PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Higher EducationViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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,
    Research on women in science and higher education: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    ;
    Villarroya, A.
    ;
    Barrios, M.
    The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price’s, Lotka’s, and Bradford’s laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field. © 2015, Kluwer Academic Publishers.