Publications

WOMEN IN THE CURRICULUM

From Bonnie Spanier, "Natural Sciences: Molecular Biology"

Several common types of ideological distortions are found in biology. These include: (1) superimposing stereotypical gender attributes and language onto animals and even plants; (2) creating hierarchies of organization with assumptions of centralized control, casting power relationships of domination and subordination as natural products of evolution; and (3) claiming that biology determines behavior.

But how could such culturally generated distortions occur in the field of molecular biology, where the subject matter is not gendered animals but supposedly nongendered cells, genes, and macromolecules (large molecules such as DNA and proteins)? Molecular biology is of particular interest because it illustrates the impact of our dominant ideology of "difference" on nongendered subject matter. Further, this field demands our attention because it has taken a dominant position in the life sciences since the 1960s. From Sue V. Rosser, "Feminist Critiques of Biology"

The question for the introductory biology teacher then becomes how, at the present time, can one incorporate the recent scholarship on women and science into the curriculum in a manner that will inspire further critiques and theoretical changes. How can one integrate into the standard biology curriculum the considerable but diffuse information constituting contemporary feminist perspectives: the critique of biological determinism and androcentric "objectivity," the substantial information about famous and lesser-known women scientists and their discoveries, some remarks about the obvious influence of masculine thinking on the descriptive language of biology, the feminist theoretical changes that have already taken place, and those areas where theoretical changes are still in need. From Joseph N. Muzio, "Balancing the Curriculum in the Biological Sciences"

Despite a frequently held view among some segments of the public that faculty members are quite innovative and receptive to change, there are powerful forces resistant to changes in scholarship, curriculum, and teaching/learning strategies. Many faculty are extremely conservative in modifying curriculum, or in changing their approaches. Special interests are partially responsible for such resistance to changes. The desire to maintain clearly defined academic disciplines or departments and, thus, spheres of influence within the academic institution, and the faculty's comfort in keeping the curriculum and courses the way they are constitute examples of these special interests. From Edward B. Tucker, "Women in Science and Engineering"

Women choose some fields of science and not others. The data illustrate that more women attained Ph.D. degrees and academic positions in life science and psychology, and fewer in earth science, environmental science, mathematics and engineering (see Tables 1 and 2). While it appears that at present few women have advanced degrees or academic positions in computer science, a large percentage of computer science professionals in the United States are women (see Tables 3, 2, and 1). In the future we are likely to see the greatest proportional changs are taking place in these fields (see Table 1).

The number of women in science and engineering has increased over the past ten years. Since the number of women graduating and attaining Ph.D. degrees in the sciences is increasing, the number of women in science will continue to increase. We need to ask: What is it about mathematics and environmental science that many women dislike? What is happening in engineering that many women are finding attractive? Will there be curricular changes in computer science and engineering that encourage or do not discourage women in these fields? Probably the most effective way to increase the number of women in science is to decrease the number who leave.

Order Form

[Back to Main Publications page]