Search

What do academics think about their "responsibilities" to the public? This chapter provides a view of "the public intellectual" by examining how academics construct their relationship to the public. Drawing on in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), we illustrate a typological approach that could be applied to understanding the public intellectual in any academic discipline and points to implications for how universities and the academic profession can engage with the public. Academics should view themselves as stewards of the public good and be able to articulate how such a role is manifest in their work.

This study examines how individuals understand spiritual calling to work. We draw on theoretic insights from Max Weber and Karl Marx to analyze 186 in-depth interviews with religious individuals in the United States. We argue that these classical frameworks can help us to better understand contemporary religious interpretations of calling in relationship to work. We propose a framework for categorizing ways of viewing work as a calling that consists of intrinsic/extrinsic meanings in work and goals that are proximal/distal to the workplace. While focusing primarily on Christian respondents, we note that some respondents from Jewish and Muslim traditions did not resonate directly with the term "calling" but had alternate ways of viewing their work that closely aligned with Christian conceptions of calling. We ultimately argue for the theoretical benefit of a Weberian conception of calling for contemporary understandings of how meaning is attached to work, but also highlight that seeing work as calling may be a double-edged sword because doing so may provide benefits to workers while simultaneously obscuring their own oppression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women are consistently underrepresented in physics when compared to biology. Yet how scientists themselves explain the causes of this underrepresentation is understudied outside the US context. In this research, we ask the following question: How do scientists in different national/regional contexts explain why there are fewer women in physics than biology? Using original survey data collected among academic biologists and physicists in the US (N = 1777), Italy (N = 1257), France (N = 648), and Taiwan (N = 780), we examine how scientists' social identities, social locations, and country context shape essentialist, individualist, and structural explanations of gender inequality. Findings indicate that scientists across national contexts attribute the unequal gender distribution in physics and biology to women's individual choices. Explanations for the gender distribution also vary by social identities and social locations (gender, discipline, and seniority) in country‐specific ways. Scientists and advocates ought to engage conversations that explicitly confront scientists' assumptions about individual choices in global science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Apparent conflicts between religion and science are often observed in the United States. One consequence of such conflicts might be that religious individuals will be less likely to recommend their children pursue a career in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We examine this possibility using a nationally representative survey focused on a variety of issues related to religion and science. We find that, compared to religiously unaffiliated individuals, evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are less likely to say that they would recommend a child enter the pure STEM careers of physicist, engineer, or biologist. These differences are weaker or nonexistent for the more applied STEM careers of physician and high school chemistry teacher. The religious tradition effects observed for the pure STEM careers are primarily mediated by lower levels of interest in science and higher levels of creationist views among those groups relative to the religiously unaffiliated.

Research finds that experiences of religious discrimination are often associated with poorer health outcomes. However, there remain important questions to consider gaps, including whether religious discrimination has similar health impacts on religious minority groups and religious majority groups, whether religious discrimination is equally harmful for both mental and physical health, and whether specific types of discrimination have different impacts on health. Using survey data from a probability sample of U.S. adults and measures representing a variety of discrimination experience types, our analyses suggest that religious discrimination is indeed harmful for health, but that experiences of religious discrimination do not universally affect mental and physical health in the same ways. Rather than significant differences in the health impacts of religious discrimination across different religious groups, we find more variation in the health impacts of different types of experiences with discrimination. Further, we find that mental health is negatively impacted by a wider range of experiences with religious discrimination than physical health. These findings are in line with social psychological research on the differential health impacts of discrimination, and they highlight the importance of context in studies of the health effects of religious discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]