Глава 10
Пол и наука
1. Women in Science website, http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/womenscience; ‘Women in the STEM workforce 2016’, WISE website, https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/statistics/women-in-the-stem-workforce-2016 (accessed 8 November 2018). • 2. A. Tintori and R. Palomba, Turn On the Light on Science: A Research-Based Guide to Break Down Popular Stereotypes about Science and Scientists (London, Ubiquity Press, 2017). • 3. ‘Useful statistics: women in STEM’, STEM Women website, 5 March 2018, https://www.stemwomen.co.uk/blog/2018/03/useful-statistics-women-in-stem; ‘UK physics A-level entries 2010–2016’, Institute of Physics website, http://www.iop.org/policy/statistics/overview/page_67109.html • 4. ‘Primary Schools are Critical to Ensuring Success, by Creating Space for Quality Science Teaching’, in Tomorrow’s World: Inspiring Primary Scientists (CBI, 2015), http://www.cbi.org.uk/tomorrows-world/Primary_schools_are_critical_t.html (accessed 8 November 2018). • 5. ‘Our definition of science’, Science Council website, https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definitionof-science (accessed 8 November 2018). • 6. ‘Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match’ («Наука не несет абсолютной истины, наука – это прибор. Это способ улучшить знания о природе, это система для проверки ваших мыслей на соответствие вселенной»), Explore, http://explore.brainpickings.org/post/49908311909/science-does-not-purvey-absolute-truth-scienceis (accessed 8 November 2018). • 7. ‘Essays’, Science: Not Just for Scientists, http://notjustforscientists.org/essays (accessed 8 November 2018). • 8. R. L. Bergland, ‘Urania’s Inversion: Emily Dickinson, Herman Melville, and the Strange History of Women Scientists in Nineteenth-Century America’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34:1 (2008), pp. 75–99. • 9. J. Mason, ‘The Admission of the First Women to the Royal Society of London’, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 46:2 (1992), pp. 279–300. • 10. L. Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1991). • 11. Там же. • 12. R. Su, J. Rounds and P. I. Armstrong, ‘Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-analysis of Sex Differences in Interests’, Psychological Bulletin 135:6 (2009), p. 859. • 13. J. Billington, S. Baron-Cohen and S. Wheelwright, ‘Cognitive Style Predicts Entry into Physical Sciences and Humanities: Questionnaire and Performance Tests of Empathy and Systemizing’, Learning and Individual Differences 17:3 (2007), pp. 260–68. • 14. Там же. • 15. Baron-Cohen, The Essential Difference. • 16. Там же. • 17. S. J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer and E. Freeland, ‘Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across Academic Disciplines’, Science 347:6219 (2015), pp. 262–5. • 18. S. J. Leslie, ‘Cultures of Brilliance and Academic Gender Gaps’, paper delivered at ‘Confidence and Competence: Fifth Annual Diversity Conference’, Royal Society, 16 November 2017; see ‘Annual Diversity Conference 2017 – Confidence and Competence’, Royal Society/YouTube, 16 November 2017, https://www.youtu.be/e0ZHpZ31O1M, at 25:50 (accessed 8 November 2018). • 19. K. C. Elmore and M. Luna-Lucero, ‘Light Bulbs or Seeds? How Metaphors for Ideas Influence Judgments about Genius’, Social Psychological and Personality Science 8:2 (2017), pp. 200–208. • 20. Там же. • 21. L. Bian, S. J. Leslie, M. C. Murphy and A. Cimpian, ‘Messages about Brilliance Undermine Women’s Interest in Educational and Professional Opportunities’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 76 (2018), pp. 404–20. • 22. Quinn and Liben, ‘A Sex Difference in Mental Rotation in Young Infants’. • 23. M. Hines, M. Constantinescu and D. Spencer, ‘Early Androgen Exposure and Human Gender Development’, Biology of Sex Differences 6:1 (2015), p. 3; J. Wai, D. Lubinski and C. P. Benbow, ‘Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance’, Journal of Educational Psychology 101:4 (2009), p. 817. • 24. S. C. Levine, A. Foley, S. Lourenco, S. Ehrlich and K. Ratliff, ‘Sex Differences in Spatial Cognition: Advancing the Conversation’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 