Factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science careers worldwide: a literature review

Challenges of female microbial ecologists at different stages of their academic life: a Mexican perspective

Latin American women scientists face a double glass ceiling because of cultural, institutional, and geographic biases, including those from international journal editors. Despite under-representation, they advance in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), particularly microbiology. In Mexico, more efforts are needed to create an inclusive community, driving progress enriched by women's perspectives in science.

First Year to Future Career: Women's Engagement in Technical Participation Is Associated with Long-Term Retention

Societies realize the value of increasing the number of engineering and other STEM graduates, yet universities often struggle to enroll and retain STEM students, particularly women. To remedy this, many engineering programs have shifted their pedagogical approaches to include project-based learning in group settings. However, prior research on engineering teams revealed, for example, gender gaps in active participation, reflecting stereotypes of men as engineering experts and women as supporters. In the current study, we examined the long-term correlates of such gaps. Specifically, in a mixed-method study (behavioral observation, surveys, and longitudinal follow-up) we found gender differences in active technical participation during students' first year in engineering project group presentations, such that men engaged in more active participation than women (N = 589). Longitudinal follow-ups in their final year revealed that first year technical participation was a predictor of feelings of belonging, and these feelings of belonging in turn predict retention in engineering majors and intentions to pursue graduate education in engineering. Together, these results suggest that the first year engineering team experience plays an important role in retaining students and highlight opportunities for early interventions.

Gender differences in research fields of bioeconomy and rural development-based on sustainable systems in Latin America and Africa regions

Using bibliometric analysis of large-scale publication data is a simple approach to exploring gender-related trends, especially gender equality in academic publishing. The aim of this study is to investigate gender trends in the fields of bio-economy and rural development sciences in two under develop regions as Latin America and Africa. This study examines gender differences in these fields in order to: (1) recognize the contribution of female researchers in bioeconomy and rural development, (2) explore the relational structure of gender aspects in academic publications, (3) identify trends in female authorship in these scientific research fields over time, and finally (4) identify gender potentials for women to become more visible in these fields of study. To achieve these objectives, we used bibliometric tools to analyses 1891 publication records in bioeconomy and rural development. After cleaning the database of full names of authors of academic publications relevant to the field studies, we performed a series of statistical analyses in R and SPSS software, such as Lotkas distribution, network analysis, co-authorship analysis and spatial distribution of authors in the study. The results show that the number of male authors is almost three times higher than the number of female authors, suggesting that women are under-represented in the fields studied. Men occupy the most important position of authorship in scientific articles; publications with corresponding male authors were found in 1389 out of 1891 publications related to the bio-economy and rural development. In terms of geographical regions, publications with female authors were more prevalent in European and North American areas, with a small exception in some developing countries such as Argentina and South Africa. In terms of research networks, from the total number of authors evaluated, only 23% are female authors on the map of research influence. This indicates that there is a significant gap to be filled in the promotion of scholarly impact through the sharing of knowledge and expertise among authors.

Mentoring practices that predict doctoral student outcomes in a biological sciences cohort

Despite the importance of a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in biological research, women, racial and ethnic minorities, and students from non-traditional academic backgrounds remain underrepresented in the composition of university faculty. Through a study on doctoral students at a research-intensive university, we pinpoint advising from faculty as a critical component of graduate student experiences and productivity. Graduate students from minority backgrounds reported lower levels of support from their advisors and research groups. However, working with an advisor from a similar demographic background substantially improved productivity and well-being of these students. Several other aspects of mentoring practices positively predicted student success and belonging, including frequent one-on-one meetings, empathetic and constructive feedback, and relationships with other peer or faculty mentors. Our study highlights the need to renovate graduate education with a focus on retention-not just recruitment-to best prepare students for success in scientific careers.

A Summer Research Experience to Increase Diversity in Healthcare: a 4-Year Follow-up Study

This report describes the educational follow-up of the college coaches who participated in our Summer Research Programs from 2012 through 2019. Our program was successful as all the 45 college coaches submitted a total of 54 abstracts to a regional conference, and 100% of them were accepted for publication. On follow-up in 2023, most of the college coaches, including women and those from minority backgrounds, were enrolled or graduated from a health professional school or worked in a healthcare setting. Despite our small study population, our research program can serve as a model to increase diversity in healthcare and science fields.

Gender differences in animal cognition science

Women's representation in science is increasing steadily, with some fields closing gender parity in terms of participation and scientific output. Animal cognition appears to fall into that category. Our current analysis of gender author balance (women versus men) in 600 animal cognition papers supported parity in many aspects, but also revealed some remaining disparities. Women animal cognition scientists often held first authorship positions (58% of the studies), received similar numbers of citations, and published in equally high impact factor journals as men. Women were still under represented in last-author position, which often reflects seniority status (37% of last authors were women). There were interesting results when we considered the gender of teams (of two or more authors): all-women author teams were the minority in our dataset and received on average fewer citations than all men or mixed author teams, regardless of the quality of the journal (as measured by the journal's impact factor). Women more often focussed on mammals, whereas men more often focussed on fish, both as first authors and as same-gender teams. Men, as first author or in men-only teams, restricted their research more often to organisms of a single sex, compared to women, as first author and as members of a team. Our study suggests that there are many indices of the significant contribution of both women and men scientists in animal cognition, although some gender biases may remain.

Gender and professionalism: Still a black box a call for research, debate and action. Suggestions from and beyond the pandemic crisis

The gender-professionalism nexus is the source of persistent inequalities in our society. Its continuing relevance emerges even more in the pandemic crisis as a revealing context of social dynamics, showing a “differential in visibility” among welfare professionals, associated with gender, status and power. The attribution of “masculine” and “feminine” connotations (re)produces structures of inequality: there are male/dominant and female/subordinate professions. The exploration of this nexus reveals the existence of two polar meanings of care and body work, as well as two conceptions of professionalism and citizenship. Caring as “therapy” is related to “work on the body” and reflects a classical conception of professionalism aimed at client-citizens; whereas caring as “to care for” is related to “work with and between bodies” and meets better new professionalism aimed at active citizens. Considering gender as professional practice ideology highlights how “gender commonality” is not a solution to inequalities. Furthermore, it can contribute to the deconstruction of the dominance structures. In a such research agenda, narratives of professionals are the key to open the black box. Taking up the challenge to open the gender-professionalism black box is not just a matter of research, but of political action, starting from academia itself.

Mentoring in STEM higher education: a synthesis of the literature to (re)present the excluded women of color

Mentoring initiatives for undergraduate and graduate women of color (WOC) have provided peer-to-peer relationships and counterspaces to disrupt the inequitable treatment of students in STEM higher education (HE). This literature synthesis explores intersectionality in STEM HE mentoring through pursuing the following research questions: (1) What impact do the social contexts of WOC have on their mentoring experiences in STEM HE? (2) What role does intersectionality play in the structural organization of WOC mentoring models in STEM HE? (3) How has intersectionality shaped the life experiences of WOC mentors and mentees? and (4) How can mentoring models utilize intersectionality to incorporate the experiences of WOC in STEM HE? Thematic findings from literature related to STEM HE mentoring suggest a reinforcement of deficit mentoring models (Fix the URM), a symbolic application of intersectionality (branding gender-race), and a lack of paradigmatic shifts (catch-all). Our specific recommendations presented in this article challenge the epistemic oppression and epistemic violence that current STEM HE mentoring models operationalize.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-022-00367-7.

More than Follow the Leader: Expectations, Behaviors, Stability, and Change in a Co-Created Leadership Process

This conceptual paper challenges assumptions about the primacy of leaders and leading over followers and following in the leadership process. Leadership cannot be holistically understood unless followership and leadership are researched as they are enacted—in tandem. To move toward a more complete understanding of leadership, we introduce a leadership system which involves a co-created leadership process, unfolds over time, and accounts for stability and change in partners’ expectations and behaviors. Drawing on role theory and implicit leadership (ILTs) and followership (IFTs) theories, we suggest how expectations of self and other influence leading and following behaviors and the leadership process. Personal learning acquired through the experience of leadership results in stability or change in one’s future expectations. Our framework explains how stability and change in each dyad partners’ leadership and followership expectations comes about through constructionist and constructivist mechanisms. These mechanisms occur across two timelines: The first is the microadjustments made to expectations and behaviors within a particular leadership occurrence. The second is the loop between personal learning and the expectations each member carries into future leadership occurrences and relationships. Practical implications arising from this new framework include considerations for leadership and followership development and a contribution to leadership forecasting.

Underrepresentation of women in computer systems research

The gender gap in computer science (CS) research is a well-studied problem, with an estimated ratio of 15%–30% women researchers. However, far less is known about gender representation in specific fields within CS. Here, we investigate the gender gap in one large field, computer systems. To this end, we collected data from 72 leading peer-reviewed CS conferences, totalling 6,949 accepted papers and 19,829 unique authors (2,946 women, 16,307 men, the rest unknown). We combined these data with external demographic and bibliometric data to evaluate the ratio of women authors and the factors that might affect this ratio. Our main findings are that women represent only about 10% of systems researchers, and that this ratio is not associated with various conference factors such as size, prestige, double-blind reviewing, and inclusivity policies. Author research experience also does not significantly affect this ratio, although author country and work sector do. The 10% ratio of women authors is significantly lower than the 16% in the rest of CS. Our findings suggest that focusing on inclusivity policies alone cannot address this large gap. Increasing women’s participation in systems research will require addressing the systemic causes of their exclusion, which are even more pronounced in systems than in the rest of CS.

Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap

In solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the “gender solo research gap” among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through mean “individual solo publishing rates” found in “individual publication portfolios” constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database (“Polish Science Observatory”) with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N = 25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009–2018, including 18,900 solo articles.

Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science

The research discipline of computer science (CS) has a well-publicized gender disparity. Multiple studies estimate the ratio of women among publishing researchers to be around 15–30%. Many explanatory factors have been studied in association with this gender gap, including differences in collaboration patterns. Here, we extend this body of knowledge by looking at differences in collaboration patterns specific to various fields and subfields of CS. We curated a dataset of nearly 20,000 unique authors of some 7000 top conference papers from a single year. We manually assigned a field and subfield to each conference and a gender to most researchers. We then measured the gender gap in each subfield as well as five other collaboration metrics, which we compared to the gender gap. Our main findings are that the gender gap varies greatly by field, ranging from 6% female authors in theoretical CS to 42% in CS education; subfields with a higher gender gap also tend to exhibit lower female productivity, larger coauthor groups, and higher gender homophily. Although women published fewer single-author papers, we did not find an association between single-author papers and the ratio of female researchers in a subfield.