What Kohlstedt (2004) opines about the history of women in science continues to be true even in the twenty-first century. Modern science was born as an exclusively masculine activity. By excluding women during its professionalisation, the world of science resulted in the association of ‘man’ and ‘scientist’. Changes did occur, but science remains gendered and social and cultural barriers do stand in the way to women's participation in (and within) science and technology. There has been enormous increase with more women studying science and getting engineering education all over the world. But is there a proportional increase in the scientific professions and faculty appointments, especially at the higher echelons? Although the gender gap is slowly diminishing, increase in the absolute numbers or proportion of women receiving graduation, postgraduation or doctorates do not tell the entire story! Globally, women account for slightly more than one-quarter of the researchers. In 121 countries with available data, women represent slightly more than one-quarter of researchers (29 per cent). Women continue to be clustered in lower academic positions and relatively fewer at the higher ranks. According to the reports by the National Science Foundation in the US, around 19 per cent of the professorship was held by women in the year 2006.

This chapter intends to document some of the fundamental changes in American women's full participation into science, changes that will have major impacts on the ‘face of science and engineering’ for decades to come. ‘Demographic inertia’ in this chapter refers to the long-term impact of combined demographic forces on women's representation in science. This chapter highlights the many dimensions of the changing representation of women in US science and engineering (S&E). Using data from two National Science Foundation (NSF) databases – the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for new PhDs and the Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR) for the S&E doctoral workforce – it brings together data on the educational background and demographic characteristics of three decades of new PhDs and then examines their careers as described by the data. After considering changes in the percentage of PhDs to women, changes in their labour force participation, and reasons for the greater proportion of female scientists and engineers with less than full employment, I show how these changes have important implications for major career outcomes within academia. The importance of examining achievement within the context of the entire career and to understand the effects of demographic changes on movement into more advanced positions has been considered in a variety of recent studies (Hargens and Long, 2002; Long 2001; Morgan, 1998). The current chapter applies these ideas to rank advancement for women in American science. The results show that there has been a steady convergence, making the careers of men and women increasingly more similar. But, there remain consistent differences that leave women with less achievement, salary, and position.

Given its stature as a transformative influence on society, science is and ought to be an object of intense study. Philosophers, historians, and sociologists devote systematic attention to questions such as what distinguishes scientific from non-scientific knowledge; what is the historical context to great scientific discoveries, such as the theory of evolution or quantum mechanics; and what are the sociological and political forces behind becoming a ‘have or a have-not’ in science. What is conspicuously absent – at least until the mid 1980s – from these studies of science (metasciences) is psychology (Feist, 2006; Feist and Gorman, 1998). This is all the more puzzling, given the fact that philosophers, historians, and even sociologists of science of ten touch on inherently psychological processes in their writings on science and scientists, such as imagination, creativity, thought processes, social influence, and motivation. As recently as 1985, there was little accumulated knowledge concerning topics in psychology of science. As Mahoney wrote in the late 1970s: ‘In terms of behaviour patterns, affect, and even some intellectual matters, we know more about alcoholics, Christians, and criminals than we do about the psychology of the scientist’ (Mahoney, 1979: 349). In contrast, other disciplines like philosophy, history, and sociology have spawned clearly identifiable and established sub-disciplines devoted to science studies. Because science deserves more attention from psychologists, one aim of this chapter is to show how the psychology of science can contribute to important questions concerning scientific and mathematical behaviour; in this case how gender affects interest in and ability towards math and science.

Women and minorities face problems in all stages and phases of their scientific life course. The taken-for-granted norms, the structure of society, especially the relationship between family and work, and the organisation of scientific institutions create a series of interrelated dilemmas for women in science that must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. The solution surely includes changes in the society at large, for example, in gender relations of family and work that create a ‘triple burden’ for women in science (Gupta, 2002). But there can be no diversion of attention or shifting the blame from science to society. Any action to include women and minorities must start at home, within science and technology itself, rather than waiting for societal or generational change.

When scientists and technologists take up the issues of women in science, typically in response to the concerns about impending human capital shortages, the focus tends to be on the front end of the so-called ‘pipeline’ of scientific career progression. Too of ten, when the issue of lack of women and minorities is raised, the tendency within scientific institutions is to view the problem solely in terms of recruitment. Numerous programmes have been started to recruit students from elementary and high schools, and to encourage women and minorities to take an interest in science and engineering careers. However, many of those recruited do not pursue technical careers or face conditions that do not allow them to perform at their highest level (Lovitts, 1996).

