Advertisement

Italian Students’ Ideas About Gender and Science in Late-Modern Societies: Interpretations from a Feminist Perspective

  • Alessandra Allegrini
Chapter

Abstract

The gendered representations of different sciences might have relevant effects on educational choices of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), enforcing a tendency to reproduce gender polarities between “male sciences” and “female sciences”. Drawing on several qualitative outcomes of the Italian IRIS survey, by means of a feminist interpretative framework based on three historical-conceptual dimensions – culture/nature, male hard sciences/female soft sciences, equality/difference – this chapter documents this macro-trend within the imagery of Italian male and female students who are enrolled in different scientific courses in their first year of university. It specifically examines the relationship between traditional and non-traditional aspects in their gender and science imagery, especially focussing on the perception of the primacy of techno-science over science as an emerging factor which partially redefines the gendered representation of science in the context of late-modern societies.

Keywords

Male Student Gender Stereotype Scientific Subject Hegemonic Masculinity Male Prevalence 
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. Allegrini, A. (2004). Donne, lavoro e tecnologie IC. Prospettive femministe/di genere sul lavoro nella società in rete del capitalismo post-fordista. In Associazione “Orlando” (a cura di), Le ricerche del progetto Portico (pp. 129–202). Bologna: Pitagora.Google Scholar
  2. Allegrini, A. (2009). Le Altre stelle. La dimensione di genere dei contesti educativi tecno-scientifici. Un’indagine conoscitiva. Ricerca promossa dalla Consigliera di Parità della Provincia di Verona, in collaborazione con l’Ufficio Scolastico XII di Verona e la Consulta provinciale degli studenti. In Associazione Donne e Scienza. www.donnescienza.it; 2012, febbraio (pp. 9–13 e 25–103). Verona: Grafiche Marchesini.
  3. Allegrini, A. (2012). Genere e scienza nella contemporaneità: uno sguardo storico-concettuale. In S. Badaloni e & A. Contarello (Eds.), Genere e Cambiamenti. Dalla sottorappresentazione delle donne a nuovi scenari emergenti (pp. 85–90). Padova: Padova University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1999). What is globalisation? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bologna, S., & Fumagalli, A. (Eds.). (1997). Il lavoro autonomo di seconda generazione. Scenari del postfordismo in Italia. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  10. Bordo, S. (1987). The flight to objectivity. Essays on Cartesianism and culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braidotti, R. (1992). Patterns of dissonance. A study of women in contemporary philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. Cambridge: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matters. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavarero, A. (1987). L’elaborazione filosofica della differenza sessuale. In M. C. Marcuzzo, A. Rossi-Doria (a cura di), La ricerca delle donne. Studi femministi in Italia (pp. 173–187). Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier (English translation (1991). The need for a sexed thought. In S. Kemp & P. Bono (Eds.). Italian feminist thought: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Cavarero, A. (1990). Nonostante Platone. Figure femminili nella filosofia antica. Roma: Editori Riuniti. English Translation (1995). In spite of Plato: A feminist reading of ancient philosophy. Foreword by Rosi Braidotti. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Contarello, A., Badaloni, S., Brondi, S., & Manganelli, A. M. (2008). Studentesse e studenti di fronte al “mito” della scienza. Un’indagine presso l’Università di Padova. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova.Google Scholar
  21. Contarello, A., Badaloni, S., Brondi, S., Manganelli, A. M. (2009, 19–20 febbraio). Il genere della scienza. Una lettura psicosociale della sottorappresentazione delle donne nell’universo scientifico e tecnologico. In Le questioni sui generi in psicologia sociale. Abstract book (pp. 125–137). Parma: Uni.Nova.Google Scholar
  22. Ferber, M. A., & Nelson, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Feminist economics today. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fraisse, G. (1991). Dalla destinazione al destino. Storia filosofica della differenza dei sessi. In G. Fraisse & M. Perrot (Eds.), Storia delle donne in occidente. L’Ottocento (pp. 89–123). Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
  24. Fraisse, G. (1996). La difference des sexes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  25. Gagliasso, E., & Zucco, F. (2007). Il genere nel paesaggio scientifico. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
  26. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Groppi, A. (1993). Le radici di un problema. In G. Bonacchi e & A. Groppi (a cura di), Il dilemma della cittadinanza. Diritti e doveri delle donne (pp. 3–15). Roma/Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  28. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology. “What is strong objectivity?”. In L. M. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Harvey, D. (1993). La crisi della modernità. Milano: Il Saggiatore.Google Scholar
  32. Irigaray, L. (1974). Speculum. De l’autre femme. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  33. Irigaray, L. (1977). C’è sexe qui n’est pas un. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  34. Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  35. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Krippendorf, K. (2007). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lipperini, L. (2007). Ancora dalla parte delle bambine. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  38. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Longino, H. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Re-thinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marazzi, C. (2001). Capitale & linguaggio. Ciclo e crisi della new economy. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
  41. Mapelli, B. (2004). Nuove virtù. Percorsi di filosofia dell’educazione. Milano: Guerini Studio.Google Scholar
  42. Offen, K. (1988). Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 119–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Padoan, I., & Sangiuliano, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educare con differenza. Modelli educativi e pratiche formative. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
  44. Picchio, A. (Ed.). (2003). Unpaid work and the economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Saraceno, C. (2008). Tra uguaglianza e differenza: Il dilemma irrisolto della cittadinanza. In Fondazione Ermanno Gorrieri. www.fondazionegorrieri.it
  46. Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality versus difference, or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tamanini, C. (a cura di) (2007a). Maschi e femmine a scuola: stili relazionali e di apprendimento. Una ricerca sul genere e percorsi formativi. Trento: Iprase Trentino - Provincia Autonoma di Trento Ed.Google Scholar
  48. Tamanini, C. (2007b). Segregazione formativa e cultura di genere degli insegnanti. In B. Poggio (Ed.), L’isola che non c’è. Pratiche di genere nella pubblica amministrazione tra carriere, conciliazione e nuove precarietà (pp. 171–189). Trento: Edizioni 31.Google Scholar
  49. Zajczyk, F. (2007). La resistibile ascesa delle donne in Italia. Stereotipi di genere e costruzione di nuove identità. Milano: Il Saggiatore.Google Scholar
  50. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Observa Science in SocietyVicenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations