Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

Shen, Helen

doi:10.1038/495022a

Cited by 361 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

240

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1)(2)(3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the salary gap seems to narrow for early career researchers, women in top academic positions are still substantially underpaid compared with men. Finally, across different career phases, success rates for female scientists applying for research funding tend to be lower than for male scientists (3,21,22). Even when overall success rates for men and women are equal, women receive less research funding than men, and are less often listed as principal investigators (23)(24)(25).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Lee

Ellemers

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

228

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the application and review materials of three calls (n = 2,823) of a prestigious grant for personal research funding in a national full population of early career scientists awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Results showed evidence of gender bias in application evaluations and success rates, as well as in language use in instructions and evaluation sheets. Male applicants received significantly more competitive "quality of researcher" evaluations (but not "quality of proposal" evaluations) and had significantly higher application success rates than female applicants. Gender disparities were most prevalent in scientific disciplines with the highest number of applications and with equal gender distribution among the applicants (i.e., life sciences and social sciences). Moreover, content analyses of the instructional and evaluation materials revealed the use of gendered language favoring male applicants. Overall, our data reveal a 4% "loss" of women during the grant review procedure, and illustrate the perpetuation of the funding gap, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in academia.gender bias | research funding | success rates | academia | STEM W omen are still underrepresented in academia today. Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1-3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks. Here we report evidence of gender bias in personal research funding for early career scientists.The importance of equal gender representation is widely acknowledged, for several reasons. First, it can resolve historic inequalities and provide equal opportunities (the "moral case for diversity") (5, 6). Second, research has demonstrated that gender diversity in organizations can boost innovation and creativity, expand target groups, and increase productivity (the "business case for diversity") (7, 8), either directly or indirectly through decision making processes or reputation, and provided that the organizational culture is open to change (9-12). This is true for academia as well. Gender-diverse research teams facilitate innovation and excellence in research and policy, address different research questions and methods, and facilitate wider application of research findings (13), thereby contributing to scientific progress.Relevant statistics, however, show a persistent leadership gap, salary gap, and funding gap for women in academia (3). To illustrate, The Netherlands-generally considered a high-equity nationhad only 16% female full professors in 2012 (14). Leadership is stereotyped as masculine and consequently associated more strongly with stereotypical male traits rather than female traits. Although women a...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Lee

Ellemers

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

228

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We focus here on the robust gender biases documented repeatedly within the psychological literature (5)(6)(7). Some within the STEM community have turned to these methods and ideas as an explanation for the consistent underrepresentation of women in STEM fields (8,9) and the undervaluation of these women and their work.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Handley

Brown

Moss‐Racusin

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

204

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.gender bias | science workforce | diversity | science education | sexism O bjectivity is a fundamental value in the practice of science and is required to optimally assess one's own research findings, others' findings, and the merits of others' abilities and ideas (1). For example, when scientists evaluate data collected on a potentially controversial topic (such as climate change), they strive to set aside their own belief systems and instead focus solely on the strength of the data and conclusions warranted. Similarly, when scientists evaluate a resume for a laboratory-manager position or assess the importance of a conference submission, the gender of the applicant or author should be immaterial. If they are truly objective, scientists should focus only on the relevant criteria of applicant qualifications or research merit.However, despite rigorous training in the objective evaluation of information and resultant values (2), people working and learning within the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) community are still prone to the same subtle biases that subvert objectivity and distort accurate perceptions of scientific evidence by the general public (3, 4). We focus here on the robust gender biases documented repeatedly within the psychological literature (5-7). Some within the STEM community have turned to these methods and ideas as an explanation for the c...

show abstract

“…Previous studies showed that gender disparities are persisting in demographics and productivity of research workforce. Women have made important progress in closing the scientific gender gap, but still there are lots of areas in which they still are behind (Shen, 2013). Moreover, information regarding the participation of women to research and development remains scarce and insufficient for assessing the progress towards equality related goals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research & Development through a gender lens – the case of Romania and Iceland

Zamfir¹,

Hjálmarsdóttir

2017

HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many years, gender equality has been on the agenda of various stakeholders from different sectors of activity and from different levels of action. However, information regarding the participation of women to research and development remains scarce and insufficient for assessing the progress towards equality related goals in this area. This paper aims to explore the participation of women to the research & development sector in two selected European countries -Romania and Iceland. Thus, the present study is focused on the presence of women in a highly specialized sector that contributes to the creation of a competitive, knowledge-based society. Data on research and development personnel are analyzed from a comparative perspective in order to assess how Romania and Iceland perform in the field of gender equality in research and development sector. The findings of this paper show that women are still underrepresented in specific sectors of performance, as well as in some fields of science. Due to data lacking, analysis on the presence of women in management position in research and development couldn't be performed. So, better and more comparable statistics on gender equality issues in science is needed for ensuring a more accurate image of women participation.

show abstract

Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

Cited by 361 publications

References 6 publications

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Research & Development through a gender lens – the case of Romania and Iceland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About