THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF GENDERED SCIENCE: 
AN INDIAN CASE STUDY    
Dr. Carol C. Mukhopadhyay, Professor of Anthropology, 
California State University
One Washington Square, 
San Jose, California. 95192-0113. 
U.S.A. 
E-mail: Mukh@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
American research on women's scientific underrepresentation has relied mainly on studies in the
United States, survey-type research and Western cultural models. This paucity of cross-cultural
data, especially from non-western cultures, impedes our understanding of cross- cultural
variations in the science gender gap and significant cultural variability within American society.

This paper reports results of anthropologically-oriented research exploring how the cultural and
social context in which science is learned and practiced contributes to the gendering of science. 
Ethnographic research carried out in India in 1988 focused on female college student decisions
to enter scientific academic fields. In 1989-90, the study was expanded to a broader pre-college
student sample, using a culturally-meaningful questionnaire created for this purpose and 4
Western math/science questionnaires adapted to the Indian context. 

Preliminary analyses of these data suggest a theory of the sexual division of Indian scientific
labour in which macrostructural features (educational system, occupational and class structure)
intersect with cultural models of family, gender, and science to frame the academic decision
making process, producing, ultimately, a predominantly male scientific community.  These
findings question the generalizability of American-generated "deficit" theories of female
scientific underrepresentation to non-Western cultural settings, suggest new factors that might
be significant cross-culturally as well as in the West, and have implications for the design of
international programs for increasing women's scientific representation.

	Gender, science and technology has become a focus of inquiry for scholars from a
wide-variety of disciplines. The voluminous literature ranges from new forms of gender
hierarchy resulting from technologies introduced by multinational corporations in Third World
nations (cf. Warren and Bourque 1989) to the impact of cooperative learning strategies on girls'
performance in science courses (See Kelly 1992, Weisbard and Apple 1993 for a comprehensive
bibliography).

KEY WORDS: gender & science, Indian women, women and education, cross-cultural studies of,
family and women's education.




	A central issue in the United States has been American women's continuing under-
representation in mathematics, science and engineering, hereafter referred to as MSE (cf. NSF
1987, Oakes 1990). Despite striking increases in female MSE participation, women still
constitute only 16 percent of employed U.S. scientists and engineers and only 4% of all
engineers [NSF 1992:4]. 

	American research aimed at understanding this persistent problem has focused primarily on
identifying barriers to female participation. Early theoretical explanations focused on women's
deficiencies in mathematics (the "crucial filter") with controversy over whether origins were
biological or social (cf. Benbow and Stanley 1980 vs. critique by Fausto-Sterling 1992). 
Attitudinal and affective sources of differential achievement and participation in mathematics
(and science) are now generally posited (cf. Fennema and Leder 1990) although biological
explanations persist, reinforced by the scientific press (for sobering critiques see Bleier 1984,
Eccles and Jacobs 1986). These researchers share a psychologically-oriented conceptual
framework in which socialization processes and internal pressures to conform to gender-specific
roles culminate in girls "self-selecting" out of MSE careers because they choose not to take
prerequisites, develop gender-specific skills or motivations, or view MSE as masculine.  The
scientific gender gap is the outcome of "internal", individual processes and academic "choices"
made by individuals.

	Sociologically oriented American scholars emphasize external, institutional barriers which
confront females who do pursue an  MSE career (Brush 1991, Wolfe 1991).  The bulk of research
has focused on educational institutions and the factors generating a "chilly  classroom climate"
for MSE (Sadker and Sadker 1991; Science 1992, 1993) Cultural reproduction theorists have
shown how the school recontextualises the gender socialization process in terms of
gender-appropriate subject matter (Smail and Kelly 1984). Recently, the institution of science
itself has come under scrutiny (cf. Bleier 1988, Harding 1986, Keller 1992, Schiebinger 1989,
Seller 1992). Scholars argue American science is rooted in Western European images of
masculinity and femininity, notions of "progress", and attitudes towards nature and the
environment (cf. Haraway 1989).  To some, the structure and doing of science is masculine and
unappealing to women (Cockburn 1988, Hughes 1991).

	Anthropological Approaches: American anthropologists have heretofore participated
peripherally in these scholarly conversations. Nevertheless, we too are entering the dialogue,
calling for a more anthropologically-oriented, comparative, culturally and socially
contextualised approach to understanding how science becomes gendered  (Bellisari 1989,
1991;  Holland and Eisenhart 1990,  McDade 1988, Mukhopadhyay 1994, 1987, 1984, Traweek
1993).   

	Recent work by educational anthropologists reveals the profound role "cultural models{1}"
play in American school-related experiences and achievement (cf. Mickelson 1993; Holland and
Eisenhart 1988b), including in the choice of MSE careers (Kim 1993). Cultural models of
education and schooling are social context dependent, shaped by historical circumstances and a
group's social position within the larger society (Ogbu 1978). This suggests that the cultural
models which guide women's MSE related academic decision must be located in historically and
culturally specific configurations of gender relations as well as in relationship to larger
socioeconomic forces (Bourguignon 1985).

	Recent feminist anthropology has also challenged conventional notions of "the" sexual
division of labour, unitary, constant and "primordial", rooted in "natural" differences between
"the sexes" (See reviews in Mukhopadhyay and Higgins 1988, di Leonardo 1991, Gero and
Conkey 1990; Sacks 1982). Data show sexual divisions of labour are culturally specific, socially
constructed, interwoven into broader social processes and linked to gender ideology and power
relations.  Who uses technology reflects cultural and social processes, especially who controls
the technology, not intrinsic features of the technology (Warren and Bourque 1989).   

	Given, then, that the "work of doing science", like all work, is situated in a specific historic,
cultural, social and ideological context, historically specific, it would be both inappropriate and
foolhardy to assume that American theoretical frameworks for gendered science are
generalisable to other cultural contexts or even to all ethnic cultures in the United States.  Yet,
as Science magazine recently noted (1994), there is a dearth of cross-cultural studies, especially
on non-western societies. Even descriptive data are often unavailable (see  Haley-Oliphant
1985, Malcolm, et al. 1985, Mukhopadhyay 1993). We currently do not know how duplicated,
cross-nationally, are the gender-MSE differences found in the United States or what
institutional configurations or cultural models influence women students' MSE decisions in other
cultures. Also questionable is the applicability of current American-derived theories to
non-Euro-Americans in the United States (Gibson 1988, Mukhopadhyay, forthcoming).
Available data reveal intriguing and unexplained ethnic and nationality differences in American
women's MSE behaviour (NSF 1992). Current theoretical frameworks and intervention program
need to address such differences. 

		In the remainder of this paper, I report results from anthropologically-oriented research I
conducted in India exploring how the cultural and social context in which science is learned and
practiced contributes to the gendering of science.  

INDIAN CULTURAL MODELS OF SCHOOLING FOR WOMEN 

	In 1988, I carried out field research in India focused on female college students and their
choice of academic fields.  A Fulbright CIES Indo-American Research Fellowship and a
Sabbatical leave provided partial support for my research.  The data collected included over 60
expert educational consultant interviews, 20 academic career histories, and participation
observation, informal, and structured interviews with students and staff at three Indian
universities.  Published and unpublished aggregate educational statistics were also obtained. In
1989-90, the study was expanded to a broader sample of pre-college students.  A questionnaire
was developed in order to test a preliminary theory of Indian women's scientific under-
representation. Four math and science attitudes questionnaires developed in the West were also
adapted to the Indian context. Questionnaires were administered in 3 different languages, in 4
geographically distinct cities, to some 1600 socioeconomically diverse 6th, 9th and 11th grade
students. 

		Analysis of the first phase India ethnographic data identified a set of cultural and social
contextual factors which, in combination with features of the Indian educational and
occupational system, appear to restrict women's entry into science, especially the applied
sciences and engineering. These have been described in detail in Women, Education and Family
Structure in India (Mukhopadhyay and Seymour 1994, theoretical introduction) and
Mukhopadhyay 1994. Because of space limitations, I present only a brief description here.

		The theory posits an ongoing tension between macrostructurally generated pressures that
increase the desirability of education for women and microstructurally generated pressures that
constrain women's education in order to preserve a patrifocal cultural model of family (PFF).
This is one prominent family system to which most Indians have been exposed (but see Kolenda
1987; 1991) and provides a framework for educational decisions. Among its characteristics are
the subordination of individual goals to collective family welfare; structural features
(patrilineality, patrilocality ) which reinforce the centrality of sons and the peripheral status of
daughters; gender-differentiated family responsibilities; regulation of female sexuality to
maintain the purity of the patriline and family honour through arranged marriages and
restricted
male-female interactions; and female behaviour which emphasizes obedience, self-sacrifice,
adaptability, nurturance,  restraint, and traits conducive to family harmony (Mukhopadhyay &
Seymour 1994). 

The patrifocal family model leads to gender-differentiated educational goals. Because sons have
primary obligation for the natal family, families emphasize and are more willing to invest
resources in their education. Investments in a son's education will benefit the family directly
whereas a daughter's education will, after her marriage, primarily benefit her husband and his
family.  Families' primary obligation to daughters is to see they marry well, upholding family
honour.  Education can pose social dangers to a daughter's marriageability, requiring going
"outside the family" into the "male" world and cultivating traits, such as independence, which
could undermine patrifocality.  Yet, educated husbands historically have demanded educated
wives (c.f. Chanana 1988) and girls' education has other benefits. Family education decisions
are thus framed by their projected impact on the collective family welfare, involve family
resources, and (like marriage) are too important to leave solely in the hands of students.

	Macrostructural pressures for education, including women's education, come from the
post-Independence emphasis on education, science and technology, and the association of
education, especially in science, with prestige and occupational opportunities.  This has fuelled
the enormous expansion of the Indian educational system and the rise in literacy rates, school
attendance, and college enrollments (Mukhopadhyay and Seymour 1994). Modern education,
however, has not benefited all equally and, according to some, has exacerbated rather than
alleviated traditional class/caste disparities (Chitnis 1989; Naik 1982; Weiner 1991). Many
families simply cannot afford to send their children to school, even elementary school.  Poor
families require all members to work and cannot invest in education (cf. Seymour 1988).  Even
middle class families find it difficult to afford the costs [and opportunity costs] of sending
children to upper secondary school, much less college. Not surprisingly, therefore, only a
fraction of students ever reach or complete college and tend to come from relatively elite back
grounds Ð upper-middle class, often educated, professional, and education-oriented families. 
As of 1987, only 2 percent of all Indians had college degrees (Government of India 1987a). 

	These trends are even more pronounced for girls, as reflected in their higher school attrition
rates at every stage in the educational system. Given the patrifocal family cultural model
(differential obligations of sons and daughters; social dangers of education) and the limited
economic resources of most Indian families, it is generally more "worthwhile" to devote resources
to the education of sons than to daughters.  Thus, while daughters receive some education, sons
receive more and, when economically feasible, take the subjects prerequisite to entering higher
ranked fields and colleges.

	Pursuing MSE exacerbates these problems for girls. Pursuing a science degree is more
competitive, and hence more costly and difficult, than a non-science degree and demands an
unusually high investment of family resources. It also poses exceptional threats to women's
marriageability.  In the past, science was generally unavailable at girls' schools and today often
requires attending coeducational institutions. Pursuing applied [vs. "pure"] science degrees,
especially engineering, implies immersion in an overwhelmingly male environment, unsupervised,
close contact with unrelated males, and residence in a campus hostel. Similar conditions exist
in MSE workplaces.  In addition, grooms with higher academic rank must be found since
husbands should outrank wives on relevant social criteria, and dowry, if demanded, increases.

