Paper detail

Enriching gender in PER: A binary past and a complex future

In this article, we draw on previous reports from physics, science education, and women's studies to propose a more nuanced treatment of gender in physics education research (PER). A growing body of PER examines gender differences in participation, performance, and attitudes toward physics. We have three critiques of this work: (1) it does not question whether the achievements of men are the most appropriate standard, (2) individual experiences and student identities are undervalued, and (3) the binary model of gender is not questioned. Driven by these critiques, we propose a conception of gender that is more up-to-date with other fields and discuss gender-as-performance as an extended example. We also discuss work on the intersection of identities [e.g., gender with race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) status], much of which has been conducted outside of physics. Within PER, some studies examine the intersection of gender and race, and identify the lack of a single identity as a key challenge of "belonging" in physics. Acknowledging this complexity enables us to further critique what we term a binary gender deficit model. This framework, which is implicit in much of the gender-based PER, casts gender as a fixed binary trait and suggests that women are deficient in characteristics necessary to succeed. Alternative models of gender allow a greater range and fluidity of gender identities, and highlight deficiencies in data that exclude women's experiences. We suggest new investigations that diverge from this expanded gender framework in PER.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.