Page 1
Running head: REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND
Revisiting the Double Bind:
Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Capstone Paper Submitted for the Master of Professional Studies Degree in
Human Resources Management
Georgetown University
By:
Brittany J. Harris
Georgetown University
Fall 2014
Page 2
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND ii
Page 3
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND iii
Master of Professional Studies in Human Resources Management
Capstone Authenticity Statement
Name: Brittany J. Harris
Word count: 19,878
I confirm that:
Please
check
statement
I have read the University’s rules relating to plagiarism as found on the
Georgetown University website.
I am aware of the University’s disciplinary regulations concerning conduct in
examinations pertaining to submission of assignments and, in particular, of
the regulations on plagiarism.
I have read and am aware of and understand the Georgetown University
honor code.
The Capstone paper I am submitting is entirely my own work except where
otherwise indicated.
It has not been submitted, either wholly or substantially, for another course of
this Department or University, or for a course at any other institution.
I have clearly signalled the presence of quoted or paraphrased material and
referenced all sources.
I have acknowledged appropriately any assistance I have received in addition
to that provided by my advisor.
I have not sought assistance from any professional agency.
Signed :
Date: 12/17/2014
Page 4
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND iv
Acknowledgements
If you would’ve asked me this time last year, what I saw myself doing now, never in a
million years would I have thought my answer would be, “Taking capstone, again.” The last few
months have been a beautiful challenge. A challenge I would not have been able to overcome
without the grace of God, love of my family, and support from my friends.
Mom and Dad, thank you for your prayers, support, and unconditional love. Most of all,
thank you for helping me see the beauty in what I saw as a failure. To Montese, thank you for
being my best friend. Your love and support during my graduate school journey have been
invaluable. Special thanks to Jen Tracy because in such a short period you have epitomized my
definition of a leader. Thank you for your flexibility and genuine support during this time.
I would also like to thank Professor Cumberlander and Professor Pinnock, both of whom
have played a huge part in my development as a diversity and inclusion practitioner. Professor
Cumberlander, thank you for challenging me and helping me discover a new passion while
writing my capstone. Professor Pinnock, thank you for being an inspiration. Your passion and
commitment to this work is admirable and contagious.
Lastly, to the women of color who gathered in 1975 to discuss the challenges and barriers
they overcame to pursue their careers in science, thank you. Your resilience and agency are
inspiring.
Page 5
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND v
Dr. Shirley Malcom, co-author of “The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority
Woman in Science”, and I. December 19, 2014
Page 6
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND vi
Abstract
Women of color represent a valuable source of domestic science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent. Nonetheless, they remain underrepresented
in STEM disciplines and professions. This study builds upon the body of research that
seeks to address the underrepresentation and unique experiences of women of color in
STEM. This study uses intersectionality theory to support what researchers have
previously referred to as the double bind. The double bind is used to describe the double
form of oppression upon women of color pursuing STEM at the intersection of race and
gender identity. This research asserts the critical need for colleges and universities to
understand the unique experiences of women of color before these institutions can begin
to create environments conducive to their advancement and development. This study fills
a research gap by bringing additional awareness to the unique experiences of women of
color pursuing STEM and by providing practical and actionable recommendations for
ensuring their development and advancement in the academic setting.
Keywords: minority women, STEM, science, diversity, double bind
Page 7
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND vii
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Aims ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Justification ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 6
STEM: An Economic Imperative ................................................................................................ 7
Talent Shortages in STEM .......................................................................................................... 8
Underrepresentation of Women in STEM .................................................................................. 9
Underrepresentation of Women of Color in STEM .................................................................. 10
The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science ............................. 11
Intersectionality Theory and the Double Bind .................................................................. 14
Barriers in the STEM Academic Setting ................................................................................... 17
Cultural Values in the STEM Academic Setting .............................................................. 19
Contribution to Literature and Summary .................................................................................. 21
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 22
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter One: Understanding the Double Bind ............................................................................. 25
An Examination of the Double Bind ............................................................................................ 25
The Cost of Pursuing STEM ..................................................................................................... 25
The Essence of the Double Bind ............................................................................................... 26
Page 8
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND viii
Understanding the Intersection.................................................................................................. 28
Ain't I a Woman? ...................................................................................................................... 29
The Double Bind of The Past........................................................................................................ 32
The Pre-Collegiate Experience.................................................................................................. 32
The Collegiate Experience ........................................................................................................ 36
Recommendations of the Double Bind Study ........................................................................... 39
Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Two: Contemporary Experiences in the Double Bind .................................................... 41
The Double Bind: Thirty-Five Years Later .................................................................................. 42
Legislation to Address Discrimination ...................................................................................... 42
STEM Organizations for Women of Color ............................................................................... 43
Increased Interest among Girls of Color ................................................................................... 44
Areas of Opportunity Remain ................................................................................................... 45
The Role of Educational Institutions ......................................................................................... 47
Contemporary Experiences of Women of Color in STEM ........................................................... 48
Unintentional 'Threat' of Professors and Peers.......................................................................... 49
Manifestations of Implicit Biases .............................................................................................. 50
Discouraging Classroom Practices and STEM Cultural Values ............................................... 52
Challenges Associated with Alternate Pathways ...................................................................... 55
Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Three: Overcoming the Double Bind: Fostering Science Identity to Develop and
Advance Women of Color in STEM ............................................................................................ 57
Science Identity: A Model for Persistence.................................................................................... 58
Page 9
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND ix
Dimensions of Science Identity................................................................................................. 60
Science Identity Trajectories ..................................................................................................... 61
Critical Role of Recognition in Developing Science Identity ................................................... 62
Recommendations: Using Recognition to Overcome the Double Bind ....................................... 65
Supporting Recognition of Self: Intercollegiate Affinity Groups ............................................. 65
Developing Culturally Aware "Meaningful Others" ................................................................. 67
Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 68
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 82
Page 10
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND x
List of Abbreviations or Acronyms
AAAS – American Associations for the Advancement of Science
AAMC – American Association of Medical Colleges
ACS – American Chemical Society
HBCU – Historically Black Colleges and Universities
IAT – Implicit Association Test
NAE – National Academy of Engineering
NAS – National Academy of Sciences
NSF – National Science Foundation
NSBE – National Society of Black Engineers
PWI – Predominantly White Institution
STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
WICSE – Women in Computer Science Engineering
WOC – Women of Color
Page 11
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND xi
Research Problem: Women of color continue to be underrepresented among science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines and occupations.
Research Question: How can colleges and universities better address the underrepresentation of
women of color in STEM?
Thesis Statement: Colleges and universities should act as incubators and create environments
that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.
Page 12
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 1
Revisiting the Double Bind:
Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM
President Obama has described the investment in science as "more essential for our
prosperity, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before" (The
White House, 2009). To remain globally and economically competitive, the United States must
continue to grow its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce
(Ong, 2011). Given the predominant presence of women enrollees, and increases in the
enrollment of students of color at U.S. colleges and universities, women and people of color
represent a growing source of domestic talent to meet the needs of the nation (Ong, 2011).
Leaders at technology companies, such as Google and Facebook, have responded to this
imperative by acknowledging their role in addressing the underrepresentation of women and
people of color in STEM, and articulating their commitment to addressing barriers that may exist
(Google, 2014; Williams, 2014). Separately, there has been an array of research dedicated to
identifying the barriers women and people of color face in the pursuit of STEM (Simard, 2009).
Nonetheless, women of color remain largely invisible and severely underrepresented in
STEM professions and academic research (Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011; Google,
2014; Williams, 2014). Scholars suggest that the barriers associated with belonging to two
marginalized identities (non-White and female) in a predominantly White, male industry, are
compounded to create a distinct experience for women of color in STEM (Malcom, Hall, &
Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Historically, initiatives and programs seeking to
increase the representation of women and people of color in STEM fail to address the unique
experiences of women of color in the pursuit of STEM careers, which has not been effective in
Page 13
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 2
fully addressing their underrepresentation (Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom,
2011).
In their influential study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in
Science, Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976) were the first to explore the experiences of women of
color pursuing STEM. Malcom et al. (1976) used the term double bind to describe the double
form of oppression upon women of color pursuing STEM at the intersection of race and gender
identity. For purposes of this research, the term double bind study is used throughout this paper
to refer to Malcom et al.'s (1976) research. In addition, women of color is used in lieu of minority
women to refer to women from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Although the original
double bind study referred to minority women, subsequent studies have since referred to women
of color.
Since the publication of the original double bind study, scholars have argued that
educational institutions play a critical role in addressing the underrepresentation of women of
color in the STEM talent pool (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong et al.,
2011). However, these institutions can only fulfill this obligation by removing barriers and
creating environments that contribute to the success of women of color pursuing STEM. This
research seeks to fill this gap. To address the underrepresentation of women of color in the
STEM talent pool, colleges and universities should act as incubators and create environments
that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.
Scope
This paper intends to extend research on the double bind in the context of women of color
pursuing STEM. The data is reflective of the experiences of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and
American Indian women within STEM academic settings, specifically, U.S. colleges and
Page 14
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 3
universities. It should be noted that the original double bind study did not include the experiences
of Asian women, as they have historically been overrepresented in STEM occupations (Malcom
et al., 1976). Asian women are included in this analysis because studies and demographic data
following the original double bind study suggest significant decreases in the representation of
Asian women with advanced degrees in STEM (Ong et al., 2011).
STEM occupations include computer and mathematical roles, engineers, actuaries, life,
physical, and social scientists, as well as managers, teachers, and technicians working in these
fields (U.S. Census, 2010). STEM-related occupations consist of architects and medical and
healthcare practitioners (U.S. Census, 2010). This research will focus primarily on STEM majors
and professions. The period studied and analyzed extends from 1970, the decade in which the
original double bind study was first published, to 2014.
Aims
The overall aim of this research is to analyze and synthesize relevant data and literature
on the double bind as experienced by women of color in STEM and the role U.S. colleges and
universities play in addressing the underrepresentation of women of color in the STEM talent
pool. A summary of this paper's theoretical, methodological, and practical aims are included in
the table below.
Page 15
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 4
Table 1
Aims
Aims Description
Theoretical The theoretical aim of this research is to use existing theories
(i.e., implicit bias, stereotypes, and stereotype threat) to explain
psychological barriers to pursuing STEM, as experienced by
women. This research also employs intersectionality theory to
qualify how the aforementioned psychological barriers are
further complicated for women of color. This research also
discusses cultural and climatic barriers in the academic setting;
for example, chilly climate, decontextualized science, and
science as race- and gender-neutral. The final theoretical aim of
this paper involves the application of the science identity model
as a framework to provide recommendations on how colleges
and universities can develop and advance women of color
studying STEM.
Methodological The methodological aims of this research involve the use of
qualitative data from peer-reviewed journals and studies, and
findings from focus groups and interviews, in addition to
quantitative data, organizational data, and scholarly literature to,
demonstrate the barriers to STEM as experienced by women and
the unique experiences of women of color in the academic
setting.
Practical The practical aim of this research is to provide
recommendations for colleges and universities to ensure women
of color are developed and successful in STEM, thus increasing
their representation in the STEM talent pool.
Objectives
This paper has three main objectives. First, this paper brings awareness to the unique
experiences of women of color as they navigate the double bind throughout their STEM
academic pursuits. Second, this paper draws attention to the factors that contribute to the
development and advancement of women of color in STEM and the barriers that prevent this
development and advancement in the academic setting. Third, this paper demonstrates the
importance of educational institutions in producing more women of color in STEM, and provides
Page 16
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 5
recommendations that colleges and universities may implement to ensure the development and
advancement of women of color studying STEM.
Justification
The United States' STEM workforce is critical to the nation's economic and global
competitiveness. As colleges and universities across the nation continue to enroll increasingly
more students of color and more women than men (NSF, 2013), women of color represent a
growing potential source of talent (Ong, 2011). This research is significant because colleges and
universities play a critical role in increasing the representation of women of color in the STEM
talent pool. An improved understanding of the unique experiences of women of color pursuing
STEM sets the foundation for thoughtful and effective programs to support these women in their
pursuits. There is a lack of research addressing the unique experiences of women of color in
STEM and ways academic institutions can ensure their advancement.
Limitations
There are some limitations to this research paper. The most significant limitation is the
time constraint, which limited the collection of primary data. Therefore, secondary data was
used. The scope of this paper also presents several limitations. The original double bind study
addressed the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM in the context of K–12, post-
secondary, and workplace environments (Malcom et al., 1976). However, this paper focuses
primarily on the experiences of women of color in post-secondary educational institutions. Post-
secondary educational institutions include colleges and universities in the United States.
The empirical research base addressing the collective experiences of women of color in
STEM is still developing (Ong et al., 2011). The research used in this study includes women of
color pursuing science, technology, engineering or mathematics, but primarily studying science.
Page 17
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 6
The cultural similarities among the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields of
study deem it appropriate that findings of this study be applied across most, if not all, STEM
disciplines.
Literature Review
Historically, programs aiming to address diversity in STEM have targeted women and
people of color (Malcom et al., 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong et al., 2011). Women of
color and their unique experiences at the intersections of race and gender marginalization have
traditionally been overlooked and excluded in research and programmatic efforts (Ong et al.,
2011). Consequently, women of color remain underrepresented in STEM disciplines and
professions. Educational institutions are critical to addressing this gap, setting the context for the
research question: How can colleges and universities better address the underrepresentation of
women of color in STEM? Colleges and universities should act as incubators and create
environments that ensure the development and advancement of women of color in STEM.
