Advertisement

Gender and Doctoral Physics Education: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

  • Allison J. Gonsalves
Chapter

Abstract

Researchers have been exploring the issue of women’s attrition from science doctoral programs for over two decades, but understanding the problem of the under-representation of women in science has remained limited. Thus, the study on which this chapter is based was conceived to examine possible reasons for the under-representation of women in physics, and to understand reasons why women stay in physics. What emerged from this study, however, was the realization that specific questions around why women leave or stay in physics are not sufficient to understand the problem of how to develop gender-inclusive educational practices in doctoral physics. A redefinition of the so-called problem of women in science is necessary: one that de-centres the category woman, and rather focuses on the ways that gender is produced in doctoral physics programs to reify and sustain the current gender order.

Keywords

Science Education Scanning Tunnelling Microscope Doctoral Student Subject Position Doctoral Candidate 
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.

References

  1. Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. doi: 10.1002/tea.20241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucholtz, M., Barnwell, B., Jung-Eun, J. L., & Skapoulli, E. (2009). Techies and fuzzies: The ideological opposition of science and non-science among high-achieving undergraduates. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/cv.html).
  4. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, B., & Harrè, R. (1990). Positioning: The social construction of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox, M. F. (2000). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender and Society, 15(5), 654–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its ‘other’: Looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’ for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13(3), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J., & Calvert, S. (2003). Challenging accepted wisdom: Looking at the gender and science education question through a different lens. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonsalves, A. J. (2010). Discourses and gender in doctoral physics: A hard look at a hard science. Unpublished dissertation. McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Henwood F. (1998). Engineering difference: Discourses on gender, sexuality and work in a college of technology. Gender and Education, 10, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ivie, R., & Ray, K. N. (2005). Women in physics and astronomy, 2005. AIP Report, Number R-430.02. Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics. E-mail: stats@aip.org; http://www.aip.org/statistics. Accessed November 17, 2009.
  15. Keller, E. F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7(3), 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Oudshoorn, N., Saetnan, A. R., & Lie, M. (2002). On gender and things reflections on an exhibition on gendered artifacts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25, 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phipps, A. (2007). Re-inscribing gender binaries: Deconstructing the dominant discourse around women’s equality in science, engineering, and technology. Sociological Review, 55(4), 768–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Summers, L. (2005). Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce. www.President.Harvard.Edu/speeches/2005/nber.html. Accessed January 20, 2006.
  22. Thomas, K. (1990). Gender and subject in higher education. Bristol: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  23. Tonso, K. (2006). Student engineers and engineer identity: Campus engineer identities as figured world. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(2), 307, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tsai, L. (2003). Identity reconstruction of women in physics: Interventionist discourse matters. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED474533. Accessed February 20, 2008.
  26. Walker, M. (2001). Engineering identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walkerdine, V. (1989). Counting girls out. London: Virago.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cetina, K. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge (1st ed.). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Danielsson, A. T., & Linder, C. (2008). Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: Towards a new conceptual framework. Gender and Education, 21(2), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenhart, M. A., & Finkel, E. (2001). Women (still) need not apply. The gender and science reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Erwin, L., & Maurutto, P. (1998). Beyond access: Considering gender deficits in science education. Gender and Education, 10, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sonnert, G. (1999). Women in science and engineering: Advances, challenges, and solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wood, S. (2005, May 6–8). Doctoral women’s learning and identity in the culture of engineering: Stories as situated retellings. mit4: The work of stories. Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations