PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.MathematicsSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Unpacking mathematical gender stereotypes: trends and directions from 25 years of research Open PDF 
    (Frontiers Media SA, 2025-11-18)
    Nurlu, Özge
    Gender norms shape multiple domains, including mathematics-long framed as a male-dominated field-thereby fostering pervasive mathematical gender stereotypes (MGS) that affect individuals' participation and achievement. This study aims to systematically synthesize empirical research published between 1999 and 2024, indexed in Web of Science, written in English, and available in full text. Only articles explicitly examining MGS were included; studies focused on broader STEM stereotypes, non-English publications, records without full-text access, and papers outside the specified time window were excluded. Limitations include the absence of protocol pre-registration-although inclusion/exclusion criteria and the analysis plan were specified in writing prior to the search and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed-and the unavoidable subjectivity in interpretation and categorization despite established inter-coder reliability. Analyses indicate that most studies are situated in psychology, frequently employ experimental designs, and primarily sample university students. Surveys dominate data collection, and parametric inferential statistics are commonly used. Geographically, the literature is concentrated in Western countries-particularly the United States and Germany-with limited contributions from the Global South. Publication counts fluctuate over time, with notable peaks in 2012 and 2022. Conceptually, the literature converges on two principal axes: (i) belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and (ii) process-based formulations centered on ST. Less frequently examined yet theoretically informative extensions include endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic role models, and stereotype lift. Across qualitative, descriptive, correlational, mediation, meta-analytic, and experimental evidence, findings consistently cluster around these axes, with stereotype endorsement and MGS occupying central positions. Taken together, the results underscore the need for future research that is more interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and methodologically diverse to more comprehensively address MGS.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mihaljević, H.
    ;
    Santamaría, L.
    Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority. © 2020 Helena Mihaljević and Lucía Santamaría.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder Open PDF 
    (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015)
    Handley, Ian M.
    ;
    Brown, Elizabeth R.
    ;
    Moss-Racusin, Corinne A.
    ;
    Smith, Jessi L.
    Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women—or favoring men—within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women’s underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments—two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.
  • Item type:Publication,
    No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Nevill, T.
    The lack of females in many Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in the USA is an ongoing concern, with many initiatives attempting to redress this imbalance. Some life sciences are apparently areas of relatively good practice, with higher proportions of female researchers than most other STEM subjects. This paper assesses gender differences in research contributions to 14 biochemistry, genetics or molecular biology specialisms in the USA 1996–2014/8, seeking evidence of trends in publishing and citation impact that may give insights into female success. With four exceptions (biochemistry, biophysics, biotechnology, and structural biology), the fields achieved or maintained at least 40% female first authors by 2018, with developmental biology and endocrinology both attaining female first author majorities. A regression analysis found close to gender parity overall in citation impact but a small male first author citation advantage in more fields than the opposite: an up to 3% increase in logged citation ratio to the world mean. This was partly due to males first authoring with larger teams. Fields with relatively many females did not favour female-led research with more citations, however. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2017)
    Devine, P.G.
    ;
    Forscher, P.S.
    ;
    Cox, W.T.L.
    ;
    Kaatz, A.
    ;
    Sheridan, J.
    Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters (N = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments and perceptions of a more positive departmental climate. Following this initial success, the present study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation. Whereas the proportion of women hired by control departments remained stable over time, the proportion of women hired by intervention departments increased by an estimated 18 percentage points (OR = 2.23, dOR = 0.34). Though the preregistered analysis did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.07), the study has a hard upper limit on statistical power, as the cluster-randomized trial has a maximum sample size of 92 departmental clusters. These findings, however, have undeniable practical significance for the advancement of women in science, and provide promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Ceci, S.J.
    ;
    Williams, W.M.
    Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.