CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Career Development and DiversityDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsGender Diversity and Inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

"RESPECT ME FOR MY SCIENCE": A BOURDIEUIAN ANALYSIS OF WOMEN SCIENTISTS' INTERACTIONS WITH FACULTY AND SOCIALIZATION INTO SCIENCE

Griffin, Kimberly, Gibbs, Jr., Kenneth D., Bennett, Jessica, Staples, Candice, Robinson, Tykeia·2015·Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
DOI 10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2015011143
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Disparities in representation in the professoriate and recent research suggest that women continue to face challenges throughout their training. This study examines a specific aspect of scientific training− interactions with faculty−due to their role in socializing students into academic norms and values which can promote retention and success in science. While studies have highlighted the importance of faculty relationships in socialization, few studies have done so using a Bourdieuian framework (social capital, cultural capital, habitus, and field) or simultaneously addressed postdoctoral and graduate training experiences. This study uses Bourdieuian tools to frame an analysis of focus group data collected from 23 women who have completed PhDs in the biomedical sciences, focusing on how their relationships with faculty throughout their training experiences inform them about what it means to be a scientist, their alignment with these norms, and their access to important resources (social and cultural capital). Findings suggest that faculty interactions often suggested to women or led them to surmise that academic norms and values conflicted with their own as women. Further, women described negative and marginalizing interactions as limiting their access to important resources key to advancement in science.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2015011143

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Griffin, K., Gibbs, Jr., Bennett, J., Staples, C., & Robinson, T.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Publisher
Begell House
Published
2015
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
159-179
ISSN
1072-8325 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2015011143
OpenAlex
W2613221944
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Chicago
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • Directorate for Education and Human Resources
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Education › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
women in science, faculty-student relationships, social capital, cultural capital, habitus, fields, postdoctoral training, graduate education, biomedical sciences, gender inequality in academia, marginalization, access to resources

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review