Perceptions of The Work Environment Namrata Gupta

Article
Perceptions of the Indian Journal of Gender Studies

23(3) 437–466
Work Environment: © 2016 CWDS
SAGE Publications
The Issue of Gender sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0971521516656079
in Indian Scientific http://ijg.sagepub.com
Research Institutes
Namrata Gupta1
Abstract
Gender relations in organisations are a function of the socio-cultural
and institutional context. This study analyses the perceptions of men
and women scientists in India with respect to their work environ-
ment. It indicates that the twin aspects of Indian culture, patriarchy
and hierarchy, contribute to a masculine environment at the workplace.
Idealisation of women’s family roles as part of ‘Indian culture’ depresses
women’s position as scientists. The hierarchical culture affects junior
women scientists particularly through structural inefficiencies and
gendered methods to subvert hierarchy. Since the Indian social milieu
is in transition, changes are slowly taking place within organisations,
offering hope for a change in gendered work environments. In exploring
solutions to gender problems and understanding gender relations, the
specific national context needs to be highlighted.
Keywords
Science, women scientists, hierarchy, family, women in the workplace
1
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, India.
Corresponding author:
Namrata Gupta, House No. 619, IIT Kanpur Campus, Kanpur-208016, India.
E-mail: namrata432@rediffmail.com
Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

438 Indian Journal of Gender Studies 23(3)
Introduction
This paper focuses on the perceptions of men and women scientists
regarding their work environment and shows how their specific Indian
context influences gender relations in the workplace as well as the
changes which have been witnessed in recent years. Such studies are
essential to understand the possibilities for decreasing gender discrimina-
tion in scientific organisations in a non-Western country undergoing social
and economic transformation.
In India as elsewhere women scientists face barriers that hinder their
rise and the realisation of their full potential. There are only about 7−16
per cent women in scientific research organisations and predictably
a miniscule number in leadership positions. There are as few as three
women Directors in the science and technology institutions in India
(DST, 2010) and only one woman Director of a Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR) lab out of 39 such labs. Women are
seldom appointed as chairman of institute-level committees or as the
heads of departments. Women recipients of the prestigious Bhatnagar
award for young scientists are only 2.4 per cent of the total between 1958
and 1998 and the proportion of women as Fellows of national science
academies constitutes not more than 4.6 per cent (INSA, 2004).
However, there is a growing consciousness about using women’s
potential as is evident in various government initiatives. These include
schemes to attract women scientists who had a break in career and would
like to return to science; paid leave for childcare, extension of maternity
leave and provision for paternity leave. Another encouraging sign is the
recent nomination of two women scientists to the Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Council1 which is the first of its kind. According to
a senior Human Resource Development Ministry official, the idea behind
this appointment is to send out the signal that ‘science is not the sole
preserve of men’ and that ‘women can be at par with men in carrying out
research’ (Times of India, 2014).
The changes at the top reflect changes below. A greater numbers of
women are taking up careers in professional courses. Until the mid-20th
century there were debates on whether the curriculum for women’s
education should include the sciences, and whether education for women
was only an instrument for aiding women in the better performance
of their roles as wives and mothers (Chanana, 2001). Since then, there
has been a substantial increase in the number of women in science and
professional courses.2 For example, in science the proportion of women
in undergraduate enrolment, which was around 10−20 per cent till

Gupta 439
1980−1981, is now about 40 per cent and has remained consistent over
the last decade (Chanana, 2000; Kumar, Kumar, & Kumar, 2009). The
percentage of women in Masters Degree science courses stands at 38 per
cent and those receiving doctorates are about 33.6 per cent of the total for
the period 1998–2007 (Kurup & Arora, 2010). However, the drop is
steep in women’s employment in scientific research institutes which as
stated above stands at only 7–16 per cent.
The Indian scenario is one of change and continuity which is
manifested in the position of women scientists. Based on the study of
two national laboratories this study attempts to analyse the socio-cultural
context of the problems of women scientists through a study of gender
relations at the workplace. The sections below discuss how women in
science face barriers almost everywhere and then examine the Indian
social milieu in order to understand the specific nature of their problems.
Women in Science: Barriers across Cultures

A vast literature on women in science has analysed the discrepancies in
opportunities and status of women scientists. Although Merton ([1942]
1973) did not mention gender as a source of lack of ‘universalism’ in
science, various studies since then have pointed out gender as accounting
for ‘particularism’ in appointment and evaluation of women scientists
(e.g., Long & Fox, 1995). The literature on gender and science shows
that in virtually all countries, there are barriers at the upper levels with
considerably fewer women in top positions or at the higher decision-
making levels (Kumar, 2012; Stolte-Heiskanen, 1991) with barriers
ranging from lack of mentorship, problems of travel and odd hours
(Hogan, Zippel, Frehill, & Kramer, 2010; Mason & Ekman, 2007) to
bias in evaluation (Foschi, 2000; Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke, 1999)
and problems of collaboration (Fox, 2001). Evidence shows a ‘triple
burden’ in different parts of the world, indicating the negative impact of
cultural values and organisational structures (Gupta, Kemelgor, Fuchs,
& Etzkowitz, 2005). Some developing and semi-developed countries,
such as Turkey, Brazil and Mexico have assimilated modernisation
ideology enabling women of upper classes to acquire higher education,
but traditional gender role expectations and a rigid structure at the work-
place constitute barriers to women in science (Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, &
Uzzi, 2000).
The literature also reveals cultural variations in research publication
rates. In the West, women tend to have lower publication rates than men

(Lee & Bozeman, 2005). Lower research productivity appears to account

for the lower status of women in science. Researchers working on the
‘productivity puzzle’ find several institutional- and individual-level
reasons (e.g., Fox, 1983; Zainab, 1999) and also non-gender factors
(Leahey, 2006) to explain the variation in publication rates. However, in
India, there is no significant gap in research productivity (Gupta, Kumar,
& Aggarwal 1999; Munshi & Srivastava, 2006) and yet women scientists
have a lower status, thus affirming the conclusion of Fox (2004) that the
publication gap is not a significant factor in women’s lower position in
science.
In India, there is a considerable proportion of women in science with
women constituting about 40 per cent of the total number of science
undergraduate and postgraduates. Unlike in some Western nations,
women’s ability to study science and mathematics are not doubted in
India and this is proved by a growing number of women in engineering
(Gupta, 2012; Varma, 2011). Yet their proportion in Research and
Development (R&D) establishments is less than one-sixth of the total
(Kumar, 2009, p. 312). Their numbers drop precipitously as faculty in
the elite institutes of education and research (about 7−16 per cent).
Studies report biases in recruitment and promotions (Gupta & Sharma,
2003b), vertical segregation in the scientific research institutes (Kumar,
2001), lack of infrastructural support and a dual burden on women in
academia and government research laboratories (Chakravarthy, 1986;
Jaiswal, 1993).
Researchers point out different aspects related to the work environment
that affects women scientists. Problems related to the interactional
environment and the role of perceptions was first pointed out by Gurnani
and Sheth (1984). There is a spillover of patriarchal considerations in the
workplace and women encounter biases due to their not being associated
with the public sphere and their primary responsibility for children
(Subrahmanyan, 1998). Women scientists in academia are affected not
only by patrifocal concerns in their own lives (Gupta & Sharma, 2003a)
but also by the work milieu which is marked by patriarchal social norms
(Gupta & Sharma, 2003b). Problems associated with ‘tokenism’ (Kanter,
1977) combine with Indian segregation norms leading to isolation
(Gupta & Sharma, 2002). Networking by Indian women scientists
remains limited outside the workplace as in some developing countries,
and, they are less likely to travel or receive education abroad than men,
due to family and security reasons (Campion & Shrum, 2004). Gender
operates in deciding who has the merit to pursue science so that women’s
competence does not get the nurturance and recognition that competence

