Gender, Science, and Occupational Sex Segregation

  • Lisa M. FrehillEmail author
  • Alice Abreu
  • Kathrin Zippel


Over the past 20 years, policy makers have been increasingly connecting science and technology to innovation and economic growth. Many nations have made increased public investments in science and technology, as reflected in GDP (National Science Foundation 2012). Simultaneously, the role of diversity within the innovation process, in general, and the potential contributions of women, in particular, to national science and technology enterprises, has received much attention in many nations and international organizations (see, for example, efforts by UNESCO, APEC, the European Union and OECD).


Stereotype Threat Gender Norm Glass Ceiling Occupational Segregation Disadvantage Woman 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Chapter References

  1. Anker, Richard. 1998. Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  2. Aaveduto, Sveva. 2015. Greetings from Italy: What Is Changing for Women and Science and Research Careers. In Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective, ed. W. Pearson Jr., L.M. Frehill, and C.L. McNeely. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Babcock, Linda, and Sara Laschever. 2009. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bailyn, Lotte. 2003. Academic Careers and Gender Equity: Lessons Learned from MIT. Gender, Work & Organization 10: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertaux, Nancy E. 1991. The Roots of Today’s “Women’s Jobs” and “Men’s Jobs”: Using the Index of Dissimilarity to Measure Occupational Segregation by Gender. Explorations in Economic History 28: 433–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilimoria, Diana, and Xiangfen Liang. 2012. Gender Equity in Science and Engineering: Advancing Change in Higher Education, vol. 15. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn, R.M., Jennifer Jarman, and Bradley Brooks. 2000. The Puzzle of Gender Segregation and Inequality: A Cross-National Analysis. European Sociological Review 16: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blake, Margaret, and Ivana La Valle. 2000. Who Applies for Research Funding?: Key Factors Shaping Funding Application Behaviour Among Women and Men in British Higher Education Institutions. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  9. Caprile, Maria, ed., B. Sánchez, N. Vallès, A Gómez, J Potrony, E Sixto, D Herrera, M Oleaga, M. Amate, and I. Isasa. 2008. Monitoring Progress Towards Gender Equality in the Sixth Framework Programme. European Commission, Directorate for Research.Google Scholar
  10. Caprile, Maria, coord., Elisabetta Addis, Cecilia Castaño, Ineke Klinge, Marina Larios, Danièle Meulders, Jörg Müller, O’Darchoai, Robert Alain Plasman, Seppo Roivas, Felizitas Sagebiel, Londa Schiebinger, Nuria Vallès, and Susana Vazquez-Cupeiro. 2012. Meta-Analysis Gender and Science Research: Synthesis Report. Bruxelles: ULB—Universite Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, Mariko Lin. 2004. Growing Pains: Cross-National Variation in Sex Segregation in Sixteen Developing Countries. American Sociological Review 69: 114–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charles, Maria. 1992. Cross-National Variation in Occupational Sex Segregation. American Sociological Review 57: 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charles, Maria, and Karen Bradley. 2002. Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education. American Sociological Review 67: 573–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. _____. 2004. Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Charles, Maria, and David B. Grusky. 2004. Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. CNPq. 2013. Diretório dos grupos de pesquisa no Brasil. Censos a partir de 2000 e base corrente (Directory of Research Groups of Brazil. Census from Year 2000 and Current Base).Google Scholar
  17. Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. Getting a job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? American Journal of Sociology 112: 1297–1338.Google Scholar
  19. Cotta, Monica Alonso, Marília J. Caldas, and Marcia C. Barbosa. 2009. Climbing the Academy Ladder in Brazil: Physics. AIP Conference Proceedings 1119: 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Beverly Duncan. 1955. A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes. American Sociological Review 20: 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, Alice H., and Linda Lorene Carli. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz, Henry, Carol Kemelgor, and Brian Uzzi, eds. 2000. International Comparisons. In Athena Unbound: the Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–224.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. 2002. National Policies on Women and Science in Europe: A Report About Women in and Science in 30 Countries by Professor Teresa Rees. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  24. _____. 2006. She Figures 2006. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  25. _____. 2008. Mapping the Maze: Getting More Women to the Top in Research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  26. _____. 2009. The Gender Challenge in Research Funding: Assessing the European National Scenes. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  27. _____. 2013. She Figures 2012. Gender in Research and Innovation. Statistics and Indicators. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Science, Economy and Society, ed. 2009b. Women in Science and Technology: Creating Sustainable Careers. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.Google Scholar
  29. European Science Foundation (ESF). 2009. Research Careers in Europe. Landscape and Horizons. A Report by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Careers. Strasbourg: ESF.Google Scholar
  30. European Union Seventh Framework Programme. 2008. Meta-Analysis of Gender and Science Research. CIREM.Google Scholar
  31. Feller, Irwin. 2004. Measurement of Scientific Performance and Gender Bias. Gender and Excellence in the Making 35.Google Scholar
  32. Fiske, Susan T. 1998. Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. D.T.F. Gilbert, T. Susan, and G. Lindzey, 367–411. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Fiske, Susan T., J.C. Amy, Peter Glick Cuddy, and Xu. Jun. 2002. A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 878–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fox, Mary Frank. 2005. Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity Among Scientists. Social Studies of Science 35: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frehill, Lisa M. 1996. Occupational Segmentation in Kansas and Nebraska, 1890-1900. Great Plains Research 6: 213–244.Google Scholar
  36. Frehill, L.M., and K. Zippel. 2011. Gender and International Collaborations of Academic Scientists and Engineers: Findings from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2006. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 97(1): 49–69.Google Scholar
  37. _____. Measuring Occupational Sex Segregation of Academic Science and Engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 345–354.Google Scholar
  38. Galerand, Elsa, and Danièle Kergoat. 2013. Le travail comme enjeu des rapport sociaux (de sexe). In Travail et genre dans le monde L’état des savoirs, coord. Margaret Maruani, 44–51. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  39. Grusky, David B., and Maria Charles. 1998. The Past, Present, and Future of Sex Segregation Methodology. Demography 35: 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gupta, Namrata, Carol Kemelgor, Stephan Fuchs, and Henry Etzkowitz. 2004. The ‘Triple Burden’: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Consequences of Discrimination for Women in Science. In Gender and Excellence in the Making, ed. European Commission, 41–50. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  41. Hanson, Sandra L., Maryellen Schaub, and David P. Baker. 1996. Gender Stratification in the Science Pipeline: A Comparative Analysis of Seven Countries. Gender & Society 10: 271–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hinz, Thomas, Ina Findeisen, and Katrin Auspurg. 2008. Wissenschaftlerinnen in der DFG. Förderprogramme, Förderchancen, Funktionen (1991–2004). Weinheim: Wiley-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Hosek, Susan D., Amy G. Cox, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Aaron Kofner, Nishal Ramphal, Jon Scott, and Sandra H. Berry. 2005. Is There Gender Bias in Federal Grant Programs? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  44. Husu, Liisa, and Suzanne Cheveigné. 2010. Gender and Gatekeeping of Excellence in Research Funding: European Perspectives. In Gender Change in Academia, ed. B. Riegraf, B. Aulenbacher, E. Kirsch-Auwärter, and U. Müller, 43–59. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Inter Academy Council. 2006. Women for Science. An Advisory Report.Google Scholar
  46. Jacobs, Jerry A. 1989. Long-Term Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex. The American Journal of Sociology 95: 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. _____. 1995. Gender and Academic Specialties: Trends Among Recipients of College Degrees in the 1980s. Sociology of Education, 68: 81–98.Google Scholar
  48. Kahlert, Heike. 2012. Was kommt nach der Promotion? Karriereorientierungen und -pläne des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses im Fächer- und Geschlechtervergleich. In Einfach Spitze? Neue Geschlechterperspektiven auf Karrieren in der Wissenschaft, ed. S. Beaufaÿs, A. Engels, and H. Kahlert. Campus: Frankfurt am Main [u.a.].Google Scholar
  49. Kemelgor, Carol, and Harry Etzkowitz. 2001. Overcoming Isolation: Women’s Dilemmas in American Academic Science. Minerva 39: 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, M.C. 1992. Occupational Segregation by Race and Sex, 1940-88. Monthly Labor Review 115: 30–38.Google Scholar
  51. Knights, David, and Wendy Richards. 2003. Sex Discrimination in UK Academia. Gender, Work & Organization 10: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maruani, Margaret, coord. 2013. Travail et genre dans le monde. L’état des savoirs. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  53. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1989. Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation Along Five Dimensions. Demography 26(3): 373–91.Google Scholar
  54. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. McDaniel, Anne. 2010. Cross-National Gender Gaps in Educational Expectations: The Influence of National-Level Gender Ideology and Educational Systems. Comparative Education Review 54(1): 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Melkas, Helina, and Richard Anker. 2001. Occupational Segregation by Sex in Nordic Countries: An Empirical Investigation. In Women, Gender and Work: What Is Equality and How Do We Get There? ed. M.F. Loutfi, 189–213. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  57. Moody, Joann. 2005. Rising above Cognitive Errors: Guidelines to Improve Faculty Searches, Evaluations, and Decision-Making.Google Scholar
  58. National Science Foundation. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.Google Scholar
  59. Nosek, Brian A., and Rachel G. Riskind. 2012. Policy Implications of Implicit Social Cognition. Social Issues and Policy Review 6: 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  61. _____. 2010. Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering and Mathematics Faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  62. Organization of American States (OAS). 2005. Gender Equity and Equality in Science and Technology. Policy Proposals for the Americas. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  63. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2006. Women in Scientific Careers: Unleashing the Potential. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  64. OEI—Organización de los Estados Iberoamericanos y UNESCO SAP. 2004. Proyecto Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología y Género—GENTEC—UNESCO. Informe comparativo regional e informes nacionales de Argentina, Brasil, Costa Rica, España, México, Paraguay, Uruguay y Venezuela.Google Scholar
  65. Osborn, M., T. Rees, M. Bosch, C. Hermann, J. Hilden, J. Mason, A. McLaren, R. Palomba, L. Peltonen, C. Vela, D. Weis, A. Wold, and C. Wennerås. 2000. Science Policies in the European Union: Promoting Excellence Through Mainstreaming Gender Equality. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, European Commission.Google Scholar
  66. Rees, Teresa. 2004. Measuring Excellence in Scientific Research: The UK Research Assessment Exercise. In Gender and Excellence in the Making. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 115–120.Google Scholar
  67. Reskin, Barbara, and Heidi I. Hartmann. 1986. Women’s Work, Men’s Work: Sex Segregation on the Job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  68. Reskin, Barbara, and Patricia A. Roos. 1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Semyonov, Moshe, Yitchak Haberfield, Yinon Cohen, and Noah Lewin-Epstein. 2000. Racial Composition and Occupational Segregation and Inequality Across American Cities. Social Science Research 29: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Spencer, Steven J., Claude M. Steele, and Diane M. Steele. 1999. Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steele, Claude M. 1997. A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist 52: 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steele, Claude M., and Joshua Aronson. 1995. Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Third World Organization for Women (TWOWS). 2007. Proceedings of the International Conference on Women’s Impact on Science & Technology in the New Millennium. In International Conference on Women’s Impact on Science & Technology in the New Millennium, ed. V. Krishnan. Bangalore: Institute of Science.Google Scholar
  74. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2007. Science, Technology and Gender: An International Report. Montreal: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  75. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. CPS Tables, Annual Averages, (accessed 12 December 2013).
  76. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so Slow?: The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wenneräs, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. Nature 387: 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilcox, Diane. 2015. A Personal Reflection on Advancing in South African Science. In Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective, ed. W. Pearson Jr., L.M. Frehill, and C.L. McNeely. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Williams, Christine L. 1992. The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the “Female” Professions. Social Problems 39: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energetics Technology CenterSt. CharlesUSA
  2. 2.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations