Gendered identity formation can be difficult to research: it is a fluid, complex, political, and contextualised construct that cannot be neatly filtered into one measurable variable. This study used a mixed-method approach of secondary statistical analysis and life-history guided semi-structured interviews to investigate how women in UK biology and physics have achieved elite levels of success through gendered identity formation and negotiation. The quantitative method employed in this study focused on measuring gender inequalities to expose the ways in which women are included or excluded from scientific fields, and trends of participation and historical progression (or regression) toward gender equality (MacDonald, 2014; Scott, 2010). Life-history guided semi-structured interviews use the contextual data and historical understandings gleaned from the quantitative analysis to create a more complete narrative of how the participants’ gender identity performance formed and evolved over time. Using a feminist interview technique, power in the interviewer/interviewee relationship fluctuated between the two, redistributing agency, freedom, and responsibility (Hesse-Biber, 2007; Reinharz & Davidman, 1992). In addition, an early establishment of rapport, through thorough online preparation, a familiarity with the participants’ work, and the interviewer’s periodic personal disclosures, reinforced the feminist technique and allowed the participants the freedom to reveal more about themselves than they had done in previous interviews (Yates, 2013). The combination of these methods allows the researcher to obtain a richer understanding of the fluid and provisional gendered identity of the participants at the time of interview and how it formed within a socio-historical context. Findings include a variety of coping methods and performances specific to scientific field, including distancing, participating, or rebelling, depending on the participants’ gendered identity at the moment in question. This mixed-method approach identifies systematic issues in addition to individual triumphs, implicating needed policy changes in order to ameliorate women’s pathways to success in UK biology and physics.