	In sum, the theory I developed on the basis of ethnographic data suggests that most families
are reluctant to allow daughters to pursue science degrees, especially in applied,
male-dominated sciences, because it is not "worth" it given the high investment, dangerous social
context, and potential marriageability problems. These factors lead women to be more
under-represented in "applied" than "pure" science majors, in engineering than medicine, and, in
more competitive national than local engineering colleges. 

	Yet there are countervailing pressures for daughters' education generally, and science
education specifically, particularly among the class of families who can afford college
educations for both sons and daughters. Education can enhance a girl's marriage prospects,
cultivating attributes consistent with the patrifocal cultural family model (Chanana 1988).
Better-educated husbands often prefer more highly educated wives. Among highly educated
elites, the potential social risks of girls entering engineering and science may be balanced by the
prestige such an accomplishment brings the girl and her family.  

	Traditional "pluses" of education are augmented by the growing marriageability value
attached to a girl's earning capacity.  With more jobs available at women's colleges and in other
"respectable" settings (government offices), an "earning" daughter-in-law Ð or daughter Ð can be
an asset to her family.  Daughters' earnings can be used for siblings' education, as "insurance"
should they not marry, as insulation against pressures to marry.  Girls' economic self-sufficiency
may enhance their standing with future in-laws.  As with boys, science degrees, especially in
highly ranked fields and from highly ranked institutions, improve girls' opportunities to obtain
"good jobs" with "scope".  Success in a scientific or technical field can provide opportunities
abroad for the girl, her future spouse and in-laws, and her natal family.  
	
IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL FOR INDIA EDUCATIONAL DATA

	The above model of academic decision-making in the Indian context provides a more
culturally contextualised framework for understanding Indian women's educational pursuits
than generally presented in cross-national comparisons.  It also helps us to interpret recent
Indian educational data showing surprisingly and increasingly high rates of female participation
in MSE, especially in the "pure" sciences, including physics, chemistry and mathematics, and
especially relative to the proportion of women actually attending college.  These figures show
that Indian college women are no more under-represented among college engineering science
students than are their American female sisters (Mukhopadhyay, forthcoming). Increasingly for
girls' families, particularly those with the resources to send both sons and daughters to college,
the "benefits" of girls' science degrees outweigh the potential social costs, especially if one
avoids highly ranked fields in highly male-dominated and hence socially dangerous educational
and work contexts (e.g. engineering, especially mechanical engineering).  For example, a master's
degree in "pure" science (e.g. physics), especially from a prestigious institutions like the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs), can secure a woman a position at a "good" women's college, a
very "respectable" job, in contrast to the positions available to Masters of Technology
engineering graduates.  This is reflected in graduate student enrollment statistics
(Mukhopadhyay 1994), such as in the high percentage of women at IIT Madras pursuing
masters' degrees in pure sciences.  As the association of lucrative career opportunities [and
prestige] with MSE degrees continues along with the trend towards middle-class female
employment, the traditional costs of girls entering even the most male-dominant scientific and
technical fields will also be increasingly outweighed by the benefits, as is also apparent in recent
dramatic increases in female engineering enrollments, particularly at local colleges and
universities [CUSAT 1989; Mukhopadhyay, unpublished data].  It is also seen in higher female
enrollments in graduate schools leading to college and university teaching positions
[Subrahmanyan 1993]. 

This culturally-contextualised theory of Indian educational choice might also help us to explain
the disproportionate enrollments of Asian females, including Indians and Indo-Americans, in
American science and engineering (NSF 1992, Mukhopadhyay, forthcoming). What we are
seeing, I would suggest, at least in the Indian case, is precisely what we would expect to happen
in the American occupational, educational, and cultural context, especially given the
backgrounds of most Indians who migrate to the U.S. [c.f. Tsuchiba 1991], socialized into an
education-oriented Indian cultural model of schooling.   
	
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDIAN RESEARCH

	Even more important are the theoretical implications of the findings from the Indian
research.  The proposed model of Indian women's underrepresentation in MSE differs from
American-derived theories in a number of significant ways.  First, in contrast to "internal",
"self-selection" models, families rather than students are key decision-makers.  Second, 
decisions are guided by collective family goals rather than student desires or aptitudes
(although aptitudes can limit choices and students need not passively agree to family plans nor
lack personal interests). Rather, girls (and boys) are socialized to subordinate personal desires
to collective goals and "adapt to" and even "prefer" choices made for them. Third, it is not a
"deficit" model--it is not socialization-generated psychological attitudes, mathematical
deficiencies, or gender-identity conflicts that prevent women from selecting MSE fields. 
Gender-typed majors exist, are "inappropriate" for girls, and impact educational decisions but
their problematicity stems from their social attributes (social setting, social dangers) rather than
gender-identity implications. Fourth, while "external" barriers are important and a "chilly
climate" can be found in schools and workplaces (cf. Subrahmanyan 1993), the immediate
institutional barriers are the Indian patrifocal family and the predominantly male settings in
which MSE is learned and practiced.

	The cultural models implicated in Indian educational decisions also differ from
Euro-American models.  Models of schooling contain gender-differentiated educational goals
and strategies derived from the patrifocal family model, as well as from historically specific
macrostructural conditions, particularly occupational and educational opportunities.  Cultural
models of academic subjects and occupations, especially science, also reflect the India context. 
The theory also implies different cultural models of gender, personhood and social action. 
Indian cultural models seem to emphasize gender differentiated obligations and duties rather
than intrinsic capacities and complementarity rather than opposition. Concepts of masculinity
and femininity (and gender-typed activities) reference the social "person" (Harris 1989), social
attributes of activities, and the social context in contrast to psychological, deeply internalized,
stable gender identities (Mukhopadhyay 1982).  

	These findings suggest that American-derived [and perhaps also Western-European
derived] theoretical models of women's participation in MSE may not be applicable in all
cultural contexts, certainly not in the Indian context nor perhaps in other non-Western settings. 
Moreover, the research identifies additional variables in women's MSE under-representation
heretofore not considered in American and most Western theoretical formulations.  These may
be significant not only in non-western contexts but also, perhaps, among ethnic groups in the
United States with cultural traditions which include patrifocal family systems.  Most
importantly, the India research results strikingly illustrate the need for more cross-cultural,
cross-national studies of the educational and science gender gap.  As American (and European)
scholars, we must be continuously on guard against ethnocentrically assuming that our own
cultural models are extendible to other cultural contexts.  This is particularly important when
such research is being used to design international programs to increase women's participation
in science and technology.
		
REFERENCES CITED

Bellisari,  A., 1989. Male Superiority in Mathematical Aptitude: An Artifact. Human
Organization 48(3): 273-279.

-----.   1991. Cultural Influences on the Science Career Choices of Women. Ohio Journal of
Science 91(3):129-133.

Benbow, L.H. and J.C. Stanley. l980. Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or Artifact.
Science 2l0: l262-l264. 

Bleier,  Ruth.  1984. Science and Gender:  A Critique of Biology and its Theories on Women.
New York: Pergamon Press.

-----.   1988.  A  Decade of Feminist Critiques in the Natural Sciences. Signs 14:186-195.

Bourguignon,  Erika. 1985. Women's Choice of Science Careers:  A Cultural Developmental
Model.  Manuscript. October 1985. 

Brush, Stephen G. 1991. Women in Science and Engineering. American Scientist 79: 404-19.

Chanana, Karuna, ed.  1988.  Socialization, Education and Women:  Explorations in Gender
Identity. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

Chitnis,  Suma  B.   1989.  India.  In International Handbook of Women's Education.  Gail P. 
Kelly, ed. pp. 135-162.  New York: Greenwood Press. 

Cockburn, Cynthia, 1988. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-how. 
Boston: Northeastern U Press. 

CUSAT (Cochin  University of Science and Technology). 1987. Annual  Report 1986-7. 
Cochin: Cochin University of Science and Technology.

di Leonardo,  Micaela,  ed. 1991. Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge:  Feminist
Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkeley: UC Press.

Eccles,  J. and Janis E. Jacobs. 1986. Social Forces Shape Math Attitudes and Performance".
Signs 11(2):367-380.  

Fausto-Sterling,  Anne.  1992. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men.
2nd edition. New York: Basic Books.

Fennema, Elizabeth and Gilah Leder, eds. 1990. Mathematics and Gender. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gero, Joan  and Margaret Conkey, eds. 1990. Engendering Archeology: Women and Prehistory. 
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gibson,  Margaret A.  1988. Accomodation without Assimilation: Sikh Immigrants in an
American High School. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.

Government  of India. 1987a.  A Handbook of Educational and Allied Statistics.  New Delhi:
Ministry of Human Resource Development. 

------.  1987b.   Selected Educational Statistics 1985-1986.  New Delhi: Ministry of Human
Resource Development.

Haley-Oliphant,  A.E., l985, International Perspectives on the Status and Role  of Women in
Science. In J. Butler-Kahle, ed., Women in Science, pp. l69-l92. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Haraway,  Donna.  1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern
Science. New York: Routledge.

Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell  U Press.

Harris,  Grace.  G. 1989. Concepts of Individual, Self, and Person in  Description and Analysis.
American Anthropologist 91: 599-612  

Holland, D. and M. Eisenhart. 1988b Moments of Discontent: University Women and  the 
Gender Status Quo.  Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19:115-138.

______.   Educated in Romance:  Women, Achievement, and College Culture.  Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Hughes,  Donna M. 1991. Transforming Science and Technology: Has the Elephant Yet Flicked
its Trunk? NWSA Journal 3(3):382-401.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992. Essays on Language, Gender and Science. Routledge. 

Kelly, David H. and Gail P. Kelly. 1989. Bibliography. In International Handbook of
Women's Education.  Gail P. Kelly, ed. pp. 571-657.  New York: Greenwood Press.

Kim, Eun-Young.  1993. Career Choice Among Second-Generation Korean-Americans: 
Reflections of a Cultural Model of Success. AEQ 24:224-248. 

Kolenda, Pauline,  ed. 1987. Regional Differences in Family Structure in India.  Jaipur, India: 
Rawat Publications.

------.  1991. Letting Her Go Out to School: Regional Differences in Joint Family Living Related
to Female Education.  Paper at Annual Meeting, Association for Asian Studies, New Orleans.

Malcolm,  S.M.,  H.  Morita-lou, P. Boulware, and S. Burns, eds., 1985. Science, Technology
and Women: A World Perspective. AAAS Publication 85-l4. 

McDade, Laurie A., 1988, Knowing the "Right Stuff": Attrition, Gender, and Scientific Literacy.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly 19 (2):93114.

Mickelson, Roslyn A. 1993. Minorities and Education in Plural Societies. AEQ 24:269-276. 

Mukhopadhyay, Carol C. 1982. Sati or Shakti: Women, Culture and Politics in India. In
Perspectives on Power.  J. O'Barr, ed. pp. 11-26. Durham: Duke University Press.

-----. 1984. Persistence, Performance and Academic Decision-Making of Women Computer 
Science Majors at California State University, Chico: A Preliminary Report.  Discussion
Paper Series 84-9. School of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Chico: California State
University. 

______.	1987.  A Proposal for Implementing the Recommendation Task Force Report on
Representation of Women in Math/Science/Engineering". 39pp. Report prepared for San
Francisco State University.

-----.  1994.  Family Structure and Indian Women's Participation in Science and  Engineering. In
Mukhopadhyay and Seymour, ed. Women, Education and Family Structure in India. pp.
103-132. Boulder: Westview Press. 

______. forthcoming. Women's Educational Achievement in South Asian  and American 
Contexts.  Forthcoming in proceedings of First South Asian Women's Conference, Held
October 1994, Los Angeles, California.

Mukhopadhyay, Carol C. and Patricia Higgins. 1988. Anthropological Studies of the Status
of Women Revisited: 1977-1987".  Annual Review of Anthropology 17:461-95.

Mukhopadhyay, C. and Susan Seymour, ed. 1994. Women, Education and Family Structure in
India. Boulder: Westview Press.

_____. 1994. Introduction and Theoretical Overview. In Mukhopadhyay, Carol C.  and
Seymour, Ed. Women, Education and Family Structure in India. pp. 1-33. Westview Press.

Naik, Chitra. 1982. An  Action-Research Project on Universal Primary Education---the 
Plan and the Process. In Women's Education in the Third World. Gail P. Kelly and Carolyn
M. Elliott, eds. pp. 152-172. Albany: SUNY Press.

National Science Foundation. 1987. Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career 
Differentials in Science and Engineering. Proceedings of a Workshop held October 9, 1986.
Wash DC: NSF

-----.  1992. White, Patricia E. (update). Women and Minorities in Science and  Engineering: An
Update. Jan. 1992. Also see 1990, 1988 and 1984 reports.

Oakes, J. 1990. Opportunities, Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in
Science and Mathematics. In C.B. Cazden, ed. Review of Research in Education 16:153-222.
Wash DC

Ogbu, John. 1978. Minority Education and Caste. New York: Academic Press.

Sacks, K. 1982. Sisters and Wives: The Past and Future of Sexual Equality. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press. 

Sadker, David and Myra Sadker, Sexism in American Education: The  Hidden Curriculum,  p.
57-76. In Wolfe, Leslie R. 1991 ed. Women, Work, and School:Occupational  Segregation and
the Role of Education. 1991. Westview.

Schiebinger, Londa 1989. The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science.
Cambridge: Harvard U Press.

Science Magazine. 1992. Women in Science: From Panes to Ceilings. Vol. 255, March 13,
1992. 1333-1387.

-----. 1993. Gender and the Culture of Science. Science 260: 383-429. April 16, 1993. John
Benditt, Features Editor.

-----. March  11, 1994. Vol. 263. pp. 1345-1396. Women and Science. (John Benditt,
features editor).

Seller, Maxine S. 1989. The United States. In Kelly 1989 [see above]. pp. 515-544.

Seymour, Susan. 1988. Expressions of Responsibility Among Indian Children:  Some Precursors
of Adult Status and Sex Roles.  Ethos 16: 355-370.

Smail, Barbara and Alison Kelly. 1984. Sex Differences in Science and Technology Among
11-Year-Old Schoolchildren: II-- Affective. Research in Science and Technological Education 
2(2):87-106. I: Cognitive. Research in Science and Technological Education 2, pp. 61-76.

Strauss, Claudia. 1992. Models and Motives. In D'Andrade, Roy and Claudia Strauss, ed. 
1992. Human Motives and Cultural  Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .  pp.
1-20. 

Subrahmanyan, Lalita. 1993. Women Scientists in India: Research, Goals, Orientations. Ph.D.
Dissertation. SUNY Buffalo.

Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge: Harvard U Press.  

Warren, Kay B. and Susan C. Bourque. 1989. Women, Technology, and Development
Ideologies: Frameworks and Findings. In Gender and Anthropology: Critical  Reviews for
Research and Teaching. Sandra Morgen, ed.  pp. 382-410. Washington, D.C.:  American
Anthropological Association.

Tsuchida, John N. 1991. A Guide on Asian and Pacific Islander American Students. Wash
DC: National Educational Association.

Weiner, Myron. 1991. The child and the State in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Weisbard, Phyllis H. and Rima D. Apple. 1993. The History of Women and Science, Health,
and Technology: A Bibliographic Guide to the Professions and the Disciplines. 2nd Edition.
Madison: University of Wisconsin System Women's Studies Librarian.

Wolfe, Leslie R. 1991 ed. Women, Work, and School: Occupational Segregation and the Role
of Education. 1991. Westview.

 

FOOTNOTES********************************

{1}	Cultural models (D'Andrade and Strauss 1992) are widely shared culturally constituted
meaning systems, taken-for-granted models of the world, which provide indiviudals with a
framework
for human action and for interpreting the actions of others.