Consistent with the aims, scope, and objectives articulated for this research paper, this
review seeks to examine the scholarly literature that supports the thesis statement, which
emphasizes the unique experiences of women of color pursuing STEM and the critical role
colleges and universities can play in addressing their underrepresentation. As such, the literature
review is divided into four sections. First, the literature review will set context by defining the
STEM workforce and its criticality to the growth and competiveness of the United States,
including discussions surrounding the STEM pipeline talent shortage and the underrepresentation
of women in STEM. Second, this review will discuss the research that conveys the unique
experiences of women of color pursuing STEM and explore intersectionality theory as a means
to support Malcom, Hall, and Brown's study (1976) The Double Bind: The Price of Being a
Page 18
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 7
Minority Woman in Science. Lastly, this review will examine specific barriers to STEM,
particularly those prevalent in the academic setting, and their impact on the representation and
development of women of color pursuing STEM degrees.
STEM: An Economic Imperative
To remain globally and economically competitive, the United States must increase
participation in STEM and related majors and professions. STEM occupations include computer
and mathematical roles, engineers, actuaries, life, physical, and social scientists, as well as
managers, teachers, and technicians working in these fields (U.S. Census, 2010). STEM-related
occupations consist primarily of architects and medical and healthcare practitioners (U.S.
Census, 2010). This research will focus primarily on STEM majors and professions.
Government, industry, and academic leaders have communicated the criticality of the
nation's STEM workforce (Landivar, 2013a). President Obama (2009) described the investment
in science as "more essential for our prosperity, our health, our environment, and our quality of
life than it has ever been before." According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and Institute of Medicine (2007), the high quality and
knowledge intensiveness of STEM roles are imperative to new technology, innovation, and
discovery. Without STEM workers, the United States' economy and standards of living will
suffer (NAS, 2007).Yet, despite the essential nature of STEM, these occupations only make up
six percent of the United States' total workforce (Landivar, 2013a). In addition, the vast majority
of the STEM workforce includes individuals with bachelor's degrees (Landivar, 2013a), which
further supports the critical role colleges and universities play as key stakeholders in the
development of STEM talent. If talent is not developed, there are serious implications for talent
shortages in STEM.
Page 19
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 8
Talent Shortages in STEM
Some organizations and government agencies have already alluded to potential talent
shortages in STEM occupations. Bayer (2013), the multinational chemical and healthcare
company, conducted a study surveying Fortune 1000 companies in STEM and non-STEM-
related industries, and found that STEM jobs were being created at a faster rate than non-STEM
jobs. Additionally, half of all those surveyed reported difficulties in finding qualified individuals
with STEM degrees to fill STEM roles in a timely manner (Bayer, 2013). On the other hand,
Salzman, Kuehn, and Lowell (2013) argue against the STEM talent shortage. Their study
examined patterns in the information technology (IT) labor market and the STEM education
pipeline and found trends suggesting the United States has more than a sufficient supply of
workers qualified for STEM occupations (Salzman et al., 2013). The striking contrasts between
the two studies could be attributed to the inclusion of skilled, foreign workers in the study by
Salzman et al. (2013). This paper seeks to address domestic STEM talent; therefore, Bayer's
(2013) study supports the significance of this research. The development of STEM talent is
critical to the abilities of organizations to recruit individuals into these highly skilled roles. As
academic stewards to the success of students pursuing degrees in STEM, colleges and
universities play a critical role.
The U.S. Department of Labor (2007) suggests several factors contribute to a shortage in
supply of STEM workers. First, a significant number of existing STEM workers are approaching
retirement age, much like the baby boomers in the workforce (U.S. DOL, 2007). Second, many
students are not making it into the STEM pipeline as a result of inadequate math and science
education opportunities at K–12 levels (U.S. DOL, 2007). Last, women continue to represent an
untapped pool of talent and, therefore, remain underrepresented in the STEM pipeline (U.S.
Page 20
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 9
DOL, 2007). Given this paper seeks to address how colleges and universities can ensure the
development women of color in STEM, the next section of this review quantifies the
underrepresentation of all women in the STEM pipeline and workforce.
Underrepresentation of Women in STEM
Increasing the participation of women in traditionally male-dominated STEM
occupations continues to be an area of concern for governments, universities, and organizations.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) (2013) reported that 51 percent of all engineers and
scientists were White males in 2010. In 1970, women comprised 3 percent of engineers, 14
percent of life and physical scientists, 15 percent of mathematical and computer workers, and 17
percent of social scientists (Landivar, 2013a). Since the 1990s, women's representation in
computer-related occupations has declined. This decline can be attributed to the decline in
computer science degrees awarded to women seen since the 1980s (Landivar, 2013a). Fewer
women pursuing computer-related degrees means fewer women are pursuing computer-related
careers. This analysis further supports the critical role colleges and universities play in
developing STEM talent.
In 2011, although women made up nearly half (48 percent) of the total workforce, they
accounted for only 26 percent of STEM jobs (Landivar, 2013a). This underrepresentation is
especially evident in engineering roles, where women only comprised 13 percent of engineers in
2011 (Landivar, 2013a). In the academic setting, women only make up one fourth of science,
engineering, and health professors (NSF, 2013). This underrepresentation of women as STEM
educators further perpetuates one of the most common barriers to STEM for women: lack of role
models.
Page 21
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 10
Equally troubling is attrition throughout the STEM pipeline among girls and women at
the secondary and post-secondary levels. In 2003, less than 20 percent of students who took the
advanced placement (AP) test in computer science were girls (College Board, 2013). In Montana
and Mississippi, no female students took the exam (College Board, 2013). Additionally, one
study that examined student attrition in STEM undergraduate majors over a nine-year period,
found significant turnover among female students (Rask, 2010). During the first semester of their
studies, female students comprised 31 percent of computer science departments (Rask, 2010). By
the fourth semester, female students only represented 17 percent of these same departments
(Rask, 2010). The findings Rask’s (2010) study support the thesis of this paper, which reasons
that colleges and universities play a critical role in ensuring the development and advancement
STEM talent. The attrition documented in the Rask (2010) study depicts the challenge that
colleges and universities face in retaining women in STEM majors, which subsequently affects
their representation in the STEM pipeline and workforce. This impact is also evident in the
underrepresentation of women of color in STEM.
Underrepresentation of Women of Color in STEM
Although increasing the representation of women in STEM has been a critical factor in
addressing diversity and the talent shortage in STEM, there has not been as much focus on the
underrepresentation of women of color and their unique experiences in STEM environments
(Espinosa, 2011; Ong, 2011). Even in areas where White women have neared or reached parity
with their male counterparts in STEM participation, women of color continue to lag, particularly
in the academic setting. For example, in 2010, women were awarded 57.8 percent of biosciences
bachelor's degrees, but women of color made up only 9.3 percent (NSF, 2013). Likewise, women
made up 43.1 percent of mathematics degrees in 2010, while women of color were awarded 5.2
Page 22
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 11
percent (NSF, 2013). In 2010, women had the lowest participation in computer science (17.9
percent) and engineering (18.1 percent); women of color accounted for 4.9 percent and 3 percent
of these degrees awarded (NSF, 2013). Such contrasts in degree attainment illustrate the
importance of addressing STEM participation in academic settings for women in general, but
also women of color. This creates an imperative for colleges and universities to ensure women of
color are developed and positioned to participate in the STEM workforce.
There have been many studies on the experiences of women and people of color in
STEM; however, the unique experiences of women of color, who encounter the simultaneous
intersections of race and gender identity, have often been excluded from the research (Ong,
2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976) were the first
to fill this gap in their seminal study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in
Science.
The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science
Malcom et al. (1976) used the double bind to describe the unique challenges women of
color faced due to biases and stereotypes related to their gender and race in the pursuit STEM
careers. The study, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), was the first of its kind to bring awareness to the experiences of women of color in
STEM. They discussed the high cost of studying and pursuing STEM, making note that the more
an individual deviated from the typical STEM professional (White and male), the greater the
price she paid (Malcom et al., 1976). The “price” refers to professional and personal sacrifices
experienced by STEM professionals. Malcom et al. (1976) also uncovered the exclusion of
women of color from programs meant to increase women in STEM and programs meant to
address people of color in STEM that were largely dominated by men (Malcom et al., 1976).
Page 23
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 12
The study was based on the insights of 30 women practicing in STEM professions. The
women had shared experiences at varying points in their socialization and careers that
contributed to their persistence in STEM. They also experienced common racial and gender
barriers in their pursuits (Malcom et al., 1976). These experiences began as early as childhood
and continued throughout college and well into the workplace (Malcom et al., 1976). Many of
the women alluded to barriers based on race or ethnicity as more pervasive during their pre-
collegiate experiences; for example, lack of access to quality education during K–12, lower
expectations from teachers, and lack of academic counseling (Malcom et al., 1976). It was during
the women's collegiate studies that race and gender oppression became more evident (Malcom et
al., 1976). At the collegiate level, the women recalled being unprepared for rigorous coursework,
experiencing condescending professors, a lack of mentors or role models, social and personal
isolation, and poor academic advising (Malcom et al., 1976).
Thirty-five years following the original double bind study, Malcom and Malcom (2011)
discussed the progress of women of color in STEM in their paper The Double Bind: Next
Generation. They suggested that, while some progress has been made, women of color remain
underrepresented largely because of the inaction of educational institutions. They assert that
colleges and universities have not fully addressed the unique experiences of women of color
pursuing STEM and have been unsuccessful in creating a culture and environment where women
of color can flourish as STEM professionals (Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Therefore, while some
institutions have seen growth in the rate of women of color declaring interest in STEM, the
successful completion of those programs by women of color remains a concern (Malcom &
Malcom, 2011). This inaction of educational institutions as posited by Malcom and Malcom
(2011) could account for the aforementioned low rate of science and engineering degrees among
Page 24
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 13
women of color and their subsequent underrepresentation in the STEM workforce, further
justifying this research and the need for colleges and universities to create environments where
women of color can be developed.
Malcom and Malcom (2011) also discussed the antiquated use of the "pipeline" metaphor
to describe the historically rigid, single route to pursuing STEM majors and careers. Given that
women of color are more likely to attend community college prior to pursuing a STEM degree in
the university setting, Malcom and Malcom (2011) discuss the term "pathways" as more
appropriate in accounting for the unique academic pursuits of women of color studying STEM.
Reyes (2011) explored these pursuits in her study of the challenges experienced by women of
color transferring from community colleges to universities. Reyes' (2011) research uncovered an
atmosphere where women of color experienced attitudes and treatment signaling that they did
not belong.
The existing research on women of color and the double bind sets context and brings
awareness to their unique experiences while pursuing STEM. Ong (2005) examined how women
of color tended to question their own senses of belonging and competence because they did not
conform to prevalent images of White, male physicists. Carlone and Johnson (2006) examined
the experiences of successful women of color and revealed the significance of recognition to
their success. Johnson (2006) uncovered how science professors can unintentionally discourage
women of color by norms and values they perpetuate in the classroom. Ong, Wright, Espinosa,
and Orfield (2011) refuted the myth that women of color are simply less interested in STEM,
claiming that underrepresentation is a result of educational institutions that understand neither
the double bind nor how to address it.
Page 25
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 14
The lack of understanding surrounding the double bind as it relates to the experiences of
women of color pursuing STEM provides justification for this study's use of intersectionality
theory. Ko, Kachchaf, Ong, and Hodari (2013) employed intersectionality in their study, which
sought to identify how the intersection of race and gender affected performance, identity,
persistence, and overall career experiences of women of color working in physical sciences.
Intersectionality can be used to conceptualize the double bind and the impact of simultaneous
race and gender marginalization on the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The
following section reviews intersectionality theory and its relevance to the double bind.
Intersectionality Theory and the Double Bind
The theory of intersectionality originates in Crenshaw's (1989) seminal critique of civil
rights and feminist theory. Intersectionality theory posits that women of color, who occupy
multiple marginalized identities (e.g., being non-White and female) experience racism and
sexism to a greater degree than men of any race and White women (Crenshaw, 1989). Crenshaw
(1989) argued that the historic use of race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of inquiry
and analysis neglected to fully capture the unique experiences of Black women, thus failing to
address the race and gender discrimination Black women often experienced. Crenshaw (1989)
reasoned that the same laws and policies meant to include and protect the rights of women and
Blacks subsequently excluded Black women. The consistent focus on White women and Black
men as normative subjects in feminism and civil rights discourse, excluded Black women in the
conceptualization, identification, and remediation of race and gender discrimination (Crenshaw,
1989).
Crenshaw's (1989) critique echoes the sentiments of the women in the double bind study.
Malcom et al. (1976) found that women of color pursuing STEM believed the programs designed
Page 26
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 15
to increase diversity in STEM were primarily to the benefit of White women and men of color—
just as feminist and civil rights movements were primarily to the benefit of White, middle-class
women and Black men (Crenshaw, 1989). As such, those programs failed to consider the unique
experiences of women of color caught at the intersection of race and gender marginalization
(Malcom et al., 1976). Crenshaw (1989) called for an intersectional analysis of racism and
sexism to develop inclusive feminist and civil rights movements.
Intersectional analysis involves taking a bottom-up approach to discrimination and
inequality (Crenshaw, 1989). Rather than centering efforts on the needs and problems of those
singularly marginalized by race or gender (i.e., White women and Black men), Crenshaw (1989)
suggested centering analysis and efforts on those most disadvantaged. Crenshaw (1989)
concludes that, if the needs and experiences of those most disadvantaged were addressed, those
who were singularly disadvantaged would also benefit (Crenshaw, 1989). Employing
intersectionality theory in this study provides a critical foundation for understanding how the
intersection of race and gender informs the unique experiences of women of color navigating the
double bind.
Crenshaw's (1989) critique revolutionized the analytical approach to gender and
femininity. Scholars have since applied intersectionality theory across varying disciplines and
beyond the lens of race and gender. For example, Brah and Pheonix (2004) proposed using the
theory to understand social class and its intersections with race, gender, and sexuality and posited
that any form of identity (class, race, gender, sexuality) may simultaneously intersect to inform
unique experiences. Symington (2004) encouraged the use of intersectionality as a tool for global
human rights and development work. Symington's (2004) approach confirmed that the goal of
intersectionality was not to identify those more privileged or marginalized than others, but to
Page 27
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 16
uncover meaningful distinctions and similarities to overcome discrimination and put conditions
in place that would allow all people to fully enjoy their human rights.
Holvino (2008) extended intersectionality research with the conceptualization of
intersectionality as the simultaneous interaction of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and
nationality. This model sought to dispel the notion that one identity was central over another,
arguing instead that identity can become more salient based on contextual factors (Holvino,
2008). Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) used intersectionality to examine the
underrepresentation of women of color in leadership. In juxtaposing the experiences of women
of color with their White counterparts in the workplace, Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) cited
differences in promotion opportunities, likeness among White male executives that favored
White women, occupational segregation, and access to formal and informal networks. This
research called for organizations to better address underrepresentation of women of color in
leadership by first understanding how race, gender, and ethnicity intersect to create contrasting
experiences between White women and women of color in the workplace.
Intersectionality theory is not without criticism. Nash (2008) interrogated several aspects
of intersectional analysis: its lack of a defined methodology, the use of Black women as its
quintessential subjects, and its vague definition. McCall (2006) described the use of
intersectionality in social analysis as overly complex. Nonetheless, some scholars have sought to
clarify intersectionality by defining major principles of its theoretical framework. Smooth (2010)
identified several principles of intersectionality theory. First, intersectionality regards identities
as interconnecting and mutually constitutive rather that additive and mutually exclusive. It also
takes into account variations within social identities, recognizes that social identity and dominant
or marginalized group statuses may change over time depending on the social and environmental
Page 28
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 17
context, and accepts the coexistence of privilege and oppression rather than treating them as
mutually exclusive categories. Lastly, Smooth (2010) contended that the use of intersectionality
is requisite to understanding privilege and oppression and fully addressing societal inequality
(Smooth, 2010). An understanding of intersectionality contributes to thoughtful and relevant
programmatic efforts and recommendations that address the barriers women of color often
experience during their STEM pursuits. Some of the barriers discussed in this study have been
experienced by women from all groups. However, intersectionality theory suggests that the
impact of these barriers may be greater for women of color. The following section discusses
some of those barriers.
Barriers in the STEM Academic Setting
The research suggests some of the barriers to STEM affect not only women of color but
also women in general. However, double bind and intersectionality theory reason that the impact
of barriers can be greater for women of color than for White women. Implicit biases, stereotype
threat and a "chilly" STEM climate have all been attributed to the underrepresentation of women
in STEM, all of which are discussed separately (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies & Steele, 2009; Deemer,
Thoman, Chase, & Smith, 2013; Hall & Sandler, 1982; Nosek et al., 2009; Spencer, Steele, &
Quinn, 1998). A greater understanding of these barriers sets the foundation for further analysis
throughout the paper.
Stereotype threat. Spencer et al. (1998) found that, when performing math, women risk
judgment by the negative stereotype that they have weaker math abilities. They call this
predicament stereotype threat (Spencer et al., 1998). Stereotype threat refers to the individual's
experience of being judged based on a societal group stereotype (Spencer et al., 1998). Women
of color are susceptible to stereotype threat based on race and gender. For example, a Black
Page 29
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 18
female student may experience the burden of not conforming to stereotypes that imply women
are not good in math and that Black people are intellectually inferior. This simultaneous burden
can be detrimental to the persistence of women of color in the academic environment,
threatening their sense of belonging, interest in STEM (Cheryan et al., 2009), and performance
(Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007).
Implicit biases. These stereotypes manifest as implicit biases that impede the success of
women in the STEM academic environment. Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes and
assumptions, which are influenced by an individual's experiences with people or groups
(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Societal stereotypes regarding men, women, and STEM inform
many of the interactions between faculty and students in the academic setting. Moss-Racusin,
Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, and Handelsman (2012) showed how these biases influenced how
female students were evaluated by science faculty members. The implicit biases of faculty
members caused them to favor male over female students when attempting to fill a lab manager
position (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Faculty members, both male and female, were more likely
to rate male students as more hirable and competent than identical female students, and to offer
higher starting salaries and more career mentoring to the male students (Moss-Racusin et al.,
2012).
Similarly, Justin-Johnson (2004) found the female students of color at a predominantly
White institution (PWI) experienced a sense of unfriendliness and unwillingness to help from
professors. Many of the participants alluded to experiencing different treatment than that of their
White and male counterparts on campus (Justin-Johnson, 2004). Such experiences are linked to
the implicit biases commonly held by faculty members. Though unconscious to the faculty, these
Page 30
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 19
biases can impact the level of access women of color have to professional development
opportunities, research opportunities, and assistance outside of the classroom.
Chilly climate. These disparities in treatment support what Hall and Sandler (1982)
called a chilly climate for women in STEM academic settings. This climate, wherein women are
often treated differently than their male counterparts, perpetuates the disparate experiences of
women in STEM, thus contributing to their underrepresentation in the STEM workforce. That
said, the chilly climate experienced by women in STEM is often even colder for women of color,
whose experiences in STEM environments are nuanced by not only gender but also race. As a
result, women of color often experience isolation, alienation, and low sense of belonging (Justin-
Johnson, 2004; Johnson, 2007; Malcom et al., 1976). There is a critical need for colleges and
universities to develop practices and methods of intervention to counter the barriers that impede
the success of women of color pursuing STEM in the academic environment.
Cultural Values in the STEM Academic Setting
In addition to the aforementioned barriers, research suggests that the cultural values
embedded in the STEM academic setting can be detrimental to women of color pursuing STEM.
These values include the narrow focus on decontextualized science and the depiction of science
as a race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral construct (Johnson, 2007). Johnson (2006) uncovered
these values while studying the experiences of Black, Latina, and American Indian women
pursuing science at a predominantly White research university. Johnson (2006) found that the
professors unintentionally discouraged women of color by perpetuating these values in the
classroom.
The first value (a focus on decontextualized science) referred to professors' consistent
depersonalized approach to lecturing (Johnson, 2007). The lectures focused primarily on
Page 31
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 20
scientific content without much attention to how that content may fit into a bigger picture (i.e.,
why students were interested in the subject matter or what they planned to do with their degrees)
(Johnson, 2007). The absence of big-picture applications was discouraging to the women of
color who, in most cases, were drawn to science for big-picture reasons, such as altruism
(Johnson, 2007). While the professors were well-intentioned in focusing lectures heavily on the
subject matter, they were inadvertently discouraging female students of color (Johnson, 2007).
The second value (science as race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral) was also discouraging
to women of color. In the professors' attempts to focus their lectures on the subject matter, they
often created classroom cultures that did not support individualized learning, or the role of
individual characteristics in the learning experience (Johnson, 2007). The women in the study
felt like blindness to race and gender presented people of color as special cases and White men
as the norm (Johnson, 2007). Some respondents even questioned whether they should bring up
issues of race in science. For example, some students were reluctant to discuss how genetic
differences among races and genders account for the prevalence of diseases in certain groups
over another (Johnson, 2007).
The notion that science is a color-blind meritocracy contradicts many of the subtle racial
and gender dynamics that govern how fellow students interact. For example, it was common for
students to segregate by race and gender when choosing seating in the classroom, identifying lab
partners, and studying in the library (Johnson, 2007). In addition, many of the implicit biases that
manifest in the STEM classroom were shown to originate from unconscious race- and gender-
related attitudes (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Again, though not the intention of the professors,
such classroom culture is particularly discouraging to women of color. This discouragement can
impede the persistence of women of color pursuing STEM careers, leading to lower
Page 32
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 21
representation in the STEM talent pool. Colleges and universities play a critical role in
identifying the barriers that exist within the academic setting and developing practices that
mitigate the impact on women of color pursuing STEM.
Contribution to Literature and Summary
The existing literature acknowledges the critical need for the United States to continue to
develop and sustain a robust workforce in STEM fields. Advancements in science and
technology are critical to the nation's global and economic competitiveness. Talent shortages in
STEM imply a need for colleges and universities to produce STEM majors and professionals
continuously. As the representation of women continues to exceed men on college campuses,
and the enrollment of students of color continues to rise, women of color represent a valuable
source of domestic STEM talent.
However, despite their increased presence on college campuses women of color remain
underrepresented in STEM majors and professions. The underrepresentation of women of color
can be attributed to the inabilities of colleges and universities to mitigate barriers that exist in
these women's pursuits of STEM and failure to create environments that support their
persistence. The existing research on the double bind suggests the critical need for colleges and
universities to understand the unique experiences of women of color before these institutions can
begin to create environments conducive to their advancement and development. This research
aims to fill this gap by bringing additional awareness to the unique experiences of women of
color pursuing STEM and by providing practical and actionable recommendations to increase the
representation of women of color in STEM.
Page 33
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 22
Methodology
From a meta-qualitative methodological standpoint, this research design is illuminative,
descriptive, and exploratory. A qualitative research approach was used to convey the unique
experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The qualitative method is effective in that it
reveals first-hand the experiences of women of color pursuing STEM over varying time periods,
across multiple STEM fields of study, and in the context of different university settings (Carlone
& Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2007; Malcom et. al., 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2010; Ong, 2005;
Reyes, 2011). Inductive reasoning was used to identify patterns in the experiences of women of
color and to establish linkages to relevant theories of implicit bias, stereotypes, and stereotype
threat. The review of secondary data involves an analysis and synthesis of relevant studies,
scholarly discussions, interviews, and narratives that qualify the unique experiences of women of
color in their pursuits of STEM.
This study also employed a quantitative approach. Quantitatively, U.S. Census data,
organizational data, and studies from the National Science Foundation (NSF) were analyzed to
quantify the underrepresentation of women in STEM degree programs. Quantitative empirical
studies were also used to conceptualize the existence of barriers to STEM and factors that
contribute to persistence. Given time constraints, only secondary data were used in this study.
Page 34
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 23
Results
The following table summarizes the primary sources used in this study to qualify the unique
experiences of women of color pursing STEM.
Table 2
Secondary Data Sources: Unique Challenges of Women of Color Pursuing STEM
Source Relevance
Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., &
Brown, J. W. (1976). The double
bind: The price of being a
minority woman in science (No.
76-R-3). Washington, DC:
American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Retrieved from:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default
/files/migrate/uploads/1975-
Double-Bind.pdf
Seminal study that brought awareness to the
unique experiences and challenges of women
of color (WOC) in science
Qualitative study and collection of narratives
based on insights shared by 30 WOC
scientists at a 1975 conference hosted by
AAAS
Findings: WOC experience a combination of
racism and sexism during their STEM
pursuits.
Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of
young women of color in
physics: Intersections of gender,
race, and science. Social
Problems, 52(4), 593–617.
Qualitative, longitudinal study that examined
the experiences of ten women of color
studying physics
Findings: WOC’s belonging and competence
are questioned because they do not conform
to prevalent images of the ordinary White,
male physicist.
Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended
consequences: How science
professors discourage women of
color. Science Education, 91(5),
805–821.
Qualitative study that examined the
experiences of 16 Black, Latina, and
American Indian women science students
Findings: WOC are negatively impacted by
the size of classes, asking and answering
questions, and embedded cultural values of
science.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A.
(2007). Understanding the
science experiences of
successful women of color:
Science identity as an analytic
lens. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–
1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237
Ethnographic interviews were conducted
with 15 successful WOC over the course of
their collegiate careers
Findings: The science identity model
conceptualizes the significance of
recognition in the advancement of WOC in
science.
Page 35
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 24
Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M.
(2011). The double bind: The
next generation. Harvard
Educational Review, 81(2), 162–
171, 388–389.
This paper is a scholarly discussion that
revisits the progress made in addressing the
double bind since the original study’s
publication. Authors suggest educational
institutions have not fully assumed their
responsibility in addressing the
underrepresentation of WOC in STEM.
Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and
pathways: Women of color in
undergraduate STEM majors and
the college experiences that
contribute to persistence.
Harvard Educational Review,
81(2), 209–241.
Quantitative study that utilizes hierarchical
generalized linear modeling to examine the
experiences of 1,250 WOC and 891 White
women studying STEM
Findings: There are differentiating factors to
persistence in STEM between WOC and
White women. For example, joining STEM-
related organizations were particularly
critical to the persistence of WOC.
Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges
for women of color in STEM
transferring from community
colleges to universities. Harvard
Educational Review, 81(2), 241–
262, 390.
Quantitative study based on interviews
conducted with WOC who entered the
university setting through community
colleges
Findings: WOC experienced an environment
that signaled they do not belong and were
inadequately prepared.
Page 36
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 25
Chapter One: Understanding the Double Bind
“In such case, it does not matter whether one is being hit with the club of sexism or
racism—they both hurt. And this is the nature and essence of the double bind.”
(Malcom et al., 1976, p. 3)
Historically, women of color have been invisible in academic research and programmatic
efforts that seek to address diversity, or the lack thereof, in STEM majors and professions
(Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong, 2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa,
& Orfield, 2011). Some scholars suggest the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM
can only be addressed if organizations and institutions understand the unique experiences of
these women as they navigate both racial and gender forms of oppression in the predominantly
White, male field (Malcom, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Malcom & Malcom, 2011; Ong, 2005; Ong,
Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). To comprehend the unique experiences of women of color
pursuing STEM, it is important to examine the historical context of the double bind and the
relevance of intersectionality theory. This chapter provides a conceptual and theoretical
examination of the double bind and intersectionality, an analysis of the experiences of the
women of the seminal double bind study The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science
(Malcom et al., 1976), and a discussion of the foci of actions that followed the study.
An Examination of the Double Bind
The Cost of Pursuing STEM
Aspiring to become a scientist, engineer, biomedical professional, or even an astronomer
does not come without a cost (Ko, Kachcaf, Ong, & Hodari, 2013; Malcom et al., 1976).
Financial strain, difficult curricula, overly competitive environments, and significant time
commitments are all associated with the culture of STEM and the sacrifices required of any
Page 37
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 26
individual who pursues these majors or careers (Malcom et al., 1976; Ko et al., 2013; Seymour &
Hewitt, 1997). However, the cost of pursuing STEM can be especially inflated for individuals
who do not resemble the typical STEM professional.
Scientists, engineers, and mainstream STEM professional prototypes often reflect images
of White males (Ong, 2005; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). STEM culture and many of its norms are
closely aligned with masculinity (Johnson, 2007; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). For example,
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) argued that the common focus on individual rather than collective
goals, the competitive nature of STEM classrooms, and the "weeding out" process of STEM
courses are consistent with the norms and cultural skills of White, middle-class men. Thus, the
more an individual resembles the typical STEM professional, the lower his or her costs (Malcom
et al., 1976). Conversely, the farther an individual deviates from the norm, the higher his or her
costs (Malcom et al., 1976). The higher costs as result of this differentness is what qualifies the
unique experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976)
referred to these experiences as the double bind in their seminal study The Double Bind: The
Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.
The Essence of the Double Bind
Malcom, et al. (1976) were the first to bring awareness to the unique experiences of
women of color pursuing STEM careers in their study The Double Bind: The Price of Being a
Minority Woman in Science. The study used double bind to describe the nuanced experiences
and double forms of oppression and obstacles faced by women of color in their pursuits of
STEM careers (Malcom et al., 1976). Unlike their White female counterparts and men of color,
women of color experienced a combination of two marginalized and negatively stereotyped
identities: being female and a person of color (Malcom et al., 1976). The intersection of these
Page 38
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 27
identities in the context of a predominantly White, male field has a significant impact on how
women of color experience the pursuit of STEM careers. Malcom, et al. (1976) conceptualized
these experiences in their double bind study.
The women of the study included practicing scientists, engineers, astronomers,
zoologists, medical students, and biomedical professionals of Black, Mexican American, Native
American, and Puerto Rican decent (Malcom et al., 1976). Asian American women were not
included in this study because, at the time, they were over represented in STEM professions
(Malcom et al., 1976). This study represented the first time in history that women of color had
convened to discuss their experiences and the climates and cultures of their respective industries
(Malcom et al., 1976). The insights from the study were based on meetings that took place at the
Conference of Minority Women Scientists, sponsored by the American Association of the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) Office of Opportunities in Science (Malcom et al., 1976).
The Office of Opportunities in Science had sponsored many initiatives aimed to increase
the race and gender diversity in science. However, Malcom et al. (1976) found that women of
color in STEM often "fell through the cracks" and were overlooked in efforts aimed to increase
the representation of women and people of color in STEM. Diversity-related programs and
organizations typically benefitted men of color and White, middle-class women (Malcom et al.,
1976), which failed to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM professions.
During the time of the study, women of color made up only half of one percent of all
science and engineering doctorates (Malcom et al., 1976). In 1974, the American Chemical
Society reported that 42 women of color were awarded bachelor's degrees in chemistry out of the
2,315 earned across the United States (Malcom et al., 1976). Although women in general were
severely underrepresented in STEM during the time of the study, the efforts meant to combat the
Page 39
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 28
underrepresentation of women failed to consider the obstacles faced by women of color at the
intersection of race and gender identity (Malcom et al., 1976). An understanding of the
compounded impact of belonging to two marginalized identities is critical to understanding the
double bind. Crenshaw's (1993) intersectionality theory can be used as a foundation for
understanding Malcom et al.'s (1976) definition of the double bind, as experienced by women of
color pursuing STEM.
Understanding the Intersection
The theory of intersectionality formally originates in Crenshaw's (1989) influential
critique of civil rights and feminist theory. Crenshaw (1989) argued that the historic use of race
and gender as mutually exclusive categories of inquiry and analysis did not fully capture the
unique experiences of Black women, thus failing to address the combined race and gender
discrimination they experienced. Crenshaw (1989) argued the same laws and policies meant to
include and protect the rights of women and Blacks inadvertently excluded Black women. The
consistent focus on the experiences of otherwise privileged groups, White women and Black men
excluded Black women in the conceptualization, identification, and remediation of race and
gender discrimination (Crenshaw, 1989).
Intersectionality theory challenges essentialist thinking around group identity (Hancock,
2007). Group essentialism occurs when a group identity (e.g., women) is fixed on the
characteristics of only a subset of that group (e.g., White women), subsequently marginalizing
other members of the group that may differ in other aspects of identity (e.g., women of color)
(Hancock, 2007). This aspect of intersectionality is consistent with the purpose of Malcom et
al.'s (1976) study, in that the women of color who were scientists believed White women and
Black men were normative subjects of initiatives aimed to increase STEM diversity.
Page 40
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 29
Although Crenshaw's (1989) discussion of intersectionality theory has its origins in the
feminists and social justice schools of thought, scholars have since used intersectionality in other
areas of study, such as leadership (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010), economic justice
(Symington, 2004), political consciousness (Greenwood & Christian, 2008), and organizational
studies (Holvino, 2010). The theory has also generated criticism. Nash (2008) interrogated
several aspects of intersectionality, including its lack of a defined methodology, the use of Black
women as its quintessential subjects, and its vague definition. McCall (2006) described the use of
intersectionality in social analysis as overly complex.
Nonetheless, some scholars have sought to clarify intersectionality by defining major
principles of its theoretical framework. Smooth (2010) identified five principles of
intersectionality theory. First, intersectionality regards identities as interconnecting and mutually
constitutive rather that additive and mutually exclusive (Smooth, 2010). Second, intersectionality
acknowledges variations within social identities (Smooth, 2010); for example, there is no single
understanding or standard of femininity or Blackness. Third, intersectionality recognizes that
social identity and dominant or marginalized group statuses may change over time depending on
the social and environmental context (Smooth, 2010). Fourth, intersectionality accepts the
coexistence of privilege and oppression rather than treating them as mutually exclusive
categories (Smooth, 2010). For instance, the same person can experience oppression along one
axis (e.g., gender), while being privileged along another (e.g., race) (Smooth, 2010). Lastly, the
use of intersectionality is requisite to understanding privilege and oppression and fully
addressing societal inequality (Smooth, 2010).
Ain't I a Woman?
Page 41
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 30
Although Crenshaw (1989) and other scholars have expanded the premise of
intersectionality theory, they were not the first to bring awareness to the complicatedness of race
and gender marginalization. Sojourner Truth, in her 1851 speech at the Women's Rights
Convention in Akron, Ohio, exposed the flaws of the women's suffrage movement and the
invisibility of women of color:
Well, children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of
kilter, I think between the Negroes of the South and the women of the North—all talking
about rights […]. That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages,
and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody helps me any best
place. And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm. I have plowed, I have planted
and I have gathered into barns. And no man could head me. And ain't I a woman? (Brah
& Pheonix, 2004, p.77).
Truth challenged essentialist thinking of how women should be treated and were being treated in
America by differentiating her experience as a woman, which was significantly influenced by her
race. Her speech showed how the positioning of the experiences of White women as the foci for
the women's suffrage movement failed to address the discrimination and oppression of Black
women. Just as Truth was unable to relate to the experiences of the White women of her time,
and did not equally benefit from the gains of the women's suffrage movement, so it was with the
women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study. These women sensed a disconnection from the feminist
movements of their time and the programs that sought to address the underrepresentation of
women in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).
Consequently, the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study were more inclined to align
themselves with the elimination of racism than sexism. Most of the women believed the barriers
Page 42
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 31
they experienced earliest in their pursuits of STEM were more influenced by race than gender
(Malcom et al., 1976). It was in their post-secondary and advanced education pursuits that the
impact of their gender became more salient in STEM settings (Malcom et al., 1976). This nuance
is indicative of Smooth's (2010) theoretical framework of intersectionality theory, which
recognizes how the impact of identity may change over time based on the environmental context.
Most of the women grew up during the pre-civil rights era, a period where racism was
manifested in many of their experiences (Malcom et al., 1976). This however, does not negate
the impact of gender identity. Even though the impact of identities are not always equivalent,
multiple identities, like race and gender, still function simultaneously, thus producing unique
experiences for women of color. Their experiences are significantly different from those of
White women, who do not endure marginalization at the intersection of race, and from those of
men of color, who do not encounter oppression at the intersection of gender.
When Malcom et al. (1976) argued that the experiences of women of color were not
being addressed in existing diversity programs meant for women and people of color pursuing
STEM, it was an echo of Truth's sentiments and the essence of Crenshaw's (1989) critique.
Crenshaw (1989) and other scholars have since demonstrated that gender and race do not operate
independently of other dimensions of identity (Brah & Pheonix, 2004; Holvino, 2008;
Symington, 2004). The impact of the race and gender intersection is greater than the impacts of
racism and sexism separately (Crenshaw, 1989). Understanding the effects of the intersection of
race and gender is a requisite for countering its impact. Intersectionality, as it relates to the
double bind, provides a foundation for thoughtful analyses of the experiences shared in Malcom
et al.'s (1976) The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science.
Page 43
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 32
The Double Bind of The Past
An analysis of the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study and their experiences reveals
the challenges and obstacles women of color faced throughout their pursuits of STEM careers
from 1916 up until the time of the study, 1975. The women, though varying in educational
background, STEM discipline, and ethnicity, held many of the same perceptions and experiences
(Malcom et al., 1976). Most prevalent were the shared obstacles due to their gender and race or
ethnicity (Malcom et al., 1976). The women discussed their pre-collegiate years, which included
familial influences and their experiences in secondary school (Malcom, 1976). They also
discussed their collegiate years, which included their undergraduate and graduate school
experiences (Malcom et al., 1976). The pre-collegiate and collegiate experiences of the women
in Malcom et al.'s (1976) double bind study, as well as the foci of actions that followed the study,
are examined in this section.
The Pre-Collegiate Experience
The women from Malcom et al.'s (1976) study attributed most of the barriers they faced
in the pre-collegiate years to race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Most of the women
were born between 1916 and 1956, periods were overt racism and its manifestations impacted
their childhood experiences more than sexism (Malcom et al., 1976). This dynamic is consistent
with the intersectionality theoretical framework (Smooth, 2010). Although the women found
race oppression more salient during their earlier years, that does not negate the simultaneous
existence of the impact of gender identity on their experiences. For the women in Malcom et al.'s
study, race was more salient because the social context was pre-civil rights era, a time when race
discrimination was overt and experienced by most members of the women's respective racial or
ethnic groups. Malcom et al. (1976) found many of the commonalities in pre-collegiate
Page 44
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 33
experiences shared by the women in the study were related to their familial influences, quality of
education, and academic counseling.
Familial influences. Most of the women recalled supportive family structure as critical
to their educational pursuits (Malcom et al., 1976). Education was seen as an opportunity to
overcome poverty and racial barriers at the time. Whereas many of their White counterparts had
alternative aids to success (e.g., family businesses or wealthy family members), women of color
typically did not (Malcom et al., 1976). This contrast is consistent with intersectionality theory.
Although White women and women of color shared gender identities during that period,
differences in other identities (e.g., race and socioeconomic status), differentiated their
experiences. In addition, although it was common for White women at the time to maintain
domestic roles and work inside the home, the women of color in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study did
not recall being held to the same expectation. For most of the women, the expectation was
always to work outside the home (Malcom et al., 1976). This uniqueness in experience is yet
another way in which race or ethnicity and gender identities intersect to inform the unique
experiences among women of color.
Although the women of the double bind study felt their educational pursuits were
supported by their families, many of the women also reported that family members had little
understanding of science as a discipline (Malcom et al., 1976). The absence of images and
people of color (much less women of color in science) as role models made it difficult for many
parents to comprehend their daughters' career aspirations (Malcom et al., 1976). Careers in
science, which were non-traditional for women and people of color, were seen as conflicting
with feminine behavior and roles, thus perpetuating stereotypes and biases against science
careers for women of color (Malcom et al., 1976). These notions also manifested themselves in
Page 45
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 34
the limited career expectations and aspirations for the women in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study.
For example, many women of color and their families assumed the women would pursue careers
in science as educators and teachers, instead of practitioners, scientists, and engineers (Malcom
et al., 1976). The women in the double bind study also attributed this to the non-existence of
women of color as role models in science (Malcom et al., 1976).
Quality of education. There were several qualitative differences among the secondary
school experiences of the women in the double bind study. Some women attended segregated
and others attended integrated or predominantly White schools. The women who attended
segregated schools were often taught by teachers of the same race or ethnic group (Malcom et
al., 1976). In these environments, the women of color reported experiencing a stronger sense of
support and vested interest from their educators (Malcom et al., 1976). Yet, while the teachers
were a positive influence on the students, the schools usually suffered from inferior facilities,
equipment, and books, which compromised the overall quality of education (Malcom et al.,
1976). In this instance, the intersections of socioeconomic status, race, and gender account for
the differences between the pre-collegiate experiences of White women and women of color
during that period. Again, although both groups share gender identity, intersectionality informs
very distinct experiences.
The women of color who attended integrated or predominantly White schools recalled a
competitive atmosphere and high academic standards intended to challenge them (Malcom et al.,
1976). However, teachers often held lower expectations for students of color in general (Malcom
et al., 1976). It was also during this period in their STEM pursuits that social isolation became
more evident to the women (Malcom et al., 1976). Though forming same-gender and same-race
peer relationships is customary during the secondary years, the women of color found it
Page 46
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 35
particularly elusive (Malcom et al., 1976). By the time they reached high school, as women and
persons of color with interest in STEM, they had already established a pattern of differentness in
their lives (Malcom et al., 1976). This made it particularly difficult to establish peer relationships
with not only other girls, but also other students of color (Malcom et al., 1976).
Academic counseling. Malcom et al. (1976) also found that many of the women had
received no formal counseling during their secondary school years. The counseling that they did
receive was mostly negative advice that deterred them from their science aspirations (Malcom et
al., 1976). Many of the counselors and teachers, particularly at predominantly White schools,
were overtly prejudiced and undermined the students' interests in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).
Even in schools where teachers shared the same racial or ethnic backgrounds as the women, they
were often not provided formal career and academic counseling (Malcom et al., 1976). The
women in the double bind study reported that, in high school, they received little to no
information on financial aid for college, career paths and opportunities, or how to identify
colleges and university programs (Malcom et al., 1976).
One engineer in Malcom et al.'s (1976) study who had attended a predominantly White
high school recalled being advised to apply only to historically Black colleges and universities
(HBCUs), which, at the time, had no engineering programs. For women of color, career
counseling often did more harm than good (Jones, 1974). While the women in the double bind
study were able to overcome these barriers, they recollected how many of their peers were not
(Malcom et al., 1976). The inherent and overt racial bias rooted in the counseling system was
particularly harmful to the aspirations of women of color interested in STEM and subsequently
extended into their collegiate experiences.
Page 47
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 36
The Collegiate Experience
While racism and its manifestations were more prominent during the women's pre-
collegiate years, Malcom et al. (1976) found that the women were more likely to suffer both
racism and sexism during their undergraduate and graduate experiences. The impact of the
double bind became more evident as the women progressed through their academic pursuits.
This was partly due to the increased underrepresentation of women and people of color in
general, but particularly women of color studying STEM at the undergraduate and graduate
levels (Malcom et al., 1976). Malcom et al. (1976) found that both academic and social factors
contributed to the impact of the double bind during the women's collegiate experiences.
Academic factors. The women in Malcom et al.’s study (1976) recalled feeling
unprepared for the rigor of course work at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Many of the
necessary prerequisite courses for success at the undergraduate level were not offered in the
secondary schools many of the women attended (Malcom et al., 1976). In addition, lower
standards of academic preparedness at the secondary level made transitioning into the demanding
nature of college science curricula especially difficult. Similarly, the women who attended
HBCUs and women's colleges for their undergraduate studies cited difficulties at the graduate
level, particularly if they continued their education at a PWI (Malcom et al., 1976). At the time,
many of the HBCUs and women's colleges were less equipped to offer competitive and rigorous
science curricula, leading the women to feel less prepared (Malcom et al., 1976). For example,
some women had not had equal exposure to laboratory science and research compared to their
counterparts (Malcom et al., 1976).
Evelyn Hammonds is a woman of color who pursued her academic studies in STEM
during that period (Harding, 1993). In an excerpt from Never Meant To Survive: A Black
Page 48
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 37
Woman's Journey, Harding shared the frustrations she experienced in the collegiate environment
as a result of her deficient pre-collegiate education, specifically in math and science (Harding,
1993). Although she knew she was equally intelligent to her White counterparts, she found it
painful to navigate the collegiate landscape backed by a critical educational gap (Harding, 1993).
Colleges and universities did not have programs or systems in place to address the difficult
transition for women of color proactively (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976).
Many women of color were reluctant to seek guidance from faculty members in fear of
colluding with the misconception that they were less qualified than were their White and male
counterparts (Malcom et al., 1976). In addition, many of the professors still held strong racial
biases against students color (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976). Faculty members and
professors were known to be condescending and have lower expectations for women of color
studying science (Harding, 1993; Malcom et al., 1976). The women in Malcom et al.'s study
(1976) feared that regularly asking for help would perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy of
inferiority or incompetence, similar to stereotype threat. This dilemma became especially
problematic at the graduate level, when establishing relationships with professors as mentors and
role models became critical to academic success (Malcom et al., 1976).
Professors served as mentors and counselors for students, offering support in career and
academic preparedness, writing references, and assisting students in obtaining post-doctoral
appointments (Malcom et al., 1976). These relationships, however, were heavily based on
personality factors; for example, how well the mentor related to the student or communicated
with her. As women of color in predominantly White and male academic areas, the women in the
double bind study found it particularly difficult to identify professors and mentors whose race
and gender biases did not interfere with their abilities to provide effective counsel (Malcom et
Page 49
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 38
al., 1976). Consequently, many of the women received limited counseling and access to
information that would have been beneficial to them in their academic and professional pursuits
(Malcom et al., 1976).
Social factors. In addition to academic factors, the women in the double bind study
encountered social barriers during their undergraduate and graduate experiences. Whether at
PWIs or HBCUs, the choice to study science naturally separated the women of color from peers
of the same gender and race or ethnicity (Malcom et al., 1976). The women who attended
HBCUs recalled difficulty establishing relationships with other women of color, as there were
not many pursuing their field of study (Malcom et al., 1976). Feelings of isolation and exclusion
were exacerbated for those on campuses at PWIs, where the representation of people of color
was already bleak (Malcom et al., 1976). In most cases, students of color, but especially women
of color, were excluded from informal social networks and study groups, which primarily
comprised males or Whites (Malcom et al., 1976). Malcom (1976) found that, while some
women of color were able to find support in peer relationships with White women also studying
science, most experienced an unmet, yet critical need for relationships with other women of color
who shared their interests (Malcom et al., 1976).
In addition to isolation and exclusion, the women in the double bind study shared the
effects of stress associated with familial and cultural expectations (Malcom et al., 1976). Many
of the women's families were still not privy to science-related careers, and therefore did not fully
understand their daughters' aspirations to continue education beyond the undergraduate level
(Malcom et al., 1976). Again, the lack of women of color role models pursuing science also
contributed to a misunderstanding among parents of how the women would use their education,
and many parents simply did not want their daughters to experience the racial and gender
Page 50
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 39
challenges that accompanied the pursuit of science (Malcom et al., 1976). Lastly, the women in
the double bind study recalled feeling pressured to return to the communities where they had
grown up and to pursue more traditional careers (Malcom et al., 1976). Marriage and familial
responsibilities often conflicted with the demands of studying science, so some of the women
recalled feelings of guilt because of choices they did or did not make when family and career
aspirations conflicted (Malcom et al., 1976).
Recommendations of the Double Bind Study
Many of the experiences of the women of the double bind study were heavily influenced
by racism and its manifestations during that period (Malcom et al., 1976). The intersection of
race or ethnic and gender identity for these women made their experiences unique to those of
their White counterparts. It becomes understandable how and why women of color felt invisible
and unaddressed in the diversity efforts of the time that sought to increase the representation of
women in STEM. Following the conference, the women of the double bind study developed
practical recommendations to address the underrepresentation of women of color pursuing
STEM.
The absence of role models was emphasized throughout the study as a significant
contributing factor to the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).
In response, the women proposed visiting junior and senior high schools, developing materials
for girls of color and their families on careers in STEM, and airing television announcements that
gave visibility to women of color practicing STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). The women also
believed the impact of segregation and race discrimination on quality of education affected girls'
of color interests and success in pursuing STEM. As a result, the women urged policy makers to
Page 51
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 40
develop programs that would compensate for educational deficiencies and barriers (Malcom et
al., 1976).
The women also found that the invisibility of women of color in diversity-related STEM
initiatives perpetuated their underrepresentation (Malcom et al., 1976). The women encouraged
scientific societies to develop programs and workshops that specifically targeted women of color
(Malcom et al., 1976). They also requested that agencies and institutions begin collecting more
race and gender data to better quantify the underrepresentation and experiences of women of
color pursuing STEM (Malcom et al., 1976).
Chapter Conclusion
When the women of Malcom et al.'s (1976) study gathered to discuss their experiences
navigating the double bind, they were making history (Malcom et al., 1976). It was the first time
a group of women of color scientists convened to discuss their experiences within the White,
male-dominated culture of STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). Many of their concerns of invisibility
were consistent with Sojourner Truth's address years prior to the study and to Crenshaw's
discourse (1989) years later. Crenshaw's (1989) intersectionality theory provides a foundation for
understanding the unique experiences of women of color and how these experiences influence
their underrepresentation in STEM.
The foci of actions that followed the double bind study were predominantly geared
toward establishing organizations that targeted women of color in STEM, influencing policy to
eliminate overt barriers, increasing interest in STEM among girls of color, and increasing the
visibility of women-of-color subjects in academic research; all as a means to address the
underrepresentation of women of color in STEM (Malcom et al., 1976). The following chapter
discusses progress made in increasing the representation of women of color in STEM since the
Page 52
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 41
original double bind study. It examines the double bind through the lens of contemporary
challenges experienced by women of color pursuing STEM, and how those challenges continue
to perpetuate their underrepresentation.
Chapter Two: Contemporary Experiences in the Double Bind
“The next-generation women, the Double Bind daughters, face different challenges from
those faced by their mothers. Now it's […] less about the behavior of individuals […] and
more about the responsibilities and action (or inaction) of institutions.” (Malcom &
Malcom, 2011, p.163)
The original double bind study was the first of its kind to bring awareness to the unique
experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. The recommendations following the study
sought to address many of the concerns expressed by the women, such as the lack of role models
and overt barriers to quality education. Although educational data suggests that progress has
been made in increasing the representation of women of color pursuing and practicing STEM,
areas of opportunity remain. This chapter discusses the progress since the original double bind
study and the role that colleges and universities play in addressing remaining areas of
opportunity. This is accomplished through a discussion of Malcom and Malcom's (2011) The
Double Bind: Next Generation and subsequent efforts to address the double bind. The role of
educational institutions is substantiated through an analysis of contemporary challenges and
barriers experienced by women of color pursuing STEM majors in the academic setting. This
analysis sets the foundation for practical recommendations, which follow in chapter three and
aim to counter the impact of the double bind and thereby increase the representation of women of
color in STEM.
Page 53
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 42
The Double Bind: Thirty-Five Years Later
At the 35th anniversary of the first double bind study, Malcom and Malcom (2011)
discussed the progress of women of color in STEM in their paper The Double Bind: Next
Generation. Since the original double bind study, much has and much has not changed regarding
the status of women of color in STEM (Malcom & Malcom, 2011). Nonetheless, some strides
have been made in addressing the underrepresentation of women and women of color in STEM.
Thirty-five years later, Malcom and Malcom (2011) suggest progress made in increasing the
representation of women of color in STEM is a result of their call to action following the original
double bind study. Malcom and Malcom (2011) identify several measures that have sought to
counter the double bind and increase the representation of women of color in STEM: the
enforcement of legislation to address overt discrimination, an increase in organizations that
support women of color in STEM, and an increased interest in STEM among girls of color. A
brief discussion of each follows.
Legislation to Address Discrimination
Firstly, legislative enforcement has since been in place to address the overt discrimination
experienced by women at colleges and universities (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). For example, the
enforcement of the Title IX Educational Amendments, which protect women against
discrimination in the university setting, helped eliminate quotas that limited the number of
women admitted into medical schools (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Subsequently, women went
from accounting for 16 percent of medical school graduates at the time of the double bind study
to nearly half of all medical school graduates in 2010 (AAMC, 2010; Malcom et al., 1976;
Malcom & Malcom, 2010). However, this legislation only alleviated overt, gender-based
discrimination, which only addresses half the challenges experienced by women of color. As
Page 54
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 43
posited by intersectionality theory and the essence of the double bind, many of the challenges
experienced by women in the study were also based on their race. In addition, many of the
contemporary challenges, which are discussed later in this chapter, are frequently more subtle.
Therefore, while legislation has been a successful stride in alleviating many of the barriers
experienced by the women in the original double bind study, it has not fully addressed the
underrepresentation of women of color in STEM.
STEM Organizations for Women of Color
In the years following the double bind study, professional organizations were established
to support women of color in STEM. Such efforts were encouraged by the women in the original
study, who believed that, historically, professional societies unintentionally excluded women of
color (Malcom et al., 1976). Even those with diversity segments were typically more targeted
toward White women and men of color (Malcom et al., 1976). In response, the Minority Women
in Science (MWIS) network was founded in 1979 and sought to provide a means for women of
color in STEM to connect for mentoring opportunities and advocacy efforts (Malcom &
Malcom, 2010). Modern STEM professional societies have begun to make efforts to specifically
target and support women of color. For example, the American Chemical Society (ACS)
developed the ACS Women Chemists of Color Program to target, empower, and bring awareness
to the experiences of women chemists of color (ACS, 2012). Such programs could account for
the steady increases in the representation of women earning STEM degrees. At the time of the
original double bind study, women of color accounted for 0.12 percent of all doctoral scientists
and engineers (Malcom et al., 1976; ACS, 2012). In 2006, that number was 2.4 percent (Malcom
et al., 1976; ACS, 2012). While there have been increases in the representation of women of
color in the STEM community, such figures suggest very small, incremental progress.
Page 55
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 44
Increased Interest among Girls of Color
Other efforts have sought to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM
earlier in the pipeline. Since the double bind study, organizations and efforts have aimed to
increase the interest in STEM and awareness of STEM careers among young girls of color
(Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Many of the women in the original double bind study recalled
unfamiliarity with STEM among themselves and their families in their earlier years (Malcom et
al., 1976). Organizations such as Black Girls Code, have since aimed to attract girls of color to
STEM by capturing their interests as early as elementary school (Black Girls Code, 2014).
Similarly, organizations such as Level the Playing Field Institute have engaged in research and
programming efforts that seek to attract people of color, but specifically women of color, to
STEM-related areas of study (Scott & Martin, 2014). Similar efforts have been successful in
increasing the interest in STEM among girls of color (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Subsequently,
women of color have, in some ways, even become more interested in STEM than are their White
counterparts (O'Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, & Hammer, 2014).
O'Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, and Hammer (2014) surveyed Black and White
students and found that Black women were more likely to be interested in STEM fields than
White women. Additionally, Black women were also more likely to intend to study STEM
despite masculine stereotypes associated with the fields (O'Brien et al., 2014). O'Brien et al.
(2014) came to these conclusions by taking an intersectional approach to understanding women's
perception of STEM careers. Historically, similar studies that addressed women and girls in
STEM neglected to consider race and ethnic differences (O'Brien et al., 2014). Their findings
further support the necessity of understanding the impact of race and gender intersection not only
on how women perceive STEM fields, but also on how they experience STEM environments.
Page 56
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 45
Areas of Opportunity Remain
Amidst legislative measures, organizations that support women of color, and increased
interest among girls of color since the original double bind study, women of color remain
underrepresented STEM, and the pace of progress in addressing the double bind is slow
(Malcom & Malcom, 2010; Hammonds, 2011). STEM fields continue to be dominated by
Whites and men, while women and people of color in general remain underrepresented. Today,
women of color comprise about 1 in 10 employed scientists and engineers (NSF, 2013).
Source: National Science Foundation, 2013
Figure 1: Scientists and Engineers working in STEM occupations (2010)
This is especially problematic given the nation's historic demographic shifts. At the time
of the original study, White men made up 41.5 percent of the United States population (Malcom
et al., 1976). In 2010, that number was 31.3 percent (NSF, 2013). As the population of White
men, who have been the traditional source of STEM talent, declines, it becomes especially
important for organizations and educational institutions to maximize on traditionally
underrepresented groups as viable prospects in the STEM talent pool. This requires that
51%
18%
13%
5%
3%
2%
4%
2% 1% 1%
White Men
White Women
Asian Men
Asian Women
Black Men
Black Women
Hispanic Men
Hispanic Women
Other Men
Other Women
Page 57
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 46
institutions create environments where women, but particularly woman of color, can be
nourished and developed as STEM professionals. There is where the gap remains.
Notably, women in general have seen increases in STEM participation. At the time of the double
bind study, women comprised 8.6 percent of the science and engineering doctoral workforce
(Malcom et al., 1976; NSF, 1973). In 2010, women accounted for 28 percent of all scientists and
engineers (NSF, 2013).
Overall, more women graduate from college with bachelor's degrees, although men tend
to earn a higher proportion of STEM degrees (NSF, 2013). However, even in STEM areas of
study where women have neared or reached parity with their male counterparts, women of color
continue to lag in their share of STEM degrees. It could be assumed that these disparities are due
to a disinterest in STEM among women of color; indeed, some scholars have taken that position
(Ceci & Williams, 2011). However, O'Brien's (2014) most recent study suggests otherwise.
Table 3
Percent of women and women of color awarded STEM degrees in 2010
Area of Study Women Women of Color
Computer Sciences 17.9 4.9
Engineering 18.4 3.0
Physical Sciences 40.9 6.1
Mathematics 43.1 5.2
Social Sciences 53.7 13.0
Biological Sciences 57.8 9.3
Psychology 77.1 18.1
Adapted from National Science Foundation, 2013
Page 58
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 47
Women of color are as interested (and in some cases more interested) in STEM as are
White women (O'Brien et al., 2014). However, amidst an identified interest in STEM and
increased enrollments in colleges and universities, women of color remain underrepresented not
only as STEM professionals, but also among STEM degree recipients (NSF, 2013; Ong et al.,
2011). Given that 70 percent of all STEM professionals have bachelor's degrees or above
(Landivar, 2013b), it is clear that STEM degree attainment is critical to the pursuit of a STEM
career. If legislation, then, has been successful in alleviating overt barriers to STEM education,
and organizations have been successful in attracting more girls of color to STEM, the question
remains of why women of color remain underrepresented in STEM. Moreover, why has progress
in addressing the representation of women of color been so slow? According to Malcom and
Malcom (2010), these answers and the onus lie in the environments cultivated in educational
institutions.
The Role of Educational Institutions
Malcom and Malcom (2010) assert that colleges and universities have not fully realized
how women of color experience STEM culture, and have therefore been unsuccessful in creating
environments where women of color are advanced and developed as STEM professionals.
Hammonds (2011), who earned science and electrical engineering degrees at the time of the
original double bind study and has since assumed leadership roles in the university setting,
expressed similar sentiments. Colleges and universities have not attended to the specific
experiences of women of color and have continued to maintain practices and efforts that expound
identity as "woman" or "person of color" (Hammonds, 2011). In doing so, colleges and
universities miss the opportunity to make the best use of STEM talent, particularly women of
color, who desire to pursue STEM careers (Hammonds, 2011; Malcom & Malcom, 2010).
Page 59
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 48
Therefore, while some institutions have seen growth in the number of women of color
declaring interest in STEM, the successful completion of those programs by women of color
continues to be a concern (Malcom & Malcom, 2011; NSF, 2013). As posited by Malcom and
Malcom (2011), this inability on the part of educational institutions accounts for the
aforementioned low earnings of women of color with science and engineering degrees and their
subsequent underrepresentation in the STEM workforce (NSF, 2013). If the nation is to
maximize women of color as an opportune source of STEM talent, it is critical that women of
color be advanced and developed in STEM academic settings. This requires a culture shift in
colleges and universities, who must begin to cultivate environments and remove barriers that
impede the success of women of color pursuing STEM.
Contemporary Experiences of Women of Color in STEM
To begin to address this problem, it is critical that colleges and universities fully
understand how women of color experience STEM academic settings and how the intersection of
race and gender marginalization informs those experiences. Many of the contemporary
challenges and barriers experienced by women of color pursuing STEM are much more subtle
than those experienced by the women of the original double bind study, and are deeply rooted in
the historic climate of STEM (Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Implicit biases and stereotypes are
often manifested in what scholars have called a "chilly climate" for women (Hall & Sandler,
1982) and an even colder climate for women of color.
The following section analyzes contemporary barriers experienced by women of color
pursuing STEM and specifically addresses how the double bind of race and gender
marginalization in the predominantly White, male culture of the STEM academic setting can
impede critical aspects of the STEM academic experience. Specifically, this section discusses
Page 60
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 49
how women of color experience stereotype threat and implicit biases in interactions with faculty
and peers, as well as how classroom practices and STEM cultural values can be particularly
discouraging to women of color. This section also examines how women of color typically take
untraditional routes to pursuing STEM and how understanding their pathways to STEM can
better position colleges and universities to address these women's underrepresentation.
Unintentional 'Threat' of Professors and Peers
Women and people of color in general risk being judged by negative stereotypes of
intellectual inferiority to Whites and men, specifically in math and science (Cheryan et al., 2009;
Spencer et al., 1998; Steele & Aronson, 2005). This dynamic is called stereotype threat, the
individual's experience of being judged based on a societal group stereotype (Spencer et al.,
1998). Woman of color are particularly susceptible to stereotype threat and its effects in the
STEM academic settings. Professors and peers unknowingly perpetuate this threat in the STEM
classroom.
Ong (2005) conducted a qualitative, longitudinal study of women of color studying
physics at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The study examined how the intersections of
gender and race conflicted with the prototypical image of a scientist (White and male) and how
that dissonance influenced their experiences in the classroom (Ong, 2005). Ong (2005) found
that the women of the study felt vulnerable to being judged against prevailing societal
stereotypes (e.g., Blacks and women have inferior intellect; Mexicans are lazy) from both faculty
and other students. One student recalled an instructor explicitly telling her that he did not believe
women could be successful in physics and that he had never taught women before (Ong, 2005).
Regardless of their grade point averages or how they performed on examinations, the women in
Page 61
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 50
the study said they received consistent messages implying that because they lacked the image of
a scientist they also lacked the intellectual competence associated with one (Ong, 2005).
The burden of stereotype threat can be detrimental to the development and advancement
of women of color in the academic environment, jeopardizing their sense of belonging, interest
in STEM (Cheryan et al., 2009), and performance (Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007). The extent to
which stereotype threat is experienced by women of color exceeds that of their White, female
peers (Espinosa, 2011). Espinosa (2011) conducted a quantitative analysis and utilized
hierarchical generalized linear modeling to compare the experiences of White women and
women of color who were STEM majors. They identified specific variables that contributed to
their success in studying STEM. Espinosa (2011) found that White women appeared to have
more positive interactions with faculty outside the classroom, and to experience far fewer
instances of faculty expressing stereotypes in class. These findings support the essence of the
double bind in that women of color experience STEM in ways that are unique from their White
counterparts.
Espinosa (2011) also found that healthy faculty interactions and peer relationships were
significant to the persistence of women of color STEM majors. Joining a STEM-related club and
securing other forms of peer support were more significant to the success of women of color than
of White women in STEM (Espinosa, 2011). Given this significance, efforts that seek to advance
and develop women of color in STEM must counter the effects of stereotype threat and facilitate
healthy and productive relationships between women of color and their professors and peers.
Manifestations of Implicit Biases
Stereotypes can manifest themselves as the implicit biases of professors and faculty,
which impede the advancement of women of color in STEM majors. Implicit biases are
Page 62
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 51
unconscious attitudes and assumptions, which are influenced by an individual's experiences with
people or groups (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Societal stereotypes, as those previously
mentioned, can inform how faculty members and professors treat of women of color studying
STEM. Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) asked science faculty at research-intensive universities to rate
application materials for students interested in a laboratory manager position. Faculty
participants were more likely to rate the male applicant as significantly more competent and
hirable than the identical female applicant (Moss-Racusin, 2012).
Moss-Racusin's (2012) study did not account for race or ethnicity; however, similar
research suggests that implicit racial biases can also negatively impact perceptions of people of
color (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Women of color studying STEM experience the
manifestations of implicit biases due to their race or ethnicity and gender. As shown in Moss-
Racusin's study, these biases affect how faculty members evaluate students and recommend them
for professional development opportunities—both of which are critical to the advancement of
STEM professionals, but especially those who are women of color. Carlone and Johnson (2007)
studied 15 women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies and into
their careers. They found that recognition by way of recommendations, exposure to research,
development opportunities, and mentoring were significant factors in the cases of women with
successful career trajectories. Some women recalled that earning recognition was particularly
elusive during their academic careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The audience from which they
sought recognition (typically White, male professors) was not immune to its own racial and
gender biases (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson's (2006) study suggests race and
gender identities play a significant role in how women of color are recognized by their
professors, and whether they are recognized at all. Given the significant role of recognition and
Page 63
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 52
the influence of implicit bias on women of color receiving recognition, efforts to advance and
develop women of color in STEM must address those effects.
Discouraging Classroom Practices and STEM Cultural Values
Johnson (2007) found that science professors unintentionally discouraged women of
color through the perpetuation of STEM cultural values and many of their classroom practices.
Johnson's (2007) study examined the experiences of Black, Latina, and American Indian women
pursuing STEM degrees at a predominantly White research university. The study revealed
several aspects of the academic experience that women of color found discouraging, particularly
related to large class sizes and asking and responding to questions (Johnson, 2007). Johnson
(2007) also uncovered two cultural values that had detrimental effects on the women's
persistence. These were the narrow focus on decontextualized science and the depiction of
science as a race-, gender-, and ethnicity-neutral construct.
Large classes. The large classes contributed to an increased sense of alienation and an
inability to develop relationships with the professor—something most of the women found
critical to their success (Johnson, 2007). Many of the women expected that the educational
environment would be more personal, given their experiences in pre-collegiate environments.
Johnson's findings were consistent with those revealed by Seymour and Hewitt (1997), who
found that transitioning into large, academic environments was difficult for all female science
students, regardless of race and ethnicity. However, the impact was amplified for the women of
color, who often felt alienated as the only persons of color in their classes (Johnson, 2007).
Fear of asking questions. Johnson's (2007) study also showed that many women felt
uncomfortable participating when professors solicited questions, which generally presents
opportunities for students to distinguish themselves. However, research has shown that women
Page 64
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 53
science majors unknowingly reduce their status in the eyes of their male counterparts, and even
professors, by asking questions in class (Johnson, 2007; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Johnson
(2006) specifically found that White women were more likely to ask questions in the classroom
than were women of color. The women of color in Johnson's study attributed their hesitance to
the fear of being seen as confused or intellectually inferior, which is consistent with the previous
discussion on stereotype threat. The women of color were also less inclined to ask questions for
fear of drawing attention to themselves as the only women of color in their classrooms (Johnson,
2007). In addition to classroom practices, Johnson (2006) also uncovered two STEM cultural
values that are discouraging to women of color and perpetuated in the classroom.
Decontextualized science. Johnson (2006) referred to the first value as the narrow focus
on decontextualized science, or professors' impersonal approaches to lecturing and teaching
science (Johnson, 2007). In other words, the content and delivery were seen as strictly text-based
and without context (Johnson, 2007). The lectures tended to focus on scientific content without
presenting ways the content might fit into big-picture contexts. For example, professors did not
solicit why students might be interested in the subject matter or what they planned to do with
their degrees (Johnson, 2007). The absence of big-picture applications was discouraging to the
women of color who, in most cases, were drawn to science for big-picture reasons, such as
curing diseases and serving underserved populations (Johnson, 2007). Espinosa (2011) found
that women of color who were able to identify reasons of personal import for studying STEM,
such as finding a cure to a health problem or making a theoretical contribution to science, were
more likely to persist in STEM through their fourth year of college. Similarly, Carlone and
Johnson (2007) found that women who were successful in their STEM pursuits attributed the
significance of their altruistic ambitions to their persistence. While the professors in Johnson's
Page 65
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 54
(2006) study were well intentioned in focusing lectures heavily on the subject matter, their
depersonalized approach was unknowingly discouraging women of color. Practices and efforts to
advance and develop women of color in STEM should leverage their personal ambitions.
Science as a meritocracy. The second value (science as race-, gender-, and ethnicity-
neutral) was also discouraging to women of color. Again, in their attempts to focus on the subject
matter in their lectures, the professors created classroom cultures that did not support
individualized learning, or the role of individual characteristics in the learning experience
(Johnson, 2007). It is common within STEM culture for scientists, in particular, to disregard or
seldom acknowledge that practicing science entails subjective procedures and judgments and
context-laden assertions, therefore perpetuating a culture where markers of identity, race,
ethnicity, and class are not acknowledged (Ong, 2005). This color-blind culture of science
further perpetuates the invisibility of women of color in STEM and disregards their unique
experiences, thereby impeding efforts to create environments where they can be successful.
