PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.EuropeSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in surgical academic Careers: What is needed to get there? Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-02)
    Bosman, A.
    ;
    Schreurs, W.H.
    ;
    Smidt, M.L.
    Despite comprising the majority of medical students, women remain significantly underrepresented in senior academic surgical positions. In the Netherlands, only 15.6 % of surgical professors are female. This article examines cultural and structural barriers, including unequal access to networks, underrepresentation on editorial boards, academic “housework,” implicit bias, and unequal caregiving responsibilities, that hinder women's advancement in academic surgery. Targeted interventions such as mentorships, flexible work policies, salary transparency, and gender-conscious recruitment (e.g., Eindhoven University of Technology's preferential hiring strategy) have shown promise in promoting equity without compromising academic output. The “critical mass” threshold of 28 % female representation emerges as a tipping point for cultural change. Achieving gender equity in academic surgery requires both systemic reform and cultural transformation to ensure equal opportunity, career sustainability, and inclusive institutional environments.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Van Der Lee, R.
    ;
    Ellemers, N.
    ;
    Fiske, S.T.
    We examined the application and review materials of three calls (n = 2,823) of a prestigious grant for personal research funding in a national full population of early career scientists awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Results showed evidence of gender bias in application evaluations and success rates, as well as in language use in instructions and evaluation sheets. Male applicants received significantly more competitive "quality of researcher" evaluations (but not "quality of proposal" evaluations) and had significantly higher application success rates than female applicants. Gender disparities were most prevalent in scientific disciplines with the highest number of applications and with equal gender distribution among the applicants (i.e., life sciences and social sciences). Moreover, content analyses of the instructional and evaluation materials revealed the use of gendered language favoring male applicants. Overall, our data reveal a 4% "loss" of women during the grant review procedure, and illustrate the perpetuation of the funding gap, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in academia.