Why documenting every gender bias counts: A short commentary

Analysis of Gender Discrepancies in Leadership Roles and Recognition Awards in the Child Neurology Society

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Gender disparities have been demonstrated across several medical specialties, including neurology. Although women have comprised most of the child neurology trainees since 2007, it is not apparent whether this demographic shift is reflected in the Child Neurology Society (CNS) awards and leadership. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in gender representation among leadership positions and award recipients within the CNS. The primary outcome measure was the total number of board of director (BOD) positions or awards given by gender each year.

METHODS

A retrospective review of publicly available data was conducted on CNS members, post-training award recipients, and BOD positions, including nomination records, from 1972 to 2023. Data abstracted were restricted to gender to preserve member and nominee anonymity. Gender identification and consensus were determined through a combination of strategies and study members. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson χ2 test, and the exact binomial test to compare gender proportions and the probability of being underrepresented in awards, leadership, and nominations over time. Data are presented according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

RESULTS

From 1972 to 2023, women represented 29% (44/152) of the BOD positions and 26% (61/236) of post-training award recipients presented by the CNS. Despite the increase in the proportion of women in child neurology, the overall gap in gender representation in leadership positions remains broadly stable. Only 13% (4/32) of CNS presidents have been women, a significant underrepresentation (95% CI 2.3%-52%, p < 0.004), although the representation of women in nonpresidential positions increased from 2003 to 2023. Women are also underrepresented as overall awardees (95% CI 12%-38%, p < 0.00001) except for the Philip R. Dodge Young Investigator Award, which is an investigator-initiated application.

DISCUSSION

Women remain underrepresented at the highest levels of recognition in child neurology despite representing most of the field. Reasons for disparities are known to be multifactorial and likely include gender bias and structural sexism. We present several discussion topics that seek to rationalize this disparity and provide suggestions for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion for leadership roles and awards.

Gender disparities in social and personality psychology awards from 1968 to 2021

Gender disparities persist in academic psychology. The present study extended previous investigations to social and personality psychology award recipients. We collated publicly available data on award winners (N = 2700) from 17 international societies from 1968 to 2021. Features of the award, including year given, type of award, seniority level, whether the award was shared with more than one winner, and gender/sex of the recipient were coded. Overall, men were more likely to be recognized with awards than women, but the proportion of awards won by women has increased over time. Despite this increased share of awards, women were more likely to win awards for service and teaching (which are generally viewed as less prestigious) rather than research contributions. These differences were moderated by year - women were more likely to win service or teaching awards, compared to research awards, after 1999 and 2007, respectively. Women were more likely to win awards at postgraduate/early career levels or open to all levels compared to senior awards. Findings suggest that women's greater representation in academic psychology in recent years has not been accompanied by parity in professional recognition and eminence.

Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis

Even though the majority of psychologists are women, they are outnumbered by men in senior academic ranks. One reason for this representation bias in academia is that men favor other men in decision-making, especially when the stakes are high. We tested the possibility of such bias in a bibliometric analysis, in which we coded editors' and authors' gender in regular and special issues, the latter considered of higher scientific prominence. We examined all special issues from five prominent scientific outlets in the fields of personality and social psychology published in the twenty-first century. Altogether, we analyzed 1911 articles nested in 93 sets comprising a special issue and a neighboring regular issue treated as a control condition. For articles published in special (but not regular) issues, when there were more men editors, more men first-authored and co-authored the work. This pattern suggests how gender bias can be perpetuated within academia and calls for revising the editorial policies of leading psychology journals.