Review of Sandra Ingram & Anne Parker Gender and Collaboration: Communication Styles in the Engineering Classroom. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2002. 125 pages.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insights into inter-gender interactions were gained from the analysis of the behaviour of the lone women in each of the two male-dominated groups. In these observations, there was clear evidence that women in male-dominated groups experienced the "culture of engineering" and exhibited behaviour characteristic of their gender roles. In one of the dysfunctional groups, "Carol" was the only responsible and competent team member, but she was also the only woman on the team. Instead of complaining to the professor about her teammates, who did very little work and indulged in sexist humour, she was instead overly accommodating. She was almost apologetic when attempting to get the rest of the team on track, and when it was obvious that they weren't going to do their work, she ended up taking on their share of the workload, in order to avoid any conflicts. The other lone woman in a male-dominated group was "Melissa," who was chronically plagued with self-doubt and very low self-confidence, despite the fact that she was academically stronger than most of her fellow team members. The quality of the research in Gender and Collaboration is high, as it is rigorous. The writing style is clear and concise. The book opens the door to many other exciting research possibilities, and fellow researchers will certainly find it valuable. In addition to the insight on the effects of gender on professional interpersonal interactions, Gender and Collaboration also includes a very good analysis of the general requirements for successful teamwork. Perhaps engineering students can benefit from this book's detailed description of effective collaboration skills, and in addition, the book can alert students to gender issues. The book is also certainly useful for instructors, as it contains specific recommendations on how to encourage effective teamwork, and how to ensure the inclusion of women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".