7:2(2016), pp. 127–55. • 25. L. Bian, S. J. Leslie and A. Cimpian, ‘Gender Stereotypes about Intellectual Ability Emerge Early and Influence Children’s Interests’, Science 355:6323 (2017), pp. 389–91. • 26. M. C. Steffens, P. Jelenec and P. Noack, ‘On the Leaky Math Pipeline: Comparing Implicit Math – Gender Stereotypes and Math Withdrawal in Female and Male Children and Adolescents’, Journal of Educational Psychology 102:4 (2010), p. 947. • 27. Там же. • 28. E. A. Gunderson, G. Ramirez, S. C. Levine and S. L. Beilock, ‘The Role of Parents and Teachers in the Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes’, Sex Roles 66:3–4 (2012), pp. 153–66. • 29. Freeman, ‘Preschoolers’ Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toys’. • 30. V. Lavy and E. Sand, ‘On the Origins of Gender Human Capital Gaps: Short and Long Term Consequences of Teachers’ Stereotypical Biases’, Working Paper 20909, National Bureau of Economic Research (2015). • 31. S. Cheryan, V. C. Plaut, P. G. Davies and C. M. Steele, ‘Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:6 (2009), p. 1045. • 32. Там же. • 33. G. Stoet and D. C. Geary, ‘The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education’, Psychological Science 29:4 (2018), pp. 581–93. • 34. S. Ross, ‘Scientist: The Story of a Word’, Annals of Science 18:2 (1962), pp. 65–85. • 35. M. Mead and R. Metraux, ‘Image of the Scientist among High-School Students’, Science 126:3270 (1957), pp. 384–90. • 36. Там же. • 37. D. W. Chambers, ‘Stereotypic Images of the Scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist Test’, Science Education 67:2 (1983), pp. 255–65. • 38. K. D. Finson, ‘Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know after Fifty Years of Drawings’, School Science and Mathematics 102:7 (2002), pp. 335–45. • 39. Там же. • 40. P. Bernard and K. Dudek, ‘Revisiting Students’ Perceptions of Research Scientists: Outcomes of an Indirect Draw-a-Scientist Test (InDAST)’, Journal of Baltic Science Education 16:4 (2017). • 41. M. Knight and C. Cunningham, ‘Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a Tool to Investigate Students’ Ideas about Engineers and Engineering’, paper given at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, June 2004, https://peer.asee.org/12831 (accessed 8 November 2018). • 42. C. Moseley, B. Desjean-Perrotta and J. Utley, ‘The Draw-an-Environment Test Rubric (DAET-R): Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Mental Models of the Environment’, Environmental Education Research 16:2 (2010), pp. 189–208. • 43. C. D. Martin, ‘Draw a Computer Scientist’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36:4 (2004), pp. 11–12. • 44. L. R. Ramsey, ‘Agentic Traits Are Associated with Success in Science More than Communal Traits’, Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017), pp. 6–9. • 45. L. L. Carli, L. Alawa, Y. Lee, B. Zhao and E. Kim, ‘Stereotypes about Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40:2 (2016), pp. 244–60. • 46. A. H. Eagly, ‘Few Women at the Top: How Role Incongruity Produces Prejudice and the Glass Ceiling’, in D. van Knippenberg and M. A. Hogg (eds), Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations (London, Sage, 2003), pp. 79–93. • 47. A. H. Eagly and S. J. Karau, ‘Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders’, Psychological Review 109:3 (2002), p. 573. • 48. Carli et al., ‘Stereotypes about Gender and Science’. • 49. C. Wenneras and A. Wold, ‘Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review’, in M. Wyer (ed.), Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies (New York, Routledge, 2001), pp. 46–52. • 50. F. Triх and C. Psenka, ‘Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty’, Discourse and Society 14:2 (2003), pp. 191–220. • 51. S. Modgil, R. Gill, V. L. Sharma, S. Velassery and A. Anand, ‘Nobel Nominations in Science: Constraints of the Fairer Sex’, Annals of Neurosciences 25:2 (2018), pp. 63–78. • 52. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham and J. Handelsman, ‘Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:41 (2012), pp. 16474–9. • 53. E. Reuben, P. Sapienza and L. Zingales, ‘How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:12 (2014), pp. 4403–8.
