This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of “elite” by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper’s approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to gain insights into how academics understand undergraduate graduand attributes. The findings reveal some alignment in views about student attributes, including that they are engaged citizens, are self-directed, have imagination, are questioning, are flexible, display leadership, are problem solvers, and possess character. This consistency, however, does not include the spectrum of views on how these attributes are conceived and developed. The findings reveal a range of interpretations regarding the kinds and levels of understandings of how graduand student attributes are developed throughout an undergraduate program of study. The findings indicate that (i) a shared understanding does not exist on how academics construe student attributes, (ii) academics do not share common meanings about the core achievements of a higher education, or how these are developed through students’ undergraduate programs, and (iii) student attributes tend not to be perceived as developing from the usual process of an undergraduate education.

No abstract

When considering the role of university department chair, one may think of objective tasks, such as budgets, scheduling, and faculty development. However, due to the social interaction required to run a department, the daily work of chair involves emotional self-management in addition to planning and organization. Although the objective tasks of the role of chair have been studied, there is a lack of information regarding chairs’ self-management of emotions, a process herein referred to as emotional labour. This study asks: “In what ways do department chairs perform emotional labour at work?” Findings from this study may shed light on the ways in which the role of university department chair in Canada requires emotional work, as well as objective task-completion.

Sara MacDonald discusses the gradual inclusion of women into Canada's undergraduate student body at 19 universities and colleges (see Appendix 1) between 1870-1930.Through historical analysis, MacDonald aims to answer the book's central question: "Did the rapid adoption of coeducation work for or against the interests of women?" (p. 6).The book is framed around the argument that university education for women in Canada was radical because of its focus on coeducation, rather than through separate women's colleges. The differences between these two modes are highlighted as significant because "from the beginning, coeducation was tied not only to the much larger issue of women's work, but also more explicitly to competition with men for employment" (p. 2).While pointing to the use of gender theory as an analytical framework, MacDonald also addresses racial and class inequities, noting that "during the period covered by this book, the experience of schooling at all levels was determined by social class, and, for some, curtailed completely by their race or indigeneity" (p. 5-6). Although the bulk of the text focuses on white, middle-class Anglo-Canadian women who were among Canada's first female university students and graduates, MacDonald is clear in acknowledging that this group was both small and highly privileged.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract