Efforts to understand gender segregation within and among science disciplines have focused on both supply- and demand-side explanations. Yet we know little about how academic scientists themselves view the sources of such segregation. Utilizing data from a survey of scientists at thirty top U.S. graduate programs in physics and biology (n = 2,503) and semistructured interviews with 150 of them, this article examines the reasons academic scientists provide for differences in the distribution of women in biology and physics. In quantitative analyses, gender is more salient than discipline in determining the reasons scientists provide for gender disparities between disciplines, suggesting that gender may act as a “master status,” shaping the experiences of scientists regardless of the gender composition of the discipline. Qualitative interviews confirm this interpretation and reveal that scientists also perceive mentoring, natural differences, discrimination, and the history of the disciplines to be important factors. Results contribute to research on the relationship between emotional labor and occupational gender segregation conducted in professions such as law and nursing.
BellasMarcia L.1999. Emotional labor in academia: The case of professors. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science561:96–110.
2.
BettingerEric P.LongBridget Terry. 2005. Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review95:152–57.
3.
BetzN.1990. What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering? In Minorities and girls in school: Effects on achievement and performance, edited by JohnsonD.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Blair-LoyMary. 2001. Cultural constructions of family schemas: The case of women finance executives. Gender & Society15:687–709.
5.
BlauFrancine D.BrintonMary C.GruskyDavid. 2006. The declining significance of gender?New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
BlickenstaffJacob C.2005. Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?Gender and Education17:369–86.
7.
BourdieuPierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CechErinRubineauBrianSilbeySusanSeronCarroll. 2011. Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review76:641–66.
9.
ColeJonathan R.1987. Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Columbia University Press.
10.
CorrellShelley. 2001. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology106:1691–1730.
11.
CorrellShelley. 2004. Constraints into preference: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review69:93–113.
12.
DaviesBronwynHarreRom. 1990. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior20:43–63.
13.
DowneyGary L.1988. Reproducing cultural identity in negotiating nuclear power: The union of concerned scientists and emergency core cooling. Social Studies of Science18:231–64.
EnglandPaula. 2010. The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society24:149–66.
16.
EnglandPaulaAllisonPaulLiSuMarkNoahThompsonJenniferBudigMichelleSunHan. 2007. Why are some academic fields tipping toward female? The sex composition of U.S. fields of doctoral degree receipt, 1971–2002. Sociology of Education80:23–42.
17.
EnglandPaulaLiSu. 2006. Desegregation stalled: The changing gender composition of college majors, 1971–2002. Gender & Society20:657–77.
18.
EvettsJulia. 1996. Gender and career in science and engineering. London: Taylor and Francis.
19.
FarmerHelen S.WardropJames L.RotellaSusanne C.1999. Antecedent factors differentiating women and men in science/nonscience careers. Psychology of Women Quarterly23:763–80.
20.
FiorentineRobertColeStephen. 1992. Why fewer women become physicians: Explaining the premed persistence gap. Sociological Forum7:469–96.
21.
FoschiMartha. 2000. Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology26:21–42.
22.
FoxMary Frank. 2001. Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and career. Gender & Society15:654–66.
23.
FoxMary Frank. 2010. Women and men faculty in academic science and engineering: Social-organizational indicators and implications. American Behavioral Scientist53:997–1012.
GlickPeterWilkKorinPerreaultMichele. 1995. Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles32: 565–82.
26.
HirschfieldLaura E.2011. Authority, expertise, and impression management: Gendered professionalization of chemists in the academy. Unpublished diss., University of Michigan.
27.
HochschildArlie Russell. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
HoganAliceZippelKathrinFrehillLisa M.KramerLaura. 2010. Report of the international workshop on international research collaboration. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
29.
IrvineLeslieVermilyaJenny R.2010. Gender work in a feminized profession: The case of veterinary medicine. Gender & Society24:56–82.
JehnKaren A.NorthcraftGregory B.NealeMargaret A.1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly44:741–63.
32.
KellerEvelyn Fox. 1995. The origin, history, and politics of the subject called “gender and science”: A first-person account. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Knorr-CetinaKarin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
KulisStephenSicotteDianeCollinsShawn. 2002. More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines. Research in Higher Education43:657–91.
35.
LincolnAnne E.2010. The shifting supply of women and men to occupations: Feminization in veterinary education. Social Forces88:1969–99.
36.
LindsayD. Michael. 2007. Faith in the halls of power. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
MahlckPaula. 2001. Mapping gender differences in specific careers in social and bibliometric space. Science, Technology, Human Values26:167–90.
38.
MartinEmily. 1991. The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society16:485–501.
39.
MasonMary AnnEkmanEve Mason. 2007. Mothers on the fast track: How a generation can balance family and careers. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
McDonnellFiona. 2005. Why so few choose physics: An alternative explanation for the leaky pipeline. American Journal of Physics73:583–86.
41.
National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
National Research Council. 1995. Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43.
National Science Board. 2010. Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
44.
NeumarkDavidGardeckiRosella. 1998. Women helping women? Role model and mentoring effects on female Ph.D. students in economics. Journal of Economic Education33:99–124.
45.
PageScott E.2008. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
PrestonAnne E.2004. Leaving science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
RaskKevin N.BaileyElizabeth M.2002. Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education33:99–124.
48.
ReskinBarbara. 1993. Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology19:241–70.
49.
SchusterJank H.FinkelsteinMartin J.2006. The American faculty: Restructuring academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
50.
SettlesIsis H.CortinaLilia M.MalleyJanetStewartAbigail J.2006. The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly30:47–58.
51.
ShaumanKimberlee A.XieYu. 1996. Geographic mobility of scientists: Sex differences and family constraints. Demography33:455–68.
52.
Smith-DoerrLaurel. 2004. Women’s work: Gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
53.
SonnertGerhardHoltonGerald James. 1995. Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
54.
SteinpreisRhea A.AndersKatie A.RitzkeDawn. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles41:509–28.
55.
TaylorCatherine J.2010. Occupational sex composition and the gendered availability of workplace support. Gender & Society24:189–212.
56.
ThomasW. I.ThomasD. S.1928. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.
