Search results

The short‐term effects of international immigration such as immediate unemployment and lowered occupational status, have been studied extensively (eg. Boyd, et al, 1980; Hartman, 1974; Matras, et al, 1976). International migration has been shown to have serious negative effects on occupational and educational achievement (Hartman and Eilon, 1973; Eilon, 1976; Hartman, 1981). For example the total number of years of education of immigrants under certain conditions is lower than their native counterparts, and may even be lower than the educational attainment expected from the person in his country of origin. Occupational achievement was found to be lowered immediately after immigration, and although it was found that some accelerated regain occurs for up to 10 years in the country, the migrant rarely attains the same achievements as his native counterparts (Eilon, 1976). Such consequences of immigration are bound to have long‐term implications for labour force participation throughout the working life and subsequent retirement provisions.

The contribution of immigrants in general to the labour force of the receiving country and the ramifications (positive and negative) of this contribution have received a fair amount of attention, in the past, since many immigrant policies are formulated after considering the potential contribution or damage immigrants can make to the economic development of the country and selectively regulating the type of immigrants allowed to enter accordingly. Most of this attention has been given to immigrants in general, although subgroups of immigrants differ greatly in their own particular needs.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/eb010353. When citing the article, please cite: Harriet Hartman, Moshe Hartman, (1981), “The Effect of Immigration on Womenʼs Roles in Various Countries”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 1 Iss: 3, pp. 10 - 20.

In current academia, as Fox points out in the opening chapter of this volume, knowledge fields are characterized by an implicit (and sometimes explicit) hierarchy, which posits a higher ranking for the “hard” and natural sciences as opposed to the social sciences and humanities. This has influenced education as well as other social arenas. Students in the social sciences have long benefited from the “exact” sciences and the technology they have produced. Numerous texts present “Statistics for the Social Sciences”; computer applications are developed particularly for social science use (e.g., SPSS); physics, chemistry, and math classes are offered for non-majors across college campuses. The texts, computer applications, and courses adapt the scientific discipline to the needs of non-science or non-math majors, broadening the impact of the respective disciplines to a wider audience, and allowing the way of thinking in one discipline to influence the others. But one would scarcely find “Sociology for the Uninitiated,” or “Social Science for Engineers.” Not that there are no social scientists eager to impart their insights to their STEM colleagues and students. In fact there is a whole movement of “public sociology,” which endeavors to share sociological insights with many types of lay audiences as well as engage sociology in public issues on many topics and levels (ASA Task Force, 2005; Burawoy, 2005). But in all too many campuses STEM students cannot fit an elective into their tight curriculum, designed to meet strict accreditation criteria, and social science winds up somewhere low on the list of priorities. To be fair, some accreditation bodies have recognized the need to introduce undergraduate students to societal contexts. For example, since their seminal EC (Engineering Criteria) 2000, ABET (the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) has incorporated into the annually updated program outcomes required for accreditation that students have “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context” (ABET, 2007: Criterion 3h). But sometimes this outcome requirement is wedged into an ethics section, often taking up less than a two-week stint in the total undergraduate education. For an example of a more extensive application, see my website, http://users.rowan.edu/∼hartman/SocStem/index.html, where an outline of social science concepts, bibliography, and teaching ideas are developed for introducing STEM students to social science. Common sociological concepts and perspectives are illustrated in STEM contexts or using research in or on STEM subject matter. There is much material here upon which to build bridges.

Who can make claims “to know?” This chapter argues that there are distinct sets of understandings in social science versus STEM fields, and that STEM education research can benefit from interdisciplinarity, instead of being disciplinary (principally the purview of STEM insiders). The concept “gender” proves illustrative. Among many social science scholars, gender is understood as a complex social construction: contingent, contextual, contested ways that masculinities and femininities are embodied, enacted, and differentiated in everyday social life – as compared to simple, dichotomous male–female comparisons. Comparing social science and STEM conceptualizations of gender leads to three conclusions. First, empirical research with more forward-looking conceptualizations demonstrate that outdated underpinnings in STEM research overlook important issues, such as seeking solutions within individuals (especially students) instead of in the educational community or STEM culture. Second, since the frontier of social science keeps moving, and STEM insiders’ appreciations will necessarily lag new understandings, STEM-insider research might unfortunately be outdated from inception. Thirdly, the chapter concludes that collaborations between/among STEM and social science scholars have greater potential for research with explanatory power, research able to contribute better understandings of and solutions for dilemmas of STEM education.

William Sims Bainbridge earned his doctorate in Sociology from Harvard University, with a dissertation based on research about the space program. He is the author of 13 books, 4 textbook-software packages, and about 200 shorter publications in information science, social science of technology, and the sociology of religion. Most recently, he is the editor of the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction and author of God from the Machine (2006), Nanoconvergence (2007), and Across the Secular Abyss (2007). At the National Science Foundation since 1992, he has represented the social and behavioral sciences on five advanced technology initiatives, and represented computer science on the Nanotechnology initiative and the Human and Social Dynamics initiative. Currently, he is program director for Human-Centered Computing, after having directed the Sociology, Human Computer Interaction, Science and Engineering Informatics, and Artificial Intelligence programs.

This chapter applauds the growing move toward social science collaboration with colleagues in other fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Drawing on several decades of experience in working with biophysical scientists and engineers, as well as on prior literature, I offer three main observations. First, STEM colleagues will often expect social scientists to play the role of public relations specialists, helping to “educate” the public, or to convince people that our STEM colleagues already have the right answers. Second, part of our job is a different kind of “science education” – educating STEM colleagues about basic principles of democratic governance. Third, we have an opportunity and an obligation to ask not just what social science can contribute to STEM, but also, what working with STEM colleagues can contribute to the social sciences. There appear to be particularly important opportunities for gaining insights into some of the less visible or obvious dynamics of power and privilege.