PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
8 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Are there gender differences in academic medical career aspirations related to research, mentoring and discrimination? A national cross-sectional study of French medical residents Open PDF(BMJ, 2026-05) ;Deledalle, Aurore ;Congard, Anne ;Bour, Valentine ;Sarda, ÉlisaCohen, FleurOBJECTIVES: Academic medical careers remain marked by persistent gender inequalities, despite the growing feminisation of the medical workforce. The objective of this study was to examine whether gender differences exist in key individual and institutional determinants of academic medical career aspirations among medical residents, including research motivation, mentoring, work centrality, self-efficacy, perceived discrimination and stress. DESIGN: This was a national cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted across 36 medical schools in France. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1570 medical residents (997 women and 573 men) voluntarily participated between November 2022 and February 2023. All participants completed validated self-report questionnaires. There were no exclusion criteria beyond being enrolled in a French residency programme. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes towards research (interest, motivation, significance) were measured using the Scale of Attitudes towards Research. Mentoring was assessed with the Mentor-Mentee Perception Questionnaire, work centrality with Hirschfeld and Feild's scale, self-efficacy with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, perceived discrimination with the Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Experiences of Academic Medical Faculty instrument and stress with the Perceived Stress Scale. Gender differences were analysed using t-tests or χ² tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Compared with men, women reported lower research motivation (mean (SD) 21.0 (5.5) vs 22.8 (5.5); padj=0.011), lower research interest (27.1 (5.5) vs 28.1 (5.7); padj=0.011), lower work centrality (26.7 (7.0) vs 28.2 (8.1); padj=0.011) and lower self-efficacy (28.3 (5.2) vs 29.9 (5.0); padj=0.011). Women were less likely to report having a mentor (38.5% vs 44.5%; padj=0.02). They also reported substantially higher levels of experienced gender discrimination (22.8% vs 3.8%; padj=0.005), sexual harassment (57.7% vs 18.2%; padj=0.005) and perceived stress (8.48 (3.29) vs 7.27 (3.43); padj=0.011) CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences were observed across several individual and institutional factors associated with academic medical career aspirations. Reduced access to mentoring and greater exposure to discrimination and stress among women may contribute to lower research motivation and self-efficacy. These findings highlight the need for institutional strategies addressing mentoring, workplace culture and equity to support gender parity in academic medicine.Item type:Publication, Does Gender Matter for Promotion in Science? Evidence from Physicists in France(Sciences Po University Press, 2020) ;Mairesse, Jacques ;Pezzoni, MicheleVisentin, FabianaIn this study, we examine the promotion dynamics at the French Institute of Physics (INP) in CNRS, one of the largest European public research organizations. We construct a long panel combining a dataset on the career histories of INP scientists with survey data. Using event history analysis, we find that, having controlled for scientific productivity, female and male physicists have the same promotion rate from junior to senior positions. However, we also find that promotion factors such as family characteristics, mentoring, professional network, research responsibilities have different impacts on female and male researchers. Dans cette étude, nous examinons les dynamiques de promotion à l’Institut de physique (INP) du CNRS, l’un des plus grands organismes publics européens de recherche. Nous construisons un fichier d’étude en appariant des données individuelles variées sur la carrière des chercheurs avec celle d’une enquête en ligne et mettons en oeuvre une analyse économétrique des promotions de chargés de recherche à directeurs de recherche. Nous trouvons que, pour une même productivité scientifique (entendue dans un sens large), les taux de promotion des chercheurs hommes et femmes sont comparables. Nous constatons néanmoins que les facteurs de promotion tels que les caractéristiques familiales, les responsabilités de recherche, l’encadrement doctoral et le réseau professionnel, ont des impacts différents.Item type:Publication, The domestic basis of the scientific career: gender inequalities in ecology in France and Norway Open PDF(SAGE Publications Inc, 2017) ;Loison, A. ;Paye, S. ;Schermann, A. ;Bry, C.Gaillard, J.-M.Gender-related inequalities in scientific careers are widespread, evidenced by the attrition of women along the different stages of the promotion ladder. We studied the interwoven personal and professional trajectories of researchers in ecology and compared these trajectories between France and Norway. Given their differing welfare state policies and work/family regimes, we expected contrasts in the depth and modalities of the gender gap. We focused on the career consequences of time-use inequalities in the workplace and in the private sphere (domestic tasks and parental care). We find a more frequent assignment of women to less-valued tasks at work (e.g. teaching) and pronounced gender differences in the involvement in domestic and parental tasks, especially in France. Age at promotion and probability to be promoted differed between gender in both countries and more so in France, women being less promoted and promoted later than men. This gender gap was particularly discriminating women with children, when they were either single or with a partner who also was a researcher. These differences are mainly due to a lower scientific productivity of women when they get children. These analyses raise a number of questions on welfare policies and on the definition