This document summarizes a research paper investigating the low uptake of economics by female students at the A-level. It begins by outlining the methodology used, which takes a qualitative interpretivist approach. A literature review finds that skills differences and gender stereotypes may influence subject choices. National data shows economics has a 67.58% male enrollment rate, compared to 75.1% female for psychology. Surveys of economics students at a London school aim to understand reasons for these trends and how to encourage more gender balance in economics enrollment.

1. Introduction
In an age where equality is seen to be the height of importance in western
culture, this research investigates the extent to which this is true in the
classroom. The primary objective of this research is to seek answers as to ‘Why is
the female uptake of economics so low‘. This question is of particular interest to
the writer as he is looking to create a classroom with a range of ideas, which is
best created when the classroom has a balance and range of students within it.
This research starts in the first section, named ‘Methodology’. During the
methodology the reader is given an insight into the reasons behind the choices
that were made into how the research should be conducted. It was found that
given the nature of the assignment it was best to conduct qualitative research,
rather than quantitative.
This is followed by the ‘Literature Review’, which provides an overview of what
other research has been conducted in the field. The research articles found by
the writer were not exactly the same as the question asked, however, they are in
within the same realm. What was most problematic was that the Department for
education simply sought to present the facts without any attempt to understand
what the reasons behind the results would be. Other more empirical research
looked more at gender bias in subjects and looked into the long term issue of
gender equality across differing career paths e.g. Female Physicists.
The penultimate section is the ‘Analysis’. Provides the reader with a series of
analysed pie charts. These were constructed from the results drawn from the
students at the North London School that was studied. These pie charts create
visual representations that provide the reader with an easy-to-read data analysis
that can be quickly understood.
Finally, the conclusion summarises the evidence found within the analysis,
and provides answers to the aforementioned research questions.

2. Methodology – Assignment 2
The methodology for the research undertaken within this project has been
created in line with the Honeycomb of Research Methodology as created by
Jonathan Wilson. The Honeycomb separates the methodology in to 6 clear
sections: Research Philosophy, Research Approach, Research Strategy, Research
Design, Data Collection and, Data and Analysis Technique (Wilson, 2014). By
using this framework a clear and concise methodology has been formed, leading
to clearer and more precise results within the analysis. This research hopes to
answer the question of “Why is the female uptake of economics so low?”
Philosophy
This research seeks to investigate why the female uptake of economics at A-level
is so low. In the literature review it was found that despite females making up
around 55% of total A-level entries only 33% of total Economics entrants were
female. It is hoped through this research will helps teachers to reverse the
current trend and seek to have a more gender-balanced classroom.
An interpretivist approach has been undertaken within this analysis, as the data
collected will be qualitative rather than quantitative. Wilson (2014, pp. 8), states
that this approach may be used “because you believe that the social aspects of
business are too complicated to be measured along the same basis as the natural
sciences.” Therefore, the researcher deemed qualitative data to be too
complicated to be measured unlike the quantitative data that tends to be
collected in natural sciences. Essentially, whilst one can quantify entries you
might not be able to quantify reasons behind the data i.e. the causality. This is
problematic it’s the causality that is the focus of this research.
Research Approach
The nature of the hypothesis set forward in this research lends itself to a
inductive approach. The inductive approach is noted by K. F. Hyde (2000, pp. 83)
as, “a theory-building process, starting with observations of specific instances,
and seeking to establish generalisation about the phenomenon under
investigation.” It is this observation by Hyde that draws parallels with what this
researcher is attempting to carry out as the research seeks to draw a conclusion
independent of other studies.
Research Strategy
Quantitative and Qualitative data are fundamentally different and yet can be
used in tandem to good effect. Wilson (2014) explains that, “quantitative
research examines data, whilst qualitative inquiry examines data that is
narrative.” This research has used quantitative data during the literature review
in order to gain the facts and figures required to create an understanding of the
situation. However, it will also use qualitative data in order to understand why
the situation has occurred.

