Significant gender differences have also been highlighted at the decision-making level as well as in research funding, where significant differences between the success rates of women and men have been reported in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Austria, and Hungary. So-called countries in transition, former socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, recruited large numbers of persons, including women, to scientific professions. Nevertheless, a similar picture of gender stratification can be found in the Associated Countries of the European Union, with the exceptions of Bulgaria and Romania, where women are least represented in the higher education sector. In previous socialist soci- eties where large numbers of women were recruited into science, traditional gender relations trumped social ideals and females were seldom allowed to hold leadership positions in science (Etzkowitz & Muller, 2000). However, especially in its decline, the system informally accommodated some of women’s needs. As men left the lab in mid- afternoon for a second paid employment in Bulgaria, women also left for a second unpaid employment at home (Simeonova, 1998). Expanded presence did not, by itself, bring about social equality for women in science, a condition that persists in the postsocialist era (Glover, 2005). A recent EU report on women scientists in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States (European Commission, 2004a) concludes that women account for 38% of the scientific workforce in these countries (also called the Enwise countries). Nevertheless, the relatively larger numbers of women in science are shadowed by other findings, such as the fact that a large proportion of female scientists is employed in areas with the lowest R&D expenditure, that inadequate resources and poor infra- structure impede the progress of a whole generation of promising scientists, and that men are three times more likely to reach senior academic positions than women. The changing condition of women in science over time is uneven, and different stages in the movement toward equality can be identified in various contemporary societies and even in the same workplace. CROSS-NATIONAL REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE The progress of women in science takes place within a broader framework of expan- sion of higher education and training that occurs with the growth of a knowledge economy. There have been considerable increases in women’s participation and attain- ment in education throughout the industrialized world (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993; Windolf, 1997). Despite this overall shift toward more equality, significant differences in the distribution of men and women across positions and fields of study continue to persist (Jacobs, 1996; Bradley & Ramirez, 1996). There is considerable variation in women’s share among the professorate throughout the industrialized world. However, even in Turkey, the country with the highest proportion of female professors, the share of women academics at the highest academic positions is still below 25%. Moreover, marked differences exist between countries regarding female academics in the pipeline. In countries like Germany, the pattern suggests less openness of the 406 Henry Etzkowitz, Stefan Fuchs, Namrata Gupta, Carol Kemelgor, and Marina Ranga academic system to women across all positions, whereas in countries like Portugal or Sweden there is a growing proportion of females in the lower positions. 2 Women in science fare better in countries where women are more likely to work full-time as in the United States, France, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries. Whether this pattern also mirrors other influences needs further research. For example, the higher proportion of females among professors may be associated with the diffu- sion and enactment of more gender egalitarian beliefs in Finland or the United States. But larger shares of women in academia and science may also be due to the influence of class or social origin on educational choices, as in Turkey where high-status males were preoccupied with political leadership during the transition from the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century, leaving an opening for their female social peers in academia. The effect of historical ruptures was observable during the colonial war that gripped Portugal during the 1970s where the involvement of cohorts of men abroad opened unprecedented opportunities in education to women at home. Finally, cross-national variations in the proportion of women in science may also stem from variations in the “worth” of the academic and scientific enterprise (European Commission, 2000). Although country percentages vary dramatically among disciplines, demonstrating the potential eluctability and flux of these figures, women are overall less represented in fields where physical objects, whether natural or artificial, rather than people and symbolic and social relations are the focus of attention. Table 17.1 shows the per- centage of women among full professors and comparable staff (grade A) by scientific field in 2001. 3 Overall, the proportion of female full professors is lowest in technology and engi- neering and highest in the social sciences and the humanities. Nevertheless, notable differences exist between and within countries. In Portugal, for example, women have relatively high shares across all disciplines with the exception of engineering and technology, excluding the natural sciences, where women account for almost a quarter of all full professors. In comparison, women are represented poorly in the highest aca- demic disciplines in countries such as Austria, Denmark, and Germany. Other coun- tries show a pronounced concentration of women professors in particular sciences, for example, in the medical sciences in the United Kingdom, Israel, and Finland. Some of the variance is traditionally associated with high or low status of a field, but the relationship between women’s increase and timing of the status change is not always clear, as in the case of the recent increase in the participation of women in veterinary science in Sweden. INCREASING PARTICIPATION/CONTINUED SEGREGATION The relation between gender and scientific interests and the focus of scientific disci- plines, especially when gendered topics are the focus of analysis, also needs to be unraveled. It was traditionally assumed that variation in women’s participation in scientific fields was related to sexual traits. More recently, the cultural overlay on The Coming Gender Revolution in Science 407 physical characteristics has moved to the forefront as an explanation for divergence and the production of gender inequity in science. “Territorial sex segregation” and “ghettoization,” creating a separate, gendered labor market in science, developed from (1) the rise in the supply of qualified women, (2) employers’ strong resistance to these women entering traditional scientific employment such as university teaching or gov- ernment employment, and (3) new opportunities in scientific work but low status and behind-the-scenes, arising from the need for large staffs of assistants in research centers (Rossiter, 1982, 1995). Not surprisingly, a strong emphasis on traditional gender relations reinforces the level of sex segregation in various systems of higher education. A comparison of 29 countries found remarkably little change in the sex segregation of fields of study between 1960 and 1990 (Bradley, 2000). The varying patterns of segregation are explained, in part, by the impact of cultural factors on the country level with the status of different types of higher education institutions. For example, there is more sex segregation in Japan, where nonuniversity institutions that are dominated by females have grown disproportionately. In Germany, female “access” is achieved through women’s concentration in vocational colleges or stereotypically female fields of study (Charles & Bradley, 2002). Dramatic differences in the condition of women in science can be identified in the United States, even in the same university. Some women advance to full professorial 408 Henry Etzkowitz, Stefan Fuchs, Namrata Gupta, Carol Kemelgor, and Marina Ranga Table 17.1 Percentage of women among full professors and comparable staff Natural Engineering Medical Agricultural Social Country Sciences and Technology Sciences Sciences Sciences Humanities Belgium 4.2 1.0 3.4 5.1 12.3 10.5 Denmark 4.2 2.8 9.8 9.8 9.7 13.3 Germany 4.6 3.2 4.0 8.0 6.8 13.7 France 15.7 6.4 8.9 n.a. 23.8 n.a. Italy 15.0 5.2 9.5 10.2 16.8 22.9 Netherlands 3.2 2.7 5.2 7.1 7.0 14.2 Austria 3.1 1.7 7.6 9.3 6.4 11.1 Portugal 22.4 3.1 30.2 17.6 21.8 n.a. Finland 8.3 5.2 21.3 12.8 24.7 33.2 Sweden 10.4 5.2 12.9 16.3 15.8 25.4 United Kingdom 7.7 2.3 14.5 7.9 17.8 17.9 Iceland 7.0 5.6 9.7 n.a. 9.4 6.1 Israel 6.6 4.8 16.4 0 13.6 18.9 Norway 6.9 2.8 14.2 8.9 15.3 24.3 Poland 16.1 6.8 26.2 20.0 19.2 21.0 Slovakia 10.4 2.4 9.4 4.6 10.9 12.2 Slovenia 6.0 2.8 18.3 14.0 11.5 15.8 n.a., not available. Source: European Commission 2003a, p. 65, Table 3.2. rank, albeit at a slower rate and in lesser proportion than their male colleagues. However, other female scientists constitute an invisible underclass of researchers. Not willing to sacrifice family to the seemingly ineluctable pressures of the front-loading of scientific careers, based on assumptions of disproportionate early achievement that is not supported by empirical evidence (Cole, 1979), they have opted to pursue two thirds–time research careers “off the books” as research associates. They seek and get their own grant support, which is officially signed off by colleagues with professorial positions. In contrast to a previous generation of female research associates who worked as assistants to men, these women in science run their own research programs but have little or no opportunity for academic advance. Nevertheless, working within the constraints of an academic system in which the tenure clock is still in tension with the biological clock, despite ameliorative measures such as time extensions, a larger number of productive female researchers exist who could quickly fill higher level positions, should they open up, without having to wait for generational change. Movements for social and political equality have a mutually reinforcing relation- ship with movements for gender and racial equality that eventually influences science and higher education. In more gender egalitarian countries like Sweden or Norway, there is a more equal distribution of degrees awarded at the university or tertiary level. Even there, however, the extent of segregation across fields of study at the tertiary level is very pronounced. Hence, egalitarian norms may diminish horizontal sex segregation in education to a lesser extent than vertical sex segregation—probably because vertical sex segregation is harder to cloak or justify than differences between men and women across fields of study (Charles & Bradley, 2002: 593). Nevertheless, there is strong cultural lag in the impact of these movements on increasing the participation of women in science. The persistence of sex segregation across fields of study is highlighted in research on women in science. Analyzing UNESCO data for 76 countries from 1972 to 1992, Ramirez and Wotipka (2001) show that women’s gains in less prestigious disciplines are positively associated with the likelihood of entry into more prestigious fields of study such as science and engi- neering (“incorporation as empowerment;” 2001: 243). However, the authors also concede that there are vast cross-national differences in the openness of science and engineering as a field of study and that many forms of inequalities in science and edu- cation persist despite the (global) diffusion of egalitarian norms and beliefs. REFRACTIONS OF INEQUALITY IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE The unequal gendered social structure of science is reinforced by the archival litera- ture of science, a phenomenon that has received increased attention since the 1970s. A common conclusion of several studies of gender differences in scientific productiv- ity, covering diverse fields and periods, was that on average, women tend to publish less than men (Zuckerman & Cole, 1975; Fox, 1983; Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Hornig, 1987; Long, 1987, Kaplan et al., 1996; Valian, 1999; Schiebinger, 1999; Prpic, 2002), The Coming Gender Revolution in Science 409 sometimes with considerable differences across sectors. Several possible explanations for this phenomenon, also called the “productivity puzzle” (Cole & Zuckerman, 1984) have been proposed, ranging from differences in personal characteristics, such as ability, motivation or dedication, to educational backgrounds and family obligations, but none of them has proven entirely accurate. More recent insights into the “pro- ductivity puzzle” point to the need to broaden the examination focus to the wider context of the social and economic organization of scientific work. Gender differences in scientific output are hardly surprising if we take into account women’s under-representation in science. Gender differences in scientific productiv- ity are closely related to the broader differences in national social, economic, and cul- tural settings, especially in terms of education and R&D organization and structure of labor force. For example, the focus on the early years of the scientific career in many countries for the operation of gate-keeping mechanisms such as tenure fails to take into account the finding that the productivity peak for women tends to occur later in the career life cycle than for men. In addition to the national socioeconomic and cul- tural factors discussed above, other factors influencing gendered productivity include the following: Academic Rank Several studies report a direct relationship between productivity and academic rank. For instance, Prpic (2002) found that female scientists’ publication productivity in Croatia is positively influenced by their higher position in the social organization of science. Similarly, Palomba (2004) found that the productivity of Italian researchers at CNR is generally deeply influenced by academic rank and gender differences are more marked at the top of the career ladder. Bordons et al. (2003) investigated pro- ductivity in natural resources and chemistry by gender and professional category in Spain and found that women work at lower professional ranks than men, although within the same professional category no significant differences by gender have been identified. The productivity tended to increase as the professional category improved in the two areas, but no significant differences in productivity were found between genders within each category. Distribution of females by professional categories and number of years at the institution showed a more positive picture in chemistry than in natural resources owing to a process of “feminization” begun in that area at the lowest professional categories, with female progression to the upper ranks expected to follow in the near future. Career Stage The evidence with regard to the influence of career stage on gendered productivity seems to be rather inconclusive. Some authors report little difference between the pro- ductivity rates of men and women at the start of their scientific careers, mostly among recent doctoral graduates, and increasing differences at later stages (Simon et al. 1967; Cole & Cole, 1973; Zuckerman & Cole, 1975). Martin and Irvine (1982) found publi- cation performance of women Ph.D.’s in radio astronomy to be similar to that of their 410 Henry Etzkowitz, Stefan Fuchs, Namrata Gupta, Carol Kemelgor, and Marina Ranga male peers, suggesting that the possible subsequent lack of success in women’s scien- tific careers could not be attributed to poor performance during the early career stage of their doctoral research. On the other hand, authors like Long (1992) identified increasing gender differences in the number of publications and citations during the first decade of the career, which was reversed at later career stages—dynamics that could not be explained by collaboration patterns that appeared to be nearly identical for males and females. Family Responsibilities Zuckerman and Cole (1975, 1987) were among the first to provide evidence against the long-held opinion that women scientists have lower comparative productivity because of the often-conflicting career advancement and family obligations. They showed that marriage and parenthood do not affect women’s publication rates; since the productivity of married as well as unmarried women declines, this cannot be attrib- uted entirely to family responsibilities. Later studies such as Sax et al. (2002) confirmed this view, showing that factors affecting faculty research productivity are nearly iden- tical for men and for women, and family-related variables (e.g., having dependent chil- dren) have little or no effect on research productivity. Other findings (e.g., Palomba, 2004) relate productivity to a family effect manifested in the publication peaks, which were found to appear at different stages in men’s and women’s careers—earlier for men (35–39 years) and later for women (45–49 years). Scientific Field Gender gaps in output vary greatly from field to field, and gender differentials are lower in some scientific fields, such as medicine, biology, and the sciences, and wider in other areas, such as the humanities (Palomba, 2004). Leta and Lewison’s (2003) analysis of publication productivity of Brazilian researchers showed that women pub- lished most in immunology, moderately in oceanography, and least in astronomy. Nevertheless, women were less likely than men to receive fellowships to supplement their salaries, suggesting that some sexual discrimination may still be occurring in the Brazilian peer-review process. Next to publication numbers, another frequent indicator of gendered productivity is citations. Literature evidence in this respect appears again to be rather inconclusive; some studies (e.g., Cole & Cole, 1973) find that women’s papers are cited less than men’s while others report the reverse tendency (Long, 1992; Sonnert & Holton, 1996; Schiebinger, 1999). Teghtsoonian (1974) finds no significant evidence that women’s publications are less cited. In terms of citation impact, a study of the 1000 most cited scientists from 1965 to 1978 (Garfield, 1981) shows that, although the average number of papers and the average number of citations per woman were lower than those per man, the women’s average impact (citations divided by papers) was substantially higher. In contrast, Leta and Lewison (2003) found that men and women published similar numbers of papers, which were of similar potential impact. The Coming Gender Revolution in Science 411 One of the major problems raised by commonly used indicators of scientific pro- ductivity, such as the numbers of publications and citations, is their limited capacity to capture specific aspects of gender differences pertaining to scientific productivity, or their capacity to reflect gender biases in the wider context of the scientific envi- ronment. One example in this respect is Feller’s (2004) distinction between two areas of gender bias in science: (1) bias in the system of evaluating research performance and excellence usually referred to as “equity” and (2) bias in the validity and reliabil- ity of the metrics that assess performance or excellence in different contexts. These two conceptualizations of bias can generate a matrix of four possible combinations: (a) unbiased system, unbiased metrics; (b) unbiased metrics, biased system; (c) biased metrics, unbiased system; and (d) biased metrics, biased system, where most of the lit- erature on women in science is concentrated on (b) (e.g., Wennerås & Wold, 1997; Valian, 1999) and (d) (e.g., Schiebinger, 1999). These limitations of bibliometrics point to the need to develop an expanded set of metrics that mark the difference between performance and excellence, or between quantity and quality, and to ensure that these productivity indicators are gender neutral. Literature, however, is a lagging indicator of other changes in the social organization of science. REFLECTIONS OF INEQUALITY IN SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION The position of women in science is shaped by the role of science in society, whether as fundamental productive force or merely a cultural attribute (High/Low Science) and the gender structure of society, whether women are accepted as equals or exist in a subordinate status (High/Low Women). In a fourfold table (figure 17.1), the first cell— High Science/HighWomen—does not fully exist in any society. Nevertheless, pockets can be identified; for example, in biotechnology firms in the United States (Smith- Doerr, 2004) High Science/Low Women is the situation of female scientists in most western societies where science is an important part of societal infrastructure, with women occupying a subordinate status. A series of studies in the stratification of science, showing contradiction between Mertonian norms and the position of women in various scientific institutions and organizations, exemplify this cell (Cole & Cole, 1973; Cole, 1979; Fox, 2001; Fox, 2005; Fox & Stephan, 2001; Long & Fox, 1995. High- Women/Low Science is exemplified by the situation of women in science in many developing countries. Science is a