of academic standards of peer judgment within local employment policies in universities. © 2016, © The Author(s) 2016.Item type:Publication, Contribution of women authors in French medical journals from 1983 to 2019 Open PDF(2023) ;Schohn, A. ;Wathelet, M.Noël, G.Purpose: Despite the feminization of the medical profession, the academic world remains largely male-dominated. Several studies conducted in the English-speaking world have shown that women are published less than men. Our goal is to define the evolution of the role of women in five French medical journals. Materials and methods: The articles from five French journals (Revue du Praticien, Bulletin du Cancer, Exercer, Presse Médicale, Cancer/Radiothérapie) published in February between 1983 and 2019 were included. We selected twelve years from that period of time. The analysis was completed using Cochran-Armitage tests with a significance level of < 0,05. Among the authors, 4397 were included in total and we were able to determine the gender of 4309 of them. Results: The percentage of female authors went from 16% in 1983 to 36.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). This rise is more significant for those specializing in surgery than for those specializing in medicine, with a percentage going from 14% to 38.5% (p < 0.001) against 16.8% to 35.4% (p < 0.001) respectively. In 2019, women still only represent 30.2% of the last authors, 27.6% of editorial authors and 30.6% of corresponding authors. Conclusion: Our study underlines a significant increase in the number of female authors and highlights that their position as authors remains on the margins of the most prestigious authorial positions. While we can celebrate this increase, we nevertheless notice that there are fewer female authors than female practitioners. © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO)Item type:Publication, Plafond de verre pour les femmes dans les carrières hospitalo-universitaires en France Open PDF(2019) ;Rosso, C. ;Leger, A.Steichen, O.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether career development in academic medicine is more difficult for women than for men, and, if any, the nature and level of barriers to this progression. METHODS: Extraction of full-time medical staff in a Parisian hospital group, through the SIGAPS platform; an online questionnaire survey of career choices and barriers experienced by full-time male and female physicians. The study population comprises 181 hospital practitioners and 141 academic physicians (49 associate professors and 92 full professors). RESULTS: Women represent 49% of the medical staff but 15% of full professors. This underrepresentation of women is more important among intensivists/anesthesiologists than technique-based specialists (such as radiologists, biologists…). There is no difference in scientific output, marital status and parenthood between women and men. On the other hand, there is a difference in attitudes highlighted by the EVAR risk-taking scale as well as in the burden of familial involvement and the prejudices felt by women during the academic selection process. CONCLUSION: The glass ceiling exists in one of the largest French hospital group. Career development principles promote merit, but should decrease the benefit of "masculine" attitudes in the competition for academic positions. Academic selection criteria should evolve to limit the disadvantage of women related to deeper familial involvement and less competitive strategies and risk-taking attitudes.Item type:Publication, Women authorship in radiology research in France: An analysis of the last three decades Open PDF(2017) ;Pyatigorskaya, N.Di Marco, L.Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the evolution of women authorship in France and to analyze the recent trends of the evolution of gender differences in French academic radiology. Materials and methods A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed by searching for articles published in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging (Diagn Interv Imaging) and in Journal de Radiologie (J Radiol) in Pubmed over the last three decades. For each of these articles, we determined the gender of the first and last author. The specific radiological field of each article was also determined. Results The proportion of women authors has significantly increased from 12% in 1984 to 34% in 2014 (P < 0.0001) for the first authors and from 11% (11/96) in 1984 to 20% (38/193) in 2014 for last authors (P =0.03). Conclusion Women authorship in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging has increased over the last years together with the proportion of women first authors. However, the fraction of women last authors is still underrepresented. More women need to become leaders in radiological research to contribute to stimulate women authorship. © 2017 Éditions françaises de radiologieItem type:Publication, Predicting early career productivity of PhD economists: Does advisor-match matter? Open PDF(2020) ;García-Suaza, Andrés ;Otero, JesúsWinkelmann, RainerWe assess the role played by department rank and advisor-match on the early stage productivity of recent PhDs in economics using a tailor-made data set based on RePEc. After allowing for the potential influence of other factors, including gender and field of specialisation, we find as expected that both advisory quality and rank of the graduation institution are positively related to the academic productivity of graduates. However, in top institutions, students working with the most productive academics do not outperform others unless they co-author with their advisor. For students in non-top institutions, being advised by the best academics is always associated with a higher research output. Possible explanations for this difference are pointed out, including selection and differences in advising styles.Item type:Publication, Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics Open PDF(2019) ;Corsi, Marcella ;D’Ippoliti, CarloZacchia, GiuliaThis paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.