Factors influencing women’s participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis

Factors influencing women’s participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Factors influencing women’s participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis Sara María Yepes Zuluaga, Vanessa García Pineda, Paula Andrea Rodríguez-Correa This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The persistent gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) continues to limit women’s full participation, particularly in engineering. Consequently, this study explored the experiences, motivations, and challenges faced by female engineering students and graduates in Colombia. A focus group was conducted with eight participants using a qualitative approach to examine the factors influencing women’s engagement in engineering. Variables considered included age, domestic roles, socioeconomic status, academic performance, and perceptions of gender stereotypes. Most participants were single, identified as daughters within their households, and held varying degrees of economic responsibility. Their motivation to pursue engineering careers was driven by personal growth, job prospects, and encouragement from close family members—especially male figures such as fathers and brothers. The study also highlighted the positive influence of academic and personal role models, as well as the importance of emotional and spiritual support. Despite challenges related to time management, academic demands, and underrepresentation, participants expressed satisfaction with their career choice. They also underscored the need for mentors who support both academic achievement and work–life balance. The findings point to the urgent need to foster inclusive academic environments, increase the visibility of female role models, and reinforce institutional strategies to retain and support women in STEM. Social science/Education Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Gender gap Higher education Women in STEM Qualitative research Focus group 1. Introduction 1.1. Background on women’s participation in higher education and engineering in Latin America Globally, women remain significantly underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in engineering, physics, computing, and applied mathematics. According to UNESCO (2019), women comprise only 35% of students enrolled in STEM programs in higher education worldwide and just 28% of the global scientific research workforce. Their representation is even lower in specific disciplines: women account for merely 3% of students in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) programs; 5% in natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics; and 8% in engineering, manufacturing, and construction. This gender gap not only limits equitable access to knowledge but also undermines diversity, innovation, and the sustainability of global technological advancement (Cobreros et al., 2024). In Latin America, although women’s enrollment in higher education has grown over recent decades, their participation in STEM fields remains disproportionately low. In countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Peru, women’s representation in engineering programs rarely exceeds 30%. Greater participation is observed in areas such as food and chemical engineering, whereas enrollment is markedly lower in disciplines like electronic, mechanical, or computer engineering. For instance, at the Universidad Nacional de San Luis (Argentina), only 23.41% of engineering students are women, and in ICT-related programs such as computer and electronic engineering, the proportion drops to just 10.7% (Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, 2024). These figures reflect enduring educational and societal structures shaped by gender stereotypes and institutional barriers that continue to impede the full inclusion of women in technical and scientific domains. Similar challenges are evident in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia–Pacific, where cultural norms and labor market dynamics continue to restrict women’s access to technical professions. In Southern Africa, for example, Maccaro et al. (2024a) documented how biomedical engineering maintenance tasks—socially linked to domestic roles traditionally performed by women—are often assigned to men due to institutional bias, thereby limiting women’s access to technical and leadership positions. In response, several governments and multilateral organizations have launched initiatives to promote gender equity in engineering. A noteworthy example is the Women in Engineering program established by the Federal Council of Engineering Deans of the Republic of Argentina (CONFEDI, in Spanish). This initiative seeks to encourage women to pursue engineering degrees, challenge gender stereotypes, and foster inclusive policies across educational institutions and technical work environments (Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, 2024). These types of institutional strategies provide a foundation for monitoring and evaluating gender-focused policies and reflect a regional commitment to advancing a more equitable and transformative educational system. In Colombia, the situation closely reflects the broader regional challenges. According to ACOFI (2024), Colombia currently offers 1,221 professional engineering programs across 188 higher education institutions. However, programs such as electronic and telecommunications engineering account for only 7% of the total, with consistently low female enrollment. This gender gap is even more pronounced in intermediate and rural areas, where women face compounded barriers, including a lack of female role models, limited early exposure to technology, and restricted access to infrastructure. While some institutional progress has been made, a deeper understanding of the cultural, social, and academic factors that shape women’s educational trajectories is essential to fostering greater inclusion and retention in engineering fields. 1.2. Women in engineering fields Despite institutional and policy efforts to promote equity, women’s participation in engineering programs continues to face multiple barriers. These range from internalized gender stereotypes formed during childhood to the lack of role models and support networks in academic and professional settings (UNDP, 2024). In both the Latin American and Colombian contexts, statistics reveal a low proportion of women enrolled (29%) and graduating (34%) from engineering programs, with participation further affected during periods of crisis such as the pandemic (Carrillo Lanzabal et al., 2024). This gender gap is partly explained by institutional cultures that reinforce male-dominated norms and by rigid curricular structures. Research by Liang et al. (2023) highlights how women in leadership roles within university engineering teams develop resilience in the face of exclusion, although they are frequently subjected to doubts about their competence and legitimacy. Other studies underscore the importance of a sense of belonging in spaces such as academic makerspaces, which can significantly influence whether women remain in or leave technical programs (Bravo & Austin-Breneman, 2023). The issue of low female participation in engineering is not limited to access; it also encompasses cultural environments, leadership dynamics, perceptions of self-efficacy, and the balance between academic and personal life (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023; Ellen Boccuzzi et al., 2021; Héctor Orlando et al., 2024). In Colombia, recent studies have highlighted the importance of faculty support, mentorship, and well-being strategies as key factors for retention among women in engineering (Héctor Orlando et al., 2024; Tarazona Galán et al., 2024). These findings emphasize the need to understand the motivations, barriers, and lived experiences of women as they navigate higher education in engineering. Recent qualitative research has shown that motivational factors such as a vocation for service, identification with female role models in STEM, and a desire to challenge stereotypes play a critical role in women’s decisions to enter and remain in these fields (Vanantwerp & Wilson, 2015). However, these studies also reveal that many women experience identity conflicts when attempting to adapt to masculinized organizational cultures (Corple et al., 2018). Therefore, a comprehensive approach is required to explore how women construct their professional identities in engineering based on their own voices, practices, and contexts. Understanding the factors that influence women’s participation in engineering has direct implications for the development of educational and equity-focused policies. As E. G. Creamer (2009) notes, institutions with higher female enrollment in engineering share favorable cultural characteristics, such as recognition of diversity, established reporting mechanisms for sexist behavior, and a supportive institutional environment. A qualitative approach is especially suitable for capturing these experiences through the perspectives of students and professionals themselves. Using interviews, co-creation workshops, and focus groups, various studies have identified that inclusive policies, the acknowledgment of diverse career paths, and the strengthening of women’s networks in engineering are key components for closing the gender gap (Vipiana & Migliaccio, 2025; Vipiana & Reddy, 2024). Considering the above, this article presents a qualitative analysis of the factors associated with women’s participation in STEM disciplines, with a focus on the field of engineering. Its aim is to identify—through narrated experiences—the cultural, social, economic, and institutional conditions that influence women’s decisions to enter, remain, and thrive in these disciplines. The study is grounded in the need to produce context-specific knowledge that contributes to the design of gender-sensitive educational policies and strategies. 2. Literature review 2.1. Factors influencing career choice 2.1.1. Motivation Motivation for career choice can vary significantly between men and women, particularly in fields traditionally dominated by men, such as engineering. According to Ryan and Deci ( 2000 ), Self-Determination Theory (SDT) offers a valuable framework to analyze this phenomenon by distinguishing between controlled motivation, driven by external factors such as social approval or financial rewards, and autonomous motivation, which arises from internal satisfaction and alignment with personal values Deci and Ryan ( 2008 ). As the authors explain, while controlled motivations may lead to a gradual decline in commitment, autonomous motivations tend to produce more positive long-term outcomes, which may help explain, in part, the disparities in retention rates between men and women in engineering (Vanantwerp & Wilson, 2015 ). A detailed examination of these motivational drivers can offer deeper insights into the factors that influence both career choice and persistence in the field. 2.1.2. Mentorship Despite progress in promoting the inclusion of women in engineering, they remain underrepresented in certain fields, including geotechnical, mechatronic, and electronic engineering (Alestalo et al., 2015 ). Challenges related to equity, isolation, and inadequate mentorship affect both recruitment and retention. Furthermore, women continue to struggle for equal recognition compared to their male counterparts, which reinforces a sense of exclusion. This phenomenon, known as the ‘Matilda Effect,’ illustrates how women’s achievements are often undervalued, while men receive greater recognition and mentorship opportunities (Lincoln et al., 2012 ). Similarly, academic literature underscores the importance of role models and mentors in the professional development of women in engineering, as these factors have been shown to increase job satisfaction, productivity, and retention (Laefer et al., 2007 ). However, the shortage of prominent female mentors, exacerbated by geographic dispersion and implicit bias, contributes to professional isolation and limits women’s access to the support networks that are essential for success (Mancl & Lee, 2017 ). Moreover, the few women present in engineering fields are disproportionately burdened with mentoring responsibilities, which reduces their availability and capacity to support the next generation. As women face these barriers, non-traditional mentorship models and broader support networks become vital to overcoming isolation and underrepresentation (Maccaro et al., 2024b ). 2.1.3. Gender disparities Although women have made significant inroads into engineering over the past decades, substantial gender disparities remain. Inequalities in opportunities and recognition have been widely documented and continue to affect the professional development, retention, and advancement of women engineers in the field (E. Creamer, 2009 ). One clear manifestation of this inequality can be seen in higher education and professional recognition, where women receive significantly fewer awards and honors than their male peers (Abdalnour et al., 2023 ). According to the Colombian Association of Engineering Faculties (ACOFI, in Spanish), women accounted for only 31% of total enrollment in engineering programs in Colombia in 2023 (ACOFI, 2024 ). While this figure represents progress, it still highlights the underrepresentation of women in a field largely dominated by men. Additionally, women encounter obstacles in academic and professional settings, including isolation, implicit bias, and unequal opportunities regarding salary and career advancement (Maccaro et al., 2024b ). 2.1.4. Work–life balance Achieving a balance between personal and professional life is a common challenge, but it is particularly complex for women pursuing careers in engineering. Family, social, and cultural expectations often exert significant influence over women's professional decisions, while limited workplace support and understanding can impede both career advancement and overall well-being (Sands et al., 1991 ). The presence of mentors—especially female mentors—has been identified as a critical resource, offering not only technical and professional guidance but also support in managing personal challenges, such as balancing work and family responsibilities (Gibson, 2006 ). Research indicates that women tend to seek mentors who can empathize with these difficulties, as topics related to personal life may be less easily addressed with male mentors. The dual demands of professional and familial expectations frequently impose an additional burden on women, making adequate mentorship and institutional support vital (Mancl & Lee, 2017 ). In light of these considerations, this study poses a series of research questions aimed at understanding how women in engineering navigate the challenge of balancing academic, professional, and personal commitments. Specifically, it investigates the factors influencing STEM career choices among female students enrolled in different academic levels and across various engineering programs. The study is guided by the following research questions: What are the perceptions of female engineering students regarding the factors influencing their choice of career? How, and to what extent, do these perceptions change after engaging in interviews with prominent women scientists and engineers currently working in the field ? 3. Methodology This study employed a qualitative approach. As explained by Haven and Van Grootel ( 2019 ), qualitative data are typically gathered through interviews, focus groups (structured group discussions), or observations. This allows the research phenomenon to be explored through a variety of perspectives, revealing and facilitating understanding of multiple facets of the issue and highlighting the subjects’ viewpoints relevant to the research question (Baxter & Jack, 2015 ). Additionally, this study used a phenomenological design, which is considered suitable for examining the lived experiences of the target population in order to understand the factors influencing female students’ and graduates’ choice and persistence in engineering programs (Duque & Aristizábal Díaz-Granados, 2019 ). Discourse analysis was used as the method of data collection, specifically through focus groups, to address participants’ perspectives and experiences during their engineering education. The interview was supplemented with closed-ended questions related to sociodemographic information, the highest educational level attained by their parents and siblings, and their perception of the representation of women in their professional field compared to men. 3.1. Study context and participants The study targeted female students and graduates from engineering programs at a higher education institution in Medellín, Colombia. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, defined by Pérez-Luco Arenas et al. ( 2017 ) as the intentional selection of participants based on pre-established criteria grounded in theoretical or empirical considerations. This approach follows an intrinsic case logic, emphasizing the value of each case in itself. Inclusion criteria included gender (women), academic level (from second-semester students to recent graduates), and willingness to share personal experiences. Participants were drawn from the following programs: Automation and Electronics, Systems Engineering, Financial Engineering, Telecommunications Engineering, and Electromechanical Engineering. To support the focus group discussion, a video featuring five prominent women engineers from Medellín was presented. The video aimed to showcase their achievements, inspire future generations, and foster reflection on strategies to reduce the gender gap in engineering. These women served as role models and were selected based on their professional prominence, holding doctoral degrees and working as university professors, retired professionals, or scientific directors in industry. For the application of this interview, approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Vice-R ector’s Office for Research of the Metropolitan Technological Institute. Additionally, before the application of the interview, consent for information and data processing was declared so that the respondents could make the decision whether to continue with the interview. However, at no time were sensitive data requested, nor were personal data of any of the participants revealed. Also, it is clarified that if the specific resolution of the committee’s approval is necessary, given the confidentiality of this documentation at the institutional level, said information may be requested from the main author. It is important to clarify that due to the institution’s data protection and confidentiality policy, the data provided was only used for academic and institutional knowledge purposes and only the data that contribute to research on social media was used, therefore that information on the identification of persons or personal or confidential data was not used, disclosed or published. Additionally, the provisions of Law 1581 of 2012, ‘By which general provisions are issued for the protection of personal data’ and in accordance with the provisions of Decree 1377 of 2013, have been complied with. 3.2. Research process The focus group was conducted in the auditorium of the higher education institution’s research park, home to various STEM laboratories. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to explore themes related to motivation, mentorship, gender disparities, and work–life balance. The session lasted approximately two hours and was organized into thematic blocks aligned with the study variables. It was complemented by a video compiling the narratives and reflections of the five featured women engineers, who had been interviewed using the same guiding questions. This approach enabled a comparative analysis of experiences between established professionals and student participants. The session concluded with a set of reflective, closing questions. The focus group was moderated by a facilitator and an observer. The observer documented participants’ expressions and contributed to the analysis of group discourse, while the facilitator guided the discussion and encouraged participant engagement. Additionally, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain detailed and flexible responses. These interviews began with open-ended questions, allowing flexibility to adapt based on participants’ responses (Troncoso-Pantoja & Amaya-Placencia, 2017). The interview protocol was organized around four key thematic categories: (1) Motivation; (2) Mentorship and role models; (3) Gender gaps and disparities; and (4) Work–life balance. The instrument also gathered sociodemographic data, including age, academic semester, degree program, marital status, socioeconomic background, domestic role (e.g., daughter or spouse), and financial responsibility (e.g., financially dependent, co-provider, or primary provider). Questions also addressed participants’ motivations for pursuing engineering, the influence of mentors, perceptions of gender-based barriers, and strategies for balancing personal and professional roles. Table 1 presents the corresponding interview questions. Table 1 Study categories and indicators Category Code Source Motivation 1. Could you tell us why you decided to study engineering? If curiosity is mentioned, follow up with: What sparked this curiosity? (Bezak et al., 2019 ; Casagrande & Souza, 2016 ; VanAntwerp & Wilson, 2015 ) 2. Are you satisfied with your choice of career? 3. In what ways, if any, have your family, worldview, faith, or spirituality influenced your decision to pursue engineering? Mentorship and role models 4. Were the friends or relatives who influenced your decision men or women? If it was a family member, ask: Who in your family influenced you? (Casagrande & Souza, 2016 ; Mancl & Lee, 2017 ) 5. Do you think those mentors (e.g., teachers, relatives, friends, etc.) should also exist in the personal sphere—that is, someone who can guide students in balancing work and personal life? 6. Briefly tell us how these role models influenced your professional decisions and choices. Gender gaps and disparities 7. Has anyone ever told you engineering is a career for men? If yes, ask: Why did you pursue it anyway? (Bezak et al., 2019 ; Casagrande & Souza, 2016 ) 8. Do you believe there is currently equity in academic opportunities for women studying engineering at ITM? Work–life balance 9. Are there any other actions or conditions that would help you achieve a better balance between work/study and personal life? How important are these factors to you? (Bezak et al., 2019 ; VanAntwerp & Wilson, 2015 ) Comparative questions 10. Do you identify with any of the perspectives shared by the women in the video? Author’s own 11. What are your thoughts on their comments regarding the distribution of responsibilities? 12. If you have children, what impact have they had on your career? Gender stereotypes in skills and abilities (Closed-ended questions) A. Men are more capable than women in technical and mechanical tasks. B. Women are more capable than men in organizational and cooperative tasks. C. Women perform better in humanities, arts, and social sciences. D. Men perform better in scientific and technical fields. E. Women excel in areas related to personal care and social services. F. Men excel in areas related to IT, electronics, industry, and construction. (Colás Bravo & Villaciervos Moreno, 2007 ) 3.3. Data collection and analysis The focus group session was audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. In addition, photographs were taken, and participants’ gestures were documented to support the analysis, interpretation, and contextual understanding of the discourse (Prieto & March, 2002). A thematic analysis was conducted, following the standard stages of familiarization, coding, and theme development. Based on the verbatim transcript, textual data were coded using NVivo software, which facilitated the organization of categories aligned with the main concepts underlying the participants’ responses. All participants signed an informed consent form prior to the session, in which they were assured of confidentiality and that the data would be used exclusively for research purposes. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. 4. Findings 4.1. Study population characteristics Most participants identified as daughters within their households and reported being single. Their ages ranged from 19 to 37 years. Only one participant was the primary economic provider in her home. The average grade in first-semester Basic Mathematics was 3.9 on a 1.0–5.0 scale. The average socioeconomic stratum was 3, based on Colombia’s 1-to-6 classification system. Regarding parental education, three participants had parents with undergraduate degrees; none with postgraduate qualifications; and four with only primary, lower secondary, or technical upper secondary education. In addition to the sociodemographic and academic profile, participants’ perceptions of cultural norms and gender stereotypes related to competencies and abilities were examined. Moreover, 87.5% of participants rejected the idea that men are more capable in technical and mechanical tasks. Similarly, 75% disagreed with the notion that men perform better in scientific and technical fields, and an equal percentage did not believe that women perform better in humanities, social sciences, and arts. 4.2. Influence on career choice 4.2.1. Motivation Participants were asked to share the reasons behind their decision to pursue engineering. One participant cited the desire to improve her living conditions and find better employment opportunities after experiencing difficult, low-paying work. As she explained: In my case… the fact that I worked from a young age… it was a very exhausting job and not well-paid… so I decided to study. At first, I was interested in accounting, but when I looked into financial engineering, I liked it better, so I chose that path (P5). Family influence also emerged as a key motivational factor, particularly when relatives recognized the participants’ potential in technical fields. One participant shared: When I finished high school, I felt lost. My father introduced me to this field because he saw a lot of potential in me. I’ve always been a good and disciplined student, so he said… you can definitely handle this degree. I started with the technical program, and as I progressed, I loved it… I’m very passionate about innovating, learning, and growing, especially because there are not many women in this field. That makes it even more interesting to me (P4). 4.2.2. Mentorship and role models The first question on mentorship asked whether those friends or family members who influenced the participants’ career decisions were men or women. Most reported male influences, particularly fathers. Two participants explained: For me, it was my dad. He always told me that studying was the safest and best path to get ahead. Later on, my friends from college also became a support system—we formed study groups, etc. But initially, it was my dad (P6). In my case, it was also my dad. He’s a mechanic and I used to go to work with him. I liked mechanics, and electromechanics caught my attention, so that’s why I chose this degree (P7). Brothers were also identified as important sources of encouragement. One participant said: Mainly my brother… I’ve always had his support, and my parents also advised and encouraged me—especially in moments when I felt down or discouraged (P2). One participant noted that her husband played a crucial motivational and financial role in her decision to study engineering: My husband… as I mentioned, I started working young. When we got married, he supported me and said: “I’ll handle the household expenses so you can study” (P5). When asked how role models influenced their professional choices, one participant emphasized the impact of a classmate with extensive experience: I currently have a classmate… I’ve taken about four semesters with him, and he has 20 years of experience in this field. He’s a role model for me. He tells me: “You have to start slowly, step by step. Don’t expect to know everything I know—I've been doing this for years. You have to start from the beginning and not skip the process.” He has guided me a lot (P7). 4.2.3. Gender disparities This category explored participants’ perceptions of gender gaps in opportunities and recognition. When asked whether they had ever been told that engineering was a ‘man’s field’ and how they maintained interest despite such expressions, one graduate explained: Yes… it was said many times. I even remember that in some classes, it was common to have just one, two, or maybe three women. One professor once told us: “You girls have to stand out because there are more men here.” For me, that was more of a challenge—I wanted to prove I could do it. I think the professor meant it as a way to encourage us rather than exclude us (P6). Most participants indicated that they had not been explicitly told engineering was a male domain, but they internalized this message due to the gender imbalance in their programs. Two participants expressed: No one ever told me directly, but as you move up in semesters, being the only woman makes you think this is a man’s career. Why do I keep going? I’m still figuring that out… sometimes I have doubts, but I want to see how far I can go (P7). 4.2.4. Work–life balance This category examined how participants managed their time to balance academic responsibilities and personal obligations. They were asked about actions or conditions that could help improve this balance and the importance of such factors. Two key themes emerged: discipline and the need to avoid procrastination. Participants highlighted that discipline was fundamental to succeeding in engineering, especially given the time constraints many of them faced: I think discipline is really important. I work all day and have classes at night. I barely have any study time… so discipline has been essential. I eat lunch and use the extra half-hour to study or work on assignments—I can’t waste time chatting on my phone. Discipline helps me manage it all. If you leave everything for the last minute, no matter how much time you have, it won’t be enough… (P7). 4.3. Comparative analysis Following the screening of a video compilation featuring interviews with women engineers recognized as leaders in their field, participants were asked whether they identified with any of the responses given to questions similar to those posed during the focus group. This activity was designed as part of an inspirational and promotional strategy to encourage more women to pursue careers in engineering. Several participants expressed alignment with the perspectives shared by the featured engineers, particularly regarding the unequal distribution of domestic responsibilities and the influence of culturally imposed gender roles. One participant reflected: Yes, I totally agree with what they were saying because, for those of us who are mothers, there’s an added responsibility—a bigger challenge. It takes away time from us. For example, if it's a male and a female classmate… we as women face an additional challenge. They said that men might have a certain amount of time to study, while we have half or even less, because we have to take care of our children. In my case, I study, I work, I do research, I have two kids, and I have a husband. So, I think my effort is far greater than that of many of my classmates… (P5). Finally, one participant reflected on gender differences and emphasized that they should not be perceived negatively. Instead, she encouraged people to embrace these differences rather than impose their ideals on others. She also stressed that there are no cognitive differences between men and women that would affect the ability to study engineering. She shared the following reflection on the gender gap in engineering: I remember something a professor once said… that the gap is not really cognitive, even though our brains are biologically different. These are not cognitive gaps but cultural ones. And I don’t entirely disagree with the culture we’ve inherited, because we really are very different… We can achieve the same things as men across different areas of society, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we’re different. That doesn’t mean men are smarter. I think female empowerment has been misdirected today. It shouldn’t be about that… gender differences are complementary. And maybe the reason there aren’t more women in engineering is due to cultural factors—because from school, from our families, we’re often made to feel less capable in math, physics, and subjects like that. Sometimes we even feel intimidated by men… but it shouldn’t be that way. We have great cognitive capacity. It’s not about outperforming men—it’s about proving it to ourselves (P8). 5. Discussion This study examined the factors influencing women’ decisions to pursue STEM careers, based on the perceptions of students from various semesters and engineering programs. The analysis focused on four key categories: (1) Motivation, (2) Gender disparities, (3) Mentorship and role models, and (4) Work–life balance. The research was grounded in the premise that STEM disciplines are predominantly male-dominated in terms of student enrollment. Motivation emerged as a multidimensional factor. Salary expectations were cited as a significant driver of career choice, echoing prior research suggesting that the proportion of women in STEM occupations has increased, and that higher salaries in these jobs have helped improve women’s occupational wage ranking (Anaya et al., 2017 ). Similarly, Anaya et al. ( 2022 ) emphasize that while salaries in STEM fields vary considerably, they are on average nearly double those of non-STEM occupations. Notably, the participants who prioritized financial motivations are either the primary provider or co-provider in their households and exhibit low levels of adherence to gender-stereotyped beliefs regarding competencies and skills. Another relevant motivational factor is personal and family-related. Participants reported that their decision was influenced by a desire for personal growth, the identification of job opportunities, and the encouragement of significant figures in their lives—mostly male relatives such as fathers, brothers, or partners. These findings are consistent with those reported by Gimeno et al. ( 2019 ), who noted that while all women surveyed cited career opportunities as a motivator, many also highlighted personal interest and family influence. Likewise, Héctor Orlando et al. ( 2024 ) argue that social norms heavily influence women’s academic trajectories, a dynamic also reflected in participants’ accounts of being encouraged or discouraged from pursuing engineering based on gendered expectations. Participants also highlighted their abilities in engineering-related disciplines. One participant, for example, achieved a perfect score (5.0) in her mathematics course. However, several studies have shown that girls and women tend to have lower confidence in their math and science abilities compared to boys and men, and that they often perceive themselves as a poor fit for male-dominated STEM fields—ultimately affecting their aspirations and academic or career choices (Correll, 2004; Deboer, 1986; Sterling et al., 2020). The findings further emphasize the pivotal role of professors, fathers, brothers, and husbands, who serve as mentors, role models, or advisors in developing personal goals and overcoming challenges. Mentorship is a critical strategy for reducing gender disparities in STEM, as it fosters students’ self-esteem, confidence, and satisfaction with their academic and professional path. This is especially impactful for students who lack female mentors and is relevant both at the beginning of their studies and in the later stages, where it can reinforce a strong scientific identity (Quiroz-Compeán et al., 2023). Importantly, mentors do not have to be older professionals with more experience. They can be peers of the same age and academic standing, as long as they have received appropriate training (Marshall et al., 2021). Participant 7, for example, identified as her mentor a classmate with whom she had shared several semesters, yet who possessed extensive experience in the field. The persistence of gender stereotypes and the experience of being a minority in the classroom continue to shape the academic trajectories of female engineering students. While many participants did not report explicit discrimination, they expressed feelings of isolation, a constant need to prove their capabilities, and the pressure of being continually scrutinized. These dynamics are consistent with the findings of Oliveira et al. ( 2024 ), who highlight that women in engineering often feel compelled to seek validation from their male peers and are frequently assigned peripheral roles—such as managing organizational or documentation tasks—within group projects. Similar experiences of exclusion and a lack of belonging have also been documented among Brazilian women in software engineering, reinforcing the need for more inclusive educational environments, beginning in the early stages of training (Oliveira et al., 2024 ). Despite progress in expanding access to higher education, women with university degrees continue to face less favorable outcomes in the labor market compared to their male counterparts. STEM disciplines remain male-dominated, with deeply ingrained stereotypes and persistent biases in employer evaluations that tend to favor male graduates| (Thébaud & Charles, 2018). Over time, this segregation has contributed to the expectation that men are more likely to succeed in STEM careers, reinforcing the stereotype that science is inherently masculine. As a result, men are perceived as naturally adept in technical and mathematically intensive fields, undermining women’s confidence and perceived self-efficacy (Charles & Bradley, 2009). Balancing academic, professional, and personal responsibilities presents another significant challenge, particularly for students and graduates with caregiving duties. Araneda-Guirriman et al. ( 2025 ) note that female faculty—especially those in senior roles—are often burdened with excessive teaching and service duties, which create tension between professional responsibilities and personal life. These demands exacerbate the difficulties faced by women in reconciling multiple roles and meeting socially constructed expectations, such as excelling professionally while also fulfilling traditional roles as mothers. Consequently, there is a persistent imbalance in time, participation, and satisfaction between personal and professional domains, revealing that a true work–life balance remains largely unattained (Brough et al., 2020 ). In this context, discipline and time management emerge as essential strategies for persistence and success in engineering programs. This concern is echoed in the report by Cobreros et al. ( 2024 ), which advocates for the development of gender-sensitive and co-responsible work–life balance policies to mitigate the disproportionate burden placed on women in STEM. The report also emphasizes the importance of expanding flexible learning opportunities and raising awareness about the unique challenges faced by student mothers or those with significant domestic responsibilities. In light of these findings, there is an urgent need for both pedagogical and policy-level interventions to promote more equitable academic environments. As Tarazona Galán et al. ( 2024 ) assert, the presence of role models, mentoring networks, and structured support programs is fundamental to increasing female representation in engineering and to strengthening students’ professional confidence. Conclusion The findings of this study demonstrate that women’s participation in STEM careers—particularly in engineering—is shaped by a complex interaction of personal motivations, cultural expectations, institutional dynamics, and social influences. In other words, the decision to pursue engineering is driven not only by academic interest or career aspirations, but also by the influence of family members—especially male relatives—and the desire for upward social mobility and economic security. However, female students and graduates must navigate a landscape marked by persistent gender stereotypes; underrepresentation in academic settings; and significant challenges in balancing academic, professional, and personal responsibilities. Despite these barriers, the participants exhibited strong resilience and a deep commitment to their educational and professional goals. These attributes underscore the urgent need to foster more equitable and inclusive educational environments. The results also highlight the importance of implementing comprehensive strategies to support the retention and advancement of women in engineering. Mentorship, the presence of role models, institutional support structures, and the visibility of women in academic and professional spheres are key to strengthening women's professional identity in STEM fields. Furthermore, it is essential that educational policies adopt differentiated approaches that acknowledge the diverse pathways of female students, incorporating measures to promote well-being, work–life balance, and flexible learning opportunities. Only by transforming educational and cultural contexts will it be possible to reduce persistent gender disparities in engineering and contribute to building a more diverse, equitable, and representative scientific community. Declarations Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study by diligently accepting the form written form, filling out and confirming your acceptance online. Evidence of acceptance of this consent is stored in the online Microsoft Forms database. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study by diligently accepting the form verbally. In addition, the initial section of the study included the declaration of the data processing policy and the written declaration regarding the informed consent of each participant where they declare that they participated voluntarily in the study and recognize each component of it. If verification of this consent is required, it may be requested from the main and corresponding author of this study. Statement Regarding Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals All study participants were made aware that the information provided during the focus group would be treated confidentially. The data collected would not be used for any purpose beyond the objectives of this study. The responses and recordings obtained would be used exclusively for academic purposes and would be disseminated through scientific reports, ensuring the anonymity of the participants. In compliance with Colombian Law 1581 of 2012 and its regulatory decrees on personal data protection, the participants authorized the collection, storage, and use of their data for this study, always safeguarding their privacy. Ethical Approval Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM). This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano – ITM, the approval number (Approval ID: CE-ITM-2023-021), the date of ethical approval (15 March 2025). Formal approval was granted prior to the commencement of any research activities involving human participants. The scope of this approval included all procedures related to participant recruitment, the informed consent process, and the conduct of semi-structured interviews. All research procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the approving institutional ethics committee, the Colombian regulations governing research with human subjects and personal data protection (Law 1581 of 2012 and Decree 1377 of 2013), and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent amendments. The ethical approval covered all stages of the research process, including participant recruitment, informed consent procedures, data collection through focus groups and semi-structured interviews, data handling, confidentiality safeguards, and dissemination of findings. The retrospective approval was granted after the completion of data collection, following an institutional ethics review process that assessed the study’s objectives, methodology, participant involvement, informed consent procedures, and data protection measures. The reason for obtaining ethical approval retrospectively is that, at the time of data collection, the study was conducted as an exploratory academic research activity involving minimal risk, anonymous participation, and no collection of sensitive or personally identifiable data. In accordance with institutional practice, such studies may proceed with prior informed consent and are subsequently submitted for formal ethical review to validate compliance with ethical standards. The retrospective ethical approval was granted in accordance with the institutional ethical oversight framework established by the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM), which regulates research activities involving human participants under the authority of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research and the institutional Internal Control Office. According to institutional procedures, studies that involve minimal risk, voluntary participation, and anonymized qualitative data may be subject to ethical review and formal approval upon verification of compliance with established ethical standards. Institutional ethical governance policies and research oversight regulations are publicly available through the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research and the Internal Control Office of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM): https://www.itm.edu.co/investigacion/ https://www.itm.edu.co/control-interno/documentos/ Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Consent was obtained in written form, using a digital informed consent document administered through Microsoft Forms, which included detailed information about the study objectives, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, approximate duration of the focus group and interviews, confidentiality measures, and data usage. Participants reviewed and accepted the informed consent document before the focus group session, which took place on 13 November 2024. The consent process was facilitated by a member of the research team, who ensured that all participants clearly understood the study and had the opportunity to ask questions before agreeing to participate. Acceptance of informed consent was recorded electronically and securely stored in the institutional Microsoft Forms database, in compliance with institutional data protection policies. Only participants who explicitly confirmed their consent were allowed to participate in the study. No oral-only consent procedures were used. No sensitive or identifying personal data were collected, and participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. The study adhered to the Colombian Data Protection Law (Law 1581 of 2012) and Decree 1377 of 2013 regarding the collection, use, storage, and protection of personal information. Acknowledgement The development of this research was supported for the APC payment by the Higher Education () which provided support in payment of of the APC of this item through project entitled ”” by the. The author thanks the ITM Translation Agency () for translating the manuscript into English. Author 's contributions Authors contribution in the paper has been specified as follows: Conceptualization, and.; Literature Review, and.; Methodology,.; Software,; Data Analysis,. and; Draft Written and Conclusion, and. Conflict of interest The author declares no competing interests related to the conduct or publication of this study. Data Availability Statement The dataset used is available at the following link:,.., ,., &,. (2026). Factors influencing women's participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis [Data set]. Zenodo. References Abdalnour H, Abdulkhaliq L, Ghaleb AM, Amrani MA, Alduais F (2023) Challenges to Female Engineers’ Employment in the Conservative and Unstable Society of Taiz State, Yemen: A Survey Study. Sustainability 15(20):14919. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014919 ACOFI (2024) Programas de Ingeniería en Colombia 2024 Alestalo SW, Bhatia SK, Sukumaran B, Asce M, Professor DM (2015) L. Support of Women Geotechnical Engineering Faculty; History and Initiatives Anaya L, Stafford FP, Zamarro G (2017) Gender Gaps in Math Performance, Perceived Mathematical Ability and College STEM Education: The Role of Parental Occupation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3068971 . SSRN Electronic Journal Anaya L, Stafford F, Zamarro G (2022) Gender gaps in math performance, perceived mathematical ability and college STEM education: the role of parental occupation. Educ Econ 30(2):113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.1974344 Araneda-Guirriman C, Garrido-Rivera A, Sepúlveda-Páez G, Peñaloza-Díaz G (2025) Women’s challenges in Chilean neoliberal academia: academic workload and its impact on work-life balance. Gend Educ 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2471283 Baxter P, Jack S (2015) Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qualitative Rep. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573 Bezak E, Suchowerska R, Claridge Mackonis E, Pillen H, Ralston A, Haworth A, Suchowerska N (2019) Women and men in the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine: workforce survey. Australasian Phys Eng Sci Med 42(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0706-z Bravo E, Austin-Breneman J (2023) Board 214: An Investigation of Women Engineering Undergraduate Student Belonging in an Academic Makerspace. 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://peer.asee.org/42632.pdf Brough P, Timms C, Chan XW, Hawkes A, Rasmussen L (2020) Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences BT - Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of Occupational Health: From Macro-level to Micro-level Evidence (T. Theorell, Ed.; pp. 1–15). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05031-3_20-1 Carrillo Lanzabal MS, Padilla MCR, Martinez OEH (2024) Analysis of inequality between men and women enrolled and graduated in engineering programs in the Colombian Caribbean Region. Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology . https://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.723 Casagrande LS, de Souza ÂMF (2016) L. e. Para além do gênero: mulheres e homens em engenharias e licenciaturas. Revista Estudos Feministas , 24 (3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2016v24n3p825 Cobreros L, Galindo J, Raigada T (2024) Mujeres en STEM: Desde la educación básica hasta la carrera laboral Colás Bravo P, Villaciervos Moreno P (2007) La interiorización de los estereotipos de género en jóvenes y adolescentes. In RIE (Vol. 25, Issue 1) Contreras-Ortiz SH, Montoya-Noguera S, de Cajen SBG (2023) Women’s Leadership in Engineering: Defying Bias. Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology . https://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2023.1.1.651 Corple D, Feister MK, Zoltowski CB, Buzzanell PM (2018) Engineering Gender Identities of Women in a Service-Learning Context. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658478 Creamer E, Colleges Of Engineering With Above And Below Average Enrollment Of Women In Undergraduate Engineering (2009) When Gender Comes Into Play: Factors That Distinguish. 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings , 14.1368.1-14.1368.7. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--4546 Creamer EG (2009) When gender comes into play: Factors that distinguish colleges of engineering with above and below average enrollment of women in undergraduate engineering . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290365667 Deci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol 49(3):182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 Duque H, Aristizábal Díaz-Granados ET (2019) Análisis fenomenológico interpretativo. Pensando Psicología 15(25):1–24. https://doi.org/10.16925/2382-3984.2019.01.03 Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance (2024) Global Commons Survey 2024 Argentina Country Deck Boccuzzi E, by, Pennington E, Silva E, Sloane J, Han R, McQuay K, Reid D, Sim E, Abendan R, Ahmed N, Altankhundaga T, Anandarajah S, Lee Anda A, Korina Bertulfo M, Brough S, Chang M, Chua G, Dattner F, Delitriana A, Wories-Lin Y (2021) ACCELERATING WOMEN’S ADVANCEMENT IN STEM: EMERGING LESSONS ON NETWORK STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES IN ASIA JUNE 2021 ACCELERATING WOMEN’S ADVANCEMENT IN STEM: EMERGING LESSONS ON NETWORK STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES IN ASIA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gibson SK (2006) Mentoring of women faculty: The role of organizational politics and culture. Innov High Educ 31(1):63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7 Gimeno PB, Gasull VL, Savini CA (2019) Analysis of the problems of income, performance and graduation of women in engineering careers at the faculty of engineering and agricultural sciences of the National University of San Luis. Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology , 2019-July . https://doi.org/10.18687/LACCEI2019.1.1.398 Héctor Orlando TG, Stevens MO, Jhoan Alexis MC, Victoria Eugenia RR, Valentina J, Valeria BM, R. M., Andrés Felipe AD (2024) Women’s perception in their experience as engineering students: Case of Industrial Engineering Uniminuto - Cali. Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology . https://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.882 Haven L, T., Van Grootel DL (2019) Preregistering qualitative research. Account Res 26(3):229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147 Laefer D, Gassman S, Luke B (2007) Fostering Development of Women Faculty in Geotechnical Engineering . Liang GJ, Evans R, Asadollahipajouh M, Kulesza SE (2023) A Qualitative Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering Project Teams. 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. , 1–12. https://peer.asee.org/42482.pdf Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS (2012) The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830 Maccaro A, Oronti IB, Zito E, Piaggio D, Pecchia L (2024a) Women in engineering, science and technology in sub-Saharan Africa: cultural attitudes, challenges, and gaps affecting clinical engineering and medical devices maintenance practices. Health Technol 14(4):683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-024-00871-6 Maccaro A, Oronti IB, Zito E, Piaggio D, Pecchia L (2024b) Women in engineering, science and technology in sub-Saharan Africa: cultural attitudes, challenges, and gaps affecting clinical engineering and medical devices maintenance practices. Health Technol 14(4):683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-024-00871-6 Mancl K, Lee K (2017) Framework for Mentoring East Asian Women Scientists and Engineers. Ohio J Sci 116(2):28–33. https://doi.org/10.18061/ojs.v116i2.5033 March Cerdá JC, Prieto Rodríguez MA (2002) INVESTIGACIÓN CUALITATIVA ¿Qué son los grupos focales? Atención Primaria 29:366–373 Oliveira T, Barcomb A, Santos RDS, Barros H, Baldassarre MT, França C (2024) Navigating the Path of Women in Software Engineering: From Academia to Industry. Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society , 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1145/3639475.3640100 Pérez-Luco Arenas R, Lagos Gutiérrez L, Barrera M, R., Sáez Ardura F (2017) Taxonomía de diseños y muestreo en investigación cualitativa. Un intento de síntesis entre las aproximaciones teórica y emergente. Ambitos: Revista Internacional de Comunicación , 39 . https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6237888&orden=0&info=link Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Sands RG, Parson LA, Duane J (1991) Faculty-faculty mentoring and discrimination:Perceptions among asian, asian american, and pacific island faculty. Equity Excellence Educ 25(2–4):124–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568910250219 Tarazona Galán HO, Moreno Osorio S, Rivas Ramírez VE, Moreno B, Ruiz JV, Mejía V, Puente O (2024) V. Formative research scenarios in the training of women in engineering. Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology . https://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.569 UNDP (2024) Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in the Asia Pacific . https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/women-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-asia-pacific UNESCO (2019) Descifrar el código: la educación de las niñas y las mujeres en ciencias, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas (STEM) . Vanantwerp J, Wilson D (2015) Difference Between Engineering Men and Women: How and Why They Choose What They Do During Early Career. Conference: American Society for Engineering Education Annual ConferenceAt: Seattle, WA . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278965635_Difference_Between_Engineering_Men_and_Women_How_and_Why_They_Choose_What_They_Do_During_Early_Career VanAntwerp J, Wilson D, Early Career (2015) Difference Between Engineering Men and Women: How and Why They Choose What They Do During. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings , 26.543.1-26.543.21. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23881 Vipiana F, Migliaccio C (2025) A Journey during Six Years of the women in Engineering Column [Women in Engineering]. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag 67(1):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2024.3512996 Vipiana F, Reddy CJ (2024) Building Divergent Career Paths Based on Convergence Principles: Interview with Prof. Konstantina S. Nikita [Women in Engineering & Young Professionals]. In IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine (Vol. 66, Issue 3, pp. 122–126). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2024.3385770 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files 18436375.zip Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 18 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 18 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 13 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8660515","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":599241695,"identity":"7a6ca468-fe1a-4b07-a78c-c25d369e5efc","order_by":0,"name":"Sara María Yepes Zuluaga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sara","middleName":"María Yepes","lastName":"Zuluaga","suffix":""},{"id":599241697,"identity":"279205be-c1c0-49df-9dd1-0a9b05c15d23","order_by":1,"name":"Vanessa García Pineda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vanessa","middleName":"García","lastName":"Pineda","suffix":""},{"id":599241699,"identity":"dd6288ed-e83a-4ec8-a44b-546e151aeac1","order_by":2,"name":"Paula Andrea Rodríguez-Correa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institución Universitaria Escolme","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paula","middleName":"Andrea","lastName":"Rodríguez-Correa","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-21 13:50:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103827803,"identity":"7fd8243d-9b93-4242-9cfa-9e1c3342268c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-03 11:57:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":736394,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660515/v1/230a0b16-904b-4abd-953a-5506092c5a94.pdf"},{"id":103827767,"identity":"9f20d20c-154d-440e-812d-5e033ec5def4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-03 11:57:41","extension":"zip","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":497191,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"18436375.zip","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660515/v1/04c581b03d92716849b0d41e.zip"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Factors influencing women’s participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1. Background on women\u0026rsquo;s participation in higher education and engineering in Latin America\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, women remain significantly underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in engineering, physics, computing, and applied mathematics. According to UNESCO (2019), women comprise only 35% of students enrolled in STEM programs in higher education worldwide and just 28% of the global scientific research workforce. Their representation is even lower in specific disciplines: women account for merely 3% of students in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) programs; 5% in natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics; and 8% in engineering, manufacturing, and construction. This gender gap not only limits equitable access to knowledge but also undermines diversity, innovation, and the sustainability of global technological advancement (Cobreros et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Latin America, although women\u0026rsquo;s enrollment in higher education has grown over recent decades, their participation in STEM fields remains disproportionately low. In countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Peru, women\u0026rsquo;s representation in engineering programs rarely exceeds 30%. Greater participation is observed in areas such as food and chemical engineering, whereas enrollment is markedly lower in disciplines like electronic, mechanical, or computer engineering. For instance, at the Universidad Nacional de San Luis (Argentina), only 23.41% of engineering students are women, and in ICT-related programs such as computer and electronic engineering, the proportion drops to just 10.7% (Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, 2024). These figures reflect enduring educational and societal structures shaped by gender stereotypes and institutional barriers that continue to impede the full inclusion of women in technical and scientific domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar challenges are evident in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia\u0026ndash;Pacific, where cultural norms and labor market dynamics continue to restrict women\u0026rsquo;s access to technical professions. In Southern Africa, for example, Maccaro et al. (2024a) documented how biomedical engineering maintenance tasks\u0026mdash;socially linked to domestic roles traditionally performed by women\u0026mdash;are often assigned to men due to institutional bias, thereby limiting women\u0026rsquo;s access to technical and leadership positions. In response, several governments and multilateral organizations have launched initiatives to promote gender equity in engineering. A noteworthy example is the \u003cem\u003eWomen in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e program established by the Federal Council of Engineering Deans of the Republic of Argentina (CONFEDI, in Spanish). This initiative seeks to encourage women to pursue engineering degrees, challenge gender stereotypes, and foster inclusive policies across educational institutions and technical work environments (Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, 2024). These types of institutional strategies provide a foundation for monitoring and evaluating gender-focused policies and reflect a regional commitment to advancing a more equitable and transformative educational system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Colombia, the situation closely reflects the broader regional challenges. According to ACOFI (2024), Colombia currently offers 1,221 professional engineering programs across 188 higher education institutions. However, programs such as electronic and telecommunications engineering account for only 7% of the total, with consistently low female enrollment. This gender gap is even more pronounced in intermediate and rural areas, where women face compounded barriers, including a lack of female role models, limited early exposure to technology, and restricted access to infrastructure. While some institutional progress has been made, a deeper understanding of the cultural, social, and academic factors that shape women\u0026rsquo;s educational trajectories is essential to fostering greater inclusion and retention in engineering fields.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2. Women in engineering fields\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite institutional and policy efforts to promote equity, women\u0026rsquo;s participation in engineering programs continues to face multiple barriers. These range from internalized gender stereotypes formed during childhood to the lack of role models and support networks in academic and professional settings (UNDP, 2024). In both the Latin American and Colombian contexts, statistics reveal a low proportion of women enrolled (29%) and graduating (34%) from engineering programs, with participation further affected during periods of crisis such as the pandemic (Carrillo Lanzabal et al., 2024). This gender gap is partly explained by institutional cultures that reinforce male-dominated norms and by rigid curricular structures. Research by Liang et al. (2023) highlights how women in leadership roles within university engineering teams develop resilience in the face of exclusion, although they are frequently subjected to doubts about their competence and legitimacy. Other studies underscore the importance of a sense of belonging in spaces such as academic makerspaces, which can significantly influence whether women remain in or leave technical programs (Bravo \u0026amp; Austin-Breneman, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe issue of low female participation in engineering is not limited to access; it also encompasses cultural environments, leadership dynamics, perceptions of self-efficacy, and the balance between academic and personal life (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023; Ellen Boccuzzi et al., 2021; H\u0026eacute;ctor Orlando et al., 2024). In Colombia, recent studies have highlighted the importance of faculty support, mentorship, and well-being strategies as key factors for retention among women in engineering (H\u0026eacute;ctor Orlando et al., 2024; Tarazona Gal\u0026aacute;n et al., 2024). These findings emphasize the need to understand the motivations, barriers, and lived experiences of women as they navigate higher education in engineering. Recent qualitative research has shown that motivational factors such as a vocation for service, identification with female role models in STEM, and a desire to challenge stereotypes play a critical role in women\u0026rsquo;s decisions to enter and remain in these fields (Vanantwerp \u0026amp; Wilson, 2015). However, these studies also reveal that many women experience identity conflicts when attempting to adapt to masculinized organizational cultures (Corple et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, a comprehensive approach is required to explore how women construct their professional identities in engineering based on their own voices, practices, and contexts. Understanding the factors that influence women\u0026rsquo;s participation in engineering has direct implications for the development of educational and equity-focused policies. As E. G. Creamer (2009) notes, institutions with higher female enrollment in engineering share favorable cultural characteristics, such as recognition of diversity, established reporting mechanisms for sexist behavior, and a supportive institutional environment. A qualitative approach is especially suitable for capturing these experiences through the perspectives of students and professionals themselves. Using interviews, co-creation workshops, and focus groups, various studies have identified that inclusive policies, the acknowledgment of diverse career paths, and the strengthening of women\u0026rsquo;s networks in engineering are key components for closing the gender gap (Vipiana \u0026amp; Migliaccio, 2025; Vipiana \u0026amp; Reddy, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering the above, this article presents a qualitative analysis of the factors associated with women\u0026rsquo;s participation in STEM disciplines, with a focus on the field of engineering. Its aim is to identify\u0026mdash;through narrated experiences\u0026mdash;the cultural, social, economic, and institutional conditions that influence women\u0026rsquo;s decisions to enter, remain, and thrive in these disciplines. The study is grounded in the need to produce context-specific knowledge that contributes to the design of gender-sensitive educational policies and strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Factors influencing career choice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1. Motivation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation for career choice can vary significantly between men and women, particularly in fields traditionally dominated by men, such as engineering. According to Ryan and Deci (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), Self-Determination Theory (SDT) offers a valuable framework to analyze this phenomenon by distinguishing between controlled motivation, driven by external factors such as social approval or financial rewards, and autonomous motivation, which arises from internal satisfaction and alignment with personal values Deci and Ryan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). As the authors explain, while controlled motivations may lead to a gradual decline in commitment, autonomous motivations tend to produce more positive long-term outcomes, which may help explain, in part, the disparities in retention rates between men and women in engineering (Vanantwerp \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). A detailed examination of these motivational drivers can offer deeper insights into the factors that influence both career choice and persistence in the field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2. Mentorship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite progress in promoting the inclusion of women in engineering, they remain underrepresented in certain fields, including geotechnical, mechatronic, and electronic engineering (Alestalo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Challenges related to equity, isolation, and inadequate mentorship affect both recruitment and retention. Furthermore, women continue to struggle for equal recognition compared to their male counterparts, which reinforces a sense of exclusion. This phenomenon, known as the \u0026lsquo;Matilda Effect,\u0026rsquo; illustrates how women\u0026rsquo;s achievements are often undervalued, while men receive greater recognition and mentorship opportunities (Lincoln et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, academic literature underscores the importance of role models and mentors in the professional development of women in engineering, as these factors have been shown to increase job satisfaction, productivity, and retention (Laefer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). However, the shortage of prominent female mentors, exacerbated by geographic dispersion and implicit bias, contributes to professional isolation and limits women\u0026rsquo;s access to the support networks that are essential for success (Mancl \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the few women present in engineering fields are disproportionately burdened with mentoring responsibilities, which reduces their availability and capacity to support the next generation. As women face these barriers, non-traditional mentorship models and broader support networks become vital to overcoming isolation and underrepresentation (Maccaro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3. Gender disparities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough women have made significant inroads into engineering over the past decades, substantial gender disparities remain. Inequalities in opportunities and recognition have been widely documented and continue to affect the professional development, retention, and advancement of women engineers in the field (E. Creamer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). One clear manifestation of this inequality can be seen in higher education and professional recognition, where women receive significantly fewer awards and honors than their male peers (Abdalnour et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). According to the Colombian Association of Engineering Faculties (ACOFI, in Spanish), women accounted for only 31% of total enrollment in engineering programs in Colombia in 2023 (ACOFI, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While this figure represents progress, it still highlights the underrepresentation of women in a field largely dominated by men. Additionally, women encounter obstacles in academic and professional settings, including isolation, implicit bias, and unequal opportunities regarding salary and career advancement (Maccaro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.4. Work\u0026ndash;life balance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchieving a balance between personal and professional life is a common challenge, but it is particularly complex for women pursuing careers in engineering. Family, social, and cultural expectations often exert significant influence over women's professional decisions, while limited workplace support and understanding can impede both career advancement and overall well-being (Sands et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of mentors\u0026mdash;especially female mentors\u0026mdash;has been identified as a critical resource, offering not only technical and professional guidance but also support in managing personal challenges, such as balancing work and family responsibilities (Gibson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Research indicates that women tend to seek mentors who can empathize with these difficulties, as topics related to personal life may be less easily addressed with male mentors. The dual demands of professional and familial expectations frequently impose an additional burden on women, making adequate mentorship and institutional support vital (Mancl \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn light of these considerations, this study poses a series of research questions aimed at understanding how women in engineering navigate the challenge of balancing academic, professional, and personal commitments. Specifically, it investigates the factors influencing STEM career choices among female students enrolled in different academic levels and across various engineering programs. The study is guided by the following research questions: \u003cem\u003eWhat are the perceptions of female engineering students regarding the factors influencing their choice of career? How, and to what extent, do these perceptions change after engaging in interviews with prominent women scientists and engineers currently working in the field\u003c/em\u003e?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative approach. As explained by Haven and Van Grootel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), qualitative data are typically gathered through interviews, focus groups (structured group discussions), or observations. This allows the research phenomenon to be explored through a variety of perspectives, revealing and facilitating understanding of multiple facets of the issue and highlighting the subjects\u0026rsquo; viewpoints relevant to the research question (Baxter \u0026amp; Jack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, this study used a phenomenological design, which is considered suitable for examining the lived experiences of the target population in order to understand the factors influencing female students\u0026rsquo; and graduates\u0026rsquo; choice and persistence in engineering programs (Duque \u0026amp; Aristiz\u0026aacute;bal D\u0026iacute;az-Granados, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Discourse analysis was used as the method of data collection, specifically through focus groups, to address participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives and experiences during their engineering education. The interview was supplemented with closed-ended questions related to sociodemographic information, the highest educational level attained by their parents and siblings, and their perception of the representation of women in their professional field compared to men.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Study context and participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study targeted female students and graduates from engineering programs at a higher education institution in Medell\u0026iacute;n, Colombia. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, defined by P\u0026eacute;rez-Luco Arenas et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) as the intentional selection of participants based on pre-established criteria grounded in theoretical or empirical considerations. This approach follows an intrinsic case logic, emphasizing the value of each case in itself. Inclusion criteria included gender (women), academic level (from second-semester students to recent graduates), and willingness to share personal experiences. Participants were drawn from the following programs: Automation and Electronics, Systems Engineering, Financial Engineering, Telecommunications Engineering, and Electromechanical Engineering. To support the focus group discussion, a video featuring five prominent women engineers from Medell\u0026iacute;n was presented. The video aimed to showcase their achievements, inspire future generations, and foster reflection on strategies to reduce the gender gap in engineering. These women served as role models and were selected based on their professional prominence, holding doctoral degrees and working as university professors, retired professionals, or scientific directors in industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e For the application of this interview, approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Vice-R ector\u0026rsquo;s Office for Research of the Metropolitan Technological Institute. Additionally, before the application of the interview, consent for information and data processing was declared so that the respondents could make the decision whether to continue with the interview. However, at no time were sensitive data requested, nor were personal data of any of the participants revealed. Also, it is clarified that if the specific resolution of the committee\u0026rsquo;s approval is necessary, given the confidentiality of this documentation at the institutional level, said information may be requested from the main author.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to clarify that due to the institution\u0026rsquo;s data protection and confidentiality policy, the data provided was only used for academic and institutional knowledge purposes and only the data that contribute to research on social media was used, therefore that information on the identification of persons or personal or confidential data was not used, disclosed or published. Additionally, the provisions of Law 1581 of 2012, \u0026lsquo;By which general provisions are issued for the protection of personal data\u0026rsquo; and in accordance with the provisions of Decree 1377 of 2013, have been complied with.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Research process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe focus group was conducted in the auditorium of the higher education institution\u0026rsquo;s research park, home to various STEM laboratories. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to explore themes related to motivation, mentorship, gender disparities, and work\u0026ndash;life balance. The session lasted approximately two hours and was organized into thematic blocks aligned with the study variables. It was complemented by a video compiling the narratives and reflections of the five featured women engineers, who had been interviewed using the same guiding questions. This approach enabled a comparative analysis of experiences between established professionals and student participants. The session concluded with a set of reflective, closing questions. The focus group was moderated by a facilitator and an observer. The observer documented participants\u0026rsquo; expressions and contributed to the analysis of group discourse, while the facilitator guided the discussion and encouraged participant engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain detailed and flexible responses. These interviews began with open-ended questions, allowing flexibility to adapt based on participants\u0026rsquo; responses (Troncoso-Pantoja \u0026amp; Amaya-Placencia, 2017). The interview protocol was organized around four key thematic categories: (1) Motivation; (2) Mentorship and role models; (3) Gender gaps and disparities; and (4) Work\u0026ndash;life balance. The instrument also gathered sociodemographic data, including age, academic semester, degree program, marital status, socioeconomic background, domestic role (e.g., daughter or spouse), and financial responsibility (e.g., financially dependent, co-provider, or primary provider). Questions also addressed participants\u0026rsquo; motivations for pursuing engineering, the influence of mentors, perceptions of gender-based barriers, and strategies for balancing personal and professional roles. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the corresponding interview questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy categories and indicators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Could you tell us why you decided to study engineering? If curiosity is mentioned, follow up with: What sparked this curiosity?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Bezak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Casagrande \u0026amp; Souza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; VanAntwerp \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Are you satisfied with your choice of career?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. In what ways, if any, have your family, worldview, faith, or spirituality influenced your decision to pursue engineering?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentorship and role models\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Were the friends or relatives who influenced your decision men or women? If it was a family member, ask: Who in your family influenced you?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Casagrande \u0026amp; Souza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mancl \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Do you think those mentors (e.g., teachers, relatives, friends, etc.) should also exist in the personal sphere\u0026mdash;that is, someone who can guide students in balancing work and personal life?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Briefly tell us how these role models influenced your professional decisions and choices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender gaps and disparities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Has anyone ever told you engineering is a career for men? If yes, ask: Why did you pursue it anyway?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Bezak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Casagrande \u0026amp; Souza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Do you believe there is currently equity in academic opportunities for women studying engineering at ITM?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork\u0026ndash;life balance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. Are there any other actions or conditions that would help you achieve a better balance between work/study and personal life? How important are these factors to you?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Bezak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; VanAntwerp \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. Do you identify with any of the perspectives shared by the women in the video?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s own\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. What are your thoughts on their comments regarding the distribution of responsibilities?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12. If you have children, what impact have they had on your career?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender stereotypes in skills and abilities (Closed-ended questions)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA. Men are more capable than women in technical and mechanical tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB. Women are more capable than men in organizational and cooperative tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eC. Women perform better in humanities, arts, and social sciences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD. Men perform better in scientific and technical fields.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eE. Women excel in areas related to personal care and social services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF. Men excel in areas related to IT, electronics, industry, and construction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Col\u0026aacute;s Bravo \u0026amp; Villaciervos Moreno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Data collection and analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe focus group session was audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. In addition, photographs were taken, and participants\u0026rsquo; gestures were documented to support the analysis, interpretation, and contextual understanding of the discourse (Prieto \u0026amp; March, 2002). A thematic analysis was conducted, following the standard stages of familiarization, coding, and theme development. Based on the verbatim transcript, textual data were coded using NVivo software, which facilitated the organization of categories aligned with the main concepts underlying the participants\u0026rsquo; responses. All participants signed an informed consent form prior to the session, in which they were assured of confidentiality and that the data would be used exclusively for research purposes. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Study population characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost participants identified as daughters within their households and reported being single. Their ages ranged from 19 to 37 years. Only one participant was the primary economic provider in her home. The average grade in first-semester Basic Mathematics was 3.9 on a 1.0\u0026ndash;5.0 scale. The average socioeconomic stratum was 3, based on Colombia\u0026rsquo;s 1-to-6 classification system. Regarding parental education, three participants had parents with undergraduate degrees; none with postgraduate qualifications; and four with only primary, lower secondary, or technical upper secondary education. In addition to the sociodemographic and academic profile, participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of cultural norms and gender stereotypes related to competencies and abilities were examined. Moreover, 87.5% of participants rejected the idea that men are more capable in technical and mechanical tasks. Similarly, 75% disagreed with the notion that men perform better in scientific and technical fields, and an equal percentage did not believe that women perform better in humanities, social sciences, and arts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Influence on career choice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.1. Motivation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to share the reasons behind their decision to pursue engineering. One participant cited the desire to improve her living conditions and find better employment opportunities after experiencing difficult, low-paying work. As she explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my case\u0026hellip; the fact that I worked from a young age\u0026hellip; it was a very exhausting job and not well-paid\u0026hellip; so I decided to study. At first, I was interested in accounting, but when I looked into financial engineering, I liked it better, so I chose that path (P5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamily influence also emerged as a key motivational factor, particularly when relatives recognized the participants\u0026rsquo; potential in technical fields. One participant shared:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen I finished high school, I felt lost. My father introduced me to this field because he saw a lot of potential in me. I\u0026rsquo;ve always been a good and disciplined student, so he said\u0026hellip; you can definitely handle this degree. I started with the technical program, and as I progressed, I loved it\u0026hellip; I\u0026rsquo;m very passionate about innovating, learning, and growing, especially because there are not many women in this field. That makes it even more interesting to me (P4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.2. Mentorship and role models\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first question on mentorship asked whether those friends or family members who influenced the participants\u0026rsquo; career decisions were men or women. Most reported male influences, particularly fathers. Two participants explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor me, it was my dad. He always told me that studying was the safest and best path to get ahead. Later on, my friends from college also became a support system\u0026mdash;we formed study groups, etc. But initially, it was my dad (P6).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my case, it was also my dad. He\u0026rsquo;s a mechanic and I used to go to work with him. I liked mechanics, and electromechanics caught my attention, so that\u0026rsquo;s why I chose this degree (P7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrothers were also identified as important sources of encouragement. One participant said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMainly my brother\u0026hellip; I\u0026rsquo;ve always had his support, and my parents also advised and encouraged me\u0026mdash;especially in moments when I felt down or discouraged (P2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne participant noted that her husband played a crucial motivational and financial role in her decision to study engineering:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy husband\u0026hellip; as I mentioned, I started working young. When we got married, he supported me and said: \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ll handle the household expenses so you can study\u0026rdquo; (P5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen asked how role models influenced their professional choices, one participant emphasized the impact of a classmate with extensive experience:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI currently have a classmate\u0026hellip; I\u0026rsquo;ve taken about four semesters with him, and he has 20 years of experience in this field. He\u0026rsquo;s a role model for me. He tells me: \u0026ldquo;You have to start slowly, step by step. Don\u0026rsquo;t expect to know everything I know\u0026mdash;I've been doing this for years. You have to start from the beginning and not skip the process.\u0026rdquo; He has guided me a lot (P7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.3. Gender disparities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis category explored participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of gender gaps in opportunities and recognition. When asked whether they had ever been told that engineering was a \u0026lsquo;man\u0026rsquo;s field\u0026rsquo; and how they maintained interest despite such expressions, one graduate explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u0026hellip; it was said many times. I even remember that in some classes, it was common to have just one, two, or maybe three women. One professor once told us: \u0026ldquo;You girls have to stand out because there are more men here.\u0026rdquo; For me, that was more of a challenge\u0026mdash;I wanted to prove I could do it. I think the professor meant it as a way to encourage us rather than exclude us (P6).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost participants indicated that they had not been explicitly told engineering was a male domain, but they internalized this message due to the gender imbalance in their programs. Two participants expressed:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo one ever told me directly, but as you move up in semesters, being the only woman makes you think this is a man\u0026rsquo;s career. Why do I keep going? I\u0026rsquo;m still figuring that out\u0026hellip; sometimes I have doubts, but I want to see how far I can go (P7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.4. Work\u0026ndash;life balance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis category examined how participants managed their time to balance academic responsibilities and personal obligations. They were asked about actions or conditions that could help improve this balance and the importance of such factors. Two key themes emerged: discipline and the need to avoid procrastination. Participants highlighted that discipline was fundamental to succeeding in engineering, especially given the time constraints many of them faced:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI think discipline is really important. I work all day and have classes at night. I barely have any study time\u0026hellip; so discipline has been essential. I eat lunch and use the extra half-hour to study or work on assignments\u0026mdash;I can\u0026rsquo;t waste time chatting on my phone. Discipline helps me manage it all. If you leave everything for the last minute, no matter how much time you have, it won\u0026rsquo;t be enough\u0026hellip; (P7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Comparative analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the screening of a video compilation featuring interviews with women engineers recognized as leaders in their field, participants were asked whether they identified with any of the responses given to questions similar to those posed during the focus group. This activity was designed as part of an inspirational and promotional strategy to encourage more women to pursue careers in engineering. Several participants expressed alignment with the perspectives shared by the featured engineers, particularly regarding the unequal distribution of domestic responsibilities and the influence of culturally imposed gender roles. One participant reflected:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes, I totally agree with what they were saying because, for those of us who are mothers, there\u0026rsquo;s an added responsibility\u0026mdash;a bigger challenge. It takes away time from us. For example, if it's a male and a female classmate\u0026hellip; we as women face an additional challenge. They said that men might have a certain amount of time to study, while we have half or even less, because we have to take care of our children. In my case, I study, I work, I do research, I have two kids, and I have a husband. So, I think my effort is far greater than that of many of my classmates\u0026hellip; (P5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, one participant reflected on gender differences and emphasized that they should not be perceived negatively. Instead, she encouraged people to embrace these differences rather than impose their ideals on others. She also stressed that there are no cognitive differences between men and women that would affect the ability to study engineering. She shared the following reflection on the gender gap in engineering:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI remember something a professor once said\u0026hellip; that the gap is not really cognitive, even though our brains are biologically different. These are not cognitive gaps but cultural ones. And I don\u0026rsquo;t entirely disagree with the culture we\u0026rsquo;ve inherited, because we really are very different\u0026hellip; We can achieve the same things as men across different areas of society, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we\u0026rsquo;re different. That doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean men are smarter. I think female empowerment has been misdirected today. It shouldn\u0026rsquo;t be about that\u0026hellip; gender differences are complementary. And maybe the reason there aren\u0026rsquo;t more women in engineering is due to cultural factors\u0026mdash;because from school, from our families, we\u0026rsquo;re often made to feel less capable in math, physics, and subjects like that. Sometimes we even feel intimidated by men\u0026hellip; but it shouldn\u0026rsquo;t be that way. We have great cognitive capacity. It\u0026rsquo;s not about outperforming men\u0026mdash;it\u0026rsquo;s about proving it to ourselves (P8).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the factors influencing women\u0026rsquo; decisions to pursue STEM careers, based on the perceptions of students from various semesters and engineering programs. The analysis focused on four key categories: (1) Motivation, (2) Gender disparities, (3) Mentorship and role models, and (4) Work\u0026ndash;life balance. The research was grounded in the premise that STEM disciplines are predominantly male-dominated in terms of student enrollment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation emerged as a multidimensional factor. Salary expectations were cited as a significant driver of career choice, echoing prior research suggesting that the proportion of women in STEM occupations has increased, and that higher salaries in these jobs have helped improve women\u0026rsquo;s occupational wage ranking (Anaya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Anaya et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that while salaries in STEM fields vary considerably, they are on average nearly double those of non-STEM occupations. Notably, the participants who prioritized financial motivations are either the primary provider or co-provider in their households and exhibit low levels of adherence to gender-stereotyped beliefs regarding competencies and skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother relevant motivational factor is personal and family-related. Participants reported that their decision was influenced by a desire for personal growth, the identification of job opportunities, and the encouragement of significant figures in their lives\u0026mdash;mostly male relatives such as fathers, brothers, or partners. These findings are consistent with those reported by Gimeno et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who noted that while all women surveyed cited career opportunities as a motivator, many also highlighted personal interest and family influence. Likewise, H\u0026eacute;ctor Orlando et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) argue that social norms heavily influence women\u0026rsquo;s academic trajectories, a dynamic also reflected in participants\u0026rsquo; accounts of being encouraged or discouraged from pursuing engineering based on gendered expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants also highlighted their abilities in engineering-related disciplines. One participant, for example, achieved a perfect score (5.0) in her mathematics course. However, several studies have shown that girls and women tend to have lower confidence in their math and science abilities compared to boys and men, and that they often perceive themselves as a poor fit for male-dominated STEM fields\u0026mdash;ultimately affecting their aspirations and academic or career choices (Correll, 2004; Deboer, 1986; Sterling et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings further emphasize the pivotal role of professors, fathers, brothers, and husbands, who serve as mentors, role models, or advisors in developing personal goals and overcoming challenges. Mentorship is a critical strategy for reducing gender disparities in STEM, as it fosters students\u0026rsquo; self-esteem, confidence, and satisfaction with their academic and professional path. This is especially impactful for students who lack female mentors and is relevant both at the beginning of their studies and in the later stages, where it can reinforce a strong scientific identity (Quiroz-Compe\u0026aacute;n et al., 2023). Importantly, mentors do not have to be older professionals with more experience. They can be peers of the same age and academic standing, as long as they have received appropriate training (Marshall et al., 2021). Participant 7, for example, identified as her mentor a classmate with whom she had shared several semesters, yet who possessed extensive experience in the field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe persistence of gender stereotypes and the experience of being a minority in the classroom continue to shape the academic trajectories of female engineering students. While many participants did not report explicit discrimination, they expressed feelings of isolation, a constant need to prove their capabilities, and the pressure of being continually scrutinized. These dynamics are consistent with the findings of Oliveira et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), who highlight that women in engineering often feel compelled to seek validation from their male peers and are frequently assigned peripheral roles\u0026mdash;such as managing organizational or documentation tasks\u0026mdash;within group projects. Similar experiences of exclusion and a lack of belonging have also been documented among Brazilian women in software engineering, reinforcing the need for more inclusive educational environments, beginning in the early stages of training (Oliveira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite progress in expanding access to higher education, women with university degrees continue to face less favorable outcomes in the labor market compared to their male counterparts. STEM disciplines remain male-dominated, with deeply ingrained stereotypes and persistent biases in employer evaluations that tend to favor male graduates| (Th\u0026eacute;baud \u0026amp; Charles, 2018). Over time, this segregation has contributed to the expectation that men are more likely to succeed in STEM careers, reinforcing the stereotype that science is inherently masculine. As a result, men are perceived as naturally adept in technical and mathematically intensive fields, undermining women\u0026rsquo;s confidence and perceived self-efficacy (Charles \u0026amp; Bradley, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalancing academic, professional, and personal responsibilities presents another significant challenge, particularly for students and graduates with caregiving duties. Araneda-Guirriman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) note that female faculty\u0026mdash;especially those in senior roles\u0026mdash;are often burdened with excessive teaching and service duties, which create tension between professional responsibilities and personal life. These demands exacerbate the difficulties faced by women in reconciling multiple roles and meeting socially constructed expectations, such as excelling professionally while also fulfilling traditional roles as mothers. Consequently, there is a persistent imbalance in time, participation, and satisfaction between personal and professional domains, revealing that a true work\u0026ndash;life balance remains largely unattained (Brough et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, discipline and time management emerge as essential strategies for persistence and success in engineering programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis concern is echoed in the report by Cobreros et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which advocates for the development of gender-sensitive and co-responsible work\u0026ndash;life balance policies to mitigate the disproportionate burden placed on women in STEM. The report also emphasizes the importance of expanding flexible learning opportunities and raising awareness about the unique challenges faced by student mothers or those with significant domestic responsibilities. In light of these findings, there is an urgent need for both pedagogical and policy-level interventions to promote more equitable academic environments. As Tarazona Gal\u0026aacute;n et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) assert, the presence of role models, mentoring networks, and structured support programs is fundamental to increasing female representation in engineering and to strengthening students\u0026rsquo; professional confidence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study demonstrate that women\u0026rsquo;s participation in STEM careers\u0026mdash;particularly in engineering\u0026mdash;is shaped by a complex interaction of personal motivations, cultural expectations, institutional dynamics, and social influences. In other words, the decision to pursue engineering is driven not only by academic interest or career aspirations, but also by the influence of family members\u0026mdash;especially male relatives\u0026mdash;and the desire for upward social mobility and economic security. However, female students and graduates must navigate a landscape marked by persistent gender stereotypes; underrepresentation in academic settings; and significant challenges in balancing academic, professional, and personal responsibilities. Despite these barriers, the participants exhibited strong resilience and a deep commitment to their educational and professional goals. These attributes underscore the urgent need to foster more equitable and inclusive educational environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results also highlight the importance of implementing comprehensive strategies to support the retention and advancement of women in engineering. Mentorship, the presence of role models, institutional support structures, and the visibility of women in academic and professional spheres are key to strengthening women's professional identity in STEM fields. Furthermore, it is essential that educational policies adopt differentiated approaches that acknowledge the diverse pathways of female students, incorporating measures to promote well-being, work\u0026ndash;life balance, and flexible learning opportunities. Only by transforming educational and cultural contexts will it be possible to reduce persistent gender disparities in engineering and contribute to building a more diverse, equitable, and representative scientific community.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study by diligently accepting the form written form, filling out and confirming your acceptance online. Evidence of acceptance of this consent is stored in the online Microsoft Forms database. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study by diligently accepting the form verbally. In addition, the initial section of the study included the declaration of the data processing policy and the written declaration regarding the informed consent of each participant where they declare that they participated voluntarily in the study and recognize each component of it. If verification of this consent is required, it may be requested from the main and corresponding author of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eStatement Regarding Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll study participants were made aware that the information provided during the focus group would be treated confidentially. The data collected would not be used for any purpose beyond the objectives of this study. The responses and recordings obtained would be used exclusively for academic purposes and would be disseminated through scientific reports, ensuring the anonymity of the participants. In compliance with Colombian Law 1581 of 2012 and its regulatory decrees on personal data protection, the participants authorized the collection, storage, and use of their data for this study, always safeguarding their privacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM). This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano – ITM, the approval number (Approval ID: CE-ITM-2023-021), the date of ethical approval (15 March 2025). Formal approval was granted prior to the commencement of any research activities involving human participants. The scope of this approval included all procedures related to participant recruitment, the informed consent process, and the conduct of semi-structured interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll research procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the approving institutional ethics committee, the Colombian regulations governing research with human subjects and personal data protection (Law 1581 of 2012 and Decree 1377 of 2013), and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent amendments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical approval covered all stages of the research process, including participant recruitment, informed consent procedures, data collection through focus groups and semi-structured interviews, data handling, confidentiality safeguards, and dissemination of findings. The retrospective approval was granted after the completion of data collection, following an institutional ethics review process that assessed the study’s objectives, methodology, participant involvement, informed consent procedures, and data protection measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reason for obtaining ethical approval retrospectively is that, at the time of data collection, the study was conducted as an exploratory academic research activity involving minimal risk, anonymous participation, and no collection of sensitive or personally identifiable data. In accordance with institutional practice, such studies may proceed with prior informed consent and are subsequently submitted for formal ethical review to validate compliance with ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe retrospective ethical approval was granted in accordance with the institutional ethical oversight framework established by the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM), which regulates research activities involving human participants under the authority of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research and the institutional Internal Control Office. According to institutional procedures, studies that involve minimal risk, voluntary participation, and anonymized qualitative data may be subject to ethical review and formal approval upon verification of compliance with established ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional ethical governance policies and research oversight regulations are publicly available through the Vice-Rector’s Office for Research and the Internal Control Office of the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM):\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;https://www.itm.edu.co/investigacion/\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;https://www.itm.edu.co/control-interno/documentos/\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent was obtained in written form, using a digital informed consent document administered through Microsoft Forms, which included detailed information about the study objectives, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, approximate duration of the focus group and interviews, confidentiality measures, and data usage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reviewed and accepted the informed consent document before the focus group session, which took place on 13 November 2024. The consent process was facilitated by a member of the research team, who ensured that all participants clearly understood the study and had the opportunity to ask questions before agreeing to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcceptance of informed consent was recorded electronically and securely stored in the institutional Microsoft Forms database, in compliance with institutional data protection policies. Only participants who explicitly confirmed their consent were allowed to participate in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo oral-only consent procedures were used. No sensitive or identifying personal data were collected, and participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study adhered to the Colombian Data Protection Law (Law 1581 of 2012) and Decree 1377 of 2013 regarding the collection, use, storage, and protection of personal information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe development of this research was supported for the APC payment by the Higher Education () which provided support in payment of\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eof the APC of this item through project entitled ”” by the. The author thanks the ITM Translation Agency () for translating the manuscript into English.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor 's contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors contribution in the paper has been specified as follows: Conceptualization, and.; Literature Review, and.; Methodology,.; Software,; Data Analysis,. and; Draft Written and Conclusion, and.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests related to the conduct or publication of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dataset used is available at the following link:,.., ,., \u0026amp;,. (2026). Factors influencing women's participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis [Data set]. Zenodo.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdalnour H, Abdulkhaliq L, Ghaleb AM, Amrani MA, Alduais F (2023) Challenges to Female Engineers\u0026rsquo; Employment in the Conservative and Unstable Society of Taiz State, Yemen: A Survey Study. Sustainability 15(20):14919. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su152014919\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eACOFI (2024) \u003cem\u003eProgramas de Ingenier\u0026iacute;a en Colombia 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlestalo SW, Bhatia SK, Sukumaran B, Asce M, Professor DM (2015) L. \u003cem\u003eSupport of Women Geotechnical Engineering Faculty; History and Initiatives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnaya L, Stafford FP, Zamarro G (2017) Gender Gaps in Math Performance, Perceived Mathematical Ability and College STEM Education: The Role of Parental Occupation. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3068971\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. SSRN Electronic Journal\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnaya L, Stafford F, Zamarro G (2022) Gender gaps in math performance, perceived mathematical ability and college STEM education: the role of parental occupation. Educ Econ 30(2):113\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.1974344\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAraneda-Guirriman C, Garrido-Rivera A, Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-P\u0026aacute;ez G, Pe\u0026ntilde;aloza-D\u0026iacute;az G (2025) Women\u0026rsquo;s challenges in Chilean neoliberal academia: academic workload and its impact on work-life balance. Gend Educ 1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2471283\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter P, Jack S (2015) Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qualitative Rep. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBezak E, Suchowerska R, Claridge Mackonis E, Pillen H, Ralston A, Haworth A, Suchowerska N (2019) Women and men in the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine: workforce survey. Australasian Phys Eng Sci Med 42(1):33\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0706-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBravo E, Austin-Breneman J (2023) Board 214: An Investigation of Women Engineering Undergraduate Student Belonging in an Academic Makerspace. \u003cem\u003e2023 ASEE Annual Conference \u0026amp; Exposition Proceedings.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://peer.asee.org/42632.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrough P, Timms C, Chan XW, Hawkes A, Rasmussen L (2020) \u003cem\u003eWork\u0026ndash;Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences BT - Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of Occupational Health: From Macro-level to Micro-level Evidence\u003c/em\u003e (T. Theorell, Ed.; pp. 1\u0026ndash;15). Springer International Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05031-3_20-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarrillo Lanzabal MS, Padilla MCR, Martinez OEH (2024) Analysis of inequality between men and women enrolled and graduated in engineering programs in the Colombian Caribbean Region. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.723\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCasagrande LS, de Souza \u0026Acirc;MF (2016) L. e. Para al\u0026eacute;m do g\u0026ecirc;nero: mulheres e homens em engenharias e licenciaturas. \u003cem\u003eRevista Estudos Feministas\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 825\u0026ndash;850. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2016v24n3p825\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobreros L, Galindo J, Raigada T (2024) \u003cem\u003eMujeres en STEM: Desde la educaci\u0026oacute;n b\u0026aacute;sica hasta la carrera laboral\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCol\u0026aacute;s Bravo P, Villaciervos Moreno P (2007) La interiorizaci\u0026oacute;n de los estereotipos de g\u0026eacute;nero en j\u0026oacute;venes y adolescentes. In \u003cem\u003eRIE\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 25, Issue 1)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eContreras-Ortiz SH, Montoya-Noguera S, de Cajen SBG (2023) Women\u0026rsquo;s Leadership in Engineering: Defying Bias. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2023.1.1.651\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorple D, Feister MK, Zoltowski CB, Buzzanell PM (2018) Engineering Gender Identities of Women in a Service-Learning Context. \u003cem\u003e2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658478\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreamer E, Colleges Of Engineering With Above And Below Average Enrollment Of Women In Undergraduate Engineering (2009) When Gender Comes Into Play: Factors That Distinguish. \u003cem\u003e2009 Annual Conference \u0026amp; Exposition Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, 14.1368.1-14.1368.7. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--4546\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreamer EG (2009) \u003cem\u003eWhen gender comes into play: Factors that distinguish colleges of engineering with above and below average enrollment of women in undergraduate engineering\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/290365667\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol 49(3):182\u0026ndash;185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuque H, Aristiz\u0026aacute;bal D\u0026iacute;az-Granados ET (2019) An\u0026aacute;lisis fenomenol\u0026oacute;gico interpretativo. Pensando Psicolog\u0026iacute;a 15(25):1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16925/2382-3984.2019.01.03\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEarth4All and the Global Commons Alliance (2024) \u003cem\u003eGlobal Commons Survey 2024 Argentina Country Deck\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoccuzzi E, by, Pennington E, Silva E, Sloane J, Han R, McQuay K, Reid D, Sim E, Abendan R, Ahmed N, Altankhundaga T, Anandarajah S, Lee Anda A, Korina Bertulfo M, Brough S, Chang M, Chua G, Dattner F, Delitriana A, Wories-Lin Y (2021) \u003cem\u003eACCELERATING WOMEN\u0026rsquo;S ADVANCEMENT IN STEM: EMERGING LESSONS ON NETWORK STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES IN ASIA JUNE 2021 ACCELERATING WOMEN\u0026rsquo;S ADVANCEMENT IN STEM: EMERGING LESSONS ON NETWORK STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES IN ASIA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson SK (2006) Mentoring of women faculty: The role of organizational politics and culture. Innov High Educ 31(1):63\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGimeno PB, Gasull VL, Savini CA (2019) Analysis of the problems of income, performance and graduation of women in engineering careers at the faculty of engineering and agricultural sciences of the National University of San Luis. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2019-July\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18687/LACCEI2019.1.1.398\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026eacute;ctor Orlando TG, Stevens MO, Jhoan Alexis MC, Victoria Eugenia RR, Valentina J, Valeria BM, R. M., Andr\u0026eacute;s Felipe AD (2024) Women\u0026rsquo;s perception in their experience as engineering students: Case of Industrial Engineering Uniminuto - Cali. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.882\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaven L, T., Van Grootel DL (2019) Preregistering qualitative research. Account Res 26(3):229\u0026ndash;244. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaefer D, Gassman S, Luke B (2007) \u003cem\u003eFostering Development of Women Faculty in Geotechnical Engineering\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiang GJ, Evans R, Asadollahipajouh M, Kulesza SE (2023) A Qualitative Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering Project Teams. \u003cem\u003e2023 ASEE Annual Conference \u0026amp; Exposition Proceedings.\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://peer.asee.org/42482.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS (2012) The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):307\u0026ndash;320. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaccaro A, Oronti IB, Zito E, Piaggio D, Pecchia L (2024a) Women in engineering, science and technology in sub-Saharan Africa: cultural attitudes, challenges, and gaps affecting clinical engineering and medical devices maintenance practices. Health Technol 14(4):683\u0026ndash;694. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-024-00871-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaccaro A, Oronti IB, Zito E, Piaggio D, Pecchia L (2024b) Women in engineering, science and technology in sub-Saharan Africa: cultural attitudes, challenges, and gaps affecting clinical engineering and medical devices maintenance practices. Health Technol 14(4):683\u0026ndash;694. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-024-00871-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMancl K, Lee K (2017) Framework for Mentoring East Asian Women Scientists and Engineers. Ohio J Sci 116(2):28\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18061/ojs.v116i2.5033\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch Cerd\u0026aacute; JC, Prieto Rodr\u0026iacute;guez MA (2002) INVESTIGACI\u0026Oacute;N CUALITATIVA \u0026iquest;Qu\u0026eacute; son los grupos focales? Atenci\u0026oacute;n Primaria 29:366\u0026ndash;373\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliveira T, Barcomb A, Santos RDS, Barros H, Baldassarre MT, Fran\u0026ccedil;a C (2024) Navigating the Path of Women in Software Engineering: From Academia to Industry. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society\u003c/em\u003e, 154\u0026ndash;165. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3639475.3640100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez-Luco Arenas R, Lagos Guti\u0026eacute;rrez L, Barrera M, R., S\u0026aacute;ez Ardura F (2017) Taxonom\u0026iacute;a de dise\u0026ntilde;os y muestreo en investigaci\u0026oacute;n cualitativa. Un intento de s\u0026iacute;ntesis entre las aproximaciones te\u0026oacute;rica y emergente. \u003cem\u003eAmbitos: Revista Internacional de Comunicaci\u0026oacute;n\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6237888\u0026amp;orden=0\u0026amp;info=link\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):54\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSands RG, Parson LA, Duane J (1991) Faculty-faculty mentoring and discrimination:Perceptions among asian, asian american, and pacific island faculty. Equity Excellence Educ 25(2\u0026ndash;4):124\u0026ndash;129. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1066568910250219\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTarazona Gal\u0026aacute;n HO, Moreno Osorio S, Rivas Ram\u0026iacute;rez VE, Moreno B, Ruiz JV, Mej\u0026iacute;a V, Puente O (2024) V. Formative research scenarios in the training of women in engineering. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2024.1.1.569\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNDP (2024) \u003cem\u003eWomen in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in the Asia Pacific\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/women-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-asia-pacific\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO (2019) \u003cem\u003eDescifrar el c\u0026oacute;digo: la educaci\u0026oacute;n de las ni\u0026ntilde;as y las mujeres en ciencias, tecnolog\u0026iacute;a, ingenier\u0026iacute;a y matem\u0026aacute;ticas (STEM)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanantwerp J, Wilson D (2015) Difference Between Engineering Men and Women: How and Why They Choose What They Do During Early Career. \u003cem\u003eConference: American Society for Engineering Education Annual ConferenceAt: Seattle, WA\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/278965635_Difference_Between_Engineering_Men_and_Women_How_and_Why_They_Choose_What_They_Do_During_Early_Career\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanAntwerp J, Wilson D, Early Career (2015) Difference Between Engineering Men and Women: How and Why They Choose What They Do During. \u003cem\u003e2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, 26.543.1-26.543.21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18260/p.23881\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVipiana F, Migliaccio C (2025) A Journey during Six Years of the women in Engineering Column [Women in Engineering]. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag 67(1):87\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2024.3512996\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVipiana F, Reddy CJ (2024) Building Divergent Career Paths Based on Convergence Principles: Interview with Prof. Konstantina S. Nikita [Women in Engineering \u0026amp; Young Professionals]. In \u003cem\u003eIEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 66, Issue 3, pp. 122\u0026ndash;126). IEEE Computer Society. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2024.3385770\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Gender gap, Higher education, Women in STEM, Qualitative research, Focus group","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe persistent gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) continues to limit women\u0026rsquo;s full participation, particularly in engineering. Consequently, this study explored the experiences, motivations, and challenges faced by female engineering students and graduates in Colombia. A focus group was conducted with eight participants using a qualitative approach to examine the factors influencing women\u0026rsquo;s engagement in engineering. Variables considered included age, domestic roles, socioeconomic status, academic performance, and perceptions of gender stereotypes. Most participants were single, identified as daughters within their households, and held varying degrees of economic responsibility. Their motivation to pursue engineering careers was driven by personal growth, job prospects, and encouragement from close family members\u0026mdash;especially male figures such as fathers and brothers. The study also highlighted the positive influence of academic and personal role models, as well as the importance of emotional and spiritual support. Despite challenges related to time management, academic demands, and underrepresentation, participants expressed satisfaction with their career choice. They also underscored the need for mentors who support both academic achievement and work\u0026ndash;life balance. The findings point to the urgent need to foster inclusive academic environments, increase the visibility of female role models, and reinforce institutional strategies to retain and support women in STEM.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Factors influencing women’s participation in STEM: A qualitative analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-03 11:56:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660515/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-16T13:01:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T10:20:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T19:19:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"3861565552528975596035305977766984695","date":"2026-03-17T14:47:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-17T14:39:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"62279636737466805120019743277065063847","date":"2026-03-17T14:27:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"261752666967023939925489896584047444245","date":"2026-03-15T16:00:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-26T11:47:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T11:03:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T08:09:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-13T17:07:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-02-13T17:03:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"593fbe45-6ffd-4a51-ada5-e15b85a411c7","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 3rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":63765049,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":63765050,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":63765051,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T19:24:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-03 11:56:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8660515","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8660515","identity":"rs-8660515","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}