Additionally, the notion that science is a color-blind meritocracy contradicts many of the
subtle racial and gender dynamics that govern the experiences of women of color in the STEM
environment, and particularly how fellow students interact (Johnson, 2007). For example, it was
common for students to segregate by race and gender when choosing seating in the classroom,
identifying lab partners, and studying in the library (Johnson, 2007). In addition, many of the
implicit biases that women of color experienced in the STEM classroom were triggered by
unconscious race- and gender-related attitudes (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
The perpetuation of science as an ethnicity-neutral construct also failed to consider the
ethnic conflicts that may exist between women of color and the traditional practices expected of
science students. For example, Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that some women students of
Page 66
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 55
American Indian heritage held cultural taboos against dead bodies and dissection. Professors had
little regard for such nuances and required the women to choose between their ethnic culture and
the culture of STEM (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Such compromises are particularly
discouraging to women of color. Quite the reverse, Carlone and Johnson (2007) and Ong (2005)
found that environments that encouraged a sense of self among women of color benefitted the
women's development and persistence in STEM. Therefore, efforts that seek to advance and
develop women of color in STEM should encourage thoughtful consideration of multiple forms
identity and the influence of identity in the academic setting.
Challenges Associated with Alternate Pathways
Lastly, the unique routes women of color take in the pursuit of STEM can make their
experiences in university settings even more divergent. Historically, "the pipeline" metaphor has
been used to describe the rigid, single route to pursuing STEM majors and careers (Malcom &
Malcom, 2010). However, increases in community college enrollment among women and people
of color pursuing STEM indicate the growing prevalence of alternate pathways to STEM careers
(Malcom & Malcom, 2010). Community colleges have become a critical source of talent for
students pursuing STEM. On average, 44 percent of STEM graduates have attended community
college at some point during the pursuit of a STEM degree; these percentages are equal among
Hispanics, American Indians, and African Americans (Tsapogas, 2004). Moreover, between
1986 and 2006, full time enrollment of women at community colleges increased by 53.3 percent
(Nettles & Millett, 2008). Women of color are highly likely to enter the university setting
through community colleges, but successful transfer and retention rates are low (Reyes, 2011).
Reyes (2011) conducted a qualitative study examining the unique challenges of women
of color transferring from community colleges to universities. Many of the challenges
Page 67
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 56
experienced by the women in the study were consistent with those of women of color in general.
For example, the women recalled "chilly" classroom climates where their male counterparts were
treated differently and held in higher regard by professors (Reyes, 2011). Reyes (2011) also
found that the women struggled with differences in institutional cultures. The larger, impersonal
university setting was not as supportive as the nurturing community college environment (Reyes,
2011). Difficulties in transitioning and integrating into the university setting can lead to attrition
among women of color pursuing STEM. Espinosa (2011) found that involvement in transfer
meetings, mentoring, and undergraduate research opportunities could counter these challenges.
Challenges associated with managing conflicting priorities were unique to most of the
women of color who transferred from community colleges (Reyes, 2011). Women of color were
more likely to have to balance familial and cultural expectations with their college education
(Reyes, 2011). Women of color were also more likely to have to work outside the home to
contribute to household income and assume caretaker responsibilities while pursuing school. The
women recalled experiencing stress when study and review sessions did not accommodate those
living off campus and when professors' office hours were not held right after class (Reyes, 2011).
Similar research suggests that the successful management of family and community
responsibilities is critical to the success of students of color in general (Carlone & Johnson,
2007; Hurtadao et al., 2007). Women of color who are not retained during the transition from
community college to the university setting represent a loss of STEM talent and investment.
Therefore, efforts to advance and develop women of color in STEM must consider the
challenges associated with these women's unique pathways and incorporate practices that seek to
counter them.
Page 68
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 57
Chapter Conclusion
Universities play a critical role in addressing the underrepresentation of women of color
in STEM. Previous and contemporary efforts to increase the representation of women of color in
STEM have eliminated overt barriers in academic settings, led to the establishment of
organizations that support women of color in STEM, and increased interest in STEM among
girls of color. However, educational institutions have not been successful in fully addressing the
double bind as experienced by women of color pursuing STEM.
Many of the impediments to women of color advancing in STEM are perpetuated by the
elusive barriers that exist in the STEM academic setting. The subtle effects of biases,
stereotypes, and STEM cultural values rooted in White masculinity are detrimental to the
persistence of women of color in STEM and therefore contribute to their overall
underrepresentation in STEM. For colleges and universities to address the underrepresentation of
women of color in STEM, they must cultivate environments and institute practices that develop
women of color into STEM professionals, taking into account the uniqueness of their
experiences navigating the double bind. The following chapter introduces the development of
science identity as a means for colleges and universities to develop and advance women of color
in STEM.
Chapter Three: Overcoming the Double Bind: Fostering Science Identity to Develop and
Advance Women of Color in STEM
When I walk through the campus, no one's ever gonna look at me and just think that I'm a
physicist[…] I guess the things that made other people find it hard to see me as a scientist
are making it hard for me to see myself as a scientist, too. —Sofia Caldo, Chicana college
senior (Ong, 2014, p.1)
Page 69
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 58
The previous discussions on the double bind and women of color pursuing STEM
emphasize their unique experiences as requisite to addressing their underrepresentation.
Understanding the unique experiences of women of color requires consideration of how the
intersection of race and gender oppression, the double bind, influences their experiences in
STEM environments. Scholars who have studied the double bind since the original study in 1976
suggest that colleges and universities have not fully assumed their role in addressing the
underrepresentation of women of color in STEM, particularly because they have struggled with
creating environments that ensure these women's development and advancement.
Creating an environment conducive to the advancement of women of color requires an
approach that counters the subtle barriers and challenges that the women face in the academic
environment. Colleges and university must implement practices that foster the development of
women of color into STEM professionals as they navigate a culture that sends continuous,
implicit cues that they do not belong. This chapter introduces Carlone and Johnson's (2007)
science identity model as a framework to inform practices and create an environment to develop
and advance women of color in STEM.
Science Identity: A Model for Persistence
Science identity refers to how people express and perceive themselves as scientists or
members of the science community (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson (2007)
developed the science identity model to better understand how women of color experience,
negotiate, and persist in science amidst the complexities of the double bind. Science identity is
relevant to this study because it serves as an indicator of a woman's persistence and development
in the field of science (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Accordingly, colleges and universities should
Page 70
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 59
aim to foster science identity among women of color to ensure their development and
advancement.
In developing the science identity model, Carlone and Johnson (2007) sought to
understand the factors that contribute to a woman of color achieving her science identity and
advancing in her science career (Carlone & Johnson). The science identity model is relevant to
this study because it conceptualizes the multiple paths women of color take in forming their
science identities, which is particularly useful when identifying practices that colleges and
universities can implement to support that development (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Moreover,
the science identity model takes into account the roles of race, ethnic, and gender identities in
science identity formation (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This is consistent with the essence of the
double bind and intersectionality theory, which suggest that the intersection of race and gender
has a significant impact on how women of color experience STEM (Malcom, et al., 1976).
Carlone and Johnson (2007) based the science identity model on the experiences of 15
successful women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies and into
their careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The science identity model consists of three
dimensions: competence, performance, and recognition (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Each
dimension is discussed in the next section. Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that the women
formed their science identities along varying paths. Their differential experiences were the basis
for three science identity trajectories: research scientist, altruistic scientist, and disrupted scientist
(Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Each trajectory and its relevance are discussed following the
dimensions of science identity.
Page 71
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 60
Dimensions of Science Identity
As mentioned, the science identity model consists of three dimensions: competence,
performance, and recognition. The prototypical individual with a strong science identity is
competent, in that she has acquired meaningful knowledge of her field of study and is motivated
to understand and learn more (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In the context of this study, a student
who demonstrates competence would have a high GPA and do well on tests and exams in the
academic setting. Second, a woman with a strong science identity would have the skills required
to perform and show her competence by engaging in practices relevant to her field of study. For
example, a science student who satisfies the performance dimension would be familiar with the
scientific instruments in a lab and know how to use them. Likewise, a software engineering
student would be proficient in using programs and coding languages required to carry out tasks.
Thirdly, an individual with a strong science identity would recognize herself and be recognized
by others as a "science person" and credible member of the science community (Carlone &
Johnson, 2007). Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that recognition was the most critical
dimension of the science identity model. The recognition dimension (i.e., how the women
recognized themselves as scientists and were recognized by "meaningful others") is what
differentiated their trajectories (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In addition, the recognition
dimension was the dimension most significantly influenced by the women's race, ethnicity, and
gender identities (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). A brief discussion on the research, altruistic, and
disrupted scientist identity trajectories follows.
Page 72
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 61
Figure 2: Dimensions of Science Identity. Adapted from Carlone & Johnson (2007).
Science Identity Trajectories
From Carlone & Johnson's (2007) science identity model, three independent science
identity trajectories emerged that conceptualized the varying paths the women in the study took
in forming their science identities. The trajectories were research scientist, altruistic scientist, and
disrupted scientist (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). These trajectories were based on the differential
experiences among the women, particularly how the women sought and received recognition
during their science studies (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). At the time of Carlone and Johnson's
study, the women classified in the research scientist trajectory were working as research
scientists, held patents or had previously been published in peer-reviewed publications, and had
completed their doctorate degrees or were in the process of completing them (Carlone &
Johnson, 2007). The women on the altruistic scientist trajectory were working health
practitioners and doctors or were in the process of completing pre-professional programs
Performance
• Social performances of relevant scientific practices (e.g., ways of talking and using tools)
Competence
• Knowledge and understanding of science content (may be less visible than performance)
Recognition
• Recognizng oneself and getting recognized by others as a "science person"
Page 73
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 62
(Carlone & Johnson, 2007). There were obvious patterns in the women whose trajectories were
classified as research and altruistic scientists.
However, there were no career patterns among the women on the disrupted scientist
trajectory (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). While the women were still successful in their career
pursuits, none in the disrupted scientist trajectory entered doctoral programs (Carlone & Johnson,
2007). The women on the disrupted scientist trajectory also expressed dissatisfaction with how
they were positioned in science. They felt their goals and paths had been disrupted and were
rockier and more unstable than the paths of their altruistic and research counterparts (Carlone &
Johnson, 2007). The following discussion examines each trajectory and the role of recognition in
cultivating satisfying science identities.
Critical Role of Recognition in Developing Science Identity
As discussed, the recognition dimension of science identity refers to how people
recognize themselves as scientists and how they are recognized by "meaningful others" as
credible members of the science community (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Recognition is the most
critical component in the development of science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). A woman
can possess the competence and performance dimensions of science identity, but if she does not
secure recognition, she risks compromising her development and advancement in science
(Carlone & Johnson, 2006). Each trajectory incorporates the recognition dimension differently,
which accounts for the disparate outcomes in how the women advanced in their science careers.
Research scientist identity. The women with research scientist identities recognized
themselves as scientists and were particularly interested in the prototypical aspects of science
(Carlone & Johnson). They were fascinated by the natural world and interested in the logical
processes of science (Carlone & Johnson). Critical to their ability to recognize themselves as
Page 74
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 63
scientists were their experiences working in research labs, and serving as tutors and teaching
assistants during college (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Serving in these capacities not only
increased the sense of belonging, which is particularly challenging for women of color in STEM,
but also positioned the women for recognition by other members of the science community,
another critical aspect of the recognition dimension (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).
Engaging in laboratory opportunities early in their science careers also resulted in greater
exposure to senior members in their fields of study (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Recognition did
not just happen once, but repeatedly, and well into their careers (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).
Recognition by "meaningful others" manifested as invitations to present at research forums,
solicitations to participate in fellowships, and inclusion as authors in published papers (Carlone
& Johnson, 2007). In sum, women on the research scientist trajectory recognized themselves as
prototypical scientists and were recognized by others the same.
Altruistic scientist identity. The women on the altruistic scientist trajectory gravitated
towards science for altruistic reasons (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Their interests in science and
reasons for pursuing it were less about science itself and more about using science as a vehicle to
serve humanity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Their reproductions of science in the context of
service allowed them to recognize themselves as scientists and to redefine whose recognition
mattered (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Whereas women in the research science identity relied on
recognition from traditional, prototypical "meaningful others" in the science community, the
women with altruistic science identities valued recognition from those who shared their altruistic
commitments or who would benefit from their altruism (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In most
cases, altruistic meaningful others included the women's families, communities, and other people
of color.
Page 75
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 64
Remaining active in their communities, working with other people of color, and
identifying opportunities in which they could serve humanity by way of studying science was
critical to the women's abilities to recognize themselves as scientists and satisfy the need to be
recognized by meaningful others (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Indeed, their redefinitions of
science and meaningful others supported their persistence and subsequent advancements in
science.
Disrupted scientist identity. Such was not the case for the women on the disrupted
scientist identity trajectory. The women with disrupted science identities recalled experiencing
instability throughout their pursuits to become scientists, and reported feeling overlooked,
neglected, and discriminated against by members of the scientific community, specifically during
their undergraduate and graduate studies (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Many of their experiences
echoed the challenges and barriers associated with the double bind; for example, discouraging
professors and invisibility among peers (Johnson, 2007; Malcom et al., 1976; Ong, 2005). Much
like their research and altruistic identity counterparts, the women in the disrupted science identity
were competent and capable of performing within their respective fields. However, recognition
was problematic.
The audience from which they sought recognition (mostly White males) and the
institutional and prototypical meanings associated with being a scientist complicated their bids
for recognition (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The women in the disrupted science identity
trajectory were not exposed to the same opportunities as the research scientists, and they had not
redefined science as had the women in the altruistic trajectory. Interestingly, the more a woman
ethnically or racially diverged from the prototypical scientist the more likely she had a disrupted
scientist identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2006). Among the women who achieved research scientist
Page 76
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 65
identities were two Latinas, both of whom were lighter-skinned and periodically mistaken as
White, and two Asian-American women (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). While this does not suggest
that it was easier for these women to gain recognition as research scientists, the dynamic
resembles much of what Malcom et al. (1976) conveyed in their metaphor on the cost of
pursuing STEM. The more an individual resembles the typical or normal STEM professional the
lower the costs; the more a person deviates from the norm the higher the costs (Malcom et al.,
1976).
Recommendations: Using Recognition to Overcome the Double Bind
The science identity model provides a framework for colleges and universities to ensure
the development and advancement of women of color in STEM. Although Carlone and Johnson's
(2007) study primarily focused on women pursuing science degrees, it is appropriate that the
science identity model be applied across STEM disciplines; especially given the commonalities
among the cultures of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Carlone & Johnson,
2007), all of which have been historically rooted in White, male norms (Ong, 2014; Seymour &
Hewitt, 1997). Colleges and universities should aim to develop science identity among women of
color by implementing practices that support them in seeing themselves as STEM professionals
and offering opportunities for them to be recognized by meaningful others. In creating such
environments, colleges and universities can ensure the development and advancement of women
of color in STEM. The following discussion identifies practical actions colleges and universities
can take to create these supportive environments.
Supporting Recognition of Self: Intercollegiate Affinity Groups
The research underscored feelings of alienation, isolation, and the unmet need of
belonging as shared experiences of women of color pursuing STEM. Diversity and inclusion
Page 77
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 66
administrators within colleges and universities should seek to address these experiences by
organizing intercollegiate support or affinity groups for women of color studying STEM. These
groups would not exist to replace student organizations such as the National Society of Black
Engineers (NSBE) or Women in Computer Science Engineering (WICSE), but would rather
serve as additional support to the women as they matriculate through their undergraduate and
graduate studies.
The women in the original double bind study recommended that professional societies
make efforts to target women of color specifically. Their call to action was met by organizations
such as the American Chemical Society, which developed an initiative to support women of
color chemists. Likewise, organizations such as Black Girls Code seek to engage girls of color
well before they reach college, but there seems to be a gap in the development of similar efforts
on college and university campuses.
This research proves that the collegiate experience is critical to the development of
women of color into STEM professionals. Intercollegiate affinity and support groups would not
only fill this gap by providing academic and professional development opportunities for women
of color, but they would also offer forums for women of color to share their experiences,
challenges, and successes in safe spaces among like-minded women. Many of the women may be
among the few women of color on their campuses and in their respective areas of study. An
intercollegiate approach would allow the women to foster relationships across area universities,
and even community colleges. As seen in the altruistic science identity trajectory, women of
color look to members of their ethnic and racial groups as meaningful others.
Intercollegiate affinity groups would also afford opportunities for the women to gain
exposure to research, lab work, or internship opportunities, in addition to opportunities to serve
Page 78
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 67
their communities. All of these opportunities are emphasized as critical factors to the persistence
and development of women of color in STEM. These affinity groups would also serve as
pipelines for STEM-related organizations seeking to address the underrepresentation of women
of color in their workforces. Government science and health agencies could also potentially
recruit from these groups for fellowship and research opportunities.
Similarly, some academic institutions and corporate organizations have chartered affinity
groups as part of diversity and inclusion strategies to recruit and retain underrepresented people
within their workforces. An example is included in Appendix B. Many organizations within
STEM industries use these similar groups to further personal and professional development and
promote diversity within their organizations. However, the exclusionary appearance of affinity
groups calls for particular caution. Colleges and universities, much like organizations, should not
limit membership in such groups to students who are women of color. These groups should
instead be leveraged as forums to foster awareness of the experiences of women of color among
members of dominant groups, especially whites and males. This is an appropriate segue into the
next section, which recommends colleges and universities develop culturally aware meaningful
others.
Developing Culturally Aware "Meaningful Others"
Also emphasized throughout this research was the unmet need for recognition from
faculty and professors, as well as healthy relationships with them. While the women in the
original double bind study often encountered overt forms of discrimination from their professors,
the women in the contemporary studies experienced subtle challenges and barriers, some of
which were unbeknownst to the educators. Though unintentional, the impact of culturally
incompetent and unaware professors can be detrimental. To be effective, professors must be
Page 79
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 68
attuned to the unique experiences of their women of color students. They must also be aware of
their own implicit biases and the influence these biases have on how they view and support
students.
College and university administrators must ensure their faculty members and professors
are aware of these nuances. Diversity and human resource leaders within academic institutions
should incorporate discussions on identity, intersectionality, dominant and subordinate group
membership, and systems of oppression into the diversity-learning curriculum required of faculty
and professors. Broadening awareness will not only strengthen educators' abilities to meet the
needs of their female students of color, it will also prepare them to meet the needs of all students.
This relates back to Crenshaw's (1989) position on intersectionality: efforts aimed to support the
most disadvantaged will also benefit the privileged. A model for potential training content is
included in Appendix C.
Likewise, tools such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) should be used to increase
awareness among faculty and professors of their own implicit biases. The IAT measures the
strength of the individual's associations between groups (e.g., black people) and the individual's
evaluation or stereotypes of these groups (e.g., good or bad) (Project Implicit, 2011). Implicit
biases can compromise equity in the classroom, and awareness is fundamental to addressing
implicit biases.
Chapter Conclusion
This chapter identified ways in which colleges and universities could support women of
color in overcoming the double bind and create environments that encourage these women's
advancement and development in STEM. Carlone and Johnson's (2007) science identity model
Page 80
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 69
provides an appropriate foundation for understanding the multiple trajectories women of color
take in pursuing science and the factors that contribute to their development.
This work showed that recognition is significant to the experiences of women of color as
they advance in their STEM pursuits and navigate the double bind. Women of color must
recognize themselves as STEM professionals and must be recognized as such by meaningful
others, such as faculty and professors. Accomplishing this is two-fold. Intercollegiate affinity
groups would serve to create supportive environments where women of color could develop and
empower each other. Implementing training that broadens awareness among professors and
faculty is a start to addressing the subtle barriers that can impede the development and
advancement of women of color studying STEM.
Page 81
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 70
Conclusion
The Question Remains: Ain’t I a woman?
Sojourner Truth’s (1851) historic inquiry is still relevant to the experiences of many
women of color. More than a century after Truth’s address, Malcom, Hall, and Brown (1976)
were echoing similar sentiments in their study, The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority
Woman in Science. Much like Truth, the women in the double bind study became the voice of
unheard and overlooked women of color, particularly those in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM).
This study has shown that the interests of women of color have not been fully addressed
in efforts that seek to increase the representation of women and people of color in STEM. Many
of these efforts do not account for the unique experiences of women of color, which further
perpetuates their underrepresentation. Unlike White women and men of color, women of color
who pursue STEM experience the double bind. They are subject to the burden of racism and
sexism, and subsequent challenges and barriers. While legislation and some programs have been
successful in removing overt barriers and increasing interest in STEM, women of color remain
underrepresented in STEM disciplines and professions.
Given the necessity of STEM to the United States’ global and economic competitiveness,
it behooves the nation to invest in building a domestic pool of STEM talent; and women of color
represent a valuable, potential source. This research has shown that colleges and universities play
a critical role in producing women of color in STEM. However, the culture of these
environments can be challenging and discouraging for women of color. For colleges and
universities to address the underrepresentation of women of color in STEM, they must cultivate
environments and institute practices that develop and advance women of color into STEM
Page 82
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 71
professionals. The recommendations provided in this research are a start at accomplishing what
has not been an easy feat. Thirty-eight years later, this study adds to the body of research that
seeks to eliminate barriers for future generations of women of color in the double bind.
Page 83
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 72
References
American Association of Medical Colleges. (2010) FACTS Table 29: Total U.S. medical school
graduates by race and ethnicity within sex, 2002–2010 [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.aamc.org/download/321536/data/2012factstable29.pdf
American Chemical Society. (2012). Minority women still most underrepresented in science
despite progress [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/march/minority-women-
still-most-underrepresented-in-science-despite-progress.html
Bayer Corporation. (2013). The Bayer facts of science education: XVI: U.S. STEM workforce
shortage—myth or reality? Media, PA: Internal Communications Research.
Black Girls Code. (2014). About Black girls code. Retrieved from
http://www.blackgirlscode.com/about-bgc.html
Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain't I a woman? revisiting intersectionality. Journal of
International Women's Studies, 5(3), 75.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful
women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. doi:10.1002/tea.20237
Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation
in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.8 (2011): 3157-3162.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How
stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.
Page 84
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 73
College Board. (2013). AP data: Archived data 2013. Retrieved from
http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/2013
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago
Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/1229039
Deemer, E., Thoman, D., Chase, J., & Smith, J. (2014). Feeling the threat: Stereotype threat as a
contextual barrier to women's science career choice intentions. Journal of Career
Development, 41, 141. doi:10.1177/0894845313483003
Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors
and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review,
81(2), 209–241.
Google. (2014). Our workforce demographics. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4.
Greenwood, R. M., & Christian, A. (2008). What happens when we unpack the invisible
knapsack? Intersectional political consciousness and inter-group appraisals. Sex Roles,
59(5–6), 404–417.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?
Washington DC: Association of American Colleges.
Page 85
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 74
Hammonds, E. (2011, June 29). 35 years after the double bind: The price of being a minority
woman in science [Web log]. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/blog/35-years-after-the-
double-bind-the-price-of-being
Hammonds, E., & Sands, A. (1986). Never meant to survive: A Black woman's journey: An
interview with Evelyn Hammonds. The Radical Teacher, 30, 8–15.
Hancock, A. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics & Gender,
(2), 248–254.
Hancock, A. (2007). When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining
intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/20446350
Harding, S. (Ed.) (1993). The "racial" economy of science: Toward a democratic future.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization
studies. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 248–277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0432.2008.00400.x
Hurtado, S., Han, J. C., Sáenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O. S. (2007).
Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants'
and minority students' first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 841–887.
Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of
color. Science Education, 91(5), 805–821.
Justin-Johnson, C. (2004). Good fit or chilly climate: An exploration of the persistence
experiences of African-American women graduates of predominantly White college science
Page 86
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 75
programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305172242?accountid=11091. (305172242).
Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes and women's math performance:
How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women's susceptibility to stereotype threat.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 825–832.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004
Ko, L. T., Kachchaf, R. R., Ong, M., & Hodari, A. K. (2013). Narratives of the double bind:
Intersectionality in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy.
AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513(1), 222–225. doi:10.1063/1.4789692
Landivar, L. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin (No.
ACS-24). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Landivar, L. (2013). The relationship between science and engineering education and
employment in STEM occupations (No. ACS-23). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., & Brown, J. W. (1976). The double bind: The price of being a
minority woman in science (No. 76-R-3). Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Retrieved from:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1975-Double-Bind.pdf
Malcom, L. E., & Malcom, S. M. (2011). The double bind: The next generation. Harvard
Educational Review, 81(2), 162–171, 388–389.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture &
Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
Page 87
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 76
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.
Nash, J. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1. doi:10.1057/fr.2008.4
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.
(2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Nettles, M., & Millett, C. (2008). Student access in community colleges. Ann Arbor, MI: Center
for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan. Retrieved
from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/studentaccessinccs.a
spx
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A.,... Greenwald, A.
G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex
differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593–10597.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106
O'Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2014). Ethnic variation in
gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037944
Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender,
race, and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617.
Page 88
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 77
Ong, M. (2011). Broadening participation: The status of women of color in computer science.
Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 32–34. doi:10.1145/1965724.1965737
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (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), 172–208, 389–390.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/874155317?accountid=11091
Project Implicit. (2011). About the IAT. Retrieved from
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html.
Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at liberal arts college: The importance of grades and
pre-collegiate preferences (Working paper). Retrieved from Cornell University ILR School
website:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=workingpa
pers
Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from community
colleges to universities. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 241–262, 390.
Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high skill U.S. labor market:
An analysis of supply, employment and wage trends (No. 359). Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership:
Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171.
Scott, A, & Martin, A. (2014). Perceived barriers and endorsement of stereotypes among
adolescent girls of color in STEM. Oakland, CA: Level Playing Field Institute. Retrieved
from
Page 89
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 78
http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/perceived_barriers_and_endorsement_of_stereotypes_
among_adolescent_girls_of_color_in_stem.pdf
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Simard, C. (2009). Obstacles and solutions for underrepresented minorities in technology. Palo
Alto, CA: Anita Borg Institute.
Smooth, W. (2010). Intersectionalities of race and gender and leadership. In K. O'Connor (Ed.),
Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook (31–41). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797.
Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A tool for gender and economic justice. Retrieved from
http://www.awid.org/Library/Intersectionality-A-Tool-for-Gender-and-Economic-Justice
Tsapogas, J. (2004). The role of community colleges in the education of recent science and
engineering graduates. (InfoBrief No. NSF 04-315). Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). STEM, STEM-related, and non-STEM occupation code list 2010.
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public
workforce system in a national solution for competitive science, technology, engineering,
Page 90
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 79
and mathematics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.
The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by the president at the national
academy of sciences annual meeting. Retrieved from
http://www.Whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-
Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting
Williams, M. (2014). Building a more diverse Facebook. Retrieved from
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/06/building-a-more-diverse-facebook/
Page 91
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 80
Appendix A
Science Identity Model
Source: Carlone & Johnson, 2007
Page 92
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 81
Appendix B
Although the groups below focus on employees in the workforce, a similar framework could
be applied when developing Intercollegiate Affinity groups for women of color students in
STEM.
Source: MIT, 2013
Page 93
REVISITING THE DOUBLE BIND 82
Appendix C
Sample Curriculum Content
Who Am I?
Human Behaviors
Unconscious Biases & Micro-
Aggressions
Cross-Cultural
Competence
Cultural and Social
Identity