JC Ledin 2007 Gender gap in science: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* women <15% of full professorships in Europe, but >50% European students female | * 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]) | * 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 | * own analysis since 1996 for EMBO long-term fellowships (postdoc): 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 === | === blinding EMBO selection committee to gender of applicant === | ||
* all references to gender were removed before evaluation of applications in 2006 | * 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 | * 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." | * <u>conclusions</u>: "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 === | === further exploring reason behind gender gap === | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:* test: 283 reports with gender references removed were read to deduce gender of applicant | :* 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 | :* 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" | :* <u>conclusion</u>: "reports did not bias the committee" | ||
* Can a significant difference in bibliometric data be detected? (study of impact factors for 1998 awardees) | * 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 | :* 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 | :* 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" | :* <u>conclusions</u>: "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) | * 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 | :* 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 | :* difference in IF no longer significant when all publications considered | ||
=== follow-up study of 1998 EMBO applicants === | |||
* Can differences in bibliometrics be detected? (1999-2006) | |||
:* female applicants and female awardees published a smaller number of papers | |||
:* total and average impact factor smaller for all female applicants BUT not true for female awardees who were level with males | |||
:* <u>conclusions</u>: "overall gap between men and women was more pronounced in terms of the number and quality of publications than at the time of application" | |||
* Survey of applicants (60% responded) | |||
:* similar number still working in science (81% male/80% female) but more men as group leader/professor (75%/60%) | |||
:* more male applicants had children: 69% vs 61% which caused an average leave time of 2-3 months for women; men did not take a substantial leave! | |||
:* women moved more for their partner's career: 51% of women, but only 18% of men! | |||
:* <u>conclusions</u>: "even at the PhD level, women already balance career and family commitments, and this presumably affects their research" | |||
=== further analysis === | |||
* next stage of EMBO support, the Young Investigator Programme (YIP) | |||
* differences in publishing: less papers, higher impact | |||
* less mentoring received by YIP female applicants (did receive/want to receive): men 49%/46%, women 32%/71% | |||
* men perceive less discrimination than women (% of YIP applicants who perceived discrimination against women): 17% of female postdocs, 34% of female group leaders, 2-8% of male applicants | |||
=== <u>final conclusions</u> === | |||
* subtle differences combine to lower success rates for women in science | |||
* negative bias against women persists (consciously or unconsciously) and results in less support | |||
* traditional family roles continue to hamper the career of women | |||
== 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 03:44, 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 (postdoc): 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
follow-up study of 1998 EMBO applicants
- Can differences in bibliometrics be detected? (1999-2006)
- female applicants and female awardees published a smaller number of papers
- total and average impact factor smaller for all female applicants BUT not true for female awardees who were level with males
- conclusions: "overall gap between men and women was more pronounced in terms of the number and quality of publications than at the time of application"
- Survey of applicants (60% responded)
- similar number still working in science (81% male/80% female) but more men as group leader/professor (75%/60%)
- more male applicants had children: 69% vs 61% which caused an average leave time of 2-3 months for women; men did not take a substantial leave!
- women moved more for their partner's career: 51% of women, but only 18% of men!
- conclusions: "even at the PhD level, women already balance career and family commitments, and this presumably affects their research"
further analysis
- next stage of EMBO support, the Young Investigator Programme (YIP)
- differences in publishing: less papers, higher impact
- less mentoring received by YIP female applicants (did receive/want to receive): men 49%/46%, women 32%/71%
- men perceive less discrimination than women (% of YIP applicants who perceived discrimination against women): 17% of female postdocs, 34% of female group leaders, 2-8% of male applicants
final conclusions
- subtle differences combine to lower success rates for women in science
- negative bias against women persists (consciously or unconsciously) and results in less support
- traditional family roles continue to hamper the career of women
comments
add your opinion/evaluation and sign with 4 ~ like this: ~~~~