In April 2000, the European Commission (EC) organised a conference in Brussels, titled ‘Making Change Happen’. The aim was to discuss the EC's report titled Science Policies in the European Union – Promoting Excellence through Mainstreaming Gender Equality (EC, 2000) and to determine the follow-up strategies for the report's findings. With regard to the Netherlands, the report made it clear that in terms of a European (and global) comparative perspective, Dutch women in the field of science were not faring well. Although the report presented some good news about practices in the Netherlands, this was overshadowed by statistical negatives – one table in the European Commission report showed that the Netherlands came in last out of 24 nations with the lowest percentages of women in the rank of professor. Another table confirmed that the Netherlands had ‘the leakiest pipeline’ of all (EC, 2000, Table 2.1, p. 10 and Table 2.4 (the scissors diagram), p. 13; for the ‘leaky pipeline’, see p. 12).

One fundamental way in which gender is expressed in any society is through technology. Technical skills and domains of expertise are divided between and within the sexes, shaping masculinities and femininities – maybe the iconic womanly skill is basket making, whereas men should excel at hunting (MacKenzie, 1991); or boys must learn to clean their fathers' tools to get a feel for grease before they are taught to use them (Mellström, 2004); or poor women raise silkworms and sell the cocoons to rich households where the mistress organises the tasks of reeling, spinning, and weaving among her servants (Bray, 1997); or boys huddle around the computer screen, practicing hacking skills, while girls develop new communication codes using emoticons (Lægran, 2003b; Miller, 2004). In the contemporary world, or at any rate in the Western nations which pioneered industrialisation and have thus been able to dominate worldwide production of material and intellectual goods, services, and desires, for so long, technology is firmly coded male. Men are viewed as having a natural affinity with technology, whereas women supposedly fear or dislike it. Men actively engage with machines – making, using, tinkering with, and loving them. Women may have to use machines, in the workplace or in the home, but they neither love nor seek to understand them – they are considered passive beneficiaries of the inventive flame. The modernist association of technology with masculinity translates into everyday experiences of gender, historical narratives, employment practices, education, the design of new technologies, and the distribution of power across a global society in which technology is seen as the driving force of progress.

This chapter proposes to discuss the relationship between culture, gender, and science. It brings together empirical findings, associated debates, and research to offer an account of the relationship giving examples from various parts of the world. With the help of a review of extant literature on women's access and participation in science, the chapter tries to identify certain similarities and differences across cultures. Culture is an elusive concept. Culture as a way of life gives meaning to things we do, including science, and pervades all social institutions and systems of meanings. Inextricably bound with these societal systems is gender. Out of the social structure and culture, gender and its boundaries are fabricated, which always involves difference and inequality. The recent integrative approach treats gender as a socially constructed stratification system and does not stress the role of biological compulsions like the earlier ones. The feminist perspectives are of special help in changing how we understand the role of social interactions with biological sex differences in shaping feminine and masculine characteristics. Science too is one of the social and cultural realities. Science is a social construction and cultures differ in terms of social processes – thus social processes of science are assumed to differ across cultures. According to the simple syllogistic rule, the consideration of two premises – science is a social construction and cultures differ in terms of social processes – leads to the conclusion that social processes of science differ across cultures.

This chapter focuses on women in academic science and engineering and the education paths that lead to such careers in France. It situates the milestones in women's education within the context of historic-political struggles surrounding sexual equality in France. It also analyses women's place in scientific public employment using the recent data relating to universities and research institutes. The chapter examines the unique French dual university-Grande Ecole (elite higher education school distinct from university) system and explains it with a focus on the failure of co-education in the Ecoles Normales Supérieures (elite higher education schools for training teachers and researchers). The final section describes recent government actions to improve the situation for French women in science.

Historical background

Public education for women in France developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Montreynaud 1992–2000, Préfecture d'Ile-de-France 1995). The lycées (secondary public schools) created by Napoléon in 1808 were closed to women. Primary schools for girls were first established in 1836, and the first women's école normale (school to educate primary school teachers) was opened in 1838. Girls' education was not compulsory at that time and their curriculum was not comparable to that of boys. The first woman to complete her baccalauréat (examination ending secondary school and giving access to university) was Julie Daubié in 1861. She prepared herself for this exam and was allowed to sit for it only after Empress Eugenia intervened.

Fifteen years after the ushering in of democracy in 1994, South Africa faces critical challenges for building a future economy and society which will sustain and develop its people. The decline of mining and resource-based industries over the past two decades, the challenges of global competitiveness for the manufacturing and services sectors, high unemployment and the need to address the causes of poverty have created increased demand for innovation in the private and public sectors. The increased global demand for science and technology inputs to key industries such as automotive manufacturing and pharmaceuticals, emerging sectors such as biodiversity, advanced materials, and ‘green’ industries, as well as social sciences and technology inputs to poverty reduction has created enormous and challenging opportunity for the South African research community. While increased levels of productive scientific activity can contribute to growth and development, this economic relationship requires a continuously growing scientific population, capable of creating and sustaining levels of innovation that will contribute to positive GDP per capita growth year after year. Furthermore, public policy must not simply encourage an increase in the number of women and men in the scientific population, but must aim to put the talent for scientific and technological innovation at the service of the poor.