We revisit how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been defined, showing that ambiguity continues to complicate our understanding of the concept. Given the widespread use of the STEM acronym, one might assume its meaning was consistent and clear. We demonstrate, however, in four inter-related ways, that STEM’s meaning remains poorly focused and, subsequently, inconsistently applied. We show that the origin story of STEM is contested, that various related acronyms now vie for attention, that operational definitions of STEM are scattered, and that certain STEM-related policy initiatives need more nuance. As evidence for the latter two claims, we rely on a systematic audit of Canadian higher education research on STEM and on a longitudinal review of the gender balance among STEM university graduates. A reconceptualization of STEM’s focus is especially critical, as inconsistency in the acronym’s meaning clouds how research findings can be translated into policy. Policy decisions need to be properly grounded in reproducible evidence. Replication matters to good science and weak definition hampers reproducibility.

Link here