Content uploaded by Lisa M Frehill
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisa M Frehill on Sep 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Willie Pearson, Jr. • Lisa M. Frehill
Connie L. McNeely
Editors
Advancing Women
in Science
An International Perspective
2
3
4
5
6
7
ISBN 978-3-319-08628-6 ISBN 978-3-319-08629-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08629-3
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956705
© Vignette 8.1 is authored by a U.S. Government employee
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Editors
Willie Pearson, Jr.
School of History, Technology, and Society
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA, USA
Connie L. McNeely
School of Public Policy
George Mason University
Arlington, VA, USA
Lisa M. Frehill
Energetics Technology Center (ETC)
Waldorf, MD, USA
v
Foreword
Since the late 1970s, in both the United States and Europe, there has been innovative
and important academic work on the interrelations between gender and science,
technology (mostly information and communications technology, ICT), and innova-
tion.1 This work was then extended to other regions where science and technology
were less developed (such as Latin America).
Lerman et al. (2003) and Wajcman (2004) place the beginnings of feminist
research on science and technology in the 1970s. These authors are among those
who made signicant contributions to the start and development of this eld. In the
1980s, these studies illuminated the important progress, which was enriched and
enhanced substantially from the 1990s to today (e.g., Haraway 1985; Plant 1988;
Turkle 1995). Gender equality became a central concern for research and science
policies in the European Union (EU) beginning in the 1990s. For example, in the
EU’s Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), gender equality was addressed both in
quantitative terms (emphasis on increasing the number of women scientists) and in
qualitative terms (the recognition of gender as an analytic category to be included
by researchers in this eld); since then, it has been sustained by continuous pro-
grams supported by the EU.
A turning point in Latin America was the UNESCO (United Nations Educational,
Scientic, and Cultural Organization) Regional Forum on Women and Science
(Bariloche, Argentina, 1998), which laid the foundation for the World Conference
on Science for the XII Century: A New Commitment – UNESCO (Budapest,
Hungary, 1999), which, in turn, led to the creation of the UNESCO Regional Chair
for Women, Science, and Technology in Latin America, based in FLACSO
Argentina.2 Other important “drivers” in the advancement of this eld have been the
Ibero-American Conferences on Science, Technology, and Gender, which take
place every 2 years; the rst was celebrated in Madrid in 1996.
1 The literature on Gender and Science is too vast to account for it in this foreword. I will refer
primarily to three of the most cited sources: Harding (1986, 1991), and Fox Keller (1995).
2 Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales—Sede Académica Argentina.
vi
In general, in a slow but persistent manner, a corpus of knowledge has been
developed by the intertwining of science and technology (S&T) with diverse social
science and humanities disciplines in terms of both theory and application (e.g.,
history, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, education, philosophy, epistemol-
ogy, and gender studies or feminist theory). In spite or because of important theo-
retical and methodological differences, the research in these elds has contributed
(both implicitly and explicitly) to problematize what was considered universal,
objective, and neutral knowledge and scientic and technological practices and
products, revealing their connections with beliefs, values, and gender stereotypes
predominant in the socio-historic context in which S&T is produced, disseminated,
legitimized, and used.
Research also has shown male dominance in these elds, not only in terms of
numbers, or in their presence in decision-making in S&T institutions, but also in the
construction of what is conceived and valued as scientic and technological knowl-
edge, demonstrating its androcentric or patriarchal biases concealed by the accepted
criteria of rationality, validity, relevance, and excellence. Sara Delamont (1997), for
example, points to the bias in science studies “towards exciting, high status men
working in elite centres of “big science” excellence,” rather than the “routine sci-
ence” in which most women are involved.
Many studies across disciplines have also consistently provided evidence on a
set of issues that affect each other reciprocally: the “invisibilization” or devaluation
of women’s contributions to the development of S&T throughout history, which has
led to some impressive and somewhat “archeological” recovery work through biog-
raphies of women researchers and inventors who have been ignored since ancient
times to the present, or who simply did not receive the same recognition and
acknowledgement as men. Research also has examined both latent and manifest
sexism in S&T education, expressed in the curricula and educational materials,
student/teacher interactions and peer relations, and the “chilly” climate which
undervalues women’s capabilities in scientic careers, especially those in which they
are a minority, such as engineering and informatics—all factors that tend to dis-
courage girls and young women from choosing S&T as elds of study and profes-
sional careers. Virtually all the work in this area reaches the same conclusion, which
was expressed in the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women
Beijing, China:
Science curricula in particular are gender‐biased. Science textbooks do not relate
to women’s and girls’ daily experience and fail to give recognition to women scien-
tists. Girls are often deprived of basic education in mathematics and science and
technical training, which provide knowledge that they could apply to improve their
daily lives and enhance their employment opportunities.
Another line of research deals with the complexity of obstacles that limit the full
participation of women in S&T professional work in universities and in the private
sector, including those that were evident in the past and therefore more easily chal-
lenged, as well as those that were embedded in institutional cultures that have a
powerful inuence in maintaining gender inequalities and discriminatory practices.
Another line of research focused on recovering and analyzing the knowledge
Foreword
vii
created by women’s groups in different cultures on issues related to health, agricul-
ture, astronomy, and chemistry, among others, that have been ignored for decades
and not validated as scientic.
These lines of research continue to provide new ndings, and to stimulate and
inform lively debates. The development of different theoretical trends within gender
or feminist theory (liberal, marxist, radical, postmodern, cyberfeminist, post- colonial,
queer, etc.) is also inspiring new debates, questions, and research problems.
Following Londa Schiebinger (2010), among the research institutions, non-
governmental agencies, and governments that have developed gender equality S&T poli-
cies over the past several decades, we can identify three categories of strategic approaches:
1. Fix the numbers of women focuses on increasing women’s participation in
S&T. This strategy tends to make women “the problem” (their lack of education,
motivation, self-devaluation) and, as a “solution” proposes more education and
empowerment. Gender bias in S&T foundations, developments, results, and
institutions that produce it is often ignored. One of its consequences is that, “to
achieve success, women or girls are often required to assume male values, behav-
iors, and life rhythms.” Note, however, that the inclusion strategy that prevailed
for decades has moved from a formal approach to equal opportunities, to the
analysis of the roots of marginalization and the systematic invisibility or devalu-
ation of women’s contributions to S&T, investigating the diverse effects of a
“gender blind” science and the meaning that this segregation has on the produc-
tion and uses of knowledge.
2. Fix the institutions promotes gender equality in careers through structural change
in research organizations. In this regard, knowledge and the systematic use of
gender-based analysis for planning, mentoring, and assessing policies, practices,
and programs are essential, to which should be added the creation of new and
more sensitive indicators on gender differences and inequalities. Accordingly,
structural change cannot be limited to gender equality in quantitative terms. It
requires institutional changes including, for example, norms, structures, criteria
for recruitment, assessment and promotion, priorities in research agendas, and
assigned funds, as well as less obvious matters such as everyday interpersonal
relationships, language, organizational climate, and organization of the work
process, among others.
3. Fix the knowledge or gendered innovations posits that science, technology, and
gender representations and values are co-constructed through interaction pro-
cesses in socio-cultural contexts. This approach is quite recent and promising,
and it has been used especially in gender and ICT studies. The goal of this strat-
egy is to “create gender-responsible science and technology, thereby enhancing
the lives of both women and men worldwide.” Lastly, and with the horizon in
sight, it states the need to develop methods and studies to enhance excellence
through gender analysis for basic and applied research in science, medicine, and
engineering “as a resource to stimulate creativity (…) and by doing so to enhance
the lives of both men and women.”
Foreword
viii
The related literature—especially reports from conferences, workshops, and
other events where these topics have been discussed—makes clear that many
researchers intend for their ndings to motivate processes of change and inform
policy making. Although the relationships between research on gender in S&T and
on policy making in these elds are more complex and slower than we would prefer,
there have been important advances towards achieving this fundamental goal.
The chapters and vignettes included in this volume are a part of this journey.
April 2014 Gloria Bonder
References
Delamont, S. Three Blind Spots? A Comment on the Sociology of Science by a Puzzled Outsider.
Social Studies of Science 17(1) (February 1987).
Fox Keller, E. 1995. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Haraway, D. 1985. A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science Technology, and Social Feminism in the
1980. Socialist Review 80
Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
______. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Milton Keynes Bucks Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Lerman, N., R. Oldenziel, and A.P. Mohun. 2003. Gender and Technology: A Reader. Baltimore,
MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Plant, S. 1988. Zeros and Ones: Digital Women + The New Technoculture. London: Fourth Estate.
Schiebinger, L. ed. Gendered Innovations: Mainstreaming Sex and Gender Analysis into Basic and
Applied Research Topic. Report 2010, www.genderandscience.org
Turkle, S. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Judy, Wajcman. 2008. Gender and the Cultures of Corporations and Work Continuity and Change.
TELOS (January–March).
[AU1]
Foreword
ix
Acknowledgments
This project has a long history that dates back to a 14–15 November 2005
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conference on
Declining Student Enrolment in Science and Technology held in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. During this meeting, a small group of women and men decided to
mobilize and focus global attention on the cross-cutting theme of gender. At the
time, however, the group quickly discovered that related cross-cultural research
was somewhat limited. Consequently, the group agreed to seek funding to bring
together an international cadre of scholars in a workshop format with the goal of
producing an edited volume to address the critical issues surrounding the topic.
Daryl Chubin, Cheryl B. Leggon, Shirley M. Malcom, Willie Pearson, Jr., and Terry
Russell (as principal investigator) developed and submitted a proposal to the United
States (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) that was funded (NSF/EHR Grant
No. 1048010), with the award going to the Association for Institutional Research
(AIR, Russell’s afliation). This project would have been difcult to implement
without the strong support of our Program Ofcers: Myles Boylan and Carol Stoel.
The primary role of Program Ofcer for the project was assumed by Carol Stoel; to
her, we owe a great deal of gratitude for her continued encouragement when con-
fronted with many logistical challenges. We also appreciate the support of two
other NSF ofcials. Barbara Olds (former Program Ofcer, NSF) served on the
OECD Conference Organizing Committee and played a major role in inviting the
US conference attendees. Wanda E. Ward (former Acting Assistant Director,
Division of Education and Human Resources, NSF) participated in the OECD
Conference and the resulting two major workshops that were convened for the proj-
ect. In addition, special thanks are due to former US Ambassador to the OECD,
Constance A. Morella, who attended the 2005 conference and supported the project
during her tenure.
x
Shortly after the grant award, Russell retired and the project was transferred to
the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, which held the rst
workshop, with Lisa Frehill joining as the new principal investigator. Subsequently,
the project was transferred to the US National Academies, which held the nal
workshop in 2011 and produced the 2012 workshop report, Blueprint for the Future:
Framing the Issues of Women in Science in a Global Context.
This edited volume is the culmination of the original goal. Throughout the
long, arduous journey, Chubin, Leggon, Malcom, Pearson, and Russell remained
committed and, along the way, several others joined in to complete the journey
and bring the project to fruition. We are especially grateful for the persistence
and dedication of Lisa Frehill and Connie McNeely, and also of Alice Abreu,
Jann Adams, Sybrina Atwaters, Josephine Beoku-Betts, Lisa Borello, J. McGrath
Cohoon, Catherine Didion, Wendy Hansen, Marta Kisilevsky, Robert Lichter,
Anne MacLachlan, Mariko Ogawa, Anne Pépin, Cheryl de la Rey, Diane Wilcox,
and Kathrin Zippel.
The chapters have been improved enormously by comments from a distinguished
group of external reviewers. We are grateful to the following individuals for their
critical feedback: Anna Baron (University of Colorado, Denver, US), Geesje van
den Berg (University of South Africa), Sylvia Bozeman (formerly Spelman College,
US), Cinda Sue Davis (University of Michigan, US), Charmaine Dean (University
of Waterloo, Canada), Joan Frye (US National Science Foundation), Yolanda
George (American Association for the Advancement of Science, US), Angela
Ginorio (University of Washington, US), Linda Grant (formerly University of
Georgia, US), Wendy Hansen (United Nations University, Maastricht, The
Netherlands), Sandra Hanson (Catholic University, US), Kaye Husbands-Fealing
(University of Minnesota, US), Maki Kubo (Okinawa Institute of Science and
Technology, Japan), Val Kuk (formerly of Bell Labs, US), Kong-Ju-Bock Lee
(Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea), Anne MacLachlan (University of
California, Berkeley, US), Carol Muller (Stanford University, US), Mia Ong (TERC,
US), Cheryl de la Rey (University of Pretoria, South Africa), Terrence Russell (for-
merly Association for Institutional Research, US), Yu Tao (Stevens Institute of
Technology, US), and Jungwon Yoon (Songan University, South Korea).
