IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indgen/v14y2007i2p259-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceiving and Producing Merit

Author

Listed:
  • Jayasree Subramanian

    (Jayasree Subramanian is Member, Eklavya, E-7/453, HIG, Arera Colony, Bhopal 462 016. Email: jmanian@yahoo.com.)

Abstract

This article documents the experiences of women scientists in research institutions in India, and attempts to demonstrate that contrary to the claims made by the institutions in deciding who gets to do science, gender figures at various levels in shaping the career of a scientist. Using the narratives of women scientists, structured interviews and the data collected from research institutions, this article attempts to problematise the notion prevalent among scientists that talent for doing science is inherent in a person, and if it is there it will reveal itself irrespective of the external conditions. The article tries to argue that such a notion and the resultant practice leads to selecting a few as meritorious and deserving, who are further nurtured, while others are expected to prove themselves many times before opportunities are made available for them. Women rarely figure among the meritorious few. In order that women get equal opportunity to participate in the scientific endeavour, the structure and organisations of science institutions must be transparent, democratic in their approach, and rethink the narrow definition of ‘merit’ that is currently operative.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayasree Subramanian, 2007. "Perceiving and Producing Merit," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 259-284, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:14:y:2007:i:2:p:259-284
    DOI: 10.1177/097152150701400203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097152150701400203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/097152150701400203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clément Bosquet & Pierre‐Philippe Combes & Cecilia García‐Peñalosa, 2019. "Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1020-1053, July.
    2. Bosquet, Clément & Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia, 2013. "Gender and competition: evidence from academic promotions in France," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58350, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. van Raan, A. F. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N., 2002. "Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 611-632, May.
    4. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2016. "Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 143-162, January.
    5. Marta Vohlídalová, 2021. "Early-Career Women Academics: Between Neoliberalism and Gender Conservatism," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(1), pages 27-43, March.
    6. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    8. Paula Mählck & Hanna Li Kusterer & Henry Montgomery, 2020. "What professors do in peer review: Interrogating assessment practices in the recruitment of professors in Sweden," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(6), pages 1361-1377, November.
    9. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Berlin) (ed.), 2007. "Die Zukunft sozialer Sicherheit," Schriften zu Wirtschaft und Soziales, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung e.V., Berlin, volume 2, number 2.
    11. Ilse Lindenlaub & Anja Prummer, 2014. "Gender, Social Networks And Performance," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1461, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    12. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Jouni Helin & Kristian Koerselman & Terhi Nokkala & Timo Tohmo & Jutta Viinikainen, 2019. "Equal Access to the Top? Measuring Selection into Finnish Academia," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 90-100.
    14. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82(325), pages 162-188, January.
    15. Lokman Tutuncu & Recep Yucedogru & Idris Sarisoy, 2022. "Academic favoritism at work: insider bias in Turkish national journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2547-2576, May.
    16. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    17. Martin Almquist & Regula S von Allmen & Dan Carradice & Steven J Oosterling & Kirsty McFarlane & Bas Wijnhoven, 2017. "A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, June.
    18. García Lara, Juan Manuel & García Osma, Beatriz & Mora, Araceli & Scapin, Mariano, 2017. "The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 651-668.
    19. D. Checchi & S. Cicognani & N. Kulic, 2015. "Gender quotas or girls networks? Towards an understanding of recruitment in the research profession in Italy," Working Papers wp1047, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Ulf Sandström & Martin Hällsten, 2008. "Persistent nepotism in peer-review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 175-189, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:14:y:2007:i:2:p:259-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.