaset.us/view_archives.php?year=2016&id=32&jtype=2&page=2
• 55. MHRD India. (2018). ALL INDIA SURVEY ON HIGHER EDUCATION 2018-19. Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, “Table 35: Out-Turn/Pass-Out at Under Graduate Level in Major Disciplines/Subjects (Based on Actual Response),”. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://epsiindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/AISHE-2017-18.pdf
• 56. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2012). Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia. Psychological Science, 23(7), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434539
• 57. Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., Cachon, G., Caruso, E., Castilla, E., Fernandez, R., … Meier, S. (2015). Supplemental Material for What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway Into Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1678–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022.supp
• 58. Miyake, A., Lauren E. Kost-Smith, Noah D. Finkelstein, S. J. P., & Geoffrey L. Cohen, T. A. (2010). Classroom Study of Values Affirmation. Pharmacia, 288(May), 870–874.
• 59. Morgan, R. D. (2019). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology, 347(6219). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483392240.n8
• 60. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
• 61. NSF. (1998). Information technology : Its Impact on Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. national sceince Board NSF, 5, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.58.1.79
• 62. NSF, national sceince B. (2018). Science & engineering indicators: 2018. national sceince Board NSF, 4, 203–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(91)90008-4
• 63. OCED. (2018). PISA 2018 : insights and intrepretations. OCED, 31–64.
• 64. OCED. (2019). Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus, 93, 6. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/why-don-t-more-girls-choose-to-pursue-a-science-career_02bd2b68-en
• 65. Olsson, M., & Martiny, S. E. (2018). Does exposure to counterstereotypical role models influence girls’ and women’s gender stereotypes and career choices? A review of social psychological research. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(DEC). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02264
• 66. Otluoğlu1, K. Ö. Ç., & Akdoğanli, Ç. (2019). Bariyerleri İle Başa Çikmanin Kariyere Adanmişlik Üzerindeki Etkisi : Kadin Çalişanlar Üzerine Bir Araştirma The Effect Of Perceived Career Barriers And Coping With Perceived Career Barriers On Career Engagement : Research On Women Employees. Marmara Üniversitesi Kadın Ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2019), 90–108.
• 67. Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9003-2 Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(02), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
• 68. Parker, L. R., Monteith, M. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Van Camp, A. R. (2018). Promoting concern about gender bias with evidence-based confrontation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74(March 2019), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.009
• 69. Primé, D. R., Bernstein, B. L., Wilkins, K. G., & Bekki, J. M. (2015). Measuring the Advising Alliance for Female Graduate Students in Science and Engineering: An Emerging Structure. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714523086
• 70. Régner, I., Thinus-Blanc, C., Netter, A., Schmader, T., & Huguet, P. (2019). Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0686-3
• 71. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111
• 72. Riach, P. A., & Rich, J. (2006). An experimental investigation of sexual discrimination in hiring in the english labor market. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1416
• 73. Saucerman, J., & Vasquez, K. (2014). Psychological barriers to STEM participation for women over the course of development. Adultspan Journal, 13(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0029.2014.00025.x
• 74. Shaw, A. K., & Stanton, D. E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: Separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1743), 3736–3741. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0822
• 75. Sheu, H.-B., & Phrasavath, L. (2019). Social cognitive career theory. Contemporary Theories of Career Development, (January 2002), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276175-6
• 76. Singh, R., Zhang, Y., Wan, M. (Maggie), & Fouad, N. A. (2018). Why do women engineers leave the engineering profession? The roles of work–family conflict, occupational commitment, and perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 901–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21900
• 77. Smyth, B., & Nosek, F. (2015). On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Front. Psychol. 6:415. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415.
• 78. UNESCO. (2019). Women in Science. Fact Sheet No. 55, (55), 4. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi http://uis.unesco.org
• 79. Valantine, H. A., Collins, F. S., & Verma, I. M. (2015). National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(40), 12240–12242. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515612112
• 80. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343. 81. World Economic Forum. (2019). Global Gender Gap Report 2020: Insight Report. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf
• 82. Wüst, K., & Leko Šimić, M. (2017). Students’ career preferences: Intercultural study of Croatian and German students. Economics and Sociology, 10(3), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-3/10