We express our deep appreciation to our collaborators who took their valuable
time to participate in this labor intensive and time consuming effort. The collabora-
tors represent diverse geographical regions: Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe, and
Oceania. Additionally, a number of individuals were instrumental in recommending
chapter and vignette contributors and reviewers. We thank the following individuals
for their assistance: Anna Baron (University of Colorado, Denver); Betsy DiSalvo
(Georgia Institute of Technology); and Luis Tenorio (Colorado School of Mines).
We thank Nicholas Philipson of Springer for immediately recognizing the value
of this book, and Nitza Jones-Sepulveda for her help in bringing it to press. The
views expressed in the book are solely those of the authors, and not those of their
Acknowledgments
xi
institutional afliations nor of the US National Science Foundation. Finally, we
credit the strengths of this volume to the insight, knowledge, and skill of the authors
in addressing the tasks requested of them and to the enormous support of our col-
leagues. However, we take full responsibility for any errors that remain.
Atlanta, GA, USA Willie Pearson Jr., Ph.D.
Waldorf, MD, USA Lisa M. Frehill, Ph.D.
Fairfax, VA, USA Connie L. McNeely, Ph.D.
Acknowledgments
xiii
1 An International Perspective on Advancing Women in Science ......... 1
Lisa M. Frehill, Connie L. McNeely, and Willie Pearson, Jr.
Part I Cross-Cultural Foundational Issues
2 Women’s Enrollments in STEM in Higher Education:
Cross-National Trends, 1970–2010 ........................................................ 9
Francisco O. Ramirez and Naejin Kwak
Vignette 2.1 Road to 2015: Pre-college Gender Parity
and UNESCO’s Millennium Development Goals ................................. 25
Katie Seely-Gant
Vignette 2.2 Historical Perspectives on Women
in Chemical Sciences, Computer Science, and Mathematics .............. 31
Mariko Ogawa and Lisa M. Frehill
Vignette 2.3 Color.less.Edu: A Statistical Overview
of the Status of Women of Color in US Higher Education
at the Baccalaureate Level of S&E ........................................................ 35
Sybrina Y. Atwaters
Vignette 2.4 Women’s Participation in Higher Education:
An Indian Scenario ................................................................................. 41
Sarita Khandka
Vignette 2.5 The Impact of Burundian Customs
and Mores on the Scientific Careers of Burundian Women ................ 45
Rachel Akimana
Contents
xiv
3 Gender, Science, and Occupational Sex Segregation ........................... 51
Lisa M. Frehill, Alice Abreu, and Kathrin Zippel
Vignette 3.1 Focus on Brazil ................................................................ 77
Alice Abreu
Vignette 3.2 Greetings from Italy: What Is Changing
for Women and Science and Research Careers .................................... 81
Sveva Avveduto
Vignette 3.3 A Reflection on Advancing in the Mathematical
Sciences in South Africa ......................................................................... 85
Diane Wilcox
4 Building Knowledge to Narrow the Gender Divide:
Data and Indicators for Women in STEM
and International Benchmarking .......................................................... 93
Wendy Hansen
Vignette 4.1 The Perception of Equality Between Males
and Females in STEM Higher Education Opportunities
Among Vietnamese Academics .............................................................. 115
Margaret Petrochenkov and Phuong Thi Thanh Nguyen
Vignette 4.2 Women in Science: The Case of Singapore .................. 119
Yu Meng
Vignette 4.3 Pakistani Women Scientists:
Promises and Constraints ....................................................................... 123
Jamil Afaqi
Part II Exemplar Disciplines
5 International Status of Women in the Chemical Sciences ................... 131
Lisa J. Borello, Robert Lichter, Willie Pearson Jr.,
and Janet L. Bryant
Vignette 5.1 Enrollment and Degree Awards
in Chemical Engineering ........................................................................ 155
Sybrina Atwaters and Yu Tao
Vignette 5.2 Science Activities in Taiwan ........................................... 163
Chia-Li Wu
6 Women in Mathematics: Change, Inertia, Stratification,
Segregation .............................................................................................. 171
Cathy Kessel
Vignette 6.1 Importance of HBCUs in the Development
and Nurturing of African American Women Mathematicians ........... 187
