Gender and underrepresented minorities differences in research funding
Autor/in:
Cruz-Castro, Laura; K. Ginther, Donna; Sanz-Menéndez, Luis
Quelle: Handbook of Public Funding of Research. Benedetto Lepori (Hrsg.), Ben Jongbloed (Hrsg.), Diana Hicks (Hrsg.), Edward Elgar Publishing. 2023, S 279–300
Inhalt: This review is about the relationship between research funding allocation, gender and underrepresented minorities (URM). Research on gender and URM disparities in research funding is relevant as it speaks directly to the unexplained gaps in career advancement by illuminating potential effects of gender, race and ethnicity characteristics on productivity, reputation and compensation, offering potential explanations for the distribution of other types of organizational resources and career opportunities. The allocation of research funding is generally performed by the funding bodies, and it has been traditionally expected to operate under some values and principles shared by the science community such as merit-based allocations and equity and not be based on any ascriptive feature of the individuals, like gender, race or ethnicity. Additionally, social and policy pressures for the adoption of other social values exist, such as gender and race equality, or more generally, the observation of non-discriminatory practices. Despite the abundant literature on gender inequality in academia (see Ceci et al. 2014 for a review) and much less regarding URM (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics 2021; Bernard and Cooperdock 2018), research remains largely inconclusive as to whether disparities are mainly the result of structural differences, self-selection or the effect of different types or discrimination or bias during the review and allocation processes. We will argue that there are analytical gaps as well as methodological challenges that should be addressed in order to increase the robustness of research on this topic.
The scope of this review refers to the recent situation of research funding in various countries and agencies with a focus on gender and URM disparities. It also tries to assess the changing trends. We consider research funding allocation as a process and at each phase there are factors that lead to disparities in funding outcomes across groups. Adopting this type of dynamic perspective means that cumulative effects play a relevant role. We focus on grant funding and not on baseline funding allocated through, for instance, hiring. We do not cover issues related to how research funding supports careers since this is addressed in Melkers, Woolley and Kreth (Chapter 18 in this Handbook). Furthermore, given the complexity and specificity of research funding allocation practices across agencies and countries, their variations and their context dependent effects, we do not discuss funding agency policies designed to provide a more equitable allocation of funding.
Schlagwörter:Ethnicity; Gender; gender differences; minority; Minority Group; race; research funding
CEWS Kategorie:Diversity, Wissenschaft als Beruf, Geschlechterverhältnis
A “Chillier” Climate for Multiply Marginalized STEM Faculty Impedes Research Collaboration
Autor/in:
Griffith, Eric E.; Mickey, Ethel L.; Dasgupta, Nilanjana
Quelle: Sex Roles (Sex Roles), 86 (2022) , S 233–248
Inhalt: Research collaboration is key to faculty career success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Yet little research has considered how faculty from multiply marginalized identity groups experience collaboration compared to colleagues from majority groups. The present study fills that gap by examining similarities and differences in collaboration experiences of faculty across multiple marginalized groups, and the role of department climate in those experiences. A survey of STEM faculty at a large public research university found that faculty from underrepresented groups – in terms of gender, race, and sexual orientation – had more negative experiences with department-level research collaborations. Moreover, faculty with multiply marginalized identities had worse collaboration experiences than others with a single marginalized identity or none. They also perceived their department climate to be less inclusive, equitable, and transparent; and felt their opinions were less valued in their department than colleagues from majority groups. Negative department climate, in turn, mediated and predicted less hospitable experiences with department-level research collaborations. These data suggest that multiply marginalized faculty, across different identity groups, share some common experiences of a “chilly” department climate relative to their peers from majority groups that impede opportunities for scientific collaboration, a key ingredient for faculty success. These findings have policy implications for retention of diverse faculty in university STEM departments.
Are we failing female and racialized academics? A Canadian national survey examining the impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on tenure and tenure‐track faculty
Autor/in:
Davis, Jennifer C.; Li, Eric Ping Hung; Butterfield, Mary Stewart; DiLabio, Gino A.; Sangunthanam, Nithi; Marcolin, Barbara
Quelle: Gend Work Organ (Gender, Work and Organization), (2022)
Inhalt: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused the abrupt curtailment of on-campus research activities that amplified impacts experienced by female and racialized faculty. In this mixed-method study, we systematically and strategically unpack the impact of the shift of academic work environments to remote settings on tenured and tenure-track faculty in Canada. Our quantitative analysis demonstrated that female and racialized faculty experienced higher levels of stress, social isolation and lower well-being. Fewer women faculty felt support for health and wellness. Our qualitative data highlighted substantial gender inequities reported by female faculty such as increased caregiving burden that affected their research productivity. The most pronounced impacts were felt among pre-tenured female faculty. The present study urges university administration to take further action to support female and racialized faculty through substantial organizational change and reform. Given the disproportionate toll that female and racialized faculty experienced, we suggest a novel approach that include three dimensions of change: (1) establishing quantitative metrics to assess and evaluate pandemic-induced impact on research productivity, health and well-being, (2) coordinating collaborative responses with faculty unions across the nation to mitigate systemic inequities, and (3) strategically implementing a storytelling approach to amplify the experiences of marginalized populations such as women or racialized faculty and include those experiences as part of recommendations for change.
Quelle: Gend Work Organ (Gender, Work and Organization), (2022)
Inhalt: In this paper, we theorize the intersectional gendered impacts of COVID-19 on faculty labor, with a particular focus on how institutions of higher education in the United States evaluate faculty labor amidst the COVID-19 transition and beyond. The pandemic has disrupted faculty research, teaching, and service in differential ways, having larger impacts on women faculty, faculty of color, and caregiving faculty in ways that further reflect the intersections of these groups. Universities have had to reconsider how evaluation occurs, given the impact of these disruptions on faculty careers. Through a case study of university pandemic responses in the United States, we summarize key components of how colleges and universities shifted evaluations of faculty labor in response to COVID-19, including suspending teaching evaluations, implementing tenure delays, and allowing for impact statements in faculty reviews. While most institutional responses recenter neoliberal principles of the ideal academic worker that is both gendered and racialized, a few universities have taken more innovative approaches to better attend to equity concerns. We conclude by suggesting a recalibration of the faculty evaluation system – one that maintains systematic faculty reviews and allows for academic freedom, but requires universities to take a more contextualized approach to evaluation in ways that center equity and inclusion for women faculty and faculty of color for the long term.
Schlagwörter:academic career; COVID-19; faculty; Gender; Hochschule; intersectionality; Intersektionalität; Lehrevaluation; neoliberal university; neoliberale Hochschule; people of color; race; tenure; USA; wissenschaftliche Karriere
CEWS Kategorie:Diversity, Wissenschaft als Beruf, Geschlechterverhältnis
Who is publishing journal articles during graduate school? Racial and gender inequalities in biological sciences over time
Autor/in:
Roksa, Josipa; Wang, Yapeng; Feldon, David; Ericson, Matthew
Quelle: Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15 (2022) 1, S 47–57
Inhalt: Despite increased enrolment of women and students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in doctoral programs, notable inequalities in academic careers persist. We investigate one potential source of these inequalities: publication rates during graduate school. Results, based on a sample of doctoral students in biological sciences across 53 institutions, indicate that both white women and students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (African American and Latinx) have lower publication rates than white men. Notably, these gaps grow over time and are not explained by background factors, socialization experiences, or family obligations. The same patterns persist for first-authored publications for African American and Latinx students, but not white women, suggesting potentially differential mechanisms of exclusion. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists
Autor/in:
Maas, Bea; Pakeman, Robin J.; Godet, Laurent; Smith, Linnea; Devictor, Vincent; Primack, Richard
Quelle: Conservation Letters, (2021)
Inhalt: Die meisten Veröffentlichungen in führenden wissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschriften stammen von männlichen Autoren aus englischsprachigen Ländern. Daran hat sich seit 1945 nur wenig und langsam etwas geändert. Zu dem Schluss kommt Bea Maas von der Universität Wien, die sich in einer aktuellen Studie der (nicht gegebenen) Vielfalt in der Top-Autorenschaft gewidmet hat. Die Studie zeigt, dass Frauen und Expert*innen des Globalen Südens kaum in dieser Liste vertreten sind. Die Ergebnisse wurden in der Fachzeitschrift "Conservation Letters" veröffentlicht.
Für die aktuelle Studie wurden die Eigenschaften von 1051 Top-Autor*innen, jenen Wissenschafter*innen mit den meisten Publikationen in den 13 führenden Fachzeitschriften für Ökologie und Naturschutz untersucht. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Frauen und der Globale Süden kaum in dieser Liste vertreten sind. "Die Gesamtliste der Top-Autor*innen enthält nur 11% Frauen. Und 75% der Artikel stammen aus nur fünf Ländern des Globalen Nordens", so Bea Maas, Hauptautorin der Studie. "Dieses massive Ungleichgewicht in der wissenschaftlichen Autorenschaft ist äußerst bedenklich, besonders im Bereich Ökologie und Naturschutz, wo vielfältige Perspektiven zur Lösung globaler Klima- und Umweltherausforderungen gebraucht werden", betont Maas.
Die Studie untersuchte auch Entwicklungen über unterschiedliche Zeiträume und zeigte, dass der Anteil von weiblichen Top-Autor*innen zwischen 1945 und 2019 von 3% auf 18% anstieg. Der Globale Süden ist mit zuletzt 25% ebenfalls stark unterrepräsentiert. "Die aktuellen Anteile von Frauen und Wissenschafter*innen aus dem Globalen Süden in der Top-Autorenschaft liegen immer noch fernab gesellschaftlicher oder akademischer Verteilungen und belegen klaren Nachholbedarf in der Förderung wissenschaftlicher Vielfalt", so Maas. "In der Liste sind kaum Autor*innen aus Indien, China und anderen bevölkerungsreichen Regionen mit großer Bedeutung für globalen Naturschutz und Nachhaltigkeit, während viele weitere Länder gar nicht vertreten sind."
Die mangelnde Repräsentation von Frauen einerseits und Personen des Globalen Südens andererseits betrifft laut den Autor*innen der Studie nicht nur die Top-Autorenschaft in der Ökologie, sondern auch die wissenschaftliche Führungsebene. "Oft entscheiden Publikationsleistungen und insbesondere Top-Autorenschaft über die Entwicklung einer Karriere und die Vergabe von Führungspositionen", erklärt Maas.
Die Studie leitet daraus vier konkrete Empfehlungen zur Förderung wissenschaftlicher Vielfalt ab:
Erstens sollten wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften und Gesellschaften besondere Anstrengungen unternehmen, Vielfalt und Inklusion in der Vergabe von Führungspositionen zu fördern. Zweitens empfehlen die Autor*innen, den Verlauf einer wissenschaftlichen Karriere anhand vielseitiger Kompetenzen jenseits von Publikationsleistungen zu bewerten. An dritter und vierter Stelle sprechen sich die Autor*innen für strukturelle Änderungen zur Förderung von Elternzeit und Vielfalt unter Mitarbeiter*innen und Ko-Autor*innen aus, um die Integrität wissenschaftlicher Gemeinschaften zu fördern und zu schützen. Weitere Empfehlungen, die speziell an Autor*innen und wissenschaftliche Gemeinschaften gerichtet sind, dienen laut Maas zur "Verbesserung der guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, besonders in Bezug auf die aktive Förderung von vielfältigen und globalen Perspektiven in Ökologie und Naturschutz".
The global scientific community has become increasingly diverse over recent decades, but is this ongoing development also reflected among top-publishing authors and potential scientific leaders? We surveyed 13 leading journals in ecology, evolution, and conservation to investigate the diversity of the 100 top-publishing authors in each journal between 1945 and 2019. Out of 1051 individual top-publishing authors, only 11% are women. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Canada account for more than 75% of top-publishing authors, while countries of the Global South (as well as Russia, Japan, and South Korea) were strikingly underrepresented. The number of top-publishing authors who are women and/or are from the Global South is increasing only slowly over time. We outline transformative actions that scientific communities can take to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion at author, leadership, and society level. The resulting promotion of scientific innovation and productivity is essential for the development of global solutions in conservation science.
Meritokratie in der Universitätsmedizin? Habilitandinnen zwischen Leistungskriterien, ‚Gemocht-Werden‘ und akademischem Feudalismus
Autor/in:
Ginal, Marina
Quelle: FZG (Freiburger Zeitschrift für GeschlechterStudien), 27 (2021) 1, S 201–217
Inhalt: Selektionsprozesse der Wissenschaft beruhen auf messbaren Leistungskriterien, die meritokratische Bestenauslese gewährleisten sollen. Forschungen zu Geschlechterungleichheiten in der Wissenschaft weisen diese Vorstellung seit langem als Mythos zurück. Betont wird vielmehr, dass, gerade in Statuspassagen wie der Habilitation, soziale Faktoren auf die Anerkennung von Leistung wirken und so zum Ausschluss von Frauen aus der Wissenschaft beitragen. Der Aufsatz analysiert vor diesem Hintergrund sich verändernde vergeschlechtlichte Subjektpositionen im Kontext von Akademischem Feudalismus und Kapitalismus in der Unternehmerischen Universität. Beleuchtet wird, wie Feld-Habitus-Differenzen (Pierre Bourdieu) für Erstakademikerinnen im Vergleich zu Frauen aus Akademikerfamilien zu Nachteilen im Leistungserfolg beitragen. Auf Grundlage empirischer Forschung in der Universitätsmedizin werden die Praktiken des Unterlaufens meritokratischer Prinzipien nachgezeichnet und aufgezeigt, wie durch hierarchische Abhängigkeiten sowie die Informalisierung von Leistung diese für manche Habilitandinnen an- und für andere aberkannt wird.
Quelle: Gender and Education, 32 (2020) 1, S 11–26
Inhalt: Drawing on data collected in a cross-disciplinary survey of early-career academics (ECAs) in New Zealand, this article explores the factors influencing ECA conference attendance. Our conceptual framework uses conference attendance as the dependent variable and measures gender, ethnicity, family responsibilities and workload. Three key features affect conference attendance: "demographic characteristics" (background features and prior experiences that affect an academic's willingness and ability to attend), "accessibility" (constraints to attending, such as financing, family responsibilities, institutional support or teaching commitments) and "purpose" (the value placed on attending conferences by the individual, the institution, or the discipline). In particular, we identify differences for women, Indigenous people, and those born overseas with respect to their ability to navigate and their inclination to attend national and international conferences.
Schlagwörter:conference culture; early career researcher; ethnic minority; gender inequality; Konferenz; Neuseeland; wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs
CEWS Kategorie:Berufsbiographie und Karriere, Diversity, Wissenschaft als Beruf, Geschlechterverhältnis
Foreign women in academia : Double‐strangers between productivity, marginalization and resistance
Autor/in:
Strauβ, Anke; Boncori, Ilaria
Quelle: Gender Work Organ (Gender, Work & Organization), 17 (2020) 2, 867 S
Inhalt: This article examines the professional experience of foreign women academics working across geographic boundaries in today's neoliberal academia characterized by liquidity. Framed within an intersectional perspective, we use the concept of the ‘double‐stranger' to examine data stemming from 20 in‐depth semi‐structured interviews conducted with scholars at different stages of their career in the social sciences. This article advances understandings of academic careers theoretically by identifying a temporal and hierarchical dynamic in the intersection of two categories of difference (gender and foreignness) that constitute a position of simultaneous belonging and non‐belonging for foreign women academics; and empirically through a qualitative investigation that explores three areas in which academic professional experiences are mobilized for double‐strangers: (i) transnational career moves; (ii) productivity and performance in today's neoliberal academia; and (iii) self‐induced estrangement as a form of resistance.
‘You must aim high’ - ‘No, I never felt like a woman’: women and men making sense of non-standard trajectories into higher education
Autor/in:
González Ramos, Ana M.; Räthzel, Nora
Quelle: International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 10 (2018) 1, 17 S
Inhalt: It is no secret that the ‘glass ceiling’ preventing women advancing to leadership positions exists in academia as well. Spain is no exception. Gender relations are usually investigated independently of other power relations like class and ethnicity. In our sample (80 men and women in different academic institutions across Spain) we found that not only women but also men from working class backgrounds have difficulties making successful academic careers. Therefore, we use an intersectional approach to investigate the relationship between gender and class. Comparing two life-histories, we explore what strategies individuals employ to overcome the barriers with which they are confronted. We present the stories of a woman with a middle class but non-academic background and of a man with a working-class background. Their strategies can be understood as the result of specific individual trajectories under specific societal conditions, but they also illustrate the barriers and possibilities men and women with non-standard backgrounds encounter in academia. Analysing successful strategies as well as their limitations, we aim to provide perspectives that might contribute to changing the culture of hegemonic masculinities in academia.
CEWS Kategorie:Berufsbiographie und Karriere, Diversity, Europa und Internationales, Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, Geschlechterverhältnis, Wissenschaft als Beruf