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.

Physical topography and climatic conditions have always exerted an abiding influence on the ebb and flow of human civilisation. Arguably, the nature and quantum of influence would vary in different regions. It has been suggested that the ‘human living environments span a wider range of climatic variations in South Asia than anywhere else in the world at these latitudes’ and it would be worthwhile to examine the case of Assam.

The territory of Assam lies between latitudes 28'18° and 24° N and longitudes 89°46' and 97°4' E. The region has been described as being,

‘Early in the thirteenth century an event occurred at the eastern extremity of the valley which was destined to change the whole course of Assam history. This was the invasion of the Ahoms, a Shan tribe from the ancient kingdom of Mungmau or Pong, which was situated in the upper portion of the Irawaddy valley.’ The credit for the establishment of the Ahom kingdom in Assam is assigned to Sukapha, who was a prince of the Shan state of Maulung in Upper Burma.

The Ahoms were a people with a long heritage of river valley habitation. With it came the knowledge of wet paddy cultivation and the finer nuances of reclaiming swampy land for agriculture and effective methods of flood control and irrigation. There is no disputing the fact that the extensive practise of wet rice cultivation provided the economic foundation to the fledgling Ahom state. But at the same time it needs mention that in addition to agriculture, it was the knowledge and technology used in the non-agrarian sectors that gave the state its distinct characteristics. Two areas that are considered reflective of the science and technological know how of the Ahoms were in the areas of warfare and civil constructions. Thus, it is surmised that in order to gain a comprehensive picture about the developments in the Ahom state, it is essential to have a detailed look at some of their accomplishments in the fields of military technology and civil constructions.

Two small illustrations would help a casual observer gain a broad perspective of the achievements of the Ahoms. First is the fact that the kingdom endured as long as it did, for more than 600 years. Surely, this durability was no accident in history and was undoubtedly based not only on economic solvency but also effective organisational structures in managing society and state. This, in turn, would require coercive power, not only to maintain internal order but also to meet threats of external aggression.

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.

The contention that empire building is more about consolidation of power rather than the mere expansion of territorial frontiers is exemplified in the case of the Ahoms. It is probably true that at no point of their history did they display a singular obsession with frontier expansion without commensurate attempts at consolidation and proper administration. Normally, all areas under their control were placed under a system that exercised a modicum of administrative control and uniformity that extended to the remotest regions of the kingdom. But, at the same time, incorporation of newer regions also brought with it the prospect of intercourse with different cultures and technology. It is to the credit of the Ahoms that they kept themselves open to new ideas and technology. The resilience and strength of the Ahom kingdom can be explained in terms of its ability to incorporate new ideas and technology that it came across. In addition, there were also occasions when the knowledge base of the kingdom was sought to be expanded by inviting experts from different fields. Interestingly, these specialists were drawn from different parts of the subcontinent, be it Kanauj, Bengal or Burma. In the course of time, they were assimilated into the Assamese fold and their knowledge became integral to the Ahom kingdom! In this regard, the sixteenth century probably marks a distinct stage in the evolution of the Ahom state. It was during this time that the Ahom state, after gradual consolidation, was beginning to expand and incorporate newer areas within its frontiers.