Tasha R. Inniss
Contents
xv
Vignette 6.2 Mexican Women in Mathematical Research ................ 191
Patricia Saavedra Barrera
Vignette 6.3 Women and Mathematics in Cambodia ....................... 195
Chantara Tann
7 Women in Statistics: Scientific Contributions Versus Rewards ......... 201
Lynne Billard and Karen Kafadar
Vignette 7.1 A Glimpse into Women Who Lay the Foundation
for the Development of Statistics in Canada......................................... 215
C.B. Dean, David Bellhouse, Steve Brown,
Susie Fortier Sorana Froda, and Nancy Heckman
Vignette 7.2 The Status of Women Faculty in Departments
of Statistics and Biostatistics in the United States ................................ 223
Marcia L. Gumpertz and Jacqueline M. Hughes-Oliver
Vignette 7.3 Women in Biostatistics: A Case of Success
in the United States ................................................................................. 229
Camille M. Moore, Brandie D. Wagner, Miranda Kroehl,
Stephanie A. Santorico, Elizabeth Juarez- Colunga, Sharon Lutz,
and Anna E. Barón
8 Gender and Computing .......................................................................... 235
Lisa M. Frehill and J. McGrath Cohoon
Vignette 8.1 Faculty Wives of Computing.......................................... 259
Betsy DiSalvo
Vignette 8.2 Making a Meaningful Choice:
Women’s Selection of Computer Science in India ............................... 263
Roli Varma
Part III Policies and Programs
9 Promising Programs: A Cross-National Exploration
of Women in Science, Education to Workforce .................................... 273
Daryl E. Chubin, Catherine Didion, and Josephine Beoku-Betts
Vignette 9.1 We’ve Only Just Begun: What Worked
and What Has Not Worked Well So Far for the Promotion
of Women Scientists in Japan ................................................................ 291
Sanae M.M. Iguchi-Ariga
Vignette 9.2 Initiatives Promoting Women in Science
at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) ......... 295
Anne Pépin
Contents
xvi
Vignette 9.3 Building the Mathematics Capacity in the
Developing World: The United States Participation
in the Volunteer Lecturer Program ....................................................... 299
Ana Ferreras
10 Advancing Women in Science: Policies for Progress ........................... 307
Cheryl Leggon, Connie L. McNeely, and Jungwon Yoon
Vignette 10.1 A Comprehensive National Approach
to Promote Gender Equality in Science: The Case of Norway ........... 327
Liisa Husu
Vignette 10.2 Women’s Advancement in Science
and Engineering in South Africa ........................................................... 331
Cheryl de la Rey
Vignette 10.3 Enabling Policies: Capacity Building
in Science and Technology in Brazil ...................................................... 335
Alice Abreu
11 Postscript.................................................................................................. 341
Connie L. McNeely, Lisa M. Frehill, and Willie Pearson, Jr.
Contents
1© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
W. Pearson, Jr., et al. (eds.), Advancing Women in Science: An International
Perspective, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08629-3_1
Chapter 1
An International Perspective on Advancing
Women in Science
Lisa M. Frehill, Connie L. McNeely, and Willie Pearson, Jr.
Many countries have implemented policies to increase the number and quality of
scientific researchers as a means to foster innovation and spur economic develop-
ment. In many cases, policy interventions have sought to increase participation by
those who have traditionally been underrepresented in science, with particular refer-
ence to women. Today, even in countries with persistently strong patriarchal
regimes, the extension of educational opportunities to women has been framed as a
means of making better use of the potential pool of science and engineering innova-
tors (Bielli et al. 2004; UNESCO 2007, 2010; CNRS 2004; NRC 2011). Women
and also, in many countries, members of ethnic minority groups traditionally have
been limited in access to high-quality education, with concomitant occupational
outcomes. Positing the importance of education to development and progress, uni-
versal primary education is one of the United Nation’s eight Millennium
Development Goals. However, participation in the scientific workforce necessitates
education far beyond the primary level—an expensive enterprise, and one in which
girls and women have been persistently disadvantaged.
