Interdisciplinary Science Reviews

Gender relations and gendered power relations are major defining features of science and technology. This article addresses the question of how to understand gender, and considers their various implications for science and technology. Gender and gender relations can be understood as operating and as relevant to science and technology at several levels: who does science and technology; how science and technology are organized; and the con- struction of knowledge in science and technology. We review five underlying formulations that inform both policy interventions and theorizing around gender and science — gender based on sex; masculinity/femininity and sex roles; categoricalism, structure and plural structures; poststructuralist, discursive and deconstructive approaches; the material-discursive.

The increased presence of women at all levels of higher education, from undergraduate student to full professor, has given increased currency to an argument that gender balance at the highest levels of academia will inevita- bly be achieved, merely through the passage of time. In this essay, that argument is challenged, both on the basis of its logic and on the basis of empirical studies on the rate of increase. Development of new measures to hasten the achievement of gender balance can now be motivated by arguments based on research in new domains, which augment traditional arguments for gender equality grounded in social justice perspectives. Three examples of arguments from new domains are presented, connecting gender balance in research groups, research questions, and the leadership of research institutions to scientific quality. Focusing on scientific quality, it is argued, entails focusing on gender equality.

In research and in academia, appointments and promotions are mainly determined by the quantity and quality of the research activity, as rendered in the CV. Our proposal is to use a different standard for the CV, one that would allow applicants to spend up to five years on activities other than the pursuit of a scientific career, without this diminishing their fair chances of career advancement. This article explains why this is good for everybody, and what one can do for society and humankind during these years, which are not included in the CV, years of absolute freedom. In particular, raising a family — and it is usually women who do it — takes time. This time cannot be used for doing research. Therefore, women do not play on a level field. With this CV as mandatory, nobody, women raising a family included, will see his/her chances to land a top job in research diminish due to caring or societal responsibilities and activities.

Academics sign up to the concept of promoting excellence in research by valuing ‘objectivity’, independence, theoretical frameworks and an evidence base, even while we might argue about meanings of these concepts and how they should be operationalized. We share a commitment to peer review, even though some may have concerns about invisible biases which may be built into some of the mechanisms we employ to conduct it. So, how do we explain the extraordinarily robust and sustained role that gender continues to play in organizing the academy? Moreover, how do we understand the neglect of the gender dimension in so much research? This paper considers the ways in which gender cuts across the allocation of academic opportuni- ties. It raises questions about the implications of the gendering of the acad- emy on who decides who and what is ‘excellent’. It then outlines concerns about the neglect of the gender dimension in research processes. It concludes with recommendations on how to address the gender imbalance in the academy and enhance the attention to gender in research.

Given that women continue to be underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) and that scientific innovations are increasingly produced by team collaborations, we reviewed the existing literature regarding the effects of gender diversity on team processes and performance. Recent evidence strongly suggests that team collaboration is greatly improved by the presence of women in the group, and this effect is primarily explained by benefits to group processes. The evidence concerning the effect of gender diversity on team performance is more equivocal and contingent upon a variety of contextual factors. In light of the importance of collaboration in science, promoting the role of women in the field can have positive practical consequences for science and technology.

‘Gendered Innovations’ is defined as the process that integrates sex and gender analysis into all phases of basic and applied research to assure excellence and quality in outcomes. Gendered Innovations enhance excellence in science, medicine, and engineering both in terms of knowledge and personnel; they lead to gender-responsible science and technology, and seek to enhance the lives of women and men globally. This paper presents three approaches to gender equality taken by policy makers, institutional administrators, and scientists and engineers over the past three decades. These approaches include: 1) fixing the numbers of women in science, medicine, and engineer- ing; 2) fixing research institutions by removing barriers and transforming structures; 3) fixing knowledge by incorporating gender analysis into basic and applied research. This paper treats each of these approaches but focuses on the third approach — ‘Gendered Innovations’ — by presenting concrete examples of how gender analysis has enhanced scientific knowledge and technology design. Realizing the full potential of gendered innovations in the next decade will require deep interdisciplinary collaborations between gender experts, natural scientists, and engineers. Realizing the full potential of gendered innovations will also require international coordination, as recommended in the 2010 European Commission genSET Consensus Report and the 2011 United Nations resolutions on Gender, Science and Technology.

In complex contexts and environments, it is necessary for scientific investi- gations, which respect the findings of gender studies, to withstand simplifi- cations of gender and sex distinctions or non-distinctions. The severe consequences that may follow when such demands are disregarded will be made clear in this article. It will be demonstrated here for medical imaging technologies that these artefacts are not at all unique, reproducible or reliable, in any sense that can be claimed as objective.

Sex differences have been ascribed mainly to hormonal and life-span factors, while neglecting chromosomal and socio-cultural determinants. Science is now reviewing the disregard for sex and gender as a potential explanation for the lack of expected outcomes in whole populations from clinical research. The medical research process begins with a hypothesis that is applied, generating results that can be disseminated. Many factors impact on this process that can be ascribed to sex, as a biological construct, and gender, as a psychosocial process involving experimental subjects, research- ers, funders and the public. Drug trial data analysis and publication of data from women and men have recently been scrutinized and found lacking, because expected clinical outcomes from ‘evidence-based’ guidelines are not being achieved. Hence visibility of sex and gender in all aspects of medical research is considered essential if personalized therapies are to bring benefits to both men and women.

Worldwide, there are two conceptual models of pregnancy and child birth. In the first, ‘male’ model, pregnancy and the birth of a baby are biomedical processes. In the second, ‘female’ model, pregnancy and child birth are major psychosocial events for the woman. The research agenda of obstetri- cians is based on the biomedical model. It mainly focuses on studying the effectiveness of interventions aimed at diminishing the risk of morbidity and mortality. Midwives’ and nurses’ research agenda centres around ‘normal birth’ and takes psychosocial outcomes such as women's experiences and satisfaction with different types of care into account as well. Midwifery and nursing are relatively young fields of science. Research training and oppor- tunities are not as widely available to midwives as to obstetricians. As a consequence, the leading research into pregnancy and birth care focuses primarily on the application of technical, medical, ‘male’ solutions. A grow- ing body of evidence, however, shows that a healthy baby alone is not enough to guarantee a woman's satisfaction with her pregnancy, birth and postpartum period. To improve women's and babies’ well-being, the biomedical and psychosocial models of pregnancy and birth need to be reconciled and integrated.