Constructing a broader and more inclusive value system in science

BioScience

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 71-78

  Uriarte, María ^a   Ewing, Holly A ^b   Eviner, Valerie T ^c,d   Weathers, Kathleen C ^c  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b BATES COLLEGE   (United States)

^c CARY INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Institutional structure; Reward systems; Science and society; Scientific culture

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846388181     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/B570111     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Barinaga M. 1993. Is there a "female style" in science? Science 260: 384-391.
2. Bond IT, Galinsky E1 Swanberg JE. 1998. The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
3. Boyer EL. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton (NJ): Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4. Branscomb L, Holton G, Sonnert G. 2001. Science for Society: Cutting-Edge Basic Research in the Service of Public Objectives: A Blueprint for an Intellectually Bold and Socially Beneficial Science Policy. Report on the November 2000 Conference on Basic Research in the Service of Public Objectives. Tempe (AZ): Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1999. Civilian Labor Force, 1980-1998. Washington (DC): US Department of Labor.
6. Campus Compact. 1997. Creating a Climate for Change: Lessons Learned from the 1991-1996 Institutes on Integrating Service with Academic Study. Providence (RI): Campus Compact.
7. [CAWMSET] Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development. 2000. Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Arlington (VA): CAWMSET.
8. Checkoway B. 2001. Renewing the civic mission of the university. Journal of Higher Education 72: 125-146.
9. Damschen EI, Rosenfeld KM, Wyer M, Murphy-Medley D, Wentworth TR, Haddad NM. 2005. Visibility matters: Increasing knowledge of women's contributions to ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 212-219.
10. Davis G. 2005. Doctors without orders. American Scientist 93 (3, suppl.). (14 November 2006; http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org/results/)
11. Ginorio AB. 1995. Warming the Climate for Women in Academic Science. Washington (DC): Association of American Colleges and Universities.
12. Greenberg DS. 2001. Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Grimm D. 2005. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science 309: 1974.
14. Guimerà R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Nunes Amaral LA. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308: 697-702.
15. Hall RM, Sandler BR. 1982. The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Washington (DC): Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
16. Handelsman J, et al. 2005. More women in science. Science 309: 1190-1191.
17. Holland B. 1997. Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 4: 30-41.
18. Hopkins N. 2006. Diversification of a university faculty: Observations on hiring women faculty in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 18 (4). (25 October 2006; http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/ 184/hopkins.html)
19. King J. 2005. Benefits of women in science. Science 308: 601.
20. Leimu R, Koricheva J. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 29-32.
21. Longino HE. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
22. Mervis J. 2006. NSF begins push to measure societal impacts of research. Science 312: 347.
23. [MIT] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT. (25 October 2006; http://web.mit. edu/fnl/women/women.pdf)
24. [NAS/NAE/IOM] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2006. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
25. Niederle M, Vesterlund V. 2005. Do Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much? Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 11474.
26. O'Meara KA. 2005. Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems. Research in Higher Education 46: 479-509.
27. Pascarella ET, Whitt EJ, Edison MI, Nora A, Hagedorn LS, Yaeger PM, Terenzini PT. 1997. Women's perceptions of a "chilly climate" and their cognitive outcomes during their first year of college. Journal of College Student Development 38: 109-124.
28. Pfirman SL, Collins JP, Lowes S, Michaels AF. 2005. To thrive and prosper: Hiring, supporting, and tenuring interdisciplinary scholars. Project Kaleidoscope. (25 October 2006; www.pkal.org/documents/Pfirman_ et-al_To-thrive-and-prosper.pdf)
29. Rhoten D, Parker A. 2004. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science 306: 2046.
30. Rhoten D, Pfirman S. 2007. Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy. Forthcoming.
31. Sutton GF. 1995. Science for a Polite Society: Gender, Culture, and the Demonstration of Enlightenment. Boulder (CO): Westview.
32. Valian V. 1998. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
33. Ward K. 1998. Addressing academic culture: Service learning organizations and faculty work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 73-80.
34. Wenneras C, Wold A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341-343.
35. Xie Y, Shauman KA. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.