Gupta 441
in a man does (Subramanian, 2007). There is a paucity of studies

that relate barriers for women scientists to how gender relations are
constructed in the specific socio-cultural and organisational context in
which women scientists work. This study attempts to fill this gap.
Socio-cultural Context in the Study of Gender

in Organisations
By referring to the socio-cultural context of an organisation, one proceeds
from the assumption that meanings, ideas and definitions of reality
existing in society are shared in common by those who people the organ-
isation. As a result, ideas related to men and women prevalent in society
form an intrinsic part of the organisation. Thus, the social context of an
organisation becomes significant.
Studies of gender in organisations across societal contexts are not
very common. Tienari, Quack and Theobald (2002) study how the
notion of the ‘ideal worker’ varies across cultural contexts and also evolves
in time. Researchers working on the formation of gender inequality in spe-
cific cultural contexts emphasise how gender is constructed in dynamic
interaction with pre-existing social norms in organisational settings
(Duncan, 1995; O’Reilly, 1999; Pfau-Effinger, 1998).
Socio-cultural schemas and stereotypes intrude into organisations in
various ways. They play out in the ‘social-relational contexts’ (Ridgeway
& Correll, 2004) and while bureaucratic procedures and structures
suppress the effects of gender biases, the social–relational contexts, such
as interviews or committees where decisions are individual based are
sites of discrimination. Gender is also constructed in organisations (West
& Zimmerman, 1987) through socially guided perceptual and interac-
tional activities. Gender is prescribed in gender practices (Acker, 1990;
Alvesson & Billing, 2009) and also is a process that is constantly being
enacted in everyday situations (Linstead & Pullen, 2006) in organisations.
To bring about change in gender biases is extremely difficult as it
requires change in core beliefs but the biases can be undermined through
long-term and persistent challenges from changes in the socio-economic
system and individual resistance (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Some of
those visualising gender equality in organisations conceptualise it as
‘undoing’ gender through a process whenever the gender binary gets
troubled (Kelan, 2010) and through various institutional and interactional
processes that can work together to produce change (Deutsch, 2007).

From the limited research that documents professional women’s

experiences at the workplace in India, it is evident that women perceive
it as a biased environment. For example, in a study of Indian firms (Nath,
2000), although performance management and reward structures were
considered gender-free, women managers still reported that extra hard
work was required from them to prove their worth. Basu (2008) highlights
the prevalence of gender stereotypes in Indian corporates and that lack
of interaction due to gender segregation accounts for the persistence
of most of the stereotypes regarding women. In one study (Kundu, 2003),
men employees rated women employees as being less qualified, less
competent and less productive than women rated themselves. Women
believed that they had less chance of receiving working facilities,
promotions and salary increases than men.
Research shows that organisations in India remain gendered (Kaul &
Singh, 2012). Even in the Information Technology (IT) sector, which has
been at the forefront in leading initiatives for gender inclusivity, few
women are in leadership roles and are often relegated to routinised jobs
(Arun, Heeks, & Morgan, 2007). Although not considered a masculine
profession, there is vertical and horizontal segregation in medicine also,
with few women in the Medical Council of India and a concentration
of women in certain departments (Sood & Chadda, 2010). The family is
acknowledged as the primary responsibility of women and while a
larger number of women are now in employment, the ‘public–private’
dichotomy (with women associated with the ‘private’ or domestic
sphere) continues to exist in the minds of employers and male colleagues
at work (Patel & Parmentier, 2005). The position of women in professions
can thus be better understood in the context of the overall social milieu.
The Indian Milieu: Change and Continuity

A skewed sex ratio (914 women for 1,000 males according to the 2011
Census) and a low rank in the gender inequality index of UNDP (132
of 148) point to the low position of Indian women. Indian society is
patriarchal and is coupled with a strong family orientation (Mukhopadhyay
& Seymour, 1994, p. 3) with families taking decisions on children’s
education and marriage. The individual subordinates his personal
concerns to that of the family and women are at the core of the ‘private’
sphere. A moral code of conduct values female docility, chastity and duty
to the family. The gender hierarchy, traditionally, has been related to
caste hierarchy with segregation of women and a moral code of conduct

Gupta 443
applying more strictly to upper caste Hindus. Caste and lineage purity
are related to the notion of sexual ‘purity’ (Chakravarti, 1993) implying
that the higher the caste, the greater is the normative purity and its
stringency in practice, and also vice versa.
However, there are changes in the social milieu, but as Indian society
is in the transitional phase, change is accompanied by continuity. While
earlier, women’s education was given low priority, since the last two
decades the number of women in professional courses has increased
dramatically, for example, their proportion in engineering courses has
risen from 3.8 per cent in 1980−1981 to 26 per cent in 2005 (Didion,
Frehill, & Pearson, 2012). Liberalisation has created job opportunities
for educated women and these jobs carry prestige (Belliappa, 2013).
Although women’s share in the organised workforce (in contrast to the
unorganised workforce such as agricultural or other labour) is low at 19
per cent, it is about 30 per cent in the IT sector (Gupta, 2012).
Women’s higher education and employment in professional and tech-
nical sectors is an urban middle class phenomenon. In contrast to the
view of an ideal Hindu woman as a homemaker until recently, the new
view of Indian womanhood defines woman as being ‘of substance’, and
includes a more visible and public view of women in workplaces. Yet,
the middle class construction of the cultural domain continues to con-
strue the inner world that is home, as being woman centred (Thapan,
2007). This is also indicated in a study of professional women in IT
(Radhakrishnan, 2009) which found that middle class women uphold
the family as a ‘core value’ of the global Indian identity, which helps
the enactment of ‘respectable femininity’ at the workplace and in their
personal lives. Belliappa (2013) notes how paid work among profes-
sional women enhances a subjective sense of self that is tied to a global
discourse of individualism and choice but at the same time this individu-
alism is strongly circumscribed by family ties. Since women scientists
are mostly drawn from the urban middle class in India, these conclusions
regarding the significance of family would apply to them as well.
The CSIR
The study here involves a survey of two national laboratories of the
CSIR. The CSIR laboratories were established as mission-oriented science
agencies (MOSA) under the auspices of the government as part of the
science–politics nexus in the Nehruvian era (Krishna, 2001) with the

primary objective of bridging the gap between the academic and indus-
trial worlds. Although established in 1942, the CSIR had no significant
laboratories in 1947, but by the 1950s, 15 laboratories had come up.
At present, it is an autonomous body and India’s largest R&D organisa-
tion with a network of 39 laboratories and 50 field stations or extension
centres located throughout the country, with a collective staff of over
17,000.
The Prime Minister of India is the President of the CSIR and the
Minister of Science and Technology its vice president. For all practical
purposes the Director General is the overarching authority of the CSIR.
Each laboratory has its own Management Council, headed by a Director,
to administer and manage the affairs and environs of the laboratory, and,
has a mandate for promoting research in a particular area. For instance,
the Central Drug Research Institute is a CSIR lab which is dedicated to
biomedical research.
Most of the research in India is done on the initiative of the govern-
ment which employs about 77 per cent of doctorates and incurs more
than two-thirds of the total research and development expenditure at the
CSIR alone, accounting for 9.3 per cent of central government expendi-
ture on R&D (Research and Development Statistics, 2007−2008). Since
the Nehruvian days, the ‘power elite’ in science ‘was drawn or consti-
tuted from the MOSA (Mission Oriented Science Agencies, such as the
CSIR, the Department of Atomic Energy, the Defence Research and
Development Organisation etc) rather than from the academic settings or
the universities’ (Krishna, 2001, p. 244). CSIR accounted for 10.47 per
cent of all science and technology Science Citation Index (SCI) publica-
tions in India in 2008 (CSIR Research Papers, 2008) and 61 per cent of
the patents granted to Indian inventors (excluding foreign assignees) in
2004−2005.
However, it is often alleged that ‘most scientists at the national
laboratories merely consider themselves as just any other government
employee’ with a desire to wield bureaucratic power (Pandey, 2007,
p. 7). This coupled with the fact that Indian society traditionally has
been a caste society and has a hierarchical culture renders the system,
composed of both scientific and non-scientific members, excessively
respectful of those in power with members seeking contacts with the
powerful. Indian scientists (Joseph & Robinson, 2014) and scholars
(such as Kumar, 2009) agree that science and its institutions are not free
from feudal, authoritarian values prevalent in Indian society. However,
there is a lack of research on its consequences for women scientists.

Gupta 445
Methods
The study was conducted through semi-structured interviews at the
workplace (in the office which was usually attached to the laboratory)
of the scientists within the institutes. The sample frame included two
CSIR laboratories referred to as CSIR1 and CSIR2 here. Of the two labs,
CSIR1 is located in north India and CSIR2 in western India and were
established in 1951 and 1950, respectively. CSIR1 has about 143 scien-
tific staff with doctoral degrees and 534 research fellows and project
assistants. CSIR2 has about 200 scientific staff with doctoral degrees and
500 doctoral students. The names of the respondents have been changed
in the article to protect the identity of the respondents.
The study included both men and women scientists involved in
research. Approval was taken from the Directorate of each CSIR lab for
conducting the interviews. Thereafter, e-mails were sent to all the women
scientists and an equal number of men scientists based on their grade
so as to have representatives from all grades of scientists. For those
who responded, an appointment for interview was fixed as per their
convenience. The face-to-face interviews were conducted on the site by
the researcher in English. In all, 31 scientists (including 15 men and 16
women) were interviewed. The interviews were conducted over a period
of one year from August 2011 to October 2012. Each interview usually
lasted for at least an hour. To ensure the comfort level of all the respond-
ents, they were not apprised of the project’s focus on gender issues but
were informed that it related to the study of socio-cultural and organisa-
tional aspects of the research environment and hence, the inclusion of
questions on gender did not seem unnatural.
The interview schedule included some questions on biographical
aspects that required objective answers. However, most of the questions
had no pre-set range of answers so that the interviewee had complete
freedom in answering and the interviewer could ask probing questions
based on the response of the interviewee. Also, the interviews were con-
ducted face to face which created scope for observation and provided
confidence in conclusions. Based on the literature on gender in science
and gender and organisations, broad themes were identified for the inter-
view. Thus, the schedule comprised questions on influences or mentors,
their career (career goals, decisions and growth factors), organisational
aspects (satisfaction with recruitment and promotion and relations with
administration), formal and informal relations (with colleagues), gender
(perception about women and men administrators, about capabilities of

colleagues of either sex), and work–life balance. Most questions were

framed in a gender neutral manner, such as ‘Do you experience conflict
between work and family responsibilities?’ ‘Is it important to interact
informally in the organisation?’ or ‘Is there cooperation or competition
in your department?’ A few pointed questions about gender issues were
common to both men and women respondents. For example, ‘Do you
think there is gender equality in your organisation?’ or ‘Do you think
men and women differ in capabilities?’ Women respondents were probed
deeper on questions relating to gender. For instance, they were asked if
they believed that their male colleagues were aware of the dual burden
on women, and whether this perception affects opportunities available
to women.
The responses were noted by hand as well as tape recorded. The latter
was essential to provide greater reliability of data and the replies were
also written down in case the tape recorder developed a snag or the taped
conversation got wiped out due to some inadvertent error. The recorded
information was very useful in transcribing the data that was missed
out while jotting down the replies. Replies, though not transcribed
verbatim, were typed into WORD by listening to the taped conversation
and gaps were filled by referring to the hand-written replies.
To analyse the interviews, all responses were typed in the WORD
file separately for the two institutes in the framework of the interview
schedule. Each interview was carefully analysed manually and broad
themes were typed in the margins of the WORD file of the interview.
For instance, for the question on ‘What do think about the way the
administration manages its scientists and workforce?’, the theme that
emerged was that the system is bureaucratic and slow-moving; similarly,
for the question on whether there is difference between the capabilities
of men and women, the recurring theme in the interviews was that
although there is no difference in capabilities, women scientists are
usually not given charge of some tasks (mostly administrative) because
of their perceived dual burden.
All the scientists had PhD degrees and 23 out of 31 respondents had
postdoctoral experience. The average age of the respondents was 47.64
years. Most of the respondents (27 of 31) were ever-married and of those
married no-one had more than two children and two had none. Only
two respondents were non-Hindus; 28 of 31 respondents belonged to
upper castes with only one from the lowest caste and two were from
Other Backward Castes. Fathers of most respondents (18 of 31) were
postgraduates or held professional qualifications (engineering, medicine
degrees) and about 29 of 31 were in service occupations in the government

Gupta 447
Table 1. Position of the Respondents in the Two CSIR Labs
Position CSIR1 CSIR2

(from junior to senior) Grade Men Women Men Women Total
Scientist C 2 2 4 1 9
Senior scientist E1 − − 0 2 2
Principal scientist E2 1 3 1 1 6
Senior principal scientist F 3 1 2 3 9
Chief scientist G 1 1 1 2 5
Total 7 7 8 9 31
Source: Interview with the respondents.
or private sector. Mothers of 21 respondents were homemakers and the

education of mothers of 17 of the 31 had not progressed beyond
schooling. The profile of the respondents indicates a middle class, upper
caste Hindu background.
The sample size and the position of the scientists are indicated in
Table 1. Each institute is divided into research divisions with each
division supervised by a Head (HOD). Scientists are usually recruited at
Scientist C level, designated as ‘Scientist’ and the highest position is of
Scientist G or ‘Chief Scientist’.
The institutes also comprise employees in charge of administration,
purchase, store-keeping and technical infrastructure. Women constitute
about one-sixth of all the employees in the CSIR (CSIR Analytics, 2013).
Position of Women Scientists

Until 1975, women at the ‘Scientist F’ level were nil and were miniscule
in number at the ‘E’ level in any CSIR lab (Gurnani & Sheth, 1984).
Although there has been an improvement since then, the hegemonic
position of men in these institutes is reflected in their overall greater
representation in positions with higher pay, more status and more formal
organisational, political and institutional power. The proportion of
women scientists in the two CSIR labs surveyed is given in Table 2.
Women scientists are less than one-fifth of the total and their presence as
the HODs is miniscule. In these labs, there was only one woman scientist
heading an institute-level committee at CSIR1 and two women HODs
while in CSIR2 there were only two women in administrative positions
and one of them was an HOD. In CSIR2 there was no woman head of

Table 2. Proportion of Women Scientists and Leaders in the Two CSIR Labs
Total No. of Percentage of Women as HODs

CSIR Labs Scientists Women Scientists Out of Total HODs
CSIR1 142 19% 2 out of 12
CSIR2 194 18% 1 out of 8
Source: List of scientists presented on the lab websites.
any institute committee. In the entire CSIR group there is only one
woman scientist at the Scientist H level (which is the highest level,
introduced in 2008 and is a tenured appointment for five years to an
outstanding scientist) while within CSIR2 itself there were three men
at that level. The lone woman ever to head a CSIR lab was appointed
in 2013.
Women constitute only 16 per cent of the total scientific community
in the CSIR labs according to a government report (DST, 2010).
The study found that hierarchy and patriarchy are two main aspects
of the socio-cultural milieu that impact women scientists in their work
environment. These are discussed below.
Hierarchy in the Work Environment:

Impact on Junior Women Scientists
Although there are no formal rules that discriminate between men and
women scientists, the study indicates that the workplace is affected by
a hierarchical culture which translates into bias against women scientists,
particularly against women in junior positions. Recent researches have
shown that hierarchy and bureaucratic structure by themselves might not
be detrimental to gender equity (Roth & Sonnert, 2011). However, as the
sections below indicate hierarchical culture which values contacts with
those in power, combined with Indian segregation norms affect women
scientists adversely and help perpetuate male dominance in the system.
A recurring theme in the interviews was that the CSIR system is slow
moving and that contacts and a high position in the hierarchy ease the
pressures of bureaucratic procedures. As Manish (male, Scientist G,
CSIR2) commented, ‘… lethargy of the system is there at all levels [in]
procurement, recruitment, getting funds, paper work … Person who is
well connected, things move for him’. The term ‘well-connected’ here
implies contacts with those in higher positions. The interpretation of

Gupta 449
rules might vary and the administrative staff which usually implements
the rules tends to favour those with higher status in the institute hierar-
chy. For instance, according to Jagdish (male, Scientist C, CSIR1):
The administrative staff is not very helpful. Their help depends on what kind
of relation you have with them or how senior you are; …‘Show me the face
I will show you the rules’—administrative people can interpret the rules
either way.
As stated earlier, there are few women in high positions. Also, routine
procedural matters of purchase and funding involve non-scientific staff
which is usually male dominated. Women scientists of junior rank face
problems that combine rank with gender. For instance, according to
Rukmini (female, Scientist C, CSIR1),
Sometimes it is very difficult to speak to a male staff member, they feel

offended … Lower staff is very adamant; they will not listen to you because
of your (younger) age and gender.
A hierarchical culture is also prevalent amongst the scientists. An HOD’s

support is important for promotions and the consequence of a lack
of such support is brought out in the case of a woman scientist, Manya
(CSIR1, E2). When asked whether she was satisfied with the procedure
for promotions, she narrated the following:
No, I am not satisfied with the procedure for promotions. When I was E1, my
HOD spoilt my CR (Confidential Report) and gave me poor marks because
I didn’t give his name as co-author in publications. My name was not there
[in the list] for promotions. So the chairman of the normalisation committee3
noticed this and complained to the Director. Ultimately the same HOD had to
tear off the CR and had to mark me excellent.
The hierarchical culture and hostility of the HOD can affect male
colleagues also, but with women scientists it takes the form of gender
bias as revealed in the following statements of the same scientist:
I faced a lot of gender bias in my department…It occurred because of the bad

mentality of my HOD (the same person she had mentioned earlier). He goes
to the extremes of fighting with me for parking space; …. if I park under the
portico (whosoever comes early parks there) he would send his attendant,
ask me to move my car; he doesn’t do the same with men; he favours male
scientists, gives them better space, better things, better choices….Two women
who have joined recently, one of them confides: why is he always after us?

The hostility of the HOD has resulted in her isolation; she remarked, ‘It’s
an unpleasant atmosphere (in the department); I have lunch in my office.
If we were together (got on better), then it would be more pleasant …’.
The culture of hierarchy adversely affects women more than men.
This is because, unlike men, women are unable to subvert the system
or counter its inefficiencies as discussed in the next section.
Countering Hierarchy: A Gendered Task

It appears that the hierarchical culture can be partly subverted through
informal interaction and networking. Such interaction leads to an
accumulation of social capital which provides immense returns. For
instance, according to Mayank (male, Scientist E2, CSIR1), ‘informal
interaction within the institute is supremely, overwhelmingly important
as it counters hierarchy and structure’. In fact, a lack of rapport with
seniors might lead to delay in promotions and ‘it is easier if you have a
godfather; otherwise you might be late (in getting promotion) by 3−5
years’ (Shyamdev, male, Scientist F in CSIR2).
This implies that in the absence of such interaction, a junior scientist
is vulnerable to the ‘politics’ of those in higher positions. Women
scientists, socialised in patriarchal norms (such as being docile and less
aggressive), usually are reluctant and diffident about reacting against
such politics. Also, Indian women, who bear the burden of segregation
norms, are inhibited in terms of interaction with men. For example, in
CSIR2, Poonam (female, Scientist F), who said, ‘I am not a member of
any committee and have never been; I was always isolated …’, was
caught between two HODs when she was to be promoted from E2 to F.
‘It took several years because one HOD left and the new one wanted to
get his own back on the first one; I was the soft target. I could not trouble
strong people; I don’t fight back’ (by which she meant that she did not
have the courage to fight strong people like the HODs).
This highlights how not being able to network with ‘strong’ people
and the aggression of others can make women scientists a victim of
office politics and as Poonam said, ‘those who are closer to the authori-
ties dominate’.
A senior woman scientist (Scientist G) from CSIR2 remarked that
interaction with seniors and colleagues is ‘very important’ and sometimes
women lag behind in this respect. This also decreases the chance of
having a mentor. As a male scientist (Rohit, Scientist C) from CSIR2
remarked, ‘women are weaker than men in having godfathers’. Women
who do have mentors or support within the organisation, move to

Gupta 451
leadership positions as in the case of the only woman HOD at CSIR2,

whose PhD advisor (at CSIR2) ‘gave her the necessary experience and
visibility for independent research’.
Systemic inefficiencies in a hierarchical culture are compounded by
socio-cultural barriers to informal interaction. Women scientists usually
lack informal interaction due to upper caste sex-segregation norms; this
is affirmed by earlier studies (Gupta & Sharma, 2002). Thus, according
to Sarita (female, Scientist E2, CSIR2), ‘informal interaction is there but
mostly with women colleagues …’. A woman scientist (Scientist E2,
CSIR1) remarked, ‘you can’t be pally with men scientists…’. According
to Poonam (female, Scientist F, CSIR2), ‘I interact with women
colleagues mostly, (although) on phone usually, (sometimes) personally
also, but there is not much time.’ Lack of time is an issue with women
scientists because of not wanting to stay beyond office hours (due to
family commitments) and hence, wanting to finish the maximum possible
work during office hours.
On the other hand, men scientists usually interact informally at tea
sometime during the day and they also tend to stay beyond office hours.
Gautam (male, scientist, CSIR1) said, ‘In the Indian scenario more than
professional contacts, informal contacts are likely to help you. I interact
informally in the institute mainly at tea.’ The words in italics imply
that in the Indian professional scenario contacts are required for getting
work done.
A higher age and rank lowers the socio-normative emphasis on sex
segregation providing greater leeway for mixed interaction. As Saraswati
(female, Scientist G, CSIR2), who is 57 years old, remarked, ‘… Now
I have become senior; I don’t mind barging into a group of drinking
people (male colleagues), but it was difficult until a few years ago’.
Thus, a hierarchical culture and systemic inefficiencies are unhealthier
for junior women than for junior men because of socio-cultural barriers
to interaction which deny women scientists the opportunities to develop
contacts and mentors within the institute, lacking which their ability
to move to leadership positions in the institute and getting things done
through the non-scientific staff are affected, making them more liable to
easy victimisation.
A hierarchical culture causes divisions among women also. This
comes through in the statement of Deepti (Scientist F, CSIR1) who said,
‘We can interact with women at the same level (age-wise or position-
wise), not with youngsters’, or as Poonam (Scientist F, CSIR2) said: ‘the
younger generation (women) does not interact with us’. The nature and
impact of such divisions need further research. Nevertheless, it reveals

the impact of hierarchical culture even among women working in the

same organisation. Further, since women in higher positions are few, the
nature of hierarchy is overwhelmingly masculine.
Contradictions of Being a Middle Class Indian

Woman and a Scientist
During the interviews, men respondents often mentioned the dual burden
on women scientists. These perceptions derive from the Indian middle
class concept of family. The Indian family and its values are part of
a core cultural discourse through which the superiority of national culture
is affirmed and reinforced by the urban middle classes (Radhakrishnan,
2009). However, since women act as the primary upholders of the family,
their position as scientists appears to be vulnerable. This section discusses
the complex interplay of these contradictory positions at the workplace.
The names of departmental committee members are usually decided
by the seniors who are usually men. The women are left out and the
stated reason for this is usually that it will mean an additional burden
on the woman who has to grapple with the dual burden of office work
and family roles. For instance, a scientist (male, Scientist F) at CSIR1
remarked:
For a particular task, if [we are] selecting people we avoid [selecting]

women…. maybe one has more confidence in men, or the woman may have
to work at odd hours or [she may] have small kids, so it’s a human thing
[to say] o.k. go [home] early, it’s our Indian culture; but this should not be
done always as it affects the work.
The statement above reflects a belief in gender differences in abilities

and roles. The words in italics indicate the universal perception that a
woman bears the weight of ‘Indianness’, that is, of being the primary
caretaker of the family. On the other hand, a senior woman scientist
(Scientist F, CSIR2) remarked:
Whenever something important is going on in the division and someone has

to take charge of it, they automatically think of men. For a long time I was the
only woman in this division. It was assumed that I have a lot of work at home.
In the guise of helping [women] they sideline [women].
Similarly, according to Maansi (Scientist F, CSIR2), ‘men want to make

men as committee heads because men say that a woman [needs] more

Gupta 453
time on the domestic front’. Hence, while men colleagues assume that
the dual burden renders women unavailable for significant tasks, women
scientists feel left out. Perhaps both aspects have some relevance.
There are also women scientists who themselves do not wish for an
administrative position or committee headships. However, as a woman
scientist (Scientist F, CSIR2) commented, ‘70 per cent of women will
not go after a leadership position, but if it comes to them, they will not
say “no” … [But] men lobby for it …’
Further, as a junior woman scientist (E1, CSIR2) said, ‘awareness of
a dual burden on women affects hiring. The woman has to prove that she
is better than a man for any job.’ For instance, a senior male scientist,
also an HOD (Scientist F, CSIR1), on the one hand, remarked, ‘whoso-
ever is qualified should be appointed’, but on being asked what if both
male and female candidates are equal, he replied, ‘the male is preferred
because he can work for longer hours, as compared to a female’.
Similarly, according to Anamika (female, E1, CSIR2), ‘yes, men’s
awareness of [women’s] dual burden affects [women’s] opportunities; a
woman has to prove herself better than a man for a job because she is
seen to have other responsibilities’. Thus, assumptions of colleagues
regarding the dual burden women carry, deny opportunities to women
scientists.
The middle class notion of an ideal Indian woman conflicts with the
idealisation of a certain working style in scientific research. This working
style idealises long working hours and full time devotion to science
implicit in the ‘male model’ (Etzkowitz et al., 2000) as exemplified in
the following statement:
A capable scientist is one who has more recognition. Actually, the time that a
man can devote [to research] is more because a woman cannot [do so]. This
affects her work and it takes a long time [for her] to complete the same work.
(Ishwar, male, Scientist F, CSIR1)
This statement assumes that a large number of hours are required for
doing good science which would fetch recognition and that women have
less time for science compared to men and hence they are less recognised.
Since women fail to follow the ‘male model’, the quality of their research
is suspect as is evident in the belief that
[T]he research of women is mediocre; you need to be immersed in research….

Women are family oriented because in India it’s a given that women sacrifice
more. (Manish, male, Scientist G, CSIR2)

The perception of women’s preference for family rather than a career

which leads to sacrifice of their career is typical, and this orientation
is rendered synonymous with Indian culture. However, the belief that
the scientific research of women is not at par with that of men is negated
by the evidence (Gupta et al., 1999; Hasan, Sharma, Khilnani, & Luthra,
2012). The generalisation that women’s ‘research is mediocre’ is prob-
ably partly due to a lack of awareness of the achievements of women
scientists. Manish’s deduction that the entire community of women
scientists was below par was based on the ‘heightened visibility’ of the
two ‘token’ women in the department who were not performing well.
The masculine perception of a ‘scientist’ and the gendered perception
of an ‘Indian woman’ drive women scientists to the periphery of the
scientific community. This is manifested in the lack of respect some
women scientists feel they have to endure. For instance, when asked to
define gender equality, a woman scientist (Janki, Scientist E2, CSIR1)
remarked that gender equality to her means ‘equality in numbers and in
status; But this equality doesn’t exist here. Numbers are not equal; our
male colleagues don’t give us as much respect as should be given’.
Manish’s reference to women’s research being ‘mediocre’ also reflects a
lack of respect for women scientists.
Change Due to Policy Changes

Globalisation and liberalisation policies since the 1990s have brought
about greater integration of the Indian economy with the world economy.
This has raised the importance of science in the economic development
of the country. The Government of India, in recent years, has shown
interest in building world-class infrastructure for scientific research in
selected and nationally relevant fields and in simplifying administrative
and financial procedures (S&T Policy, 2003). Given the significance
of the culture of hierarchy and the lack of informal interaction between
women scientists and their male colleagues which maintains masculine
hegemony in the institutes, structural changes that reduce hierarchy and
improve informal interaction could change the work climate. One
example of this change is a new centre for interdisciplinary research that
was set up in CSIR2 in 2010.
The building which houses the centre incorporates the latest construc-
tion style and an eco-friendly design. But more importantly, the group
of scientists in this centre has formulated its own rules of management.

Gupta 455
The scientists here are mostly fresh recruits and are young in age. The
centre is bustling with collaboration and mutual interaction and has a
robust output in terms of research productivity which cannot be ignored
and hence has become the focus of admiration in the institute. The work
environment here was perceived as quite positive and has an impact on
gender relations. For instance, Anamika (female, Scientist E1), when
asked how she perceives gender equality at her workplace, said:
Gender equality is [achieved] when people surrounding you perceive you as

a colleague and not a ‘woman colleague’… Yes, it (gender equality) exists in
my group. It’s a collaborative and cooperative environment. People talk about
their research, seniors are trying to be your mentor [she just joined about a
year ago]; there is a Friday coffee club where I go, we discuss, debate. There
is comfort in the work environment.
This positive environment, acknowledged by others too as such, was

attributed to lesser hierarchy and greater space for informal interaction.
This centre at CSIR2 does not have an overarching HOD; it is headed
by a collegium of five scientists, including two women scientists at the
time of the study, who hold office for two years. The members of the
centre have established a coffee club which meets once a week. However,
the centre has a miniscule impact on the entire institute and such centres
are rare. Their positive role needs to be highlighted so that similar models
can be established in other institutes as well.
In a significant move to bring greater objectivity to promotions, the
system of appraisal by individual senior scientists at the CSIR labs has
been replaced by self-appraisal and a two-stage evaluation process since
2010 (i.e., the Collegium and the Empowered Committee).4 The long-
term impact of the new initiative is yet to be assessed. According to
Manya
… now the system is better with self-appraisal but it is not 100 per cent [effi-
cient as a method of assessment]. The HOD has to grade the scientist for pro-
motion [but] the remarks will not be shown to me. Why can’t they put marks
under each category on the LAN (Local Area Network)? There is a lack
of transparency in the system.
‘Effective management practices’ have been recognised as important in

achieving gender equality in research (European Union, 2012). More
efficient practices along with less hierarchy are likely to bring in greater
egalitarianism in the work environment.

The Changing Social Context: Multiple

Masculinities and Femininities
The Indian social system is currently undergoing dynamic change and
with it the position of women is getting transformed. The implementa-
tion of neo-liberal policies from the 1990s has wrought considerable
changes in the cultural practices of the Indian middle classes which
appear to have affected women and gender relations (Fernandes, 2006;
Waldrop, 2012). For example, media portrayal of women indicates fewer
restrictions on women’s movements and dress (Dewey, 2008); although
the ‘joint family’ continues to be an ‘ideal type’, the traditional joint
family has declined (Nimkoff, 2005). Families headed by young couples
displaying greater egalitarian attitudes are on the rise and with the rise in
education, urbanisation and opportunity for employment, ‘women are
much freer now to come out of their homes with a view to meeting their
family expenses’ (Singh, 2009, p. 14). Dual-earning couples are becom-
ing increasingly common in urban India (Ramadoss & Rajadhyaksha,
2012), which has brought about a greater appreciation of the dual burden
on women. This transitional milieu has raised the possibility of multiple
masculinities and femininities, thus challenging the prevalent notions of
masculinity at the research institutes. Younger men or those with working
wives are more sympathetic to the dual burden concerns of women.
According to one of the women scientists, ‘Younger men, especially
those with working wives are more aware of the dual burden of women’
(Anju, female, Scientist E1, CSIR2). Similarly, Anamika (female,
Scientist E1) in CSIR2 said:
In general, men are not aware of the dual burden of women specially if the
man has a stay-at-home wife. But younger colleagues or those with work-
ing wives know and appreciate it. Men also say that they want to look after
the kids in the evening; if a man says so it is not considered degrading ….
If I say I have to go back after 6 p.m. to take care of the family they do not
disparage you.
There are differences among men in their perception of the system’s

impact on women. While a senior male scientist (Arvind, 56 years old,
Scientist G) from CSIR1 regarded the appointment of a woman as the
head of XXX committee (which organises an annual event) as a sign of
gender equality, a younger scientist whose wife is also a scientist
considered it tokenism. The following is the conversation the researcher
had with Arvind:

Gupta 457
Author: Do you think there is gender equality in this organisation?

Arvind: Gender equality does exist here. Our Director himself decided that
XXX will be handled by a woman. Earlier it was handled by seniority; now
since the last two years, a woman is handling it.
Author: Why a woman?
Arvind: Because the Director wants to give responsibility to women.
Author: Why not involve men and women equally?
Arvind: Because men are already involved in so many things. This way at
least one responsibility has been assigned to women.
Disgust with tokenism and lack of women in leadership positions is

apparent in the following statement of a younger male scientist (Mayank,
46 years old, Scientist E2) of the same institute:
My wife is now an HOD. I can’t say that my male colleagues respect the
leadership abilities of women. There are only two women HODs and women
as chairperson of the committees, you have nil except for the XXX (laughs,
clearly indicating the triviality of the task). Many colleagues find it diffi-
cult to work under a woman boss. Many will resent that women are getting
more responsibilities. We don’t think about gender being important; gender
sensitivity is absent here.
Mayank’s statement highlights his colleagues’ lack of respect for women

in leadership positions. Along with Mayank, Samir (Scientist C, CSIR2)
also believes that women in administrative positions bring a different
type of thinking to their jobs and are equally efficient. Although few
in number, such men represent a version of masculinity ‘more open to
equality with women’ (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 853).
Change and Continuity

Change in the socio-cultural context is reflected in the lives of women
scientists of two generations. The younger generation of women scientists
has received greater support from their families than the previous one.
Take the case of Sarita (Scientist E2, CSIR2) who is 56 years old; Sarita
and her husband are both scientists at CSIR2. Ahead of Sarita by only a
couple of years in completing his PhD (she completed hers in 1982), her
husband is now Scientist G while she is still only E2. Because of the rule

in the early 1980s that husband and wife should not be together in the
same department, she did not get the post of Scientist after qualifying for
the PhD degree. There was no other employment opportunity for her in
the city, and as she did not want to move out of the city leaving her family
she survived on projects. It took her more than 10 years to start her career
as Scientist B (temporary). Her husband, on the other hand, did his
postdoctorate work abroad immediately after his PhD and on returning to
India was immediately given the position of Scientist B.
Contrast this with Anamika’s case (Scientist E1, CSIR2, 42 years old):
Anamika’s husband (an MTech) works in the private sector. After her PhD
she had her first child and completed her postdoctoral studies in India and
abroad. She came back and looked for a job at the institute (a central govern-
ment institute of repute) from where she had qualified for her PhD. The gap
of eight months in her career (which had occurred due to childbirth) was
negatively viewed. After hits and misses she took up the job in an institute
(the present one) which is in a different city. Her husband found a job in
another company in the city to which his wife had to move in order to work.
In Sarita’s case, not only her spouse but she herself gave her husband’s
career precedence over her own. On the other hand, Anamika’s spouse
supported her in her postdoctoral studies and career, and adjusted by
exchanging jobs and cities. Further, Anamika shows greater determination
to pursue her career. Thus, change can be seen in the husband’s attitude
towards his wife’s career and in the woman’s own desire to work.
However, in both cases, the women encountered gender insensitivity in
the formal workplace in the garb of gender neutrality.
At the workplace there is a continuity in male assumptions regarding
women’s domestic roles. Like Sarita, Anamika also thinks that due to
men’s perception of women’s dual burden, a woman has to prove herself
better than a man in any job. While women scientists consider their
family roles important, thus affirming Belliappa (2013) regarding
women professionals, it appears that more than the women’s actual
domestic responsibilities it is the deeply rooted perception of male col-
leagues regarding women’s dual burden that affects their status at the
workplace. It is not their professional ability that is questioned as much
as their capacity to handle the dual burden of home and office nourishing
thereby the belief that women will not be able to do justice to their pro-
fession. This translates into an even greater burden on women scientists
of having to prove themselves competent and thus having to work harder
than men. While men and women might be transforming their ‘private’

Gupta 459
sphere into a realm of greater egalitarianism (Ramadoss & Rajadhyaksha,

2012), the workplace remains gendered.
Discussion and Conclusion

Unlike some advanced countries, in India the proportion of women in
science enrolment at all levels of higher education is high; there is a
belief that women can do math and in fact women scientists are not
lagging behind men in publications. Yet, similar to women scientists
elsewhere, in India too there are few women scientists in the elite insti-
tutes and only a tiny proportion of women occupy higher positions
or receive recognition. This article demonstrates how the specific
socio-cultural context shapes gender biases. The Indian cultural and
organisational milieux play an important role in perpetuating gender
ideologies even in scientific research organisations.
The bureaucratic structure along with systemic inefficiencies affects
junior women scientists more than men due to inherent gender biases
and women’s inability to counter these inefficiencies. A patriarchal nor-
mative order that inhibits mixed interaction leads to a paucity of contacts
and networks which affects women’s ability to influence seniors in
powerful positions. The masculine perception of a ‘scientist’ as one who
is fully ‘immersed’ in research and a gendered perception of an ‘Indian
woman’ as the upholder of ‘Indian culture’ for whom her family is cen-
tral, drive women scientists to the periphery of the scientific community.
Thus, gendered social norms at the workplace and a hierarchical culture
combine to depress the position of women scientists.
Gender is constructed and is also continuously being transformed.
Change in gender norms provides the prospect of moving towards greater
gender equality (Deutsch, 2007). Possibilities of undoing gender are
becoming slowly visible in India due to the acceptability of women in
public spaces thereby enhancing the scope for multiple masculinities and
femininities. While a woman’s role in the family continues to be regarded
as pivotal by the society, including by women scientists themselves,
change is witnessed in terms of greater family support and a higher
determination among women to pursue a career.
Gender equality might also be conceived as a product of change in the
institutional context that directly or indirectly subordinates women. This
affirms the relationship between structural and interactional levels.
Ridgeway and Correll (2000) proposed structural changes which would
promote changes at the interactional level by undermining the perception

that women are less competent than men. Subramanian (2007) argued
that a non-transparent structure that vests power in a few cannot be
gender-just in rewarding merit. This study shows that a conscious move
towards a less hierarchical and more efficient organisational culture
offers hope for democratising gender relations in scientific institutes.
Such moves need to be accelerated and spread across various levels and
departments.
The study has attempted to analyse the position of women scientists
through an understanding of gender relations in the specific socio-
cultural Indian context. Although limited to the CSIR labs, the study
brings out how gender, class and culture intersect to construct and
perpetuate unequal gender relations in scientific institutes in India. The
nature of patriarchy and the culture of hierarchy are at the core of the
institutions and of the practices that perpetuate hegemonic masculinity.
While affirming earlier studies on women scientists highlighting infil-
tration of patriarchal norms in the organisations (Gupta & Sharma,
2003b; Subrahmanyan, 1998), this study indicates how male colleagues’
perceptions of women’s family roles, idealised as an integral part of
‘Indian culture’ enact gender in day-to-day activities and interactions at
the workplace. It further shows that while hierarchical culture exists for
men scientists too, the ways to counter hierarchy are gendered, thus
blocking for women even detours to success.
Although change is limited at present, the evidence indicates that effi-
cient organisational procedures can counter hierarchy and its gendered
ramifications. Change in society leading to a greater focus on women’s
education and professional careers among women could encourage the
growth of multiple masculinities and femininities which in turn might
challenge traditional patriarchal norms at the workplace. Finally, this
study argues that research needs to take into account the local milieu
so that solutions could address problems specific to that context.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a Senior Fellowship award of the Indian Council of
Social Science Research, vide Fellowship no. F.No. 2−11/10/S.Fel.
Notes
1. IIT Council is the governing body of all the IITs and is chaired by the Union
Minister of Human Resources Development.
2. Recent years have witnessed a substantial increase of women’s enrolment in
educational fields that lead to jobs, such as law and commerce. For instance,
the proportion of women in commerce rose from 0.5 per cent in 1950−1951

Gupta 461
to 15.9 per cent in 1980−1981 and to 36.7 per cent in 2002−2003. In the field
of law, their proportion has increased from 2.1 per cent in 1950−1951 to 20.8
per cent; in medicine from 16.3 per cent in 1950−1951 to 44.7 per cent in
2002−2003 (Chanana, 2004).
3. The Normalisation Committee or appraisal by a reviewing officer was the last
stage of the earlier system of performance assessment.
4. Under the new system of performance assessment, after submission of the
self-appraisal document by the scientist, there is a two-level evaluation pro-
cess. The first level of evaluation is by a Collegium comprising the Director/
DG in case of the CSIR-HQ for different grades/levels of scientists and the
second level of evaluation is through an Empowered Committee that also
includes the Head (Director) of the Laboratory. See http://www.csir.res.in/
csir/external/heads/aboutcsir/announcements/cir_PMS_120112.PDF
References
Acker, Joan (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organisa-
tions. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139−158.
Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y. (2009). Understanding gender and organisations.
New Delhi: Sage.
Arun, Shobha, Heeks, Richard, & Morgan, Sharon. (2007). ICT initiatives,
women and work: Reproducing or changing gender inequalities?’ In Rehana
Ghadially (Ed.), Urban women in contemporary India: A reader (pp. 297−
308). New Delhi: SAGE.
Basu, S. (2008). Gender stereotypes in corporate India: A glimpse. New Delhi:
Response Books.
Belliappa J. (2013). Gender, class and reflexive modernity in India. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Campion, P., & Shrum, W. (2004). Gender and science in development: Women
scientists in Ghana, Kenya and India. Science, Technology and Human
Values, 29(4), 459−485.
Chakravarthy, R. (1986). Productivity of Indian women scientists. Productivity,
27(3), 259−269.
Chakravarti, Uma. (1993). Conceptualising Brahmanical patriarchy in early
India: Gender, caste, class and state. Economic and Political Weekly, 28(14),
579−585.
Chanana, K. (2000). Treading the hallowed halls: Women in higher education in
India. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(12), 1012−1022.
———. (2001). Hinduism and female sexuality: Social control and education of
girls in India. Sociological Bulletin, 50(1), 37−63.
———. (2004). Gender and disciplinary choices: Women in higher education
in India. Paper prepared for the UNESCO Colloquium on Research and
Higher Education Policy ‘Knowledge, Access and Governance: Strategies
for Change’. Paris.
Connell, R.W., & Messerschmidt, James W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829−859.

CSIR Analytics (2013). Retrieved 10 September 2013, from http://onecsir.res.in/

Analytics/Overview.aspx#
CSIR Research Papers. (2008). Synopsis. CSIR, New Delhi. Retrieved from
http://www.niscair.res.in/Downloadables/CSIR-Research-Papers-2008-
Synopsis.pdf
Deutsch, F.M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21(1), 106−127.
Dewey, S. (2008). Making Miss India Miss World: Constructing gender, power,
and the nation in postliberalization India. Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press.
Didion, Catherine, Frehill, Lisa M., & Pearson, Willie. (2012). Blueprint for the
future: Framing the issues of women in science in a global context: Summary
of a workshop. Washington, DC: NAP. Retrieved 14 August 2013, from http://
www.aura-astronomy.org/diversity/documents/Blueprint%20for%20the%
20Future.pdf#page=103
DST (2010). Evaluating and Enhancing Women’s Participation in Scientific and
Technological Research: The Indian Initiatives. Report of the National Task
Force for Women in Science, Department of Science and Technology, Govt
of India, New Delhi.
Duncan, S. (1995). Theorizing European gender systems. Journal of European
Social Policy, 5(4), 263−284.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advance-
ment of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
European Union (2012). Structural change in research institutions: Enhancing
excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research and innovation. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/
structural-changes-final-report_en.pdf
Fernandes, L. (2006). India’s new middle class: Democratic politics in an era of
economic reform. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21.
Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.
26.1.21
Fox, M.F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review.
Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.
———. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers.
Gender & Society, 15(5), 654−666.
———. (2004). Women in scientific fields: Doctoral education and academic
careers. Workshop on Women’s Advancement, American Political Science
Association. Retrieved from http://209.235.207.196/imgtest/maryfrankfox.
pdf
Gupta, B.M., Kumar, Suresh, & Aggarwal, B.S. (1999). A comparison of produc-
tivity of male and female scientists of CSIR. Scientometrics, 45(2), 269–289.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02458437?LI
=true#page-20

Gupta 463
Gupta, Namrata (2012). Women undergraduates in engineering education in

India: A study of growing women’s participation. Gender, Technology and
Development, 16(2), 153–176.
Gupta, Namrata, & Sharma, Arun K. (2002). Women academic scientists in
India. Social Studies of Science, 32(6), 901–915.
———. (2003a). Patrifocal concerns in the lives of women in academic science:
Continuity of tradition and emerging challenges. Indian Journal of Gender
Studies, 10(2), 279–305.
———. (2003b). Gender inequality in the work environment at institutes of
higher learning in science and technology in India. Work, Employment and
Society, 17(4), 597–616.
Gupta, Namrata, Kemelgor, Carol, Fuchs, Stefan, & Etzkowitz, Henry. (2005).
Triple burden on women in science: A cross-cultural analysis. Current
Science, 89(8), 1382–1386.
Gurnani, Shantoo, & Sheth, Madhuri. (1984). Women scientists in India: Their
position and role. Interdisciplinary Science Review, 9(3), 259–270.
Hasan, S.A., Sharma, Mahender Kumar, Khilnani, Sushila, & Luthra, R. (2012).
Research productivity of female research scholars and their migration pattern
in pursuit of higher education and research. Current Science, 103(6), 611.
Hogan, Alice, Zippel, K., Frehill, L.M., & Kramer, L. (2010). Report of the inter-
national workshop on international research collaboration. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
INSA (2004). Science career for Indian women: An examination of Indian women’s
access to and retention in scientific careers, Indian National Science Academy
(INSA), Delhi. Retrieved from http://insaindia.org/science.htm
Jaiswal, R.P. (1993). Professional status of women: A comparative study of
women in science and technology. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Joseph, M., & Robinson, A. (2014). Policy: Free Indian science. Nature,
508(7494), 36–38. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/policy-free-
indian-science-1.14956#/author-information
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic
Books.
Kaul, Asha, & Singh, Manjari (2012). New paradigms of gender inclusivity:
Theory and best practices. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Kelan, E.K. (2010). Gender logic and (un)doing gender at work. Gender, Work
and Organisation, 17(2), 174–194.
Krishna, V.V. (2001). Reflections on the changing status of academic science in
India. International Social Science Journal, 53(168), 231−246.
Kumar, N. (Ed.) (2001). Gender stratification in science: An empirical study in
the Indian setting. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 8(1), 51−67.
———. (2009). Gendered equation in science: An organizational aberra-
tion?’ In Neelam Kumar (Ed.), Women and science in India (pp. xiii–xxx).
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
———. (2012). Gender and science: Studies across cultures. Delhi, India:
Cambridge University Press.

Kumar, Vipan, Kumar, Naresh, & Kumar, Neelam. (2009). Pattern of enrolment
at different educational levels. In P. Banerjee (Ed.), ‘S&T Human Resource’ of
India Science and Technology 2008 (pp. 3–7). New Delhi: NISTADS. Retrieved
from http://www.nistads.res.in/indiasnt2008/India-S&T-2008-Full.pdf
Kundu, Subhash C. (2003). Workforce diversity status: A study of employees’
reactions. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(4), 215–226.
Kurup, A., & Arora, J. (2010). Trends in higher education: Creation and analy-
sis of database of PhDs in India (1998−2007). (NIAS - INFLIBNET - TCS
Project). Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced Studies.
Leahey, Erin. (2006). ‘Gender differences in productivity: Research specialisa-
tion as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754−780.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scien-
tific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673−702.
Linstead, S., & Pullen, A. (2006). Gender as multiplicity: Desire, difference and
dispersion. Human Relations, 59(9), 1287−1310.
Long, Scott J., & Fox, Mary F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and
particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45−71. doi: 10.1146/annurev.
so.21.080195.000401. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/
abs/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401?journalCode=soc
Mason, Mary Ann, & Ekman, E.M. (2007). Mothers on the fast track: How a
generation can balance family and careers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Merton, R.K. ([1942] 1973). The normative structure of science. In The
Sociology of Science (pp. 267−278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mukhopadhyay, Carol Chapnik, & Seymour, Susan. (Eds). (1994). Women,
Education and Family Structure in India. Colorado: Westview Press.
Munshi, Usha M., & Srivastava, D. (2006). Gendered science: Trends and analy-
sis of contributions of Indian women scientists. International Workshop on
Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh Collnet Meeting,
May 10−12, 2006, Nancy (France). Retrieved 19 February 2016, from http://
eprints.rclis.org/7437/1/WomenSciFinal.pdf
Nath, G. (2000). Gently shattering the glass ceiling: Experiences of Indian
women managers. Women in Management Review, 15(1), 44−52.
Nimkoff, M.F. (2005). The family in India: Some problems concerning research
on the changing family in India. In Tulsi Patel (Ed.), The family in India:
Structure and practice (pp. 71–80). New Delhi: SAGE.
O’Reilly, Jacqueline (1999). Is it time to gender the organisational effect?
In M. Maurice & A. Sorge (Eds), Embedded organisations: Societal analysis of
actors, organisations and socio-economic context (pp. 343−356). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pandey, Kartikay (2007). Nose-diving scientific temper: A clarion call for
science enthusiasts. Current Science, 92(1), 7.
Patel, R., & Parmentier, M.J.C. (2005). The persistence of traditional gender roles
in the information technology sector: A study of female engineers in India.
Information Technologies and International Development, 2(3), 29–46.

Gupta 465
Pfau-Effinger, Birgit. (1998). Culture or structure as explanations for differences

in part-time work in Germany, Finland and the Netherlands? In J. O’Reilly
& C. Fagan (Eds), Part-time prospects: An international comparison of part-
time work in Europe, North America and the Pacific Rim (pp. 177−198).
London: Routledge.
Radhakrishnan, S. (2009). Professional women, good families: Respectable
femininity and the cultural politics of a ‘new’ India. Qualitative Sociology,
32(2), 195−212(18).
Ramadoss, Kamala, & Rajadhyaksha, Ujvala. (2012). Gender differences in
commitment to roles, work-family conflict and social support. Journal of
Social Science, 33(2), 227−233.
Research and Development Statistics (2007−2008). Retrieved 4 September
2013, from http://nstmis-dst.org/rndstatistics%202007-2008/1.pdf
Ridgeway, C.L., & Correll, S.J. (2000). Utopian visions: Engaged sociologies for
the 21st century. Contemporary Sociology, 29(4), 110−20.
———. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on
gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510−531.
Roth, W.D., & Sonnert, G. (2011). The costs and benefits of ‘red tape’: Anti-
bureaucratic structure and gender inequity in a science research organization.
Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 385–409.
S&T Policy (2003). Science and Technology Policy 2003. Retrieved 22 February
2016, from http://www.csir.res.in/external/heads/aboutcsir/Policy2003.htm
Singh, J.P. (2009). Problems of India’s changing family and state. Retrieved 19
April 2012, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/docs/egm09/Singh.
pdf
Sood, Mamta, & Chadda, R.K. (2010). Women in medicine. Indian Journal of
Gender Studies, 17(2), 277–285.
Steinpreis, Rhea A., Anders, Katie A., & Ritzke, Dawn (1999). The impact of
gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure
candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7), 509–528.
Stolte-Heiskanen, V.eronica. (1991). Handmaidens of the ‘knowledge class’:
Women in science in Finland. In Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen & Ruža First-
Dilić (Eds), Women in science: Token women or gender equality? (pp. 35−62).
Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Subrahmanyan, Lalitha. (1998). Women scientists in the third world: The Indian
experience. New Delhi: SAGE.
Subramanian, Jayasree. (2007). Perceiving and producing merit: Gender and
doing science in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 14(2), 259–284.
Thapan, Meenakshi. (2007). Adolescence, embodiment and gender identity: Elite
women in a changing society. . In Rehana Ghadially (Ed.), Urban women in
contemporary (pp. 31−45). India: A Reader.
Tienari, J., Quack, S., & Theobald, H. (2002). Organisational reforms, ‘ideal
worker’ and gender orders: A cross societal comparison. Organisation
Studies, 23(2), 249−279.

Times of India ( 2014). Women scientists enter IIT Council. Retrieved 2 September
2014, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Women-
scientists-enter-IIT-council/articleshow/41470121.cms
Varma, Roli. (2011). Indian women and mathematics for computer science.
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 30(1), 39−46.
Waldrop, Anne. (2012). Grandmother, mother and daughter: Changing agency
of Indian, middle-class women, 1908–2008. Modern Asian Studies, 46(3),
601−638.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2),
125−151.
Zainab, A.N. (1999). Personal, academic and departmental correlates of research
productivity: A review of literature. Malaysian Journal of Library &
Information Science, 4(2), 73–110.

Perceptions of The Work Environment Namrata Gupta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceptions of The Work Environment Namrata Gupta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceptions of The Work Environment Namrata Gupta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Perceptions of the Indian Journal of Gender Studies

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Women in Science: Barriers across Cultures

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

(Lee & Bozeman, 2005). Lower research productivity appears to account

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

in a man does (Subramanian, 2007). There is a paucity of studies

Socio-cultural Context in the Study of Gender

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

From the limited research that documents professional women’s

The Indian Milieu: Change and Continuity

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

colleagues of either sex), and work–life balance. Most questions were

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Table 1. Position of the Respondents in the Two CSIR Labs

Position CSIR1 CSIR2

or private sector. Mothers of 21 respondents were homemakers and the

Position of Women Scientists

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Total No. of Percentage of Women as HODs

Hierarchy in the Work Environment:

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Sometimes it is very difficult to speak to a male staff member, they feel

A hierarchical culture is also prevalent amongst the scientists. An HOD’s

I faced a lot of gender bias in my department…It occurred because of the bad

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Countering Hierarchy: A Gendered Task

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

leadership positions as in the case of the only woman HOD at CSIR2,

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

the impact of hierarchical culture even among women working in the

Contradictions of Being a Middle Class Indian

For a particular task, if [we are] selecting people we avoid [selecting]

The statement above reflects a belief in gender differences in abilities

Whenever something important is going on in the division and someone has

Similarly, according to Maansi (Scientist F, CSIR2), ‘men want to make

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

[T]he research of women is mediocre; you need to be immersed in research….

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

The perception of women’s preference for family rather than a career

Change Due to Policy Changes

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Gender equality is [achieved] when people surrounding you perceive you as

This positive environment, acknowledged by others too as such, was

‘Effective management practices’ have been recognised as important in

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

The Changing Social Context: Multiple

There are differences among men in their perception of the system’s

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016

Author: Do you think there is gender equality in this organisation?

Disgust with tokenism and lack of women in leadership positions is

Mayank’s statement highlights his colleagues’ lack of respect for women

Change and Continuity

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 13, 2016