Gender stratification and e-science: Can the internet circumvent patrifocality?

New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 246-269

  Palackal, Antony ^a   Anderson, Meredith ^b   Miller, B Paige ^b   Shrum, Wesley ^b  

^a Loyola Coll Social Sciences   (India)

^b LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899302705     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-717-1.ch012     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Abraham, M. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
2. Campion, P. A., & Shrum, W. (2004). Gender and science in development: Women scientists in Ghana, Kenya and India. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29(4), 459-485.
3. Chanana, K. (2001). Hinduism and female sexuality: Social control and education of girls in India. Sociological Bulletin, 50(1), 37-63.
4. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Women in science (pp. 217-258). Greenwich; London: JAI Press.
5. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256(2), 119-125.
6. Davidson, T., Sooryamoorthy, R., & Shrum, W. (2002). Kerala connections: Will the internet affect science in developing areas? In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 496-519). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7. Derne, S. (1994). Arranging marriages: How fathers' concerns limit women's educational achievements. In C. C. Mukhopadhyay & S. Seymour (Eds.), Women, education, and family structure in India (pp. 83-101). San Francisco: Westview Press.
8. Fox, M. F. (1995). Women in scientific careers. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 205-233). Newbury Park: Sage.
9. Fox, M. F. (1999). Gender, hierarchy and science. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 441-458). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
10. Fox, M. F., & Long, S. J. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 50, 45-71.
11. George, K. K. (1993). Limits to kerala model of development: An analysis of fiscal crisis and its implications. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Development Studies.
12. Gupta, N., & Sharma, A. K. (2002). Women academic scientists in India. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 901-915.
13. Harding, S. (1995). Just add women and stir? In Gender working group: UN commission on science and technology for development, Missing Links (pp. 295-307). New York: UNIFEM.
14. Keller, E. F. (1995). The origin, history, and politics of the subject called 'gender and science': A first person account. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 80-94). Newbury Park: Sage.
15. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(1), 54-71.
16. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge: University Press.
17. McElrath, K. (1992). Gender, career disruption, and academic rewards. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(3), 269-281.
18. Mukhopadhyay, C. C. (1994). Family structure and Indian women's participation in science and engineering. In C. C. Mukhopadhyay & S. Seymour (Eds.), Women, education and family structure in India (pp. 103-32). Boulder: Westview Press.
19. Mukhopadhyay, C. C., & Seymour, S. (1994). Women, education and family structure in India. Boulder: Westview Press.
20. Oommen, M.A. (1992). The Kerala economy. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Company.
21. Oommen, M. A. (Ed.). (1999). Kerala's development experience (Vols. 1 & 2). New Delhi: Concept Publishing.
22. Ramachandran, V. K. (1996). On kerala's development achievements. In J. Dreze & A. Sen (Eds.), Indian development: Selected regional perspectives (pp. 205-356). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
23. Ranson, G. (2003). Beyond "gender differences": A Canadian study of women's and men's careers in engineering. Gender, Work, and Organizations, 10(1), 22-41.
24. Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitative research. London: Sage.
25. Saradamoni, K. (1994). Women, kerala and some development issues. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(26 February), 501-509.
26. Shrum, W. (2005). Reagency of the internet, or how I became a guest for science. Social Studies of Science, 36, 1-36.
27. Shrum, W., & Campion, P. (2000). Are scientists in developing countries isolated? Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 1-34.
28. Shrum, W., & Iyer, S. R. (2000). Knowledge, democratization, and sustainability: The Kerala 'model' of scientific capacity building. In G. Parayil (Ed.), Kerala: The development experience (pp. 157-177). London; New York: Zed Books.
29. Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, M. (1993). You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender: Feminism on theory (pp. 223-251). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
30. Sooryamoorthy, R., & Shrum, W. (2004). Is Kerala becoming a knowledge society? Evidence from the scientific community. Sociological Bulletin, 53(2), 207-221.
31. Subrahmanyan, L. (1998). Women scientists in the third world: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Sage.
32. Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
33. Wajcman, J. (1995). Feminist theories of technology. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 189-204). Newbury Park: Sage.
34. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847-870.
35. Ynalvez, M., Duque, R., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Palackal, A., & Shrum, W. (2005). When do scientists "adopt" the internet? Dimensions of connectivity in developing areas. Scientometrics, 63(1), 39-67.