Dataset Information

Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions.

ABSTRACT: There is extensive evidence of gender inequality in research leading to insufficient representation of women in leadership positions. Numbers revealing a gender gap in research are periodically reported by national and international institutions but data on perceptions of gender equality within the research community are scarce. In the present study, a questionnaire based on the British Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET 2016) was distributed among researchers working in Spain. Consistent with the original UK-based study, women in research perceived a greater degree of gender inequality than men. This difference was consistent from junior to senior positions, within public and private universities as well as research centres, and across all research disciplines. When responses were compared with the existing UK-based questionnaire, researchers in Spain felt that women and men are treated more equally in the workplace, yet they perceived their home departments to be less supportive regarding matters of gender equality. The results of this study provide clear evidence that men and women do not share the same perceptions of gender equality in science and that their differing perceptions are relatively consistent across two major European countries. The fact that men occupy the majority of senior positions while not perceiving the same inequality as women do, may be critical when it comes to ensuring the fair ascent of women to senior positions in an academic system. These data encourage the implementation of measures to ensure that both men and women are aware of gender biases in research.

SUBMITTER: Garcia-Gonzalez J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6894819 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions.

García-González Judit J Forcén Patricia P Jimenez-Sanchez Maria M

PloS one 20191205 12

There is extensive evidence of gender inequality in research leading to insufficient representation of women in leadership positions. Numbers revealing a gender gap in research are periodically reported by national and international institutions but data on perceptions of gender equality within the research community are scarce. In the present study, a questionnaire based on the British Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET 2016) was distributed among researchers working in ...[more]

PMID: 31805114

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives:To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results:Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P?=?.01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P?=?.001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P?=?.001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P?=?.001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P?=?.001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P?=?.001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance:Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.MethodsA survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.Results1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.ConclusionsThe proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies suggest that the funding breakdown of autism research in the United States may not align with stakeholder priorities. Furthermore, the majority of stakeholder-engaged research involves parents of autistic individuals rather than autistic adults themselves, who may have differing perspectives on research and funding priorities. Women and non-binary adults have been historically underrepresented in autism research.ObjectivesThe goal of the current study was to examine the autism research priorities of a group of autistic adults, with a particular focus on how these priorities are influenced by one's gender identity.DesignA concurrent mixed-methods design was used for this study.MethodsSeventy-one autistic adults (n = 18 men, n = 29 women, n = 24 non-binary adults) completed an online survey regarding the current funding landscape for autism research. Participants ranked the main research topics of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) and identified top-priority research areas through free-text responses. Response themes were analyzed using content analysis and compared with the existing topic rankings.ResultsOverall rankings of IACC research areas had a near inverse relationship with the amount of funding per research area. Main themes of stakeholder-generated research topics included "Characterization," "Societal Change," "Well-Being & Trauma," "Diagnosis & Healthcare," and "Accessibility & Services." There was a relatively high overlap between topics identified by the IACC and by the stakeholder-generated topics. Subtle but important differences in topics arose based on gender, with women and non-binary adults identifying topics that were not identified by autistic men.ConclusionUnique priorities generated by those typically excluded from autism research development underscore the importance of co-creating research with underrepresented stakeholders impacted by this work. The current study echoes the growing movement in the field of autism research to center autistic perspectives at every stage of research, including the establishment of funding priorities.

Dataset Information

Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions.

Publications

Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets