Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 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

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
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 70
References..................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix B................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix C................................................................................................................................... 82

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM

Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM

Similar to Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM (20)

Revisiting The Double Bind: Ensuring the Development and Advancement of Women of Color in STEM