PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.MathematicsViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • 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,
    A Protocol to Assess Contextual Factors During Program Impact Evaluation: A Case Study of a STEM Gender Equity Intervention in Higher Education Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Nobrega, S
    ;
    Edwards, K
    ;
    El Ghaziri, M
    ;
    Giacobbe, L
    ;
    Rice, S
    Program evaluations that lack experimental design often fail to produce evidence of impact because there is no available control group. Theory-based evaluations can generate evidence of a program's causal effects if evaluators collect evidence along the theorized causal chain and identify possible competing causes. However, few methods are available for assessing competing causes in the program environment. Effect Modifier Assessment (EMA) is a method previously used in smaller-scale studies to assess possible competing causes of observed changes following an intervention. In our case study of a university gender equity intervention, EMA generated useful evidence of competing causes to augment program evaluation. Top-down administrative culture, poor experiences with hiring and promotion, and workload were identified as impeding forces that might have reduced program benefits. The EMA addresses a methodological gap in theory-based evaluation and might be useful in a variety of program settings.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A “scientific diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a sample of life scientists Open PDF 
    (American Society for Cell Biology, 2016)
    Moss-Racusin, C.A.
    ;
    van der Toorn, J.
    ;
    Dovidio, J.F.
    ;
    Brescoll, V.L.
    ;
    Graham, M.J.
    Mounting experimental evidence suggests that subtle gender biases favoring men contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including many subfields of the life sciences. However, there are relatively few evaluations of diversity interventions designed to reduce gender biases within the STEM community. Because gender biases distort the meritocratic evaluation and advancement of students, interventions targeting instructors’ biases are particularly needed. We evaluated one such intervention, a workshop called “Scientific Diversity” that was consistent with an established framework guiding the development of diversity interventions designed to reduce biases and was administered to a sample of life science instructors (N=126) at several sessions of the National Academies Summer Institute for Undergraduate Education held nationwide. Evidence emerged indicating the efficacy of the “Scientific Diversity” work-shop, such that participants were more aware of gender bias, expressed less gender bias, and were more willing to engage in actions to reduce gender bias 2 weeks after participating in the intervention compared with 2 weeks before the intervention. Implications for diversity interventions aimed at reducing gender bias and broadening the participation of women in the life sciences are discussed. © 2016 C. A. Moss-Racusin et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Holman, Luke
    ;
    Stuart-Fox, Devi
    ;
    Hauser, Cindy E.
    Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric studies on gender disparities in science
    (2019)
    Halevi, G.
    Understanding gender related disparities in science is an essential step in tackling these issues. Through the years, bibliometric studies have designed several methodologies to analyze scholarly output and demonstrate that there are significant gaps between men and women in the scientific arena. However, gender identification in itself is an enormous challenge, since bibliographic data does not reveal it. These bibliometric studies not only focused on publication output and impact, but also on cross-referencing output, promotions and tenure data, and other related curriculum vitae (CV) information. This chapter discusses the challenges of tracking gender disparities in science through bibliometrics and reviews the various approaches taken by bibliometricians to identify gender and analyze the bibliographic data in order to point to gender disparities in science. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Mas-Bleda, A.
    Current attempts to address the shortfall of female researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have not yet succeeded, despite other academic subjects having female majorities. This article investigates the extent to which gender disparities are subject-wide or nation-specific by a first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018. The results show overall and geocultural patterns as well as individual national differences. Almost half of the subjects were always more male (seven; e.g., Mathematics) or always more female (six; e.g., Immunology & Microbiology) than the national average. A strong overall trend (Spearman correlation 0.546) is for countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored research to also have larger differences in gender disparities between fields (correlation 0.314 for gender ratios). This confirms the international gender equality paradox previously found for degree subject choices: Increased gender equality overall associates with moderately greater gender differentiation between subjects. This is consistent with previous United States-based claims that gender differences in academic careers are partly due to (socially constrained) gender differences in personal preferences. Radical solutions may therefore be needed for some STEM subjects to overcome gender disparities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Amalia Mas-Bleda. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Cultural Psychological Model of Cross-National Variation in Gender Gaps in STEM Participation Open PDF 
    (SAGE publications Inc, 2020)
    Soylu Yalcinkaya, N.
    ;
    Adams, G.
    Gender gaps in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) participation are larger in societies where women have greater freedom of choice. We provide a cultural psychological model to explain this pattern. We consider how individualistic/post-materialistic cultural patterns in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) settings foster a self-expressive construction of academic choice, whereby affirming femininity/masculinity and ensuring identity fit become primary goals. Striving to fulfill these goals can lead men toward, and women away from, STEM pursuit, resulting in a large gender gap. In Majority World settings, on the contrary, collectivistic/materialistic cultural patterns foster a security-oriented construction, whereby achieving financial security and fulfilling relational expectations become primary goals of academic choice. These goals can lead both women and men toward secure and lucrative fields like STEM, resulting in a smaller gender gap. Finally, gender gaps in STEM participation feed back into the STEM=male stereotype. We discuss the implications of our model for research and theory, and intervention and policy. © 2020 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Who acknowledges who? A gender analysis
    (2019)
    Paul-Hus, A.
    ;
    Mongeon, P.
    ;
    Sainte-Marie, M.
    ;
    Larivière, V.
    Acknowledgements found in scholarly papers allow for credit attribution among non-authors—from individuals to organizations—that contributed to a piece of research. As such, they are associated with a different kind of recognition than authorship. While several studies have shown that social factors affect authorship and citation practices, few analyses have been performed on acknowledgements. Based on 878,250 acknowledgees mentioned in 291,167 papers published in 2015 retrieved from Web of Science, the objective of this work-in-progress is to better understand such credit attribution practices and how gender may influence them. Our results show that gender disparities generally found in authorship can be extended to acknowledgements, and that women are even more underrepresented in the acknowledgement than in the authors’ list of a paper. Our findings also confirm that women acknowledge proportionally more women. These results suggest that gender plays a role in the entire spectrum of credit attribution practices, from authorships to acknowledgements.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Explaining Course Enrollment Gaps in High School: Examination of Gender-Imbalance in the Applied Sciences Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Freeman, JA
    ;
    Gottfried, MA
    ;
    Odle, TK
    Federal policy in the United States has urged high schools to expand offerings in career and technical education (CTE) coursework to address persistent gender inequities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields. Unfortunately, gender composition in engineering and health sciences CTE enrollment is highly imbalanced and reflects postsecondary and labor market trends. Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, we use decomposition techniques to examine which student, family, and school factors explain gender-imbalanced enrollment in STEMM-focused CTE courses. The results indicate student occupational expectations were the largest contributor to gender gaps across content areas.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Accelerating the Bending Arc Toward Equality: A Commentary on Gender Trends in Authorship in Psychiatry Journals Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Bearden, Carrie E.
    In this issue of Biological Psychiatry, Hart et al. (1) offer a compelling new analysis of gender trends in authorship in psychiatry journals over the past decade. Hart et al. (1) offer both good news and bad news. Want the good news first? There has been a significant increase in the percentage of women, as both first and last authors, over the past decade. In fact, near parity in gender representation has been achieved for first authors. Now for the bad news: women exhibit slower rates of transition to senior authorship—5 years for men and 9 years for women, on average. Why? There is not an obvious single answer, but there are a few key takeaways.