Search results

It is well-known that women scientists are few in numbers in prestigious research organizations and still fewer in leadership positions. The purpose of this article is to analyze how organizational gender inequality is rationalized by scientists so as to highlight how discourse on equality reproduces gender at the workplace.

Data was collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews with the scientists in four research laboratories dealing with medicinal drugs and chemical substances. It uses discourse analysis by Foucault as a theoretical lens to examine how gender inequality is rationalized and the power relations behind it. It adopts the perspective that socio-cultural beliefs form the basis of gendered practices in organizations.

It finds that the scientists refuse to blame the organization for inequalities by delinking gender issues from the organizational domain. This delinking occurs through rationalizing gender inequality as “social”, through separating informal behavior from the “system” and perceiving women as “privileged”. Such discourses while keeping intact the rationality and meritocracy of the organizations/institutions, reproduce the ideological “public-private dichotomy” and the male dominance at the workplace.

The findings indicate the need for extensive studies in India highlighting how gender is done in organizations, exploring men's role in undoing gender and government initiatives to create a climate of gender equality.

It highlights how discourse on gender equality/inequality at the workplace manifests dominance of men and represents an intersection of Indian social, organizational and institutional contexts at workplace. It also calls into question the applicability of the western concepts of “individualization” and “gender fatigue” to the Indian context.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.

Since liberalization in the 1990s, India has witnessed a growth in the number of educated middle-class women in professions. However, there are few women in leadership positions and decision-making bodies. While the earlier notion of the ideal woman as homemaker has been replaced by one which idealizes women of substance, a woman’s role in the family continues to be pivotal and is even viewed as central in defining Indian culture. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how and to what extent gender inequalities are reproduced in the organizations employing educated professionals.

Based on the perspective that gender is socially constructed, this paper analyzes gender inequality in Indian organizations through semi-structured interviews of men and women scientists in two private pharmaceutical laboratories.

The findings show reproduction of a gendered normative order through two types of norms and practices: one, norms and practices that favor men and second, socio-cultural norms that devalue women in public spaces which help to maintain masculinity in the workplace. Although these practices might be found elsewhere in the world, the manner in which they are enacted reflects national cultural norms.

The paper highlights how various norms and practices enacted in the specific Indian socio-cultural context construct and maintain masculinity at workplace depriving opportunities to professional women which affect their rise to leadership positions.

A brief historical account of women in science is given as introduction to discussion of their present situation in the USA. Factors affecting female achievement and interest in science and in scientific careers include education, socio‐cultural and personal factors. Obstacles and constraints for women during preparation for scientific professions are also described together with myths about women and recent trends. Strategies for increasing their participation are proposed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of flexible working arrangements (FWAs) and particularly reduced hours working arrangements on a Dual Agenda of gender equity and workplace effectiveness, in a case study organization employing a relatively high proportion of women scientists.

In‐depth interviews based on the initial stages of collaborative interactive action research (CIAR) are used within a case‐study approach. The interviews explored working practices, the assumptions underpinning them and their un/intended consequences.

The main form of FWA used in the organization, four days a week, is double edged and complex in its effects. It supports mothers, but at a cost because of gendered assumptions. Despite a commitment to flexibility and “work‐life balance”, the gendered construction of the ideal worker and ideas of competence conflated with hegemonic masculinity, remain powerful. This, together with a prevalent “good mother” ideology, undermines both gender equity and workplace effectiveness.

This paper is of value to both researchers and policy makers. It shows that highly developed work‐life balance or flexible working polices are not sufficient to enhance gender equity and points to the importance of surfacing and challenging gender assumptions in science, engineering and technology. It emphasizes the need to move forward from policy to practice.

This paper contributes to a growing body of work using initial stages of the CIAR methodology and showcases the theoretical insights gained by such an approach.

This study seeks to identify some of the factors that explain biomedical research scientists' career commitment and that prompt them to consider leaving science. It also aims to examine whether these factors differ between men and women, and between those with different family responsibilities.

A longitudinal questionnaire survey was used to identify the demographic and work‐related variables that predicted three dimensions of career commitment and intention to leave science one year later.

The factors explaining career commitment and intention to remain in the profession were similar for men and women, for those with various types of family responsibilities, and for those on permanent and temporary contracts. Career planning was predicted by continuance organizational commitment and the opportunity for autonomy in the workplace, and career resilience by equitable treatment at work. Career identity, career resilience and salary were predictors of intention to leave science.

Limitations of the study include the lack of a random sample, and the fact that some instruments differ slightly from the original versions. A substantial proportion of the variance in intention to leave science was unexplained and further research should therefore explore the impact of career entrenchment, professional socialisation and aspects of personal disposition on intention to leave a profession.

Those who manage scientists' careers should attend particularly to pay, providing opportunities for working autonomously, and fair treatment.

A longitudinal design was used and some key workplace variables were studied. Unlike most previous studies, the moderating effects of gender, relationship status and parenthood were examined.

The paper aims to critically review four recently published books, each of which aims to explain the disproportionate representation of men and women in science careers, and to understand gender differences in achievements and productivity.

This is a thematic book review and conceptual analysis and development.

The review shows that in order to reduce and eliminate gender inequality in science careers, it is naïve to assume that changing women's attitudes alone will solve the problem. This position in‐itself indicates the unspoken presumption that the male model of work is the norm to which women must adapt.

The review shows there is a need for policy actions and initiatives that eliminate the structural barriers in SET career trajectories which currently favour the working preferences of male scientists.

This conference review aims to address major issues regarding the position of women in science and technology as well as key technical topics in the debate of globalisation with a specific focus on chances and new opportunities for women in a changing world.

The article is based on a report on the 14th International Conference of Women Engineers and Scientists that was hosted by the Conceil National des Ingénieurs et des Scientifiques de France (CNISF). Organised by an international committee, the conference was held at the Polytech University in Lille, France, 15‐18 July 2008.

The exchanges generated by such an international gathering of (mostly) women experts and scholars from diverse scientific fields were a rich source of learning and inspiration. In view of the fact that the lectures not only addressed the current situation but focused also on the development of an international vision and new opportunities for women in a globalised world, the conference will influence science policies and measures for equal opportunities.

The conference brought together over 500 participants from 60 countries.

Joan Procter, Dragon Doctor describes the life of Joan Beauchamp Procter, renowned herpetologist, zoologist, Curator of Reptiles at the British Museum and designer of the London Zoo Reptile House. In this lesson, students reframe initial viewpoints of scientists that are not representative of a broad understanding of who scientists are and what being a scientist means. Exploring understandings and expanding their view of science to include varied areas of social sciences provokes deep discussions among students as they prepare to teach others. Using content area skills, artwork, writing, literacy and technology, students explore diverse people and fields of the sciences.

Students engage in collaborative efforts with peers to involve themselves with content knowledge and skills in the social studies, as they integrate other areas of the curriculum including science, art, writing, literacy, literature, technology, critical thinking, research skills and inquiry-based learning. Findings include students participating in meaningful learning individually and collectively through inquiry. As students learn with and from one another, they conceptualize their own ideas through their own work in exploring relevant resources. Students plan action to move learning outside the classroom in generating changes in museums and monuments to showcase broader cultural representation of scientists in their communities.

Students engage in inquiry learning using Joan Procter, Dragon Doctor as a key text. Students explore the text and related resources, while learning with one another about scientists. Students expand their content knowledge and apply critical thinking skills, noting similarities and differences in scientists, ultimately acknowledging that what scientists do through inquiry and exploration helps them identify as scientists. Varied fields and backgrounds of scientists are explored, and students examine cultural representation in museums commemorating scientists and scientific contributions. Students create action plans to consult with museums about these issues and curate exhibits, like Joan Procter, to share with others.

This lesson provides students multiple avenues to deepen learning while conceptualizing and formulating their own understandings. Further, students are required to use multiple skills in conveying their ideas for social change to reflect their new broader conceptualization of scientists and the many fields that science includes. Additionally, they have to understand the topics discussed fully in order to convey their research findings to another audience in their school or community as they create museum exhibits. Finally, while students learn, they begin to see themselves represented in fields through evident, inclusive demonstrations of contributions by diverse scientists.