Results by title

What determines successful careers in the field of science? What are the early indicators of later failures. And specifically, how do women scientists' career paths differ from men's? While it is easy to theorize about these questions, those who go to the trouble of an extensive empirical study find an increasingly complex picture.

Using the largest database of its kind (699 questionnaires and 200 face-to-face conversations), the authors investigate the career paths of recipients of prestigious postdoctoral fellowships--scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. They outline a theoretical framework for understanding the causes of gender disparities among scientists, test the hypothesis of a gender- specific "glass ceiling," and provide a wealth of pertinent statistical information.

Gender Differences in Science Careers reveals that, as institutional laws changed, patterns of discrimination and exclusion become more subtle. Despite the decline of rigid gender-role socialization, many social practices persist that lead, on average and often in counterintuitive ways, to the accumulation of disadvantages for women scientists. This book is directed to scholars in the social sciences, aspiring and practicing scientists, and administrators interested in equity issues.

Combining anecdotal evidence (the personal stories of rhetoric and composition teachers) with hard data, Theresa Enos offers documentation for what many have long suspected to be true: lower-division writing courses in colleges and universities are staffed primarily by women who receive minimal pay, little prestige, and lessened job security in comparison to their male counterparts. Male writing faculty, however, also are affected by factors such as low salaries because of the undervaluation of a field considered feminized. As Enos notes in her preface: "The rhetoric of our institutional lives is connected especially to the negotiations of gender roles in rhetoric and composition."

Enos describes and classifies narratives gathered from surveys, interviews, and campus visits and interweaves these narratives with statistical data gathered from national surveys that show gendered experiences in the profession. Enos discusses the ways in which these experiences affect the working conditions of writing teachers and administrators in various programs at different types of institutions.

Enos points out that fields in which women excel—and are acknowledged—receive less prestige than other fields. On the university level, those genres in which women have demonstrated competence are not taken as seriously as those dominated by men. In practical terms, academia affords more glory for teaching literature than for teaching rhetoric and composition.

Within the field of rhetoric and composition, however, Enos finds it difficult to determine why the accomplishments of women receive less credit than those of men. She speculates as to whether it is part of the larger pattern in society—and in academia—to value men more than women or something in the field itself that keeps women from real power, even though women make up the majority of composition and rhetoric teachers.

Enos provides fascinating personal histories of composition and rhetoric teachers whose work has been largely disregarded. She also provides information about writing programs, teaching, administrative responsibilities, ranks among teachers, ages, salary, tenure status, distribution of research, service responsibilities, records of publication, and promotion and tenure guidelines.