3. The quantitative will be reliable as it is retrieved from a notable source.
However, there may be issues guaranteeing the validity of the qualitative data as
some respondents may feel the need to conform. Consequently the responses
maybe the what the students think the researcher or others want to hear as
appose to their own personal view.
Data Collection
A combination of Secondary data, and Primary data is used for this research
project. Secondary data is the data that has “been collected by other researchers”
(Wilson, 2014, pp. 188), whereas Primary Data is data, which is, ”information
gathered for the purpose of your own study” (Wilson, 2014, pp. 149). The
secondary data was collected solely from the JCQ due to the limited number of
sources of A-level entry data. The primary data, will only be derived from a
participating school in London, however, this might begin to shed light on
reasons why females are choosing a future away from Economics. It is important
to note at this stage the North London School is made up of 627 male students
compared to 584 female students, giving a gender ratio of 51.8% male : 48.2%
female.
Data and Analysis Technique
The data in this research was collected through a questionnaire sent out to all
Economics students within the North London School that was studied. This data
was then turned into pie charts that were subsequently critically analysed within
the Analysis section. These results are reliable because no prior knowledge of
why the questions were being asked, or any other influential information was
given to the students prior to them handing back the completed questionnaires.
However, some students may have sought to be deliberately obstinate as part of
some form of joke, therefore some results may have become contaminated
through these actions.

4. Literature Review – Assignment 2
This section presents the theoretical work that has been completed prior to this
investigation. Sadly, very little research has been undertaken on understanding
why gender has such a vast influence on the subjects that are chosen at A-level
by students. One could suggest that an influential factor might be the advice
given within the school(s) rather than the gender of the recipients of that advice.
This gives rise to the potential for inbuilt gender bias in IAG. The focus in this
area has mainly been on attainment levels between genders, and as such this
literature review focuses mainly on 3 journals, with minor supplements from the
Department for Education and Skills, and Times Higher Education.
Recently, the Department for Education and Skills conducted an
investigation into Gender and education, which included key findings on A-Level
entries and subject choice. Within this section it notes that:
Gender differences in subject choice are greater at A-Level than at GCSE.
Girls’ most popular subject is English, while boys’ is Maths. Psychology, Art
and Design, Sociology and Media/Film/Television Studies are amongst the
10 most popular choices for girls (but not boys), while Physics, Business
Studies, Geography and Physical Education are in the top 10 for boys (but
not girls) (Department for Education and Skills, 2007, p. 3)
At this early stage it could be noted at this point that the skills sets required for
the girls preferred subjects are similar (English based), and same could be said
for the boys preferred subjects (Maths based), as was suggested by the
Department for Education and Skills. Therefore, it is a possibility that differing
genders are more prone to picking up different skills, and consequently subjects
are chosen that compliment that particular skill set.
This is further supported on an international scale through the key
findings by PISA. The Department for Education and Skills (2007, pp. 84) noted
that:
Overall, PISA found that girls generally outperformed boys in reading
while boys tended to outperform girls in maths. The differences, however,
between boys and girls were much greater for reading than for maths,
which were relatively small. In Maths, boys were significantly ahead of
girls in half the participating countries. In literacy, girls scored
significantly better than boys in all but one participating country.
This would support the previous theory that that a possible reason for some
subjects being more popular with boys than girls and vice versa. By
understanding the strengths of each gender, this may begin to indicate how
gender affects subject choice. On the other hand, the presence of an anomaly may
suggest that cultural norms play a part in developing the skill set of boys or girls.
It may be, therefore, that biological reasons are not the fundamental cause of
subject strengths.

5. Eccles (1994) looked more closely into the psychology of women in
general. Her research focuses on the reason why women do not go into certain
job types/fields. However, this eventuality can stem from a much earlier period
in one’s life. For example, it is highly unlikely that a person that does not do
Physics at A-level would become a physicist. Eccles (1994, p. 604) suggests that a
possible reason why women do not enter certain fields is that:
With regard to the gender difference in the occupations linked to math
and physical science in particular, women are less likely to enter these
fields than men, both because they have less confidence in their abilities
and because they place less subjective value on these fields than on other
possible occupational niches.
This means that as a result of skills sets ascertained throughout their lives in
education, people generally make the logical decision choose a subject that
compliments their skill set. This results in women avoiding more Maths
orientated subjects, and men avoiding more English orientated subjects.
However, Eccles (1994) goes on further to suggest that social stereotypes
of gender roles, play a part in the self-perception of ones ability to perform
certain tasks or functions. Eccles (1994, pp. 605) highlights this view when
stating “Furthermore, gendered socialization practices at home, in the schools,
and among peers play a major role in shaping these individual differences in self-
perceptions and subjective task values.” Consequently, this suggests that a
culture exists that could create a perceived divide between “masculine” and
“feminine” subjects. This would therefore put off some genders from certain
subjects, as they feel their gender is not suited/ does belong to that subject.
Whitehead (1996) also follows this alternative theory with regards to
stereotypical gender roles. Whitehead’s (1996, pp. 147) research states that:
Boys showed much more bias in their subject choices and those choosing
exclusively masculine subjects were much more likely to support traditional sex
roles and to conform to traditional notions of masculinity. No such pattern was
found for girls. Girls doing feminine subjects were more likely to have non-
stereotyped views than those doing masculine subjects and were equally
unlikely to conform to traditional notions of femininity.
Although this is within the realms of possibility, it does have its clear limitations.
For example, one would not necessarily consider Economics to be a particularly
masculine subject, and yet only 33% of A-level (Guardian, 2014) entrants are
female.
Despite the limitations, this view has been held for many years, as
demonstrated by the research of Dale (1974, p. 265). Ormerod (1975) noted
during his research, “Dale (1974) postulates a polarisation hypothesis to explain
his findings and tends to ascribe it to loss or gain of morale in one sex or the
other when they find they are faring better or worse than the other sex being
educated alongside them”. This suggests the presence of a rivalry between

6. genders and that when one gender sees the other gender outperforming them, it
demoralises them, and may again be a further reason behind the decision to
choose one subject over another.
Most interestingly though, Dale (1974, pp.257) created, “An investigation
of the effect of attitudes towards teachers [that] showed a relationship between
liking for teacher and subject preference, but not subject choice.” Therefore, it
can be surmised that liking the teacher is a way of securing a students preference
for your subject over another; however, it does not ultimately necessarily lead to
that particular student choosing to undertake the subject at A-level.
Drawing from the research gathered above, the investigation will be
focusing on 3 main themes. Does Economics put off female students due to the
Maths skills required to do well in the subject? Does there remain a genuine
threat of subjects being stereotyped, and does this apply to Economics? Finally,
how much of an impact does liking the teacher have when it comes down to the
final selection of subjects at A-level? From answering these three questions, an
image of the reasons behind why and how female students are put off of taking
economics emerges, as well as an indication of how this trend can be changed in
the future to encourage female students towards economics. In focusing upon
this preference of male students towards economics as given by Eccles, what our
investigation may uncover is the presence of a cultural norm which influences
students based on their gender towards studying certain subjects rather than a
biological reason for this phenomenon. If this proves to be the case, I shall
provide a detailed analysis of how certain obstacles which endorse this culture
can be reversed such as through promoting strong female business/economics
role models and utilising different educational tools that may better suit a
classroom targeted at maintaining or encouraging a female demographic.

7. Analysis
This section seeks to resolve the question of why the female uptake of Economics
is so low. It will seek to do this in two parts. Firstly I will analyse the
demographic and entry data from the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ). This
will enable me to gain an understanding of how many female students opt to
take Economics at A-level. I will then compare this data to the findings I have
gathered from the investigations undertaken at a North London School.
Moreover, all Economics students (subject to attendance) were asked to
fill in a questionnaire regarding their reasons behind choosing subjects. This
questionnaire was given out to 93 students from Year 10 through to Year 13,
which provided an insight into the student’s attitudes towards choosing their
subjects, rather than merely looking at the empirical data. In addition there were
extra questions at the end that related to their feelings regarding why the female
uptake of Economics was so low. In the subsections that follow the data is shown
in the form of pie charts, and analysed accordingly. To see an example of the
questionnaire sent out, please see Appendix 1.
The National Picture – (Refer to Appendix 2)
Initially it should be noted that England between 2013 and 2014 saw a decline in
total A-level entries from 850752 to 833807, a fall of 1.99%(JCQ, 2015). The
nature of this decline indicates that more students are opting to not take their A-
levels, and instead maybe undertaking vocational qualifications instead.
Using the data from Appendix 2 the first notable comparison to draw is
that the subjects: Business, Economics and Psychology vary considerably in
terms of total entries into the subject. Whilst Business and Economics have entry
levels of 26745 and 26612 respectively, Psychology is a far more popular subject
nationally with entry figures of 54818. In spite of this, the 2014 entry data shows
a decline of 2.26% for Psychology and 3.35% for Business, whereas Economics
saw a growth of 1.81% bucking the trend, despite total A-level entries. One
reason for the rise in Economics popularity could be due to the increased media
attention as a result of the recent financial crisis in 2008. It is therefore
imperative that Economics appeals to students of both genders, as it is becoming
a more popular A-level option.
The primary reason for Psychology and Business being chosen as a point
of comparison with Economics is for Business to provide a similar subject, with
reduced gender ratio issues, whilst Psychology has the opposite gender ratio
issue. The gender ratio for Economics is 67.58%: 32.42% male to female entries,
meaning that males hold an almost 2/3rd’s majority to female students. On the
other hand, Psychology has a gender ratio of 24.9%: 75.1% male to female ratio,
which results in a ¾ majority for females over males. Whilst Business holds a
more respectable ratio of 57.96%: 42.04%, whilst still indicating a male majority,
this is much less pronounced. There must be a rational explanation for these
trends, which I will endeavour to explore in the subsequent sections.

8. Most worryingly, the gender ratio trends for both Psychology and
Economics, indicates that this trend is likely to worsen. The reason behind this is
that Psychology saw a decline of 5.17% in male entries compared to a fall of just
1.26% for female entries. In addition, Economics saw a decrease of 0.55% in
female entries with a rise of 2.98% in male entries. The Economics figures are
worse in light of the fall of 2.5% of total A-level male entries, whilst the female
equivalent fell just 1.57%. Despite these disappointing figures, Business saw a
rebalancing of its gender ratio with a decline of 4.72% for male entries with a fall
of just 1.4% for females. What these statistics tell us is that although the number
of female students taking Economics is a small proportion, this proportion is
dwindling and based on the current statistics it is possible to predict that fewer
and fewer female students will take Economics in the following years.
Gender
Below is a graphical representation of the gender ratio at a north London school,
where the study took place. What this shows is the larger blue section is male
students, which make up 74% of the overall total of students taking Economics.
Whereas the red section comprising of 26% is female Economics students.
From the pie chart we can see that this particular school has only 26% of females
taking Economics, this means that the school has a worse gender ratio than the
national average. The male domination of this subject is particularly evident in
the year 11 group that is all male. Upon speaking to the teacher of the class, he
explained that although initially there were some female students in the group,
they each dropped the subject one by one. This could suggest that the male
domination of the subject lead them to dropping the subject. But, no exit
questionnaire was conducted and as such no one can be sure of the exact
motives behind them dropping Economics. This particular school’s
demographics are indicative of the problem facing Economics in that it is
perceived as a male/ masculine subject. This trend needs to be acknowledged
and measures taken to reduce the impact of this phenomenon.
69
24
Gender
Male
Female

9. On the other hand 40% of 6th Form Economics students are female. This
indicates that either there is a downward trend for the female uptake of
Economics, or alternatively there is greater female uptake at A-level than at
GCSE. In order to find out more about the motives behind choosing the subjects,
follow up questions were asked to all the Economics students (subject to
attendance) at both GCSE and A-Level. The graph below shows the distribution
of the answers from each year group.
The pie chart above shows that 33% of respondents were from the Year
10’s as indicated by the blue section of the chart. The next biggest response, as
pictured by the purple section, was from Year 13 students, making up 26% of
total responses. Only 23% were from Year 11, depicted in Red, whilst the
smallest percentage was from Y12’s making up just 18% of responses, depicted
as lime green on the chart. The number of students asked could therefore be
increased in respect to Y12 and Y13 respondents, as the data gathered from
these students is imperative to the study at hand.
31
21
17
24
Year Group
10
11
12
13

10. How much does liking the teacher impact your decision to choose a
subject?
The graph above shows the distribution of answers to the question, “How much
does liking the teacher impact your decision to choose a subject?” Students were
given 4 options, these were: 1 - Doesn't affect my decision at all, 2 - Doesn't affect
my decision that much, 3 - Mildly affects my decision, 4 - It changes my decision
entirely. An overwhelming majority conceded that it does mildly affect their
decision, which combined with an all male Economics/Business staff at the north
London school, hints at the possibility that an all male staff may relate more to
the male students and therefore female students are perhaps put off.
It is particularly interesting to note that of the three Psychology teachers
currently at the school, all of them are female. This suggests that in subjects
where there are more female teachers, female students maybe encouraged to
take the class. Moreover, it could be through generations of more female
students taking Psychology that has lead to more female students going on to
become Psychology teachers, therefore it is a vicious circle of continuously
highly amounts of female students picking subjects the majority of which are ran
by female teachers. The students then continue this circle by becoming
Psychology teachers.
However, this is a localised example and would not offer an explanation
on a national scale, in order to investigate this further, a survey indicating the
gender ratio of male to female economics teachers would be required. What can
be known though is that the male to female ratio of the current IOE PGCE
Economics course is 6 males to 8 females; a fair distribution with slight
weighting towards females. If this ratio was found to be true across all
Economics teachers, we could effectively rule out this explanation on a national
basis.
8
24
45
16
Liking the teacher
1
2
3
4

