The underrepresentation of females in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields caused by gender stereotypes and discrimination issues is a worldwide problem (Riegle-Crumb et al. 2012; Farrell & McHugh 2017; Ertl, Luttenberger, and Paechter 2017). Today, it has become clear that female and male students do not differ in their ability in hard sciences (Riegle-Crumb et al. 2012; O’Dea et al. 2018; Stoet and Geary 2018). The proportion of girls who would like to continue their education in STEM fields and could be successful is significantly higher than the proportion of those who actually enroll in STEM majors and complete them (Ceci and Williams 2010; Stoet and Geary 2018). An increase in gender parity can help to meet growing global demand for a STEM qualified labor force (Fox, Sonnert, and Nikiforova 2011; Chirikov et al. 2020). 

The awareness of the negative social and economic effects of gender inequality in STEM and success in overcoming this problem vary across countries. Some countries like the UK come to ‘post-feminist era’ (Morrison, Bourke, and Kelley 2005), while others like Japan are confronted with strong resistance from society (Kitada and Harada 2019). Russia is among countries where the problem of gender inequality in STEM has not received much attention. There has been no large-scale research or initiatives aimed to understand and improve the situation of gender discrimination at the national or institutional level (Stoet and Geary 2018). The Russian case is interesting because of the ‘myth of gender equality’ formed in the Soviet period (Antoshchuk 2021). The USSR demonstrated a high level of female participation in STEM fields, which reached 60% in the 1980s and dropped after the collapse of the USSR  (Antoshchuk, 2021). Despite the dramatic decrease in female participation in STEM, the myth of gender equity continues to be reproduced in public opinion (Stoet and Geary 2018). However, recent statistics point to the gender imbalance in Russian engineering education. In Russia, enrollment in engineering accounts for 32% of total enrollment. The share of women among students enrolled in these fields of study in 2020 was only 27%. This proportion is close to the average in OECD countries, where females account for 26% of degrees awarded in engineering (Vincent-Lancrin 2008). 

Our study aims to investigate how gender inequality in engineering is reproduced in the discourses and language styles of Russian engineering undergraduates and in the actions, discourses and language styles of instructors, presented in students’ narratives. We employ Fairclough's (2003) critical discourse analysis to connect the student narratives about gender differences with participants’ situated identities, and gender stereotypes concerning gender issues in engineering in Russian society. The following questions are guided our analysis:

1. How do engineering students of both genders perceive faculty's treatment and judgement of male and female students?

2. How do female students describe their experience of being a student in an engineering major?

3. How do engineering students perceive the role of female students in an engineering major?

4. How do engineering students perceive the gender discrimination issue occurring in classroom situations?

The answers to these questions allow us to deepen our understanding of the barriers to the engineering profession for females and develop recommendations for gender equity policy. Post-Soviet countries with similar trends in gender (im)balance in engineering may find the results of this study relevant for the development of their national and institutional strategies towards gender equity.

Our conviction is that texts produced in interviews and social and educational contexts are linked together and mediated by discourse practices. We use Fairclough’s (2003) critical discourse analysis to connect the student narratives about gender differences with participant’s situated identities, institutional contexts and gender stereotypes concerning gender issues in engineering in Russian society. We focus our analysis on the presenting discourses and positions (styles) of male and female participants when they speak about gender differences in educational situations at university. The interviews were analyzed and coded by each member of our research team (the three research analysts) independently. Then we discussed the codes and discursive statements identified by each of us and reached agreement on the final codes and discursive statements as well as on the main results of the interview analysis. The data were collected through in-depth interviews with fourth year undergraduate students enrolled in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering undergraduate programs at six Russian universities. Twenty-two female and 22 male undergraduates took part in the study. The sample was formed in such a way that it covered students with different levels of knowledge in mathematics, which were assessed through a standardised test taken by students in the third year of study. All students participated in the project voluntarily. The choice of universities was guided by two criteria: selectivity and geographical location. Three selective universities and three non-selective universities were chosen. The selective universities were defined as institutions in which the average score for entry examination was higher than 70%. Two universities were located in Moscow, and the other four universities in different Russian regions. The in-depth interviews covered a variety of topics related to students’ experience on the undergraduate program (for example, experiences inside and outside the classroom, perception of curriculum, student-faculty interaction, communication with classmates and other students, difficulties in meeting course requirements, and gender differences). For the purpose of our research, in the analysis, we concentrated on the narratives that were related to the students’ perceptions of gender differences in classroom situations, their opinions about the ways in which faculty treat and judge female and male students, gender stereotypes in communication with faculty and peers, and the roles of male and female students in a study group.

