PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Awards

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Enhancing equity within the promotions dossier evaluation—Strategies to mitigate biases Open PDF 
    (Frontiers Media SA, 2026-01-09)
    Joy, Tisha R.
    Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in career advancement in academic medicine continue to exist despite ongoing calls to diversify the physician workforce and leadership representation. Compared with white men, women and racially and ethnically underrepresented physicians are more likely to enter academic medicine, but less likely to achieve promotion. Cited barriers to academic advancement include ambiguous or inconsistent criteria for consideration for promotion and lack of standard processes for reviewing applications. The promotions committee therefore is an important rate-limiting step subject to biases that impact not just tenure, but also leadership opportunities and physician salaries. This perspective article explores areas where biases influence promotion criteria evaluation, including but not limited to accomplishments within teaching, research, and/or service, external recognition, candidate statements, and reference letters. The article then will propose strategies helpful to promotion committee members to help mitigate these biases and provide more equitable promotion evaluation.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Meho, L.I.
    This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. I find that (a) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016–2020; and (d) when the numbers of female full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation. © 2021, MIT Press Journals. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in the allocation of student grants Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Wijnen, M.N.
    ;
    Massen, J.J.M.
    ;
    Kret, M.E.
    Multiple studies have shown that women’s likelihood of receiving research funding is lower than that of their male colleagues. Thus far, all research on this gender gap in academia has focused on post-PhD academics, making it difficult to discern whether the female disadvantages in number of publications, previous grants, maternity leave, and h-indexes are at the root of the gender gap in received funding, or whether it is due to a more fundamental gender bias in academia. Therefore, we investigated whether female university students are already disadvantaged in receiving their first grant in their scientific career. We analysed data on applications (N = 2651) from 1995 to 2018 to the Leiden University International Study Fund (LISF), a fund dedicated to support students to study or conduct research abroad. We found that men and women applied equally often to the LISF. However, women had a lower success rate, which seemed to only get worse over recent years. Furthermore, male and female applications were assessed to be equal in quality when gender-related information was removed from them. The current study demonstrates that the factors that were assumed to contribute the most to the gender gap in more senior academics (e.g. previous grants, h-index) do not explain it fully: even when those factors do not yet play a role, such as in our student sample, women were found to have lower success rates than men. This underscores the importance of attacking gender biases at its roots. © 2021, The Author(s).