peripheral to the economy, but female scientists typically are from upper class backgrounds and occupy a superior status. In Low Science/Low Women countries, science is underdeveloped and women’s status in science is also depressed. Science becomes a central part of the development agenda as economic growth becomes more knowledge-based. As scientific professions increase in number and economic centrality, changes in gender relations lag because the strug- gle for positions is dominated by men. The position of science and academia in society affects the rise of women in science in apparently contradictory ways, always linked to common conditions of gender inequality. Women have made greatest gains in participation under conditions of both 412 Henry Etzkowitz, Stefan Fuchs, Namrata Gupta, Carol Kemelgor, and Marina Ranga system expansion and status decline. Expanding systems of higher education, indus- trialization, and modernization opened up scientific education and to some extent science careers to women in Portugal and Turkey. A declining academic economy in Mexico has led to the feminization of the university as men leave for more lucrative fields. The low status of science has improved women’s participation as in Turkey. Thus, even these advances reflect continuing inequalities. In Mexico, women eschew scientific networking because of family obligations (Etzkowitz & Kemelgor, 2001). The condition of women in science in most countries falls within cells 2 and 3. Countries in cell 4 are attempting to upgrade by establishing new universities (Duri, 2004). Cell 1 is a contested environment but with great potential for growth given success in the struggle of women scientists to attain equality and the need for societies to fully develop all their human capital to remain internationally competitive. Nevertheless, resistance to change arises both from internal and external sources within science and from the larger society that have cumulative and escalating effects. UNIVERSAL ROLE OVERLOAD Persisting gender inequality has similar effects on women in science. Germany, the United States, and India have different socioeconomic systems and span three conti- nents. Yet, women in science face a common “triple burden” across the continents (Gupta, 2001). The problems of working in a hostile work environment result in career- related stress—the first burden. The second burden is the usual predicament of domes- tic responsibilities, which fall disproportionately on women. This dual burden forces The Coming Gender Revolution in Science 413 Science as economic resource Science as intellectual ornament Equality between men and women Women as inferiors III III IV United States [biotech] Turkey Germany Ethiopia Figure 17.1 Attitudes toward women in science. women to work harder than men to prove themselves. In all countries, female scien- tists also carry a third burden of grappling with a deficit of social capital and the rel- ative exclusion from strong networks. The interaction among these burdens induces “surplus anxiety” among women that is well above the normal stressors of obtaining funds, results, and recognition common to all scientists. Family issues, predominantly seen as women’s responsibility, negatively affect women’s scientific and academic career opportunities. Thus, in the United States, women’s personal obligations are taken into account and ignored for men when they are being hired. In Germany, women are seen as risky employees who may at least temporarily drop out (Fuchs et al., 2001; von Stebut, 2003). In India, appointment and promotion committees bring up family issues and question women’s commitment to the job (Gupta, 2001). 4 The traditional extended family, still commonplace in devel- oping countries, provides significant support for women scientists, particularly in Brazil and Mexico (Etzkowitz & Kemelgor, 2001). However, while extended family is helpful in providing greater freedom for women to work without anxiety about domes- tic duties, it also perpetuates the traditional stereotypes about women reflected by additional duties related to the joint family (Gupta, 2001). Traditional gender role expectations and a rigid structure in the workplace that makes a combination of family and career difficult for women constitute barriers to women in science. Thus, in Brazil, female scientists have been held back by stereo- typed images, by gendered familial obligations, and by the sexism of “old boy net- works” that still control senior positions (Plonski & Saidel, 2001). In countries such as Spain, an expanding science and technology system helps in raising women’s share of research positions, but they continue to be excluded from “social power.” In the United Kingdom also, there is covert resistance to women in science, expressed as extremely lower levels of women in high academic and science policy positions. Economic growth and development do not necessarily guarantee a change in the traditional social structure. In Japan, for instance, the society developing with the growth of industry between 1955 and 1975 encouraged women to be housewives. In the 1970s, growth of the service sector created a demand for a more flexible and cre- ative workforce, but women were relegated to unstable and peripheral jobs (Kuwahara, 2001). Even economic growth combined with a strong ideology of equality has its limits. Finland exemplifies the experience of women in highly industrialized countries with strong social support systems. Here, women scientists are constrained by an inflexible scientific research system where the expected period of high research pro- ductivity coincides with the childbearing and child-raising years. HOPE FOR CHANGE? The connection between science and economic development is increasing, broaden- ing participation in higher education and eventual gender equality. In the age of globalization, exchange of ideas and personnel between developed and developing countries has become important, and the transnational traffic of ideas, people, and 414 Henry Etzkowitz, Stefan Fuchs, Namrata Gupta, Carol Kemelgor, and Marina Ranga [...]