MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4391908044 · doi:10.1353/ff.2008.a256913

Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics , and: Women, Gender, and Technology , and: Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues (review)

2008· article· en· W4391908044 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueNWSA Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCareer Development and Diversity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGender inequalityInequalityWomen in scienceGender equalityGender studiesFeminismSocial inequalityScience and engineeringSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, and: Women, Gender, and Technology, and: Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues Mary A. Armstrong (bio) Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Jill M. BystydzienskiSharon R. Bird, eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2006, 347 pp., $75 hardcover, $30 paper. Women, Gender, and Technology, Mary Frank FoxDeborah G. JohnsonSue V. Rosser eds. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006, 204 pp., $55 hardcover, $20 paper. Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues by Sandra Harding. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006, 205 pp., $40 hardcover, $20 paper. Interrogating how gender, race, sexuality, and transnational issues complexly intersect with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is not a new project for feminists. Yet each of the recent works reviewed here offer productive, interdisciplinary additions to the intricate landscape of these intersections, presenting valuable perspectives on the mutually transformative links between gender-based inquiry and STEM issues that lie at the heart of feminist science studies. Jill M. Bystydzienski and Sharon R. Bird’s Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics is a particularly useful and comprehensive collection that examines the persistence and seeming intractability of the under-representation of women in academic STEM areas. What makes this collection especially effective is the careful and convincing theoretical perspective by which it is informed. At the very center of Bystydzienski and Bird’s approach is the quite explicit rejection of more traditional approaches to understanding and “fixing” the problem of the underrepresentation of women in academic STEM areas. Specifically, the authors refuse to accept what they describe as “interventions that construe women as ‘the problem’ in need of change” and which [End Page 221] primarily focus on helping individual women adjust to doing science or acquiring skills they appear to lack (4). Similarly, the editors challenge the simplicity of the popular “pipeline” theory, noting that while the image of women progressively falling away from STEM careers is an apt one, the leaky pipeline model also fails to critique adequately the deeply masculinist cultural and structural barriers that are fundamentally embedded in science and engineering fields. This clear-headed approach to the problems of women and STEM success/retention allows the seventeen essays in this collection to grapple effectively with multifaceted levels of inquiry and analysis while avoiding any of the randomness or disjuncture that often plague such distinctly ambitious projects. Bystydzienski and Bird divide the work into four sections: historical issues concerning women in STEM, institutional and cultural barriers, feminist science studies, and ideas for remedies and change. The first section features essays by Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, who analyzes historical patterns concerning gender, science, and technology in the twentieth-century United States, and Amy Sue Bix, who specifically addresses the gendered history of engineering (chapters one and two, respectively). These two essays provide a valuable framework for the work that follows—work that often returns to the historical frame the better to explain the persistent exclusion of women in STEM fields. Section two foregrounds issues of race and the particular barriers faced by women of color. This section features Sally Hanson’s study of issues faced by African American women in science fields (chapter six) and Josephine Beoku-Betts’ discussion of issues encountered by African women who travel to “the West” (specifically the United States, Canada or Europe) to continue or complete STEM graduate work (chapter seven). Cogent analyses of the configurations and stubborn tenacity of cultural and structural barriers—lack of practical and abstract support, effective and ineffective pedagogical approaches, overt and covert discrimination, constricted access to resources, and limited opportunities for collaboration in research and grant-writing—make this section relevant to all feminist educators attempting to address the under-representation of women of color in STEM fields. Especially useful in this context is Sue V. Rosser’s “Using POWRE to ADVANCE: Institutional Barriers Identified by Women Scientists and Engineers” (chapter three) which usefully outlays the specific obstacles most frequently faced by women in STEM. Molly J. Dingle’s chapter on the effects of the gendered atmosphere of the college science classroom and its subsequent...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,360
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,005
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle