Why so Few, Still? Challenges to Attracting, Advancing, and Keeping Women Faculty of Color in Academia

Escaping the midway trap: A mixed method study highlighting roadblocks and coping mechanisms of female researchers in Cameroon

Across the world, women make most of the health workforce, but remain underrepresented in academia. This is even worst in Sub-Saharan Africa where women are the least represented as first and last authors in publications, especially in francophone countries. However, there is a lack of data on the reason explaining this inequity. Therefore, we sought to describe challenges which hinder the growth of Cameroonian female researchers and conducted a mixed method study over one year from January 2020 to December 2020. We included Cameroonian female researchers in health. For the quantitative arm, data was collected through an online google questionnaire. In-depth interviews were organized for the qualitative arm. Data was analyzed using python software version 21 for the quantitative arm and content analysis was performed for qualitative data. A total of 119 participants were included in this study. Most participants were aged between 25 and 35 years (72%) and they were Christians (94%). The majority had at least a PhD degree (29.6%) and they came from the West region of Cameroon (34.2%) the Northern regions were grossly underrepresented. More than half of our participants faced issues with balancing career, work, and academia and this is linked to culture. Socioeconomic, sociocultural, institutional, and environmental roadblocks hinder the progress and research productivity of most female researchers. The burden of unpaid maternity leaves, and sexual harassment remains high for most women. The use of English language as lingua Franca is perceived as another barrier for one on two women. However, there are coping strategies adopted by female scientists including the development of soft skills such as self-confidence, determination, and hard work. Extrinsic factors such as global policy, international partnerships, workshops, mentorship, and networking are also supporting women in global health. Gender-based interventions are critical to support women in escaping the midway trap.

Will they always be living the Sisyphus punishment? The triple whammy for racialized women: a qualitative investigation of primary care researchers in Canada

Background

Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature.

Methods

Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects.

Findings

Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers.

Interpretation

This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the Sisyphus Punishment - the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top.

Funding

College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Stochastic modelling of intersectional pay gaps in universities

The gender and ethnicity pay gaps are well publicised for academics. The majority of research relies on observations representing a point in time or uses models to consider a standard academic lifespan. We use a stochastic mathematical model to ask what drives differences in lifetime earnings of university academics and highlight a new question: how best should we quantify a working lifetime? The model observes and accounts for patterns in age when entering and leaving the workforce, and differing salary trajectories during an academic career. It is parameterized with data from a national dataset in Aotearoa New Zealand. We compare the total lifetime earnings of different gender and ethnicity groups with and without accounting for the different lengths of time spent in academia. The lifetime earnings gaps are considerably larger when we account for different hiring and leaving ages. We find that overall, for every ethnicity, women have shorter careers and are more likely to leave academia. All minority ethnic groups-and women-earn considerably less than their male white, European colleagues.

In Search of an Academic "Greatest Hits" Album: An Examination of Bibliometrics and Bibliometric Web Platforms

Despite the relative youth of bibliometric web platforms (Google Scholar was released in 2004), they play an increasingly significant role in the assessment of the impact of scholars and the research they produce. This scholarly essay provides a thorough review of the literature on bibliometric platforms, the extent to which they make available relevant manuscripts for inclusion in research, and their use for the