... of the western mind.” As late as 1986, Richard Westfall—then the dean of America’s historians of science put science right at the heart of the modern order: “For good and for ill, science stands at the center of every dimen- Science and the Modern World 435 sion of modern life It has shaped most of the categories in terms of which we think ” (Westfall, 1986) Evidence of that contemporary influence and. .. The Normative Structure of Science, ” in The Sociology of Science Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press) Merton, R K (1 973 ) The Sociology of Science Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press) Misa, T (2004) Leonardo to the Internet: Technology and Culture from the Renaissance to the Present (Baltimore,... ignorance of sociological theory” or “public ignorance of the novels of Mrs Gaskell.” Nor do of cial worries about the proliferation of pseudo -science or junk science necessarily bear on the authority of science Consider present-day concerns over “Intelligent Design” and “Creation Science, ” but note that these represent themselves as forms of science, not as nonscience or as antiscience Advocates of Intelligent... us and is undeniable In the academy, and most especially in the modern research university, it is the natural sciences that have pride of place and the humanities and social sciences that look on with envy and, sometimes, resentment In academic culture generally, the authority of the natural sciences is made manifest in the long-established desire of many forms of inquiry to take their place among the. .. going up and up, and, if these trends continued—which in the nature of things they could not—every man, woman, child, and dog in the United States would be a scientist and every dollar of the Gross Domestic Product would be spent on the support of science (Price, [1963]1968: 19) By these and many other measures, it makes excellent sense to observe that science is constitutive of the Modern World And so... notion of the independence and integrity of science, and these qualities are now jeopardized by increasingly close connections of science with the production of wealth and projection of power We’re left to wonder if the modern world is the unmaking (or unmasking?) of science Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini take an inclusive view of public engagement with science, a phenomenon that for them includes... First, data on the representation of women across fields of study and academic positions are gathered on a regular basis, for example, by the OECD or UNESCO, but they are hardly comparable given the large differences in how systems of higher education are organized, the size of the academic and/ or scientific labor market, the openness of these systems, and the rewards they provide to women at the country... into the structures of power and wealth, and not their poorer intellectual cousins It is science that has the capacity to deliver the goods wanted by the military and by industry, and not sociology or history, though some obvious qualifications need to be made—not all the natural sciences do this and there was a period, early in the post–World War II world, when there were visions of how the human sciences... physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms large as the real origin of the modern world and of the modern mentality (Butterfield, 1949: vii–viii) Butterfield’s formulation was soon echoed and endorsed, as in this example from the Oxford historian of science A C Crombie: The effects of the new science on life and thought have been so great and special that the Scientific... technology transfer, or will past patterns hold of women being pushed out as the status of a field rises? CONCLUSION: GENDER REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE? The irrational gendered arrangements in the seemingly rational profession of science are a product of the correlation between the status of women in society and the status of science in society Though this correlation is complex and varies across space and . profession of science are a product of the correlation between the status of women in society and the status of science in society. Though this correlation is complex and varies across space and time,. break the traditional strong- hold of “patrifocal” ideology and venture abroad for higher satisfaction of talents and ambitions. 5 The relationship between enhancement of the role of science and technology. differences in the openness of science and engineering as a field of study and that many forms of inequalities in science and edu- cation persist despite the (global) diffusion of egalitarian norms and beliefs. REFRACTIONS