Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy

Beyond the number paradigm

Christine Luk
Arizona State University

Presented at 9th Science and Technology in Society Conference
Hosted by the ST Global Consortium in Washington D.C. March 28-29, 2009

STS knowledge and policy
dimension in STS
“Studying the relations between science and government is an important
preoccupation of many STS researchers, but as an administrator in a
larger scientiﬁc organization based in Washington, D.C., I see the policy
dimensions of STS not just as objects of study. STS–at least policy side–is
the very essence of what I and my colleagues do. AAAS, where I head the
Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, exists at the interface of science,
technology and society.” (Teich 2001: 100)


STS knowledge claims

Women in science

S&T policy

The co-production model in Jasanoff’s conceptualization

Millions of dollars are spent on
increasing women’s participation
(along with other previously
absent actors) in S&T workforce

e.g. ADVANCE program @ NSF
+$130M since 2001


In the UK,
• The Rising Tide: A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and
Technology ( Committee of Women in Science, Engineering, and
Technology 1993)
• Athena project funded by Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
• SET Fair: A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and
Technology (2002), followed by initiatives of £1.5M in 2003 to “bring
more women scientists and engineers into the higher education
workforce with an emphasis on leadership positions.


If you like acronyms....
• NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council),
Canada
• INWES (International Network of Women Engineers and
Scientists), Canada
• APWEN (Association of Professional Women Engineers of
Nigeria)
• ICWES (International Conference of Women Engineers and
Scientists)
• GASAT (Gender and Science and Technology) meetings
• FEMSA (Female Education in Mathematics and Science in Africa)


Why increase women’s participation?

• Social justice & gender
egalitarianism
• Human resource purposes:
“The single most underutilized resource in the nation’s science
and technology system is women.”

Prime Minister!s National Advisory Board
on S&T in Canada

•Remaking the science agenda

Having more women in science:
the underlying linear progressive model

“By gendered innovations I mean transformations
in the personnel, cultures, and content of science
and engineering brought about by efforts to
remove gender bias from these ﬁeld.”
(Schiebinger 2008:4)


Steps (also in Schiebinger 1999, 2003) :
• Fix the Number of Women:
Participation of Women in S&E
• Fix the Institutions: Gender in the
Cultures of S&E
• Fix the Knowledge: Gender in the
Results of S&E


“These initiatives–both on the part of the government and universities
–have focused narrowly on getting more women in the door.
As important as these measures are, they alone are not enough.”
(Schiebinger 2008: 8)

enough to achieve what?


Gender Mainstreaming in
Science & Technology
(McGregor et. al 2001)

The Commonwealth
Secretariat

Global stewardship

Science for whom?

Science by
whom?

Figure 1 Beyond the numbers
(adapted from McGregor et. al 2001: 8)

My argument:
• To problematize the linear
progressive model behind the
“number paradigm” in S&T policy
• Increasing women’s representation
may not be the most effective S&T
policy to changing science agenda


Why ?

• An undue focus on the sex of
science actors and decision-makers
further essentialize science and
obscure the problem
• women bias ! gender bias


Counter-evidence to role modeling effect

1. Queen bee syndrome:

“the distancing of the self from the group
stereotype which not only involves perceiving
the self as a non-prototypical group member,
but may also elicit stereotypical views of other
in-group members” (Ellemers et al. 2004:315)


2. The successful tokens:

successful tokens do not support their
disadvantaged group, but in contrast, are
sufﬁcient to undermine the interest of collective
action of members of disadvantaged groups who
are denied access to higher status groups (Wright
2001)


Qualiﬁcations
• A backlash against increasing
women’s representation ?
• Remaking the science agenda
requires an alternative vision than
human resource paradigm and
essentialist feminist ideology


The pipeline model of under-representation of women
in SET

References
•Ellemers, N. et al. 2004. “The Underrepresentation of Women in Science:
Differential Commitment or the Queen Bee Syndrome?” British Journal of
Social Psychology 43: 315-338.
•Jasanoff, S & B. Wynne.1998. “Science and Decisionmaking” In S. Raynor &
E.L. Malone, eds. Human Choice and Climate Change , Vol.1, The Societal
Framework. Pp.1-87. Columbus OH: Batelle Institute
•McGregor et al. 2001. Gender Mainstreaming in Science and Technology.
London: The Commonwealth Secretariat.
•Schiebinger, L.1999. Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
• .2003. “Feminism Inside the Sciences.” Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 28:859-922.
• .2008. Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. California:
Stanford University Press.
•Teich, A. H. 2001. “STS from a Policy Perspective” In C. Mitcham and S.
Cutcliffe, eds. Visions of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology and
Society Studies. Pp. 99-107. SUNY Press.
•Wright, S.C. 2001. “Restricted Intergroup Boundaries: Tokenism, Ambiguity
and the Tolerance of Injustice. In J.T. Jost & B. Major, eds. The Psychology of
Legitimacy.Pp. 223-256. Cambridge University Press.


Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy

Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy

Similar to Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Beyond the Number Paradigm in S&T Policy