Is publication rate an equal opportunity metric?

Cameron, Elissa Z.; Gray, Meeghan E.; White, Angela M.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.014

Cited by 37 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also power or voice imbalances between science in the Global North vs. the Global South, which unequally influence potential solutions that may be imposed on the Global South (Jeffery, 2014;Carbonnier and Kontinen, 2015). Similarly, gender inequalities highlight the strong voice of men relatively to women in scholarly publications, and the associated lack of participation by women in generating the understanding, and influencing the outcomes and solutions, or non-deliberate exclusion by fellow researchers and/or editorial teams (Webb et al, 2008;Cameron et al, 2013;Fox et al, 2016). In fact, in an article on the ethics of collaborative authorship, Henry (2013) drew an analogy between marital conflict and co-authorship as being among the few relationships that are prone to such hyped interpersonal animosity as when co-authors lose trust and respect for one another; implying that power and partnership can be mutually reinforcing or mutually destructive in the academic world.…”

Section: Citation Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

Sobratee

Slotow

2019

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the state of research, and its effectiveness, in a predominantly Life Sciences sphere, requires an assessment of knowledge growth dynamics, and the associated scientific and bibliometric impacts. We aim to create and evaluate, in a systematic review process, a macro-structure of the science generated in lion research in South Africa (SA) from 1990 to 2018. First, we classified the evidence architecture of lion research data extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection. Then, we identified prominent features that the datasets reveal in terms of authorship and ownership, as defined by first author affiliation and geographical location. Fifteen sub-disciplines were identified to characterize the topics. From 2000 onwards, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions started to emerge, catering for research problems defined at the interface of the academic-practitioner domains. These included social and economics components, and were aligned with conservation framings that seek to evaluate conservation within market-based vs. people-based approaches. Study areas were concentrated within SA (61.8%) and the remainder was either conducted in the rest of Africa (22.9%), or in various combinations of geographical focus. Author affiliation indicated that 63.1% of first authors had a South African affiliation. The rest of Africa was poorly represented at 2.4%. The majority (57.1%) of the first authors was male, but from 2014 to 2018, female researchers outnumbered males; however, male first authors continued to be cited more frequently. Furthermore, we provide a systemic analysis of the way in which research contributes to lion conservation. Overall, three voices dominate this area. Firstly, Mode 1 research has been driving research output in a "vicious circle," motivated by researchers' quest for accumulating academic rewards. Secondly, the citation impact shows a gender disparity against the recognition of female researchers. Lastly, a power imbalance against authors from the rest of Africa became apparent, whereby their role is mainly shaped toward being team contributors. This research shows Sobratee and Slotow Conservation Research Mode and Agenda that effective conservation requires appropriate knowledge to be generated, and this to be effectively translated into practical applications, while considering all perspectives in order to provide the opportunity for balanced contributions and influences. Imbalances such as the ones revealed above are likely to prevail more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Citation Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

Sobratee

Slotow

2019

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this scheme, faculty publication is "objectively" measured in quantity, and not quality, of publication. Among women in the ecological sciences, for example, studies have suggested that their lower publication rates may be attributable to greater time investments in fewer publications-a more qualitative approach to production-but when coupled with more teaching and family duties, this lower rate of production can contribute to lower rates of grant success and slower rates of promotion (Cameron, Gray, and White 2013).…”

Section: Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managerialism as the “New” Discursive Masculinity in the University

Alemán¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through its increasing corporatization in the last two decades, the university in the United States has implemented an organizational ideology that has created a climate unfavorable for women faculty. By overvaluing and intensifying managerial principles, the university in the United States has strengthened discursive masculinity and has worsened women faculty's likelihood of professional advancement. Consequently, the adoption and implementation of managerialism in higher education in the United States is a question of gender equity for the academic profession. Feminist educational scholars have been relatively quiet on the growth of managerialism in the university and its impact on gender equity. In particular, feminist scrutiny of managerialism's discursive masculinity and its effects on gender equity in the university has been lacking. This conceptual article presents a feminist analysis of managerialism and its implications for women faculty in the United States; it examines how managerial culture and practices adopted by universities have revived, reinforced, and deepened the discourse of masculinity.

show abstract

“…Changing this might start to change the public opinion that women are less competent for scientific jobs. Overall, a lack of role models and the public message of lack of competency decreases self-esteem and motivation of women to compete with men in numerous dimensions of scientific work, such as publications quantity (Cameron, Gray & White, 2013). As suggested by Ceci & Williams (2011), it is highly important to offer to women “realistic information about career opportunities and expose them to role models” to “ensure they do not opt out of inorganic fields because of misinformation and stereotypes”.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science

Valentová

Otta

Silva

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite significant progress, there is still a gender gap in science all over the world, especially at senior levels. Some progressive countries are recognizing the need to address barriers to gender equality in order to retain their best scientists and innovators, and ensure research excellence and social and economic returns on the investment made by taxpayers each year on training women scientists. We investigated the gender distribution of: (i) the productivity scholarship (PS) holders of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq, N = 13,625), (ii) the members of the Brazilian Academy of Science (Academia Brasileira de Ciências, ABC, N = 899), and (iii) the amount of funding awarded for top quality research (“Universal” Call of CNPq, N = 3,836), between the years of 2013 and 2014. Our findings show evidence for gender imbalances in all the studied indicators of Brazilian science. We found that female scientists were more often represented among PS holders at the lower levels of the research ranking system (2). By contrast, male scientists were more often found at higher levels (1A and 1B) of PS holders, indicating the top scientific achievement, both in “Engineering, Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences”, and “Life Sciences”. This imbalance was not found in Humanities and Social Sciences. Only 14% of the ABC members were women. Humanities and Applied Social Sciences had a relatively low representation of women in the Academy (3.7%) compared to Engineering, Exact and Earth Sciences: 54.9% and Life Sciences: 41.4%. Finally, female scientists obtained significantly more funding at the lower level of the research ranking system (2), whereas male scientists obtained significantly more funding at the higher levels (1A and 1B). Our results show strong evidence of a gender imbalance in Brazilian science. We hope that our findings will be used to stimulate reforms that will result in greater equality in Brazilian science, and elsewhere.

show abstract

Is publication rate an equal opportunity metric?

Cited by 37 publications

References 10 publications

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

Managerialism as the “New” Discursive Masculinity in the University

Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About