Volume 2, 2019
Research Article

For a Place at the ‘High-Table’: The Compelling Case of Indian Women in Science

PDF
  • Sneha Sudha Komath
Sneha Sudha Komath
Professor, School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29195/DSSS.02.01.0018

Published 2023-09-02

Keywords

  • Gender, Women in Science, Hiring in Science, Affirmative Action, Indian Scientific Research and Education, Indian Scientific Research Institutions

How to Cite

Komath, S. S. (2023). For a Place at the ‘High-Table’: The Compelling Case of Indian Women in Science. DIALOGUE: Science, Scientists and Society, 2, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.29195/DSSS.02.01.0018
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Much of the existing literature on women in science in India tends to highlight the ‘absence’ of women, while that is no longer the case. Based on an extensive review of the available evidence, the paper reflects that the number of women in science has been steadily growing, though with significant variations across disciplines. Using Biological Sciences as a reference point, the paper highlights the fact that even when women grow in numbers and begin to knock at the doors of positions in the scientific establishment, they continue to find recalcitrant gatekeepers. Underlying gender frames thus persist and shape the structures of scientific organizations. The paper contends that introducing ‘pro-women’ affirmative policies without working to alter the existing organizational normative and mindscapes could, in fact, be counter-productive.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Bal, V. (2002). Gendered Science: Women as practitioners and targets of research. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 37(52): 5163-5167.
  2. Caplar, N. Tacchella, S. and Birrer, S. (2017). Quantitative Evaluation of Gender Bias in Astronomical Publications from Citation Counts. Nature Astronomy, volume 1, Article number: 0141.
  3. Chaudhuri, M. (1999). Gender in the making of the Indian nation state. Sociological Bulletin 48(1&2): 113-133.
  4. Damodaran, V. (2017). Janaki Ammal, C.D. Darlington and J.B.S. Haldane: Scientific encounters at the end of Empire. J. Genet. 96(5). 827-836.
  5. Dogra, A. and Jayraj, N. (2016). The She in Science. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 51(22): 28 May; https:// www.epw.in/ journal/ 2016/ 22/ web-exclusives/ she-science.html.
  6. Dolgin, E. (2017). Gender tokenism and bias prevail in biotech boardrooms. Nature Biotechnol. 35: 185-186.
  7. Gupta, N. (2016). Perceptions of the work environment. The issue of gender in Indian scientific research institutes. Indian J. Gend. Stud. 23(3): 437–466.
  8. Handley, I.M., Brown, E.R., Moss-Racusin, C.A., and Smith, J.L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. PNAS. 112(43): 1320113206.
  9. Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., Hauser, C.E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?. PLoS Biol. 16(4): e2004956.
  10. Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J. and Handelsman, J. (2012).
  11. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS. 109(41): 16474-16479.
  12. Poonacha Veena. (2005). Uncovering the Gender Politics of Science Policies and Education.
  13. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 40(3): 241-247.
  14. Ridgeway, C.L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender
  15. & Society. 23:145-160.
  16. Sujatha Ramdorai. (2017). Gender and Science. A case for inclusion and diversity. Econ. Polit.
  17. Wkly. 52(17): 67-72.
  18. Sur, A. (2001). Dispersed Radiance: Women Scientists in C.V. Raman's Laboratory in Meridians:
  19. feminism, race, transnationalism. Duke University Press. 1(2): 95-127.
  20. Vaidya, V.A. (2017). Towards a Narrative of Gender in the Biological Sciences. Econ. Polit.
  21. Wkly. 52(17): 80-86.