11. Does gender stereotyping still occur when it comes to choosing subjects - If yes,
which subjects?
The chart above shows the feelings of students about the legitimate presence of
gender stereotyping surrounding subjects. From this pie chart it is clear to see
that this question has divided opinion across students of all genders and year
groups. Despite the no vote having a slim majority over yes, the statistical
evidence proves to the contrary. Given the results of this particular question
proving contrary to the national statistics, it would be prudent to assume that
either the gender stereotyping is subconscious, or that different genders
generally develop different strengths and therefore choose subjects that play to
those strengths. These theories are in line with those highlighted within the
literature review.
45
46
2
0
Gender Stereotyping
Yes
No
NAG
Maybe

12. Does the Maths involved in Economics put people off choosing it?
This question follows on from the previous one in discovering the potential
reasons why females may be put off the subject. The previous section suggested
that females are playing to their strengths when making the subject choices. This
particular question drew some interesting comments from the students, which
included, “there is no maths” and “the maths is a joke…” These comments came
wholly from the male students and therefore it was prudent to investigate the
females view more thoroughly.
Upon separating out the female answers from the male ones, it was found
that females were ultimately undecided on the maths issue, or myth as one
respondent commented. The female respondents were split evenly 11 to 11 on
the issue of Maths. These results have therefore failed to provide conclusive
evidence that Maths is a definitive reason for students being put off the subject.
However, it still advisable that the Maths myth be dispelled, as the Maths in
Economics at this level is decidedly easier than it is portrayed; dispelling the
myth could enhance general entry numbers into economics, if only nominally.
Maths Involved
Yes
No
NAG
Maybe

13. Why do you believe fewer girls choose Economics than boys?
The next section of the questionnaire includes 2 open questions designed to
allow for students to voice their own opinions.
Despite the questions being asked of the students stirring up much conversation
in the classroom, very few students were able to come up with reasons why the
female uptake of economics was so low, or how this trend could be reversed.
What suggestions that were given however could be easily categorised into 5
categories: MS, mind-set; OP, opportunity; GS, gender stereotyping; MD, male
domination of the subject; and MA, Maths aspect. These categories were put in
place because the answers were so similar and to make it easier to quantify the
results. MRG was created to signify that the respondent gave more than one
reason and therefore more than one category could be applied.
Once you exclude the “NAG’s” the two most predominant reasons given
were gender stereotyping and mind-set. The two could be intrinsically linked in
that it could be that they feel that they are unable to do the subject because of
ingrained stereotyping, or alternatively that due to media led perceptions of
economists that females are not attracted to the subject.
However, when splitting the female answers from the male answers, the
predominant suggested cause was lack of awareness of the subject, cited as OP
(opportunity) in the results. This gives credence to a further suggestion that in
fact it is not gender stereotyping or the likes, but in fact that the world of
economics is simply not presented to females, unlike their male counterparts.
Therefore, the resolution could be much easier to deal with on a local level, by
simply advertising economics to potential female students lower down in the
school.
1
14
6
38
16
9
7
Why Fewer
MRG
MS
OP
NAG
GS
MD
MA

14. What do you believe could be done to reverse this trend?
Once again, as previously mentioned, students were short of ideas as to how to
attract more female students to the subject. However, those that were able to
provide a response fell easily into two categories. These categories are notarised
as: IA, Increase Awareness, and; MFR, More Female Role Models. 59% of
students were either unable to provide an answer or suggested the status quo
was inevitable; these answers are noted as NAG, No Answer Given.
Of the two constructive idea groups, Increase Awareness was the most
popular, with 29% of students suggesting that by increasing the awareness of
what exactly Economics is about, and therefore dispelling any myths
surrounding the subject, female uptake of the subject would rise. The comments
from students suggested that this process would require reaching out to younger
students prior to them deciding to take the subject, along with presentations or
advice from current female students to advise and be part of a process of
creating a targeted marketing campaign for the subject.
54
26
11
What Can Be Done
NAG
IA
MFR

15. Conclusion
Why is the female uptake of economics so low? This is the question that started
off my research undertaken in a North London School. This research has turned
up some interesting results, which can be summarised in the following
statements. The North London School used in this study has a higher level of
males compared to females than the national average, and therefore was an ideal
candidate for this particular investigation. This is due to the fact that there was a
greater proportion of male students compared to female students, a proportion
that was higher than the national average. It was an ideal candidate to assess the
reasons behind why this was the case as any reasons that were given would be
more evident in this school than it would be nationally.
As I have been training and have developed a rapport with the students,
to rule out individual teacher bias the students were asked whether liking the
teacher had an impact on their subject choices. 74% of students said that liking
the teacher bore little to no influence on their decision, proving that it is not
simply unpopular Economics teachers putting females off the subject. This result
has led me to find that it is not in the relationship between the teacher and the
student that has led to more students taking the subject but rather that it is the
perceptions of the subject itself, which has caused this phenomenon.
Upon the realisation of this conclusion the questionnaire asks a range of
questions surrounding possible reasons female students could be put off the
subject. Initially this section was formed based on: Gender stereotyping of
subjects and, the Maths involved in Economics. The gender stereotyping study
proved inconclusive with denial of its presence holding a majority of just one no
vote, over the yes vote. However, the question of Maths in Economics drew up
some far more conclusive evidence. 62% of students denied that Maths was a
problem in Economics, with some students even suggesting that the apparent
Maths involved in Economics at this level is a myth and a joke. However, female
opinion was split evenly on the issue, suggesting that this may be a more
pressing concern for female rather than male students.
Opinions given by the students about why female students were not
taking Economics found common ground in that most suggested that female
students simply either did not know what economics was about or felt that they
were not suited to the subject due to the way the subject is advertised. This was
followed up by suggestions by students to increase awareness of what
Economics is truly about, with a focus on creating a bigger appeal to female
students, perhaps by encouraging current female students to advertise/ market
the subject on the teachers behalf. This relates to the literature review conducted
in that it is not a cultural norm that has led to the development of typical male or
female subjects but in the way in which the subjects are advertised towards
particular genders.
Despite the successes of this project in finding potential answers to the
research question, this research could be followed up with a few extra research
items. Firstly, students within the Psychology department could be given a

16. similar questionnaire. The results from this survey could be used as a point of
comparison, and would provide a much more detailed study into the psychology
behind subject choices. In addition, given more time and resources a series of
focus groups should be set up to give greater details on the reasons why female
students choose certain subjects over others.
Further research should look into the possibility of gender stereotypes
being resultant from the differing natural predispositions of male and female
students to pick up certain skills. In understanding why females and males pick
up certain skills, we could understand why some stereotypes have been
established and whether any of them have any merit. In addition, by receiving
greater numbers in terms of the responses given by students who fall into the
desired bracket of study, the reliability, and applicability of the research to the
national trends would be much improved.
In light of these considerations, my study has shown that the reason
behind female students being less attracted towards economics can be found in
the way in which it is sold to students who are considering their A-level options.
It is therefore imperative that economics is marketed towards female students
through clarifying the nature of the study and its importance in going on to
further education.

17. References
Dale, R. R., 1974. Mixed or Single-Sex Schools. Vol. 3. London : Routledge and
Kegan Higher Education. London : HMSO. Paul.
Department for Education and Skills, 2007. Gender and Education: the evidence
on pupils in England. [Online] Available at: <
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.edu
cation.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00389-2007BKT-EN.pdf>
[Accessed 10/4/15]
Eccles, Jacquelynne, 1994. S.8300 Defect for UNSW Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 1994, Vol.18(4), p.585-609
The Guardian, 2014. A-Level results 2014: the full breakdown. [Online] Available
at: <http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/14/a-level-
results-2014-the-full-breakdown> [Accessed 10/4/15]
Whitehead, J. M., 1996. Sex stereotypes, gender identity and subject choice at
A‐level, Educational Research, 38:2, p.147-160
Wilson, J., 2014. Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research
Project. London: Sage

18. Appendix 1
1. Gender?
Female
Male
2. What year group are you in?
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
3. How much does liking the teacher impact your decision to choose a subject?
1 – Doesn’t affect my decision at all
2 – Doesn’t affect my decision that much
3 – Mildly affects my decision
4 – It changes my decision entirely
4. Does gender stereotyping still occur when it comes to choosing subjects – If yes,
which subjects
Yes
No
Comment:
5. Does the Maths involved in Economics put people off choosing it?
Yes
No
6. Why do you believe fewer girls choose Economics than boys?
7. What do you believe could be done to reverse this trend?
All comments will remain confidential and anonymous