|SELECCIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS|
|Roth, W.D. (2011). The costs and benefits of ‘red tape’: Anti-bureaucratic structure and gender inequity in a science research organization. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 385-409.||This paper explicates a central conflict that can affect science research organizations, the conflict between the anti-bureaucratic stance believed to advance science and concerns for gender equity rooted in the universalist ethos of science. We present a case study of a science research organization, using employment and publication records, a survey of 308 employees, and qualitative interviews with 60 employees. We show how anti-bureaucratic organizational structures perpetuate gender inequities for both female scientists and non-scientists.
|Fox, M.F. (2011). Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 715-735.||
This article addresses work–family conflict as reported among women and men academic scientists in data systematically collected across fields of study in nine US research universities. Arguing that academic science is a particularly revealing case for studying work–family conflict, the article addresses: (1) the bi-directional conflict of work with family, and family with work, reported among the scientists; (2) the ways that higher, compared with lower, conflict, is predicted by key features of family, academic rank, and departments/institutions; and (3) patterns and predictors of work–family conflict that vary, as well as converge, by gender. Results point to notable differences, and commonalties, by gender, in factors affecting interference in both directions of work–family conflict reported by scientists. These findings have implications for understandings of how marriage and children, senior compared with junior academic rank, and departmental climates shape work–family conflict among women and men in US academic science.
|Lincoln, A.E., Pincus, S., Bandows, J., & Leboy, P.S. (2012). The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307-320.||
Science is stratified, with an unequal distribution of research facilities and rewards among scientists. Awards and prizes, which are critical for shaping scientific career trajectories, play a role in this stratification when they differentially enhance the status of scientists who already have large reputations: the ‘Matthew Effect’. Contrary to the Mertonian norm of universalism – the expectation that the personal attributes of scientists do not affect evaluations of their scientific claims and contributions – in practice, a great deal of evidence suggests that the scientific efforts and achievements of women do not receive the same recognition as do those of men: the ‘Matilda Effect’. Awards in science, technology, engineering and medical (STEM) fields are not immune to these biases.
We outline the research on gender bias in evaluations of research and analyze data from 13 STEM disciplinary societies. While women’s receipt of professional awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly research than expected based on their representation in the nomination pool. The results support the powerful twin influences of implicit bias and committee chairs as contributing factors. The analysis sheds light on the relationship of external social factors to women’s science careers and helps to explain why women are severely underrepresented as winners of science awards. The ghettoization of women’s accomplishments into a category of ‘women-only’ awards also is discussed.
|Kelly, K. (2012). Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. Social Studies of Science, 42(6), 869-896.||
The prevalence of gender wage gaps in academic work is well documented, but patterns of advantage or disadvantage linked to marital, motherhood, and fatherhood statuses have been less explored among college and university faculty. Drawing from a nationally representative sample of faculty in the US, we explore how the combined effects of marriage, children, and gender affect faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. We examine whether faculty members’ productivity moderates these relationships and whether these effects vary between SEM and non-SEM faculty. Among SEM faculty, we also consider whether placement in specific disciplinary groups affects relationships between gender, marital and parental status, and salary.
Our results show stronger support for fatherhood premiums than for consistent motherhood penalties. Although earnings are reduced for women in all fields relative to married fathers, disadvantages for married mothers in SEM disappear when controls for productivity are introduced. In contrast to patterns of motherhood penalties in the labor market overall, single childless women suffer the greatest penalties in pay in both SEM and non-SEM fields. Our results point to complex effects of family statuses on the maintenance of gender wage disparities in SEM and non-SEM disciplines, but married mothers do not emerge as the most disadvantaged group.
|Bevan, V. (2013). ‘I wouldn’t say it’s sexism, except that … It’s all these little subtle things’: Healthcare scientists’ accounts of gender in healthcare science laboratories. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 136-158.||
We explore healthcare scientists’ accounts of men in healthcare science laboratories. By focussing on subtle masculinist actions that women find disadvantageous to them, we seek to extend knowledge about women’s under-representation in senior positions in healthcare science – despite women being in the majority at junior levels. We maintain that healthcare science continues to be dominated by taken-for-granted masculinities that marginalize women, keeping them in their ‘place’. Our aim is to make visible the subtle practices that are normally invisible by showing masculinities in action. Principally using feminist analyses, our findings show that both women and men are often unaware of taken-for-granted masculinist actions, and even when women do notice, they rarely challenge the subtle sexist behaviour.
|Villanueva-Felez, A., Woolley, R., & Cañibano, C. (2014). Nanotechnology researchers’ collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information. Social Studies of Science, 0306312714552347.
Women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, particularly at higher levels of organizations. This article investigates the impact of this underrepresentation on the processes of interpersonal collaboration in nanotechnology. Analyses are conducted to assess: (1) the comparative tie strength of women’s and men’s collaborations, (2) whether women and men gain equal access to scientific information through collaborators, (3) which tie characteristics are associated with access to information for women and men, and (4) whether women and men acquire equivalent amounts of information by strengthening ties. Our results show that the overall tie strength is less for women’s collaborations and that women acquire less strategic information through collaborators. Women and men rely on different tie characteristics in accessing information, but are equally effective in acquiring additional information resources by strengthening ties. This article demonstrates that the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has an impact on the interpersonal processes of scientific collaboration, to the disadvantage of women scientists.
Universidad de Alicante
Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n
03690 San Vicente del Raspeig
Tel: (+34) 96 590 3400Fax: (+34) 96 590 3464