This volume constructs bridges across different perspectives on related issues
by weaving together three expanded and critical strands of research on women’s
L.M. Frehill (*)
Energetics Technology Center, 10400 O’Donnell Place, Ste 202, St.,
Charles, MD 20603, USA
e-mail: lfrehill@etcmd.com
C.L. McNeely
School of Public Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax Drive, MS-3B1 3351,
Arlington, VA 22201, USA
W. Pearson, Jr.
School of History, Technology, and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Bobby Dodd Way, Old Civil Engineering Building 221, Atlanta, GA 30332-0225, USA
e-mail: willie.pearson@hts.gatech.edu
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
participation in science to articulate a comprehensive treatment of cross-national
similarities, differences, and interactions. The three strands are
• Globalization
• The social organization of science
• Gendered societal relations
First, globalization is especially relevant, particularly in reference to the trans-
formation of systems of production. The relative place of an economy within the
global world system, the pace of change and historical conditions, and the capacity
of individual countries to deploy resources to build a science enterprise have impli-
cations for women’s participation and status in science, and vice versa. The increas-
ingly global science enterprise shapes national labor markets and opportunities for
scientists in general and women scientists in particular as knowledge workers.
Second, social science research on the social organization of science is founda-
tional for understanding the conduct of science at the global, regional, and national
levels. This point also highlights the importance of policy interventions and govern-
ments as supporters of science and the fundamental changes that have been wrought
in the locus of scientific work. Moreover, the conduct and movement of science and
its further stratification across sectors—academia, government, and industry—
speaks to variation in the manner in which science is organized cross-nationally
even as institutional isomorphism drives similarity.
Third, research on gendered societal relations impacts the structural and cultural
interactions and dynamics of scientific work itself. Horizontal and vertical dimen-
sions of occupational sex differentiation and segregation impact the career pros-
pects of women in the sciences. Although the representation of women varies within
and across scientific fields, it is still the case that, in most fields and in most con-
texts, women are consistently underrepresented in effective decision-making and
leadership positions, even in fields in which they reflect high levels of degree attain-
ment and scientific expertise. Gender bias often still outweighs competency and
skill in many venues, especially those in scientific communities in which practice
and decision-making are dominated by privileged elites. Despite apparent gains in
the numbers of women in some science fields, the larger structure of marginaliza-
tion persists, as women continue to be systematically barred from authoritative
positions with decision-making power.
Taken together, the three research strands—globalization, the social organization
of science, and gendered societal relations—as explored in this book, represent key
social forces and offer an analytical framework within which to address founda-
tional issues affecting women’s participation in science. By interactively engaging
the strands, this volume seeks systemic solutions to the challenge of building an
inclusive and productive scientific workforce capable of creating the innovation
needed for economic growth and prosperity.
The productive relationships and resources of science are organized largely as
disciplinary communities. While the boundaries among disciplines may be blurring
with the advent of more inter-, multi-, and trans-disciplinary work, disciplines con-
tinue to wield substantial power in prescribing behavior and conferring status within
L.M. Frehill et al.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
3
scientific communities. For example, scientists, as do other professions, exercise
discipline-based control over entrance into the community, now defined largely via
the global university system (Drori et al. 2003; Frank and Gabler 2006).
Along the same lines, disciplines and scientific communities also span national
borders. International collaboration across employment sectors—with academia
actually lagging the private sector—has become normative for scientists and engi-
neers (e.g., Falkenheim and Kannankutty 2012). Scientists’ status and prestige
within their fields are increasingly bound up with the ability to build an interna-
tional, rather than a strictly national, reputation. Also, as has been the case for the
past 20 years, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers often cross-national
boundaries to obtain credentials, with many remaining in the country of training
after they have completed studies (National Science Board 2014; Finn 2012;
Hamilton et al. 2012). Furthermore, multinational industries locate research and
development centers across the globe in search of production advantages and to
exploit and tap the diversity of human talent, along with strengthening collaborative
ties with universities (Thursby and Thursby 2006).
This volume also includes chapters focused primarily on women’s participation
in the chemical sciences, mathematics, statistics, and computing, as four such disci-
plinary sites and communities that maintain independent organizing structures but
also involve intersecting material interests. Many important works on women in
science have employed a high level of aggregation (e.g., UNESCO 2007; AAUW
2010; IAC 2006; INAS 2013), the result of which is that the experiences of those in
the largest general field of science, the life sciences (a field with a high level of
women’s participation at all educational levels), often dominate the discourse about
women’s status in science, missing important variations in the educational and
occupational realities for women in fields with proportionately fewer women.1 Such
aggregation can obscure specific disciplinary contexts, functional tasks, and the
socio-historical conditions that can vary markedly across fields.
Given the powerful force of globalization of labor and capital, attention to disci-
plines such as the chemical sciences and computer science can shed important light
on likely trends that also will occur in other science and engineering fields. Along
with these disciplines, the foundational nature and cross-sector applications of
mathematics and statistics offer crucial insights into the extent to which occupa-
tional hierarchies within disciplines and social hierarchies like gender and national-
ity operate in tandem. Each of these four disciplines provides different types of
opportunities for individuals with varied types and levels of postsecondary training
ranging from certifications to doctorates. As the degree level increases in each of
these fields, the intellectual content of the work also increases, with less time spent
manipulating things and more time spent manipulating ideas and data. In addition,
these higher-level manipulations often involve synthesizing information from mul-
tiple sources and producing knowledge rather than things. Therefore, while workers
are needed at all educational levels, the most powerful roles in these fields typically
are played by those with more advanced training. The challenges highlighted in this
1 Some studies also include the social sciences, which reflect different representational patterns.
1 An International Perspective on Advancing Women in Science
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
4
volume provide a mirror for the problems generally understood as relevant to the
participation of women in science and, also, offer a promising framework for more
detailed and comparative investigation of gendered relations and outcomes in other
disciplinary contexts.
The volume is divided into three parts. Each chapter includes additional pieces—
case studies, profiles, and reflections—contributed by scholars and analysts from
around the world, which call attention to the importance of context in understanding
women’s participation in science. Just as the overall volume explores the interplay
among individual, national, and international aspects, so too do these “vignettes”
offer insights into multiple levels of analysis in answering questions about women
in science. The cross-national insights offered by these pieces provide additional
depth to the material in each chapter, adding to an understanding of both the role of
gender as an organizing principle of social life and the relative position of women
in science within national and international labor markets.
The chapters in Part I lay the foundation for the book, providing an overview of
trends in women’s representation in science education by global regions, analytical
techniques for examining gender in the workforce, and a review of available data on
gender and science. Francisco O. Ramirez and Naejin Kwak (Chap. 2) examine 40
years of women’s enrollments in science and engineering fields in 69 countries that
are aggregated to six world regions. They find that, while women’s participation in
science and engineering has increased, the terms of that inclusion are still subject
to wide variation and debate. Lisa M. Frehill, Alice Abreu, and Kathrin Zippel
(Chap. 3) provide a critical literature review and overview of relevant work that has
been done to date by demographers, sociologists, and economists on occupational
segregation, as an important toolkit for gender analysis. Wendy Hansen (Chap. 4)
provides a global perspective and assessment on applicable education and work-
force data. Gaps in data collection are identified with an eye to informing policy
decisions. Even with various international efforts dedicated to such issues, it is still
the case that multiple sources of data must be consulted to “cobble together intelli-
gence” for advocates and policy makers.
Part II considers each of the four exemplar disciplines. Women in the chemical
sciences are discussed by Lisa Borello, Robert Lichter, Willie Pearson, Jr., and Janet
L. Bryant (Chap. 5). Mathematics is covered by Cathy Kessel (Chap. 6) and statis-
tics is considered by Lynne Billard and Karen Kafadar (Chap. 7). Finally, comput-
ing is addressed by Lisa M. Frehill and J. McGrath Cohoon (Chap. 8). While current
data are included for illustration purposes, these chapters explore education and
workforce situations in each discipline within the overall organizing framework for
analytical reference and insight. Each discipline is examined relative to different
outcomes and strategies that reflect and impact women’s involvement in the given
field and the structure and content of the work itself. By focusing in more detail on
these disciplines, the specific aspects of the international labor market, distribu-
tional differences across national contexts, and within-field structures and relation-
ships along gender lines are examined relative to the interplay of globalization, the
social organization of science, and gender relations. As such, these chapters offer
starting points for researchers to conduct more nuanced analyses of gender within
each field (cf. Creager et al. 2001).
