SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandardlong

� 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

THE BOOKS

Hugh Munby, Peter Chin, and Andre´a Mueller, Section Editors

Women’s Science: Learning and Succeeding from the Margins,by Margaret A. Ei-senhart and Elizabeth Finkel, 1998. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. xvii�272 pp. ISBN 0-226-19545-7.

This book by Eisenhart and Finkel is concerned with assessing career paths for womento succeed as scientists, other than in academic positions. The book has three parts. In PartI, the authors review the role women play (or more accurately, don’t play) in “elite” orconventional laboratory science. In Part II, they explore the involvement of women inscience at themargins. Four nontraditional scientific sites are studied and the role of womenin these sites assessed. Finally, in Part III, the authors discuss ways in which scienceeducation and ways of doing science and engineering may better accommodate women.In Part I, Eisenhart and Finkel provide a brief, recent history of women in science and

engineering which includes noting that the Equal Rights Legislation in the United States(�1970) has had a marked effect on increasing the number of women completing scienceand engineering college degrees. For example, science bachelor’s degrees increased ap-proximately fourfold (7–27%) and the number of engineering degrees increased from 1to 16%. However, the increase in female academics practicing science at an “elite” sitehas increased much less dramatically (12.1–18.1%). More disturbing is that the increasein women’s participation in college science programs slowed in the late 1980s, with theexception of life scientists. Also discouraging is that women who have proceeded to grad-uate degrees have a higher rate of unemployment and underemployment. If they stay inscience, their career paths tend to lead to positions of both lower status and lower salary.Eisenhart and Finkel then describe research studies carried out at four alternate sites

(other than “elite” science sites) where women make up a significant number (�50%) ofthe scientists and where they use their scientific knowledge in their careers. The four sitesselected are: an Integrated Genetics Course (IGC), an Engineering Design Internship(EDI), an Environmental Legislation Action Group (ELAC), and, finally, a ConservationCorporation (CC). Their research compares the way science is practiced, the meaning of“science” and “scientist,” and the organization of power at these alternate sites, with thatof “elite” sites.Part II is divided into four chapters, each describing observations at one of the noncon-

ventional sites. The IGC class is a senior elective taken by high school students. It isdesigned to have students work in small groups and behave as geneticists solving problemsrelated to Mendelian genetics. After a few examples describing inheritance of geneticstraits, students are presented with the results of genetic crosses and asked to developmodelsto explain the results. Both groups of “A” science students (a group of all girls and oneof all boys that have done well in science previously) succeed in developing reasonablemodels by making hypotheses and asking if the model explains the results. A group of allboys that are “B” students (have previously not done well in science) also succeed; how-ever, they resort to “scientific espionage” or spying on the “A” groups to get ideas on how

794 BOOK REVIEWS

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textto solve the problems. Finally, a group of all girls, also “B” students, do not succeed and

recordings of their discussions and observations of the teachers reveal that these girlsdevote most of their time to discussing social issues that appear to be more important thanthe genetics problems. The authors cite evidence from other studies that as high as three-quarters of female college students are primarily concerned with social interactions ratherthan career plans (p. xi)—a number that I find distressing.At the EDI site, engineering students working in small groups of both male and female

students are assigned to analyze and provide an engineering solution to a project submittedby a local town. The project involves proposing ways to modify heritage buildings tocomply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, yet retain the heritage nature of thebuildings. The proposal is also required to provide cost estimates and make recommen-dations to the clients. Eisenhart and Finkel rate this internship assignment as a “lower-status” project in contrast to academic course work. However, since this is the type ofwork many graduate engineers will be doing, I felt it was downgraded further than itdeserved. It was observed that the women students performed well in this work setting.They took the project seriously, collected the data, analyzed it, and provided their contri-butions to the proposal. They also “covered” for some of the men who seemed to feel theexercise was not an important one and missed meetings and were late with their contri-butions. The women performed well in this career-related activity and enjoyed the pro-fessional interactions with the clients.The ELAC site was by far the least satisfactory experience. This environmental group

raises money to support political actions (e.g., bottle recycling programs). Employeeswerepredominantly college students who worked with the group for summer employment.Salaries were low, and many (both male and female) left before the end of the summerdue to dissatisfaction. The students were hired to canvass for memberships and donationsto ELAC to support their political causes. Although many of the students had no formalscientific education at the college level, a test of their scientific literacy indicated theywere well above the average (33% compared with only 7% for the general population).The students working for ELAC appeared to be attracted to the group because of theirgenuine interest in environmental issues, yet their efforts to gain more scientific back-ground information were not supported by the group. They were given a list of facts anda clipboard listing what ELAC did and hence why it was asking for donor support. Thisgroup had concluded from experience that this approach was the most effective and al-lowed more people to be canvassed. Not only did ELAC not provideor even encourageworkers to learn more in-depth scientific knowledge of environmental issues of concern,they were unsympathetic to women’s safety concerns about canvassing alone in the eve-nings; hence, more women than men left the group in frustration.Unlike the previous site, women and men liked working for the Conservation Corpo-

ration (CC). This was a local group connected to a national organization. The employeeswere responsible for using scientific principles to identify areas that needed to be protected.The group gave talks on conservation issues, raising people’s awareness of environmentalissues and received donations to support their work. The group had more recently shiftedto identifying larger sites and allowed “convenient access to the site by the public” to playa role in their decisions. During the course of the study, a new ranking system was to beintroduced, but the local employees presented discussion and objections to this system,primarily by the women, and the system was modified as a result. The CC seemed torecognize women’s needs in raising children. One woman took her small child with heron some field trips and also shifted to a 4-day work week with longer hours to accom-modate her changing family demands. However, during the summer, the hours were longand involved weekends, and both men and women were poorly paid. People working with

BOOK REVIEWS 795

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textthe CC seemed to enjoy their work and felt they were doing an important job. Unlike the

ELAC group, the CC encouraged employees to learn more in-depth scientific informationrelated to the group’s goals.In Part III, Eisenhart and Finkel conclude that three of the alternate sites, EDI, ELAC,

and CC still required that women “behave as if they were prototypical men; they had tomake work the top priority in their lives; they were expected to fit social and personalconcerns into their lives as best they could, given the requirements of doing a good job atwork; they had to work around the concerns or needs that prototypical men do not have”(p. 183). In spite of this, at two sites (EDI and CC) the women succeeded in doing scienceand found their work rewarding.In a final section, Eisenhart and Finkel ask the question “where do we go from here?”

Since at least the EDI site and the CC site seemed to provide an environment in whichwomen succeeded doing science, albeit not “elite science,” the authors suggest these sitescould be models to improve science learning and outcomes for women.To a large degree I believe that change is already underway. Almost all science faculties

at most universities now provide a co-op program that involves students, both female andmale, in relevant extended work-related projects. Students usually spend up to a yearworking at companies on projects related to their science major. The disadvantage is thatgraduation is delayed by one year because co-op programs are normally not taken in lieuof academic courses. But this disadvantage is compensated for by the hands-on workexperience gained by students. Also, they are paid at fair industry rates for their work, andthey make contacts that are important in getting a job in science.As for “elite” centers, most universities have established maternity leave arrangements

for female faculty and allow the “tenure clock” to stop during these periods. Also, grantagencies now ask applicants if there have been any interruptions in their careers that mayinfluence their publication records. Hence, a lesser publication record would not be usedarbitrarily to downgrade the grant rating. Also, the use of personal computers allowsscientists to work in their homes some of the time. However, at least one major hurdleremains. Except in the largest centers, it is not always possible to find two faculty positions;hence one spouse, usually the wife, is often restricted to a non-tenure track or lesserposition.In summary, I agree with Eisenhart and Finkel that a more work-relevant approach to

teaching science will lead to more women seeking employment and “succeeding from themargins.” As I have indicated, I believe this process is well underway at the universitylevel. Many more women are proceeding to academic careers in science. While an all outcommitment is still a requirement, at least in the pre-tenure years, the women I see arecompeting very well. Clearly as the numbers of women increase, support groups developand women realize you can be an academic scientist, wife, and mother, although it won’tbe easy. However, the rewards are worth it. Not somuch the financial rewards, but knowingyou have succeeded and contributed to scientific knowledge and solved problems that willbenefit society is very invigorating.There are a few minor errors in the book. James Crick should be Francis Crick (p. 62)

and Temmin should be spelled Temin. Howard Temin received a Nobel Prize in Physi-ology and Medicine, not Biology (p. 81)—there is no Biology category for the NobelPrizes. Also, I was disappointed with the CGI teacher’s attempt to make the geneticsexercise like something scientists encountered to the point that she went on to mentionthat scientists even spied on other scientists (p. 68). When one of the Crick group actuallydid so and blatantly announced he had spied, the teacher’s response was to laugh (p. 76).She then proceeded to suggest that this was “the norm” in biotech right now. As a prac-ticing scientist whose research is close to the biotech industry, I vigorously reject the idea

796 BOOK REVIEWS

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textthat dishonesty in science is normal. While instances of scientific fraud have been brought

forward and some (but not all) substantiated, it is clearly a minor problem. I do not thinkstudents should be led to believe that cheating is permissible, regardless of the ulteriormotive.

