Leadership and diversity in the New Zealand Ecological Society

Wehi, Priscilla M.; Beggs, Jacqueline R.; Anderson, Barbara J.; Fellow, Rutherford Discovery

doi:10.20417/nzjecol.43.16

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, inclusivity and diversity are now explicitly encouraged by most institutions, and some, such as the New Zealand Ecological Society, are actively reflecting on this issue (Wehi et al. ). Initiatives such as #KindnessInScience (Mehta et al.…”

Section: Barriers Preventing Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent articles documenting the experiences of minority groups such as women (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016), people of color (Burke 2017), and LGBTQ (Freeman 2018) in academia, as well as Twitter movements such as #MeTooSTEM (Wadman 2019), demonstrate that there is still a long way to go before we create a truly open and inclusive research culture in our universities. However, inclusivity and diversity are now explicitly encouraged by most institutions, and some, such as the New Zealand Ecological Society, are actively reflecting on this issue (Wehi et al 2019). Initiatives such as #KindnessInScience (Mehta et al 2018) actively subvert the competitive norms of traditional academia and will be required in greater number if we are to create a culture shift that truly enables interdisciplinary collaboration for ECRs.…”

Section: Hierarchy and Academic And Institutional Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing need for collaborative and interdisciplinary research in addressing global ecological challenges, and early career researchers (ECRs) often play a vital role in such ventures. But despite the desire for such approaches, forming new and interdisciplinary collaborations is risky, and disproportionately so for ECRs, whose perspectives on this topic are rarely heard. Here, we present common perceptions among ECRs regarding opportunities for intra‐ and interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers preventing such collaboration from taking place. We also discuss possible solutions, and the ecological outcomes of fostering more collaboration. The perceptions discussed have been distilled from a two‐day workshop in New Zealand, aiming to investigate the potential for collaboration between 34 ECRs in distinct ecological disciplines across ten research institutes. Commonality in methodology or research aims was vital for potential collaborations to be considered worthwhile, but differences in spatial or temporal scales were a key disconnect that hindered numerous potential crossovers. Individual connectivity and institutional structures were commonly perceived as barriers to acting collaboratively in general. Specifically, barriers included having a small peer network, lack of access to funding, and concerns over the risk/reward ratio of forming new collaborations. Overcoming barriers will require active, practical support from institutions, funding bodies and mentors, and participants commonly called for specific funding support and the creation of ECR‐focused spaces to better foster collaborative behavior. Fostering interdisciplinary ECR collaborations in ecology was perceived to be useful in creating larger and more useful datasets and tools, and more scalable and transferable models and outcomes. Adopting practices that facilitate more ECR‐led interdisciplinary collaboration will help generate a more integrative understanding of ecological systems globally.

show abstract

Section: Barriers Preventing Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hierarchy and Academic And Institutional Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Women remain underrepresented among reviewers of journal papers (Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a;Helmer, Schottdorf, Neef, & Battaglia, 2017;Lerback & Hanson, 2017). Women also remain underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scientific publishing; while representation varies substantially among disciplines and among journals within disciplines (Amrein, Langmann, Fahrleitner-Pammer, Pieber, & Zollner-Schwetz, 2011;Morton & Sonnad, 2007;Topaz & Sen, 2016), when compared to the gender of authors in a journal, women are underrepresented on editorial boards (Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a;Helmer et al, 2017;Manlove & Belou, 2018;Topaz & Sen, 2016;Wehi, Beggs, & Anderson, 2019), especially at more senior editorial levels, for example, editors in chief (Amrein et al, 2011;Cho et al, 2014). While it is clear that women are underrepresented as reviewers and editors, we still lack a clear understanding of the causes and consequences of this gender disparity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution

Fox

Duffy

Fairbairn

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.

show abstract

“…actions classified as beneficial or likely to be beneficial based on specialist judgement scores and effectiveness categorisation). See MacLeod, 2021 for more details on the underlying scores and benefit categories on specific actions or biodiversity groups and redress the gender imbalance (Fox et al, 2015;James et al, 2019;Wehi et al, 2019). Our specialist judgement assessment was also much faster and more intensive than typically conducted by the Conservation Evidence team due to our tight timeline, the limited pool of available local experts and the assessment's breadth.…”

Section: Inclusivementioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating the wise use of experts and evidence to inform local environmental decisions

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Leadership and diversity in the New Zealand Ecological Society

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology

An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology

Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution

Facilitating the wise use of experts and evidence to inform local environmental decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About