PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Qualitative Methods

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,
    Scientific Performance Assessments Through a Gender Lens: a Case Study on Evaluation and Selection Practices in Academia
    (2018)
    Nielsen, Matthias Wullum
    The focus on excellence and quality assurance in the academy has spawned a significant increase in the use of bibliometric measures in performance assessments of individual researchers. This article investigates the organizational consequences of this development through a gender lens. Based on a qualitative case study of evaluation and selection practices at a Danish university, a number of potential gender biases related to the use of bibliometric performance measures are identified. By taking as default the research preferences, approaches and career paths of a succesful group of predominantly male scholars, evaluators using bibliometrics risk disadvantaging candidates diverging from the norm with implications for gender stratification. Despite these potential biases, bibliometric measures come to function as technologies supporting a managerial narrative of the gender-blind organization. They adhere to the prevailing ethos of the academic meritocracy by standardizing the criteria for organizational advancement and ensuring transparency and accountability in the selection process. While bibliometric tools in this sense may lead to the recruitment of scientists with a strong CV and track record, they may at the same time prevent many talented researchers diverging from the norm from being recognized and succeed as academics.