Gender and scientific vocation. A mechanisms-based case study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2008.06.19Keywords:
Academic Career, Grant staff, Scientific Ethos, SexAbstract
Despite the advances towards equality, the academic staff of the Spanish universities is still predominant by masculine. From the different filters that are avoiding the academic progress of women towards superior categories, those that take place in the application and enjoyment of research grants are especially important. In that period, it is taking place a differential process of subjectivities construction for women and men, the principal effect of which is a differential elaboration of professional expectations and preferences for the future. From the analysis of 40 interviews (18 conducted with grant staff and 22 with academic staff of the Autonomous University of Barcelona), and an online survey made to 258 scholarship holders of the AUB, we try to identify some causal mechanisms that help us to explain why is there a difference in the probability of forming of a preference order that places the scientific activities as a priority professional goal, that is to say, why men develop a scientific vocation more often than women.
Downloads
References
Barnes, B. 2007. “Catching up with Robert Merton: scientific collectives as status groups.” Journal of Classical Sociology 7: 179-192. doi:10.1177/1468795X07078036
Barnes, B. y R. G. A. Dolby. 1970. “The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint.” Archive of European Sociology 11:3-25 doi:10.1017/S0003975600001934
Braun, D. 1998. “The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science.” Research Policy 27: 807-821. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00092-4
Boudon, R. 1998. “Social mechanisms without black boxes.” Pp. 172-203 in Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory, edited by Hedström, P. & R. Swedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boudon, R. 2004. “La sociología que realmente importa.” Papers 72: 215-226.
Browne, I. and P. England. 1997. “Oppression from within and without in sociological theories: an application to gender.” Current Perspectives in Social Theory 17: 77-104.
Clark, J. 2005. “Women and science: leaky pipeline or gender filter?.” Gender and education 17: 369-386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072
Correll, S. J. 2004. “Constraints into preferences: gender, status, and emerging career aspirations.” American Sociological Review 69: 93-113. doi:10.1177/000312240406900106
Cruz-Castro, L., L. Sanz-Menéndez y J. Aja. 2006. Las trayectorias profesionales y académicas de los profesores de universidad y los investigadores del CSIC. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Eiduson, B. T. 1962. Scientists: Their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.
Elster, J. 1988. Uvas amargas: sobre la subversión de la racionalidad. Barcelona: Edicions 62.
Elster, J. 1989. Tuercas y tornillos. Una introducción a los conceptos básicos de las ciencias sociales. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Elster, J. 2007. Explainig social behaviour. More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Commission .2004. Gender and excellence in the making. Bruselas: Directorate-General for Research Information and Communication Unit . Consultado el 15 de mayo de 2007. (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/bias_brochure_final_en.pdf).
European Commission. 2005. Women and Science. Excellence and Innovation - Gender Equality in Science. Bruselas: Directorate-General for Research Information and Communication Unit. Consultado el 15 de mayo de 2007. (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/documents_women_sec_en.pdf)
Fernández-Carro, R. 2009. “La teoría principal-agente en los estudios de ciencia y tecnología.” Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y cultura 738: 809-824.
Fernández, M. 2002. La formacio’n de investigadores cienti’ficos en Espana. Madrid: CIS-Siglo XXI.
Fernández, M. y C. Torres. 2009. “La ciencia como institución social: clásicos y modernos institucionalismos en la sociología de la ciencia.” Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y cultura 738: 663-687.
Fox, M. F. 1995. “Woman and Scientific Careers.” Pp. 205-224 in Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage.
Fox, M. y P. E. Stephan. 2001. “Careers of young scientists. Gender.” Social Estudies of Science 31:109-122. doi:10.1177/030631201031001006
Funtowicz, S. O., y Ravetz, J. R. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 735-755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
González, M. T., M. Pérez y M. Fernández. 1995. Trayectorias ocupacionales de los becarios de investigación espanoles (1982-1992). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados.
Hedström, P. y R. Swedberg. 1996. “Social Mechanisms.” Acta Sociologica 39: 281-308. doi:10.1177/000169939603900302
Hedström, P. y R. Swedberg (eds.). 1998. Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huff, T. E. 2007. “Some historical roots of the ethos of science.” Journal of Classical Sociology 7: 193-210. doi:10.1177/1468795X07078037
Izquierdo, M. J. 1998. El malestar en la desigualdad. Madrid: Catedra.
Izquierdo, M. J. (Dir.), E. Mora, L. Duarte i F. J. León. 2004. El sexisme a la UAB. Propostes d’actuacióidades per a un diagnòstic. Barcelona: Bellaterra, Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Izquierdo, M. J., F. J. León, H. Akhrif, L. Duarte y B. Martí. 2008. Foros y talleres de trabajo del I Congreso Internacional sobre sesgo de género y desigualdades en la evaluación de la calidad académica. Barcelona: UAB-Observatori per a la Igualtat, Bellaterra.
Kalleberg, R. 2007. “A reconstruction of the ethos of science.” Journal of Classical Sociology 7: 137-160. doi:10.1177/1468795X07078033
Leydesdorff, H. y H. Etzkowitz. 1996. “Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations.” Science and Public Policy 23: 279-286.
McClelland, D. 1979. “On the dynamics of creative physical scientists.” Pp. 309-341 in Hudson, L. (ed.). The Ecology of Human Intelligence, England: Penguin.
Merton, R. K. 1948. Teori’a y estructura sociales. México: FCE.
Merton, R. K. 1977a. “La estructura normativa de la ciencia.” Pp. 355-362 en La sociología de la ciencia. vol 2. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.
Merton, R. K. 1977b. “Las prioridades en los descubrimientos científicos.” Pp. 377-422 en La sociología de la ciencia. vol 2. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.
Mitroff, I. 1974. “The Apollo Moon Scientist:A case study of the ambivalence of scientists.” American Sociological Review 39: 579-595. doi:10.2307/2094423
Roe, A. 1953. The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Rothman, M. 1972. “A dissenting view on the scientific ethos.” The British Journal of Sociology 23: 102-108. doi:10.2307/588160 PMid:5020244
Scott, J. y M. F. Fox. 1995. “Scientific careers: universalism and particularism.” Annual Review of Sociology 21: 45-71. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
Slaughter, S. y L. L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Turner, S. 2007. “Merton’s ‘Norms’ in political and intellectual context.” Journal of Classical Sociology 7: 161-178. doi:10.1177/1468795X07078034
Wyer, M. 1997. “Women, the doctorate, and equity in engineering education.” Pp. 82-91 in International Symposium on Technology and Society, June 20-21, Glasgow :IEEE.
Ziman, J. 1996. “‘Postacademic science’: constructing knowledge with networks and norms.” Science Studies 9: 67-80.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2010 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