Gender inequality in engineering in Russia is reproduced by both faculty and students through communicating lower expectations from females compared to males. Students perceive these situations in several ways. First, some students perceive such situations as fair because they consider it as affirmative action helping female students to feel more comfortable in male-dominated environment. Second, a number of students consider different treatment to male and female students from faculty members as a signal of sexual objectification. This can be interpreted in line with the absence in Russia of any national or institutional regulation of sexual relations between faculty and students. Third, some male students perceive situations in which female students receive additional preferences from instructors as unfair to boys that can lead to conflict situations between female and male students and negatively affect the social and psychological climate in a study group. The classmates' relations and networking in study groups are the important factors that contribute to student experience and outcomes. Finally, situations when faculty treat students differently according to their gender can negatively affect females’ student experience. Females can experience psychological pressure from faculty and male classmates, uncertainty in student-faculty relationships, devaluation of their educational achievement from classmates that can damage their self-confidence in the field of study. The most important result of this study is that gender discrimination is not perceived as a problem not only by male students, but also by female students. No one of our participants sees this phenomenon as a problem that requires solving and struggling. Contrary, they prefer to ignore or perceive it as a joke situation when faculty treat and judge students according to their gender or when classmates reproduce gender stereotypes in daily conversations, in group work or when they talk about females' achievements.

Antoshchuk, I.A. 2021. “Moving through the STEM Pipeline: A Systematic Literature Review of the Gender Inequality in Russian Engineering.” Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal 3:57-87. Ceci, S.J., and W.M. Williams. 2010. “Sex differences in math-intensive fields.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 19:275—279. Chirikov, I., T. Semenova, N. Maloshonok, E. Bettinger, and R.F. Kizilcec. 2020. “Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost.” Science advances 6 (15): 1-10. Ertl, B., S. Luttenberger, and M. Paechter. 2017. “The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females.” Frontiers in psychology 8:1-11. Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge. Farrell, L., and L. McHugh. 2017. “Examining gender-STEM bias among STEM and non-STEM students using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP).” Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 6 (1): 80–9. Fox, M.F., G. Sonnert, and I. Nikiforova. 2011. “Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Issues, Problems, and Solutions.” Gender & Society 25 (5): 589–615. Kitada, M., and J. Harada. 2019. “Progress or regress on gender equality: The case study of selected transport STEM careers and their vocational education and training in Japan.” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 1. Morrison, Z., M. Bourke, and C. Kelley. 2005. “‘Stop making it such a big issue’: Perceptions and experiences of gender inequality by undergraduates at a British University.” Women's Studies International Forum 28 (2-3): 150-162. O’Dea, R.E., M. Lagisz, M.D. Jennions, and S. Nakagawa. 2018. “Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM.” Nature Communications 9:1-8. Riegle-Crumb, C., B. King, E. Grodsky, and C. Muller. 2012. “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? Prior Achievement Fails to Explain Gender Inequality in Entry Into STEM College Majors Over Time.” American Educational Research Journal 49 (6): 1048–1073. Stoet, G., and D. Geary. 2018. “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.” Psychological Science 29 (4): 581-593. Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2008. “The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An on-going trend.” In Higher Education to 2030, 42. Paris: OECD Publishing.