This paper explicates a central conflict that can affect science research organizations, the conflict between the anti-bureaucratic stance believed to advance science and concerns for gender equity rooted in the universalist ethos of science. We present a case study of a science research organization, using employment and publication records, a survey of 308 employees, and qualitative interviews with 60 employees. We show how anti-bureaucratic organizational structures perpetuate gender inequities for both female scientists and non-scientists.
Acker J. ( 1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations . Gender & Society4: 139-158.
2.
Babcock L. and Laschever S. ( 2003) Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Baron J., Hannan M., Hsu G. and Kocak K. ( 2007) In the company of women: Gender inequality and the logic of bureaucracy in start-up firms. Work and Occupations34: 35-66.
4.
Becon (2003) ‘Catalyzing Team Science’ Conference Symposium. Bethesda, MD : National Institutes of Health Bioengineering Consortium , 23-24 June.
Bosch M. ( 2002) Women and science in the Netherlands: A Dutch case ? Science in Context15: 483-527.
7.
Bozeman B. ( 1993) A theory of government ‘red tape’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory3: 273-303.
8.
Bozeman B. ( 2000) Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
Bozeman B., Reed P., and Scott P. ( 1992) Red tape and task delays in public and private organizations . Administration & Society24: 290-322.
10.
Britton D. ( 2000) The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society14: 418-434.
11.
Campbell K. and Rosenfeld R. ( 1985) Job search and job mobility: Sex and race differences . Research in the Sociology of Work3: 147-174.
12.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy ( 2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press .
13.
Crow M. and Bozeman B. ( 1989) Bureaucratization in the laboratory. Research Technology Management32: 30-31.
14.
Crow M. and Bozeman B. ( 1998) Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the US National Innovation System. New York: Columbia University Press.
15.
Crozier M. ( 1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago : University of Chicago.
16.
DeHart-Davis L. ( 2009a) Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(2): 361-384.
17.
DeHart-Davis L. ( 2009b) Can bureaucracy benefit organizational women?: An exploratory study. Administration & Society41: 340-363.
18.
DeHart-Davis L. and Pandey S. ( 2005) Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15: 133-148.
19.
Duguid P. ( 2005) ‘The art of knowing’: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. Information Society21:109-118.
20.
Erikson K. ( 1976) Everything In Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood. New York: Simon and Schuster.
21.
Etzkowitz H., Kemelgor C. and Uzzi B. ( 2000) Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Fox MF ( 1995) Women and scientific careers. In: Jasanoff S, Markle G, Petersen J, and Pinch T (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 205-223.
23.
Fox MF ( 2000) Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly28: 47-61.
24.
Fox MF ( 2001) Women, science and academia: Graduate education and careers . Gender & Society15: 654-666.
25.
Fox MF ( 2006) Women, men, and engineering. In: Fox MF, Johnson DG and Rosser SV (eds) Women, Gender, and Technology . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 47-59.
26.
Glover J. ( 2002) Women’s employment in the sciences in Europe . Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering8: 363-375.
27.
Hara N., Solomon P., Kim S-L. and Sonnenwald D. ( 2003) An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54: 952-965.
28.
Hochschild AR ( 1997) The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books .
29.
Kilduff M. and Mehra A. ( 1996) Hegemonic masculinity among the elite: Power, identity, and homophily in social networks. In: Cheng C (ed.) Masculinities in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 115-129.
30.
Knorr Cetina K. ( 1991) Merton’s sociology of science: The first and the last sociology of science?Contemporary Sociology4: 522-526.
31.
Long JS ( 1990) The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces68: 1297-1315.
32.
Long JS ( 1992) Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity . Social Forces71: 159-178.
33.
Long JS (ed.) (2001) From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
Long JS and Fox MF ( 1995) Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism . Annual Review of Sociology21: 47-71.
35.
McGuire GM ( 2002) Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society16: 303-322.
36.
March JG and Simon HA ( 1993) Organizations (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
37.
Merton RK ( 1968 [1940]) Bureaucratic structure and personality . In: Merton RK, Social Theory and Social Structure , enlarged edn. New York: Free Press , 249-260.
38.
Merton, RK ( 1973 [1942]) The normative structure of science . In: Merton RK, The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 267-278.
39.
Mitroff I. ( 1974) Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review39: 579-595.
40.
Nathan O and Norden H (eds) (1960) Einstein on Peace. New York : Schocken.
41.
National Science Board (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (NSB 1-1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
42.
Pandey S. and Welch E. ( 2005) Beyond stereotypes: A multistage model of managerial perceptions of red tape. Administration & Society37: 542-575.
43.
Park SM and Rainey H. ( 2007) Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration27: 197-226.
44.
Polanyi M. ( 1966) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY : Doubleday.
45.
Ragin CC and Becker HS (eds) (1992) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Rainey H. ( 1997) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
47.
Rainey H., Pandey S. and Bozeman B. ( 1995) Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review55: 567-574.
48.
Reskin B. ( 2000) Getting it right: Sex and race inequality in work organizations . Annual Review of Sociology26: 707-709.
49.
Ridgeway CL ( 2001) Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Justice54: 637-655.
50.
Robinson JG and McIlwee JS ( 1989) Women in engineering: A promise unfulfilled? Social Problems36: 455-472.
51.
Rothman RA ( 1972) A dissenting view on the scientific ethos. British Journal of Sociology23: 102-108.
52.
Schiebinger L. ( 2002) European women in science. Science in Context15: 473-481.
53.
Schöllgen G. ( 1985) Max Webers Anliegen: Rationalisierung als Forderung und Hypothek. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
54.
Selznick P. ( 1953) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
55.
Simmel G. ( 1950[1908]) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press.
56.
Smith-Doerr L. ( 2004) Flexibility and fairness: Effects of the network form of organization on gender equity in life science careers. Sociological Perspectives47: 25-54.
57.
Sonnert G. ( 1999) Women in science and engineering: Advances, challenges, and solutions. In: Selby CC (ed.) Women in Science and Engineering: Choices for Success. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 34-57.
58.
Sonnert G. and Holton G. ( 1995) Gender Differences in Science Careers: The Project Access Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
59.
Transportation Research Board (2002) Naval Engineering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research . Transportation Research Board of the National Academies , Committee on Options for Naval Engineering Cooperative Research, Special Report266. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
60.
Traweek S. ( 1988) Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
Vaughan D. ( 1992) Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis . In: Ragin CC and Becker HS (eds) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 173-202.
62.
Vaughan D. ( 1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
Von Humboldt W. ( 1956 [1810]) Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin. In: Die Idee der deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und romantischen Realismus. Darmstadt: H. Gentner , 375-386.
64.
Walton J. ( 1992) Making the theoretical case. In: Ragin CC and Becker HS (eds) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 121-137.
65.
Weber M. ( 1958 [1904-5]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
66.
Whittington KB and Smith-Doerr L. ( 2008) Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society22: 194-218.
67.
Williams CL ( 1995) Still a Man’s World: Men Who Do ‘Women’s Work’. Berkeley: University of California Press.
68.
Wilson J. ( 1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books .
69.
Xie Y. and Shauman KA ( 2003) Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
Yin RK ( 2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
71.
Zingerle A. ( 1981) Max Webers historische Soziologie: Aspekte und Materialien zur Wirkungsgeschichte. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
72.
Zuckerman H. ( 1977) Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States . New York: Free Press.
73.
Zuckerman H. ( 1989) Accumulation of advantage and disadvantage: The theory and its intellectual biography. In: Mongardini C and Tabboni S (eds) L’opera di R.K. Merton e la sociologia contemporeana. Genoa: Edizioni Culturali Internazionali Genova, 153-176.
