Problematizing the STEM Pipeline Metaphor

CANNADY, M. A., GREENWALD, E., & HARRIS, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM Pipeline Metaphor: Is the STEM Pipeline Metaphor Serving Our Students and the STEM Workforce?. Science Education, 443-460.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2014

Pages

443-460

DOI

10.1002/sce.21108

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108

Cited from

data_science

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Funnel Analysis
  • Education. Enroll to persist to declare to graduate to employ; the "leaky pipeline" framing is funnel framing.

    This sourceExamines the "leaky pipeline" framing of STEM education and workforce attrition (enroll → persist → graduate → employ) as a staged drop-off model and critiques its diagnostic adequacy.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    The abstract problematizes the STEM pipeline as a narrowing staged trajectory and proposes a pathway metaphor, but states neither the enroll-persist-declare-graduate-employ sequence nor any funnel equivalence.

    “This study interrogates the appropriateness of the STEM pipeline as the dominant frame for understanding and making policies related to STEM career trajectories. Our review of pertinent literature and independent analysis of data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 finds that the trajectory implied by the pipeline metaphor fails to describe the experience for nearly half of those who go on to …”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:df3fcfff27d7 · see in the full table