Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 491Career Development and DiversityIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesHigher Education Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education

Charles, Maria, Bradley, Karen·2002·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.2307/3088946
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The contours and correlates of sex segregation in higher education are explored using data from twelve advanced industrialized countries. Tertiary sex segregation is examined across two dimensions: field of study (horizontal segregation) and tertiary level (vertical segregation). The authors argue that the different aspects of female status in higher education (e.g., overall enrollments, representation at the postgraduate level, and representation in traditionally male-dominated fields of study) do not covary because each variable is affected in distinct ways by structural and cultural features commonly associated with “modernity. “ In particular, (1) ideals of universalism do more to undermine vertical segregation than horizontal segregation, and (2) some modern structural features may actually exacerbate specific forms of sex segregation. Consistent with these arguments, results suggest strongly integrative effects of gender-egalitarian cultural attitudes on distributions across tertiary levels, and weaker, less uniform cultural effects on distributions across fields of study (one notable exception being a strong positive effect on women's representation in engineering programs). Two modern structural features—diversified tertiary systems and high rates of female employment—show segregative effects in some fields and institutional sectors. Overall, few across-the-board integrative or segregative effects can be discerned that would lend support to evolutionary conceptualizat…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3088946

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 491

Metadata

Authors
Charles, M., & Bradley, K.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Western Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
Charles, Maria
ORCID
Charles, Maria
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-08
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
573
ISSN
0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/3088946
OpenAlex
W2066988141
Cited by
491
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 24
FWCI
21.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
sex segregation, higher education, horizontal segregation, vertical segregation, gender stratification, women's enrollment, male-dominated fields, gender egalitarianism, universalism, modernity, women's employment, engineering programs, cross-national comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.