性別科系跨界？大學生的性別與科系選擇
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2011-12-01
Authors
謝小芩
林大森
陳佩英
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
臺灣社會學社
Abstract
本研究探討臺灣高等教育性別隔離的影響因素。20世紀後半期起，各國高等教育相繼擴張，男女學生高教入學機會漸趨平等，但是男性集中於理工領域、女性集中於人文藝術領域的性別隔離現象仍十分明顯；臺灣亦不例外。關於女性持續低度參與傳統男性領域的現象探討，國外研究成果豐碩，但探討影響男性低度參與傳統女性領域研究仍十分有限。本研究從學生科系選擇的角度切入，探討跨越性別疆界選擇非傳統性別科系的男女學生的特質，及影響他們跨界抉擇的因素，並特別考慮臺灣分流學制與升學考試的制度性因素在性別科系抉擇過程中的作用。本文運用「臺灣高等教育資料庫」2005年大一新生調查資料，分析結果顯示，制度性因素對學生的跨界選系抉擇有顯著的約制作用，技職體系學生的路徑依賴現象尤為顯著；關鍵學科成績對於綜合大學學生的跨界抉擇有顯著影響；而家庭背景、重要他人建議、興趣與未來就業考量的作用則因性別而異，顯示技職體系與綜合大學學生之間、男女兩性之間的性別跨界選系抉擇過程皆有所差異；研究假設大致獲得男性樣本的支持，卻多與女性樣本分析結果不符，本文亦對此發現進行深入討論。
The authors investigated two questions. First, who successfully crossed gender boundaries to study in non-traditional major in relation to his or her gender? Second, what factors affected these boundary-crossing students in making decisions of college or university majors? Based on the analyses of Taiwan Integrated Postsecondary Education Database for a representative sample from the 2005 freshmen class, this study found that less than 10% chose majors non-traditional to their genders. Logistic regression analyses revealed that institutional factors exerted strong constraining effects, and that females/males and vocational/academic track students showed different concerns and decision making patterns while choosing non-traditional departments. In general, research hypotheses were found confirmed only for males, but not for females. Theoretical and policy implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.
The authors investigated two questions. First, who successfully crossed gender boundaries to study in non-traditional major in relation to his or her gender? Second, what factors affected these boundary-crossing students in making decisions of college or university majors? Based on the analyses of Taiwan Integrated Postsecondary Education Database for a representative sample from the 2005 freshmen class, this study found that less than 10% chose majors non-traditional to their genders. Logistic regression analyses revealed that institutional factors exerted strong constraining effects, and that females/males and vocational/academic track students showed different concerns and decision making patterns while choosing non-traditional departments. In general, research hypotheses were found confirmed only for males, but not for females. Theoretical and policy implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.