PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
5 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley Open PDF(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1975-02-07) ;Bickel, P. J. ;Hammel, E. A.O'Connell, J. W.Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.Item type:Publication, Glass Ceiling or Iron Cage: Women in UK Academia Open PDF(1994)Morley, L.This paper reviews some of the literature on women's position in the academic workforce in the UK, and considers an informal study conducted by the author of 12 women academics. A central consideration is the relationship between women's quantitative under‐representation in the academy and women academics' self‐concept and consciousness of their own abilities. Copyright © 1994, Wiley Blackwell. All rights reservedItem type:Publication, The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF(2006) ;Jagsi, Reshma ;Guancial, Elizabeth A. ;Worobey, Cynthia Cooper ;Henault, Lori E.Chang, YuchiaoBACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.Item type:Publication, A comparision of productivity of male and female scientists of CSIR Open PDF(1999) ;Gupta, B.M. ;Kumar, S.Aggarwal, B.S.The paper examines the scientific productivity of male and female scientists working in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India at the overall agency level and at the group of laboratories level, characterized by three broad subjects of physical, biological, and engineering sciences. The productivity of scientists is evaluated on the basis of three parameters: the extent of scientists not publishing any paper, the average number of papers per scientist, and using Lotka's approach. In order to find out whether there is any significant difference between male and female productivity distributions, a Chi-square test is used. Studies the applicability of Lotka's inverse power law and some other statistical models in the distribution of scientific productivity of male and female scientists. Concludes that no significant difference exists between productivity distributions of male and female scientists.Item type:Publication, Women's health and women's leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? Open PDF(2008) ;Carnes, Molly ;Morrissey, ClaudiaGeller, Stacie E.The term "glass ceiling" refers to women's lack of advancement into leadership positions despite no visible barriers. The term has been applied to academic medicine for over a decade but has not previously been applied to the advancement of women's health. This paper discusses (1) the historical linking of the advances in women's health with women's leadership in academic medicine, (2) the slow progress of women into leadership in academic medicine, and (3) indicators that the advancement of women's health has stalled. We make the case that deeply embedded unconscious gender-based biases and assumptions underpin the stalled advancement of women on both fronts. We conclude with recommendations to promote progress beyond the apparent glass ceiling that is preventing further advancement of women's health and women leaders. We emphasize the need to move beyond "fixing the women" to a systemic, institutional approach that acknowledges and addresses the impact of unconscious, gender-linked biases that devalue and marginalize women and issues associated with women, such as their health.