JC Ledin 2007 Gender gap in science: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== key points == | == key points == | ||
* | === size of gender gap === | ||
* ... | * women <15% of full professorships in Europe, but >50% European students female | ||
* . | * cites meta-analysis of 21 studies which states: men significant 7% higher chance of receiving grants than women (Bornmann, 2007 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nj7127-566a]) | ||
* own analysis since 1996 for EMBO long-term fellowships: success rate of women 20% lower than that of men, despite equal number of applications from men and women | |||
=== blinding EMBO selection committee to gender of applicant === | |||
* all references to gender were removed before evaluation of applications in 2006 | |||
* similar gender gap of 19% persists! despite 48% of applicant female, 47% of selection committee female | |||
* conclusions: "The finding that the committee reached the same conclusions when gender-blinded challenges some of the usual explanations given for the differences in success between male and female scientists when in direct competition." | |||
=== further exploring reason behind gender gap === | |||
* Are reference letters written differently for women than for men? (suggested by Trix & Penska, 2003 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277]) | |||
:* test: 283 reports with gender references removed were read to deduce gender of applicant | |||
:* statement were only made were reader was confident: only 19% of cases of which 58% was still wrong | |||
:* conclusion: "reports did not bias the committee" | |||
* Can a significant difference in bibliometric data be detected? (study of impact factors for 1998 awardees) | |||
:* no difference for number of publications, total citation counts, or total IF before 1998 | |||
:* higher total (before and after) IF for women; disappeared when only first and last authorships considered | |||
:* conclusions: "as the difference in average IF for total publications was small, it was probably impossible to detect by the committee" | |||
* difference in bibliometrics (study of 1998 applicants) | |||
:* women significantly lower average number of publications, lower IF, and total citation counts, esp. for first/last author publications | |||
:* difference in IF no longer significant when all publications considered | |||
== comments == | == comments == | ||
add your opinion/evaluation and sign with 4 ~ like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> | add your opinion/evaluation and sign with 4 ~ like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> | ||
Revision as of 02:56, 6 November 2007
| back to journal club |
|
A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists, EMBO reports, 2007 Anna Ledin, Lutz Bornmann, Frank Gannon & Gerlind Wallon a study examining the size and the reasons behind the gender gap in science |
key points
size of gender gap
- women <15% of full professorships in Europe, but >50% European students female
- cites meta-analysis of 21 studies which states: men significant 7% higher chance of receiving grants than women (Bornmann, 2007 [1])
- own analysis since 1996 for EMBO long-term fellowships: success rate of women 20% lower than that of men, despite equal number of applications from men and women
blinding EMBO selection committee to gender of applicant
- all references to gender were removed before evaluation of applications in 2006
- similar gender gap of 19% persists! despite 48% of applicant female, 47% of selection committee female
- conclusions: "The finding that the committee reached the same conclusions when gender-blinded challenges some of the usual explanations given for the differences in success between male and female scientists when in direct competition."
further exploring reason behind gender gap
- Are reference letters written differently for women than for men? (suggested by Trix & Penska, 2003 [2])
- test: 283 reports with gender references removed were read to deduce gender of applicant
- statement were only made were reader was confident: only 19% of cases of which 58% was still wrong
- conclusion: "reports did not bias the committee"
- Can a significant difference in bibliometric data be detected? (study of impact factors for 1998 awardees)
- no difference for number of publications, total citation counts, or total IF before 1998
- higher total (before and after) IF for women; disappeared when only first and last authorships considered
- conclusions: "as the difference in average IF for total publications was small, it was probably impossible to detect by the committee"
- difference in bibliometrics (study of 1998 applicants)
- women significantly lower average number of publications, lower IF, and total citation counts, esp. for first/last author publications
- difference in IF no longer significant when all publications considered
comments
add your opinion/evaluation and sign with 4 ~ like this: ~~~~
