Search results

Prior research shows that stratification of future adult opportunities influences stratification in the academic performance of students. This perspective is used to generate hypotheses regarding the sources of cross-national gender differences in mathematics performance. These hypotheses are tested using multivariate and multilevel analyses of adult opportunities for women and cross-national differences in mathematics performance by gender. This future opportunity perspective is expanded to take into account the historical incorporation of women in modern nation-states through institutionalized mass schooling emphasizing egalitarian ideals. Results indicate a cross-national shift in the direction of less gender inequality in overall school mathematics performance. However, gender inequality is more evident in the advanced 12th grade mathematics. The results of a more specialized analysis of the advanced 12th grade mathematics are compared with the earlier findings regarding mathematics performance.

Using bibliometrics to examine eight core journals in the year 2000 for the disciplines of higher education and library science, characteristics of the authors were determined, including gender or sex; Carnegie Classification or institutional affiliation; and position of the authors. Characteristics of the articles were also examined, including the research methods used such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, or qualitative analysis. A content analysis of each article was performed to determine the subjects discussed in each literature. For both disciplines, it was learned that males publish more, the highest Carnegie Classification, extensive research institutions, were represented the most, and authors came from academic departments other than their own disciplines. In higher education, inferential statistics were used frequently; in library and information descriptive statistics were used frequently; both disciplines failed to use research methodologies regularly. From these findings, it appears that both disciplines are still emerging and are in their early stages of development.

Sociologists working within the institutional framework have revealed the extent to which shared cultural understandings concerning education as an institution have been a driving force effecting similar educational outcomes within diverse national settings. Worldwide models promulgated by international organizations and policy makers define and legitimate agendas, structures, and policies of nation-states as well as the movement of individuals into and through social institutions such as education, the labor market, politics, and the family. The ideological underpinnings of this overarching cultural framework have been documented and discussed extensively in theoretical as well as empirical work in this body of literature (see, e.g., Boli & Thomas, 1999; Meyer, Boli, Thomas, & Ramirez, 1997).

The existence of hierarchies based on reputation in modern science is indisputable. A set of common scientific journals is often assumed to be instrumental in the formation of these hierarchies. However, the character of the hierarchies, how monolithic/pluralistic they are and the functions of this differentiation have been discussed and caused controversy. The article brings together results from a survey of 788 Danish researchers, mainly from the social sciences, concerning their assessments of the most influential researchers and most important journals. The rankings indicate a pluralistic picture and only a moderate degree of consensus among researchers. Comparisons with (the few) other surveys and with citation data do not suggest this to be a peculiarity of Danish social scientists, however.

Despite the impressive record of advancing toward higher education, women are substantially underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields compared to men. Less is known about the factors that explain gendered patterns of participation in STEM in countries with dissimilar national characteristics and educational systems. To fill this gap in the literature, this study first examines the historical trends of female representation in STEM fields cross-nationally. Then, this paper explores the relationship between women’s and men’s enrollments in STEM with various structural, national characteristics. Recognizing that the relationship may vary by subfields of STEM, the study further investigates the association separately for natural science and for engineering. Using time- and entity-fixed effects panel regression models pooled between 1970 and 2010, the study’s analyses built on earlier studies on gender segregation across fields of study and gender inequality in higher education. The findings suggest that the common assumption of tight, positive linkage between societal development and participation in STEM holds for only men at an aggregate level under the period covered. The authors find a negative association between national economic development and women’s participation in STEM, especially for engineering. On the other hand, they find positive associations between men’s enrollment in STEM as well as women’s enrollment in other fields of study with women’s participation in STEM. Taken together, the results suggest the significance of the diffusion of an inclusive logic in higher educational institutions.

This paper aims to examine factors influencing the productivity in research and publication between science and social science.

A qualitative approach with interviews for 40 academics in four public universities in Indonesia was applied to get an in-depth understanding of the issues.

The results of this study demonstrated that individual factors instead of institutional factors that contributed to the productivity of academics in science as compared to academics in social science.

Despite there were influential effects of institutions in which the socializing process of internalizing the values, norms and scientific roles under the auspice of qualified supervisors or advisors, there seemed to be an individual capacity that comes in between. The implications of this study are discussed in the article.

Growth in female tertiary enrollment has been accompanied by persistent gender differentiation within systems of higher education worldwide. We identify three dimensions of female “status” in higher education – overall female enrollments, sex segregation across tertiary levels, and sex segregation across fields of study – and we offer a conceptual framework for understanding cross-national similarity and variability on these dimensions. Commonalities across countries reflect the interaction of global pressures for expansion and democratization of education with persistent cultural representations of “gender difference.” Variability can be attributed, in part, to the different ways in which global cultural and structural pressures have been manifested within particular socio-historical settings.

George Herbert Mead developed a sophisticated social and pragmatist model of science, which has escaped the attention of most modern-day scholars and symbolic interactionists. While Mead’s insights have much to offer to contemporary interactionist studies of science and technology, they are not without their shortcomings. In his analyses, Mead tends to put most of his emphasis on the concrete micro-foundations of knowledge production and the functional necessity of science as a problem-solving institution par excellence, yet he fails to seriously question the role of power and domination within the competitive terrain of scientific fields. Lonnie Athens has attempted to reconstitute the basic assumptions of symbolic interactionism by insisting that domination, rather than mere sociality, is the foundation of human existence, since the root of all social acts are comprised of super- and subordinate relations. Changing our fundamental assumptions about social action thus forces us to ask new questions about the micro- and macro-processes we explore in our research. By applying this radicalized lens to Mead’s view of science, I attempt to forge a new interactionist approach, which would better connect with and contribute to the critical wing of the science studies tradition.

The authors seek to better understand the relationships between science production, national wealth, inequality, and human development around the globe.

The chapter uses econometric models, including Granger causality, to test alternate hypotheses about whether more economic wealth is related to more science or if more science leads to more wealth.

The immediate result of our models is that a country’s wealth contributes to the conditions necessary for productive science. While large countries produce many research articles in the STEM+ fields more or less irrespective of their per capita GDP, with countries like the Soviet Union, China, or India being important contributors to world science, the most productive countries were the richer ones. GDP per capita values are important predictors for higher numbers of STEM+ research articles adjusted for population size. Nevertheless, human development and income equality also have a positive relationship with science productivity. While the effect of income equality is less strong, it has importantly and steadily increased over the last 50 years.

This chapter is among the first to show that countries with similar levels of human development that are more equal in income distribution are more productive in science, while countries of similar wealth that are more equal in income distribution are not necessarily more productive in science.