Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 183–201 | Cite as

A Gendered Approach to Science Ethics for US and UK Physicists

Original Paper


Some research indicates that women professionals—when compared to men—may be more ethical in the workplace. Existing literature that discusses gender and ethics is confined to the for-profit business sector and primarily to a US context. In particular, there is little attention paid to gender and ethics in science professions in a global context. This represents a significant gap, as science is a rapidly growing and global professional sector, as well as one with ethically ambiguous areas. Adopting an international comparative perspective, this paper relies on 121 semi-structured interviews with US and UK academic physicists to examine how physicists perceive the impact of gender on science ethics. Findings indicate that some US and UK physicists believe that female scientists handle ethical issues within science in a feminine way whereas their male colleagues approach ethics in a masculine way. Some of these physicists further claim that these different approaches to science ethics lead to male and female scientists’ different levels of competitiveness in academic physics. In both the US and the UK, there are “gender-blind” physicists, who do not think gender is related to professional ethics. Relying on physicists’ nuanced descriptions this paper contributes to the current understanding of gender and science and engineering ethics.


Science ethics Gender Academic physics Workplace 



Research for this paper was funded by National Science Foundation EESE Grant 1237737, “Ethics among Physicists in Cross-National Context,” Elaine Howard Ecklund, PI, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and Steven Lewis, co-PIs.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Abbott, A. (1983). Professional ethics. American Journal of Sociology, 88(5), 855–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achenbach, J. (2015). Top journal crack down to deter scientific fraud. Standard Examiner. Accessed 12 May 2015.
  3. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adam, A. (2000). Gender and computer ethics. Computer and Society, 30(4), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vares, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, M. S., Shaw, M. T., Steneck, N. H., Konkle, E., & Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28, pp. 217–261). New York: Agathon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s way of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackburn, R. M., Browne, J., Brooks, B., & Jarman, J. (2002). Explaining gender segregation. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(4), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blau, F. D., Brinton, M. C., & Grusky, D. (2006). The declining significance of gender?. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter. Gender & Ethics, 17(4), 369–386.Google Scholar
  14. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism an the persistence of racial inequality in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1996). Personal experiences of research misconduct and the response of individual academic scientists. Science Technology Human Values, 21, 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cech, E. A. (2013). The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3), 747–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2014). Consequences of flexibility stigma among academic scientists and engineers. Work and Occupations, 41, 86–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 75(5), 641–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes for women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS, 108(8), 3157–3162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chung, C. (2015). Comparison of cross culture engineering ethics training using the simulator for engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Connell, R. W. ([1995] 2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davis, M. S. (2013). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis, M. S., Morris, M. R., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Cheveigner, S. (2009). The career paths of women (and men) in French research. Social Studies of Science, 39(1), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ecklund, E. H., & Lincoln, A. (2016). Failing families, failing science: Work-family conflict in academic science. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Essed, P. (1996). Diversity: Gender, color, and culture. (R. Circour, Trans.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  34. Etzkowiz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fang, F. C., Benett, J. W., & Casadevall, A. (2013). Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. Observation, 4(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
  36. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fox, M. F., & Braxton, J. M. (1994). Misconduct and social control in science: Issues, problems, solutions. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grusky, D. B., & Charles, M. (2000). Is there a worldwide sex segregation regime? In D. B. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hackett, E. J. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 242–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, D. R., & Ecklund, E. H. (2015). Ethical ambiguity in science. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9.Google Scholar
  42. Kelly, P. C., & Chang, P. L. (2007). A typology of university ethical lapses: Types, levels of seriousness, and originating location. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 402–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organizations, 10(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Light, R., & Kirk, D. (2000). High school rugby, the body and the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity. Sport, Education and Society, 5(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Probert, B. (2005). “I just couldn’t fit it. In:” Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(1), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. PNAS, 111(12), 4403–4408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Schilt, K. (2011). Just one of the guys: Transgender men and the persistence of gender inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory & Society, 36, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scholossberger, E. (2015). Engineering codes of ethics and duty to set a moral precedent. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9708-3.Google Scholar
  55. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. The Office of Research Integrity. (N.d.). Definition of research misconduct. Accessed 18 June 2015.
  57. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  58. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Dong gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations