In recent years, widening participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education at the university level has been a pivotal goal for educational policymakers and institutions worldwide. Despite innumerable efforts, significant barriers persist that prevent STEM universities from achieving broader access and inclusive participation. A groundbreaking study by Liu and Kringos systematically explores these obstacles by synthesizing global literature, offering an unprecedented comprehensive picture of what truly inhibits the expansion of STEM universes into more diverse and inclusive territories. This revelation not only highlights the multifaceted nature of these barriers but also sets the stage for more targeted interventions that can shift this entrenched paradigm.
The research delves into the historical foundations of participation in STEM fields, focusing on the enduring distinction between underrepresented groups and the traditional constituency that STEM universities have predominantly served. Socio-economic disparities, gender imbalances, ethnic and racial exclusions, and geographic inequalities form the bedrock of this issue. Liu and Kringos meticulously trace how these socio-demographic factors coalesce to entrench systemic exclusion in university-level STEM education. By reviewing evidence from numerous countries and cultural contexts, they underscore that the challenge transcends local or national boundaries, reflecting structural issues that pervade global educational systems.
One of the paper’s profound insights is the identification of institutional culture within STEM universities as a significant barrier. These institutions often harbor implicit biases and cultural norms that inadvertently prioritize certain groups, creating environments that can feel inhospitable to underrepresented students. Such cultural barriers manifest in subtle yet pervasive ways: from pedagogical approaches that do not accommodate diverse learning styles to rigid admission criteria that favor traditional academic pathways, often linked to socio-economic privilege. The cumulative effect acts as an invisible gatekeeping mechanism restricting diversity.
Furthermore, the study systematically highlights the role of pre-university educational inequities in exacerbating participation challenges. There is a clear recognition that primary and secondary education sectors’ inadequacies disproportionately affect marginalized populations, resulting in uneven preparatory grounding for STEM disciplines. This lack of foundational support manifests as readiness gaps, impeding students’ ability to compete successfully for entry into rigorous STEM programs. Thus, the pipeline to higher STEM education is not just a matter of university policies but an interconnected challenge spanning entire educational ecosystems.
In addition to educational frameworks, socio-cultural expectations and stereotypes persist as profound obstacles. Liu and Kringos illuminate how pervasive gender stereotypes, for example, continue to dissuade women from pursuing STEM degrees despite increasing advocacy for gender parity. Moreover, familial and community expectations influence career aspirations, often curtailing ambitions toward STEM fields for minority and first-generation students. These socio-cultural dimensions compound the problem by embedding exclusion in everyday narratives surrounding STEM participation.
Beyond the social and cultural scope, economic barriers also play a decisive role. The cost of higher education and associated expenses creates formidable hurdles for economically disadvantaged students. Scholarships and financial aid, while important, are frequently insufficient or inaccessible for key populations. This economic stratification leads to self-selection out of STEM university programs by qualified but financially constrained candidates, perpetuating the cycle of exclusion in a sector that is critical for future economic innovation and competitiveness.
Liu and Kringos’ systematic review further explores policy limitations that hinder the effective widening of participation. Policymaking in STEM education often suffers from fragmented implementation, lack of coordination between governmental, institutional, and community stakeholders, and short-term focus. These shortcomings result in pilot programs and isolated initiatives rather than sustainable, scalable approaches capable of producing lasting change. The authors advocate for integrated policy frameworks that synergize resources and align incentives across all levels of education and governance.
A revealing dimension in this study is the examination of data deficiencies impeding progress. The lack of comprehensive, disaggregated data on participation rates and dropout factors obscures the full scope of inclusion problems in STEM universities. This absence of granular data undermines the ability to design evidence-based interventions, monitor their effectiveness, and iterate program designs. Liu and Kringos make a compelling case for enhanced data collection strategies, emphasizing transparency and accountability as foundational to meaningful widening of participation efforts.
Institutional inertia also emerges as a formidable obstacle. The study suggests that entrenched organizational structures within STEM universities resist changes that could foster more inclusive environments. Faculty attitudes, administrative priorities, and established reward systems often do not incentivize inclusive pedagogies or outreach efforts. This inertia is compounded by limited professional development opportunities for staff focused on equity and inclusion, leaving many institutions ill-equipped to adapt to the demands of widening participation.
Crucially, the review situates technology and digital access in the contemporary discourse on STEM participation. While digital tools offer new pathways for engagement, disparities in access to technology and digital literacy further marginalize disadvantaged groups. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these digital divides, making it imperative that universities address technological inequities as part of comprehensive inclusivity strategies. Liu and Kringos highlight digital access not merely as a technical issue but as a critical equity matter in modern STEM education.
The findings also reveal the significant gap between policy rhetoric and on-the-ground realities. Universities often proclaim commitments to diversity and inclusivity, yet these proclamations frequently lack substantive follow-through. The study underscores the importance of aligning institutional rhetoric with concrete actions such as curriculum redesign, mentorship programs, and community partnerships that authentically support underrepresented students’ success and sense of belonging.
Undoubtedly, one of the study’s critical contributions is framing widening participation as a systemic change challenge rather than an isolated problem. This systems perspective demands multidisciplinary collaboration, involving educators, sociologists, economists, policymakers, and community members. Only through coordinated action and shared accountability can the deeply rooted barriers elucidated in this review be dismantled effectively.
The research also invites reflection on the role of international benchmarking and knowledge exchange. Given that the obstacles identified span diverse contexts globally, there is vast potential for cross-national learning and adaptation of best practices. The authors advocate creating robust international networks to share successful strategies, improve policy coherence, and foster collective progress in broadening STEM participation worldwide.
Finally, Liu and Kringos conclude with a call to action that transcends the mere identification of barriers. They recommend a holistic approach that addresses structural inequalities, fosters inclusive cultures, enhances preparatory education, provides robust financial support, and embraces technological equity. The future trajectory of STEM universities depends heavily on their ability to implement these integrative solutions, ensuring that innovation ecosystems benefit from the fullest spectrum of human talent.
This study marks a pivotal moment in the discourse on educational equity in STEM, providing a scientifically rigorous foundation for transformative change. As the global demand for STEM professionals accelerates, the imperative to dismantle participation barriers becomes not only a matter of social justice but also a strategic necessity for sustainable development and technological advancement.
Subject of Research:
What prevents STEM universities from widening participation, based on a systematic review of global experiences.
Article Title:
What prevents STEM universities from widening participation? A systematic literature review on global experiences.
Article References:
Liu, Z., Kringos, N. What prevents STEM universities from widening participation? A systematic literature review on global experiences. IJ STEM Ed 12, 63 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00580-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00580-0