L.M. Frehill et al.
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
5
Part III examines the ways in which policies and programs can affect “who will
do science.” Daryl Chubin, Catherine Didion, and Josephine Beoku-Betts (Chap. 9)
describe programmatic efforts as means to address issues of ethnic and gender
equity in access and advancement within scientific professions. The authors caution
us to be mindful of different expectations for programmatic interventions held by
different stakeholders to understand the relative “success” of such interventions.
Finally, Cheryl Leggon, Connie L. McNeely, and Jungwon Yoon (Chap. 10) engage
related policy issues in terms of who needs to do what, when, how, and for how long
to advance the representation and status of women in science. Rather than looking
to the behaviors of individual women,2 their focus is on institutions and govern-
ments as loci of intervention for increasing diversity and broadening participation.
They point out that policy makers need to be informed by a more detailed
understanding of the complex role of gender—as well as other dimensions of differ-
ence—in science education and workforce outcomes.
A postscript is offered at the end with thoughts about looking forward and build-
ing on the foundation provided by this volume. With multiple audiences in mind—
scholars, educators, employers, analysts, policy makers, and other stakeholders—the
postscript delineates an agenda for future research, policy, and activism associated
with advancing women’s participation in science around the world.
Acknowledgement Some of the research reported in this volume was supported in part by a grant
from the US National Science Foundation (DRL-1048010). Related findings, conclusions, and
opinions are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
Chapter References
American Association for the Advancement of Women (AAUW). 2010. Why So Few?: Women in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Bielli, A. Buti, A., M.V. Camino, M.E. Estébanez, T. Lascaris Comneno, H.M. Martins Lastres, H.
Pereira de Melo, E. Pérez Sedeño, R. Robledo, M.T. Pin, M.L. Rodríguez-Sala, H. Vessuri, and
J. Zubieta García. 2004. Proyecto Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Technología y Género—
GENTEC—UNESCO: Informe comparative regional e informes nacionales de Argentina,
Brasil, Costa Rica, España, México, Paraguay, Uruguay y Venezuela, http://api.ning.com/files
/3wIypPzztSduT4Q6g5O8DZkdNgudKlow6TrCnNeQq-F- B5AwrJ42Jdwu
3rT8RlkhkY5vbmuBO- EZK0Pu0qVZ6cDwbV180bSf/Reporte_FinalGENTEC.pdf (accessed
30 March 2014).
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). 2004. Les femmes dans l’histoire du CNRS,
http://www.cnrs.fr/mpdf/IMG/pdf/cnrs_femmes_histoire.pdf (accessed 30 March 2014).
Creager, Angela N.H., Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger (eds.). 2001. Feminism in
Twentieth Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. Science in the
Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
2 As in volumes that use biographies of women to articulate how women as active agents have
surmounted obstacles to gain success in science (e.g., Rossiter 1995; Tang 2006).
1 An International Perspective on Advancing Women in Science
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
6
Falkenheim, Jacquelina, and Nirmala Kannankutty. 2012. International Collaborations of
Scientists and Engineers in the United States. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. InfoBrief 12-323.
Finn, Michael G. 2012. “Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, 2009,
http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/stay-rates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2009.pdf (accessed 30
March 2014)].
Frank, David John, and Jay Gabler. 2006. Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in
Academia in the 20th Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hamilton, R.V., C.L. McNeely, and W.D. Perry. 2012. Foreign Doctoral Attainment in the Natural
Sciences at U.S. Universities. ERN Public Policy Institutes Research Paper Series 4(2), http://
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1999816
InterAcademy Council (IAC). 2006. Women for Science: An Advisory Report. Amsterdam: IAC
Secretariat.
Interamerican Network of Academies of Sciences (INAS). 2013. Women Scientists in the Americas.
National Science Board (NSB). 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA:
National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).
National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation:
America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Rossiter, M.W. 1995. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 1940-1972.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tang, J. 2006. Scientific Pioneers: Women Succeeding in Science. Washington, DC: University
Press of America.
Thursby, M., and J. Thursby. 2006. Where is the New Science in Corporate R&D? Science 314: 8.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2007. Science,
Technology, and Gender: An International Report. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World.
Paris: UNESCO, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf (accessed 30
March 2014).
L.M. Frehill et al.
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