CAROLINE R. ASTELLProfessorDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyFaculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, British ColumbiaCANADA V6T 1Z3

Procedures of Power and Curriculum Change: Foucault and the Quest for Possibil-ities in Science Education,by David W. Blades, 1997. Peter Lang Publishing, NY.xiii � 290 pp. ISBN 0-8204-3325-X.

In this book, David Blades sets out to analyze the process of curricular change in science,basing his account on his own experience as a participant in a largely unsuccessful attemptto introduce an STS-oriented science curriculum in Alberta, Canada during the period1988–1990. He makes considerable play with the notion of post-modernism, with theFoucauldian dyad of power–knowledge, and with the late Heidegger ofThe QuestionConcerning Technology.The book operates at several levels, and Blades, befitting hisavowed post-modernism, eschews some academic conventions. It is in part autobiograph-ical, tracing Blades’ apparent shift from uncritical child of the Sputnik era to criticalconservationist. It is in part a fairly conventional narrative account of the development ofscience curriculum in Alberta. Most prominently, for nearly 100 pages the text consistsmainly of an extended allegory of curricular change set in a mythical Kingdom, completewith map, suggesting that Tolkein as well as Foucault should be credited as one of Blades’mentors. The text includes excursions into post-modern literary form: the author’s studentsenter the text for not-so-impromptu dialogues.What are we to make of all of this? The Foucauldian dimension is certainly of interest,

though applying it to the process of curricular change and only indirectly to the practiceof schooling is unexpected. When Blades writes, “The world these children inherit des-perately needs the skills, attitudes, and understanding these children could develop throughnew science curricula” (p. 118), one might be tempted to think that he has missed the pointof Foucault’s analysis of the disciplinary action of schooling, of whatever curricular in-clination. Indeed, though Blades recognizes that the whole project of promoting curriculumdevelopment in STS mode is classically modernist, he never quite manages to shake it off.It is not easy to know what Blades’ overall argument is. That, he would perhaps suggest,

is the point: it signals the avoidance of what he sometimes calls a meta-narrative. This is,of course, a neat position to hold. Anyone who asks where the argument leads has missedthe point. The problems of reflexivity are obvious enough: the difficulty of rendering anaccount which is yet not an account. Nevertheless, at the risk of being accused of unre-constructed modernism, I can perhaps identify some key aspects of what Blades has tosay. One strand is a decentered vision of the process of curricular maintenance and cur-

BOOK REVIEWS 797

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textricular change. The resistance to curriculum change is not to be attributed to the machi-

nations of any individual or organization. It runs instead through the courses of everydayaction. A less visible strand is the Foucauldian power–knowledge dyad. This might beunderstood as an equilibration of the famous one-way Baconian relationship betweenknowledge and power: “Knowledge itself is power”(“Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est”).Power is knowledge, or rather, power creates the discursive possibilities and boundarieswithin which the claim to knowledge is sustained. To use Foucault’s own formulation:truth has its own “political economy.” But this is not power understood at a crudelypersonal or institutional level: it is power in its microscopic, Foucauldian sense, transmittedin and through the practices and discourses of unwitting individuals. This came as some-thing of a shock to Blades: “So, I’m a willing and active prisoner in some sort of giantdiscourse? This was a profoundly unpleasant thought . . .” (p. 157).The aim of avoiding master narratives is difficult for anyone who would write at all,

without entering some Derridan domain of play. Blades recognizes the difficulty, whichis a variation on the reflexity issue raised earlier: Does the ubiquity of power in Foucault’swritings represent no more than another attempt at a master narrative (pp. 183–185)?More specifically, can curriculum change be promoted without espousing what Bladescalls the “technical– rational” approach, in which the aims of curricular change are iden-tified by experts, promulgated centrally, and the outcomes monitored?The generalized resolution of this potential impasse is the avoidance of premature clo-

sure of meaning, or even the search for closure: “(Post-modern) writing is an active,critical, continual conversation that searches and questions, finds and loses, a conversationthat is a quest for freedom from the discourses which define who may speak—and whatmay be said” (p. 127). This, ultimately, is the author’s project. In the context of curriculumchange, it demands a rejection of the “technical– rational” approach. What this means inconcrete terms is not spelled out (avoiding closure again); but apparently, independentwork by teachers, action research, and listening to the voices of pupils are important. Thisis all well and good. But none of these concrete suggestions is novel. Neither do they seemto require the apparatus of post-modernism to justify them.A tension running through the book is the relationship between science and post-mod-

ernism. Science is surely the arch modernist project, as Blades to some degree acknowl-edges. He writes that the research agenda of modernity “rests on the positive presuppositionthat . . . basic, fundamental knowledge can be obtained, concomitant with the belief thatclear, representative communication of this knowledge is possible, and that this knowledgecan be used to further human progress” (pp. 123–124). Many readers would probably takethese words as applying most obviously to science. Blades’ personal relationship to scienceas expressed in this book is enigmatic. His account of his years as a student and his earlyexperiences as a teacher suggest that he accepted somewhat naively a version of the rhetoricboth of science and science education: “the social primacy of the pure, rational scientist’sability to solve world problems.” This was apparently replaced by disillusionment asso-ciated with ecological “crisis” and the Challenger accident. The shift is describedsomewhatbreathlessly in the journalistic style which is a characteristic of some of the author’s writ-ing.

As I write these words I can still see the white fireball as the shuttle exploded, feel thehorror anew, and recall how my faith in technology and science was challenged by thesudden, terrible destruction of a system I thought foolproof. (p. 28)

The casual linking of science and technology in these quotations is unfortunately char-acteristic of the book as a whole. From some points of view such a linkage is entirely

798 BOOK REVIEWS

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textuncontentious. The instrumentality which the two domains hold in common is strong in

Heidegger, Habermas, and others, though somewhat more muted in Foucault. But therelationship deserves more attention than Blades devotes to it, particularly whenmuch elseappears repetitive. His view of the science curriculum or science in the curriculum, can attimes appear remarkably free of the “dark side” just referred to. We learn that students“when they realize how fun and exciting (science) can be” do elect to study it (p. 188).They “would gladly trade highly quantified studies of Newtonian physics for moremoderntopics in physics, such as the existence of black holes and the theory of relativity” (p. 79).Well, that should get rid of the mathematics and quantification. Elsewhere the key

appears to be some kind of standard STS-inspired curriculum. At yet other times, scienceand the technological activity related to it seem to be so centrally implicated in contem-porary problems that it is difficult to know in what sense Blades can support any kind ofscientific education beyond wholesale critique. His own probable answer to such commentshas been implied earlier: This book is not about advocating any particular substantiveapproach, it is rather a critique which avoids “closure of meaning” (p. 124).In the effort to do so, the author makes something of a meal of his avowed post-

modernism. The allegorical writing in particular is heavy-handed, and seemed to add littleto the more conventional academic presentation. The point of a good metaphor is surelythe surplus meaning it brings. The extended metaphor here seemed merely to be mecha-nistically placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the actual story that the early chaptershad told. The allegory culminates with the author himself, a lone hero, camped at the edgeof the world, and returning, having won wisdom, with the invitation, “others must join mein the struggle to encourage conversations of critique towards a post-modern science ed-ucation curriculum-discourse” (p. 219). This entire section reads less like post-modernwriting than sixties self-indulgence. And the author has not been well served by his pub-lishers. The book abounds with grammatical and other errors: It really ought not, forexample, to contain repeated references to “Auguste Compte” (p. 17) instead of Comte.Drawing Foucault, and more so late Heidegger, into an analysis of the science curric-

ulum deserves an award for audacity at least. Despite having some sympathy with a Fou-cauldian analysis, both of the maintenance of curricular stability and the disciplinary actionof most educational practices, this reviewer retains sufficient modernist prejudices to thinkthat the central theme (science and its place in the education of young people) wouldbenefit more from systematic intellectual attention than allegory.

JIM DONNELLYCentre for Studies in Science and Mathematics EducationUniversity of LeedsLeeds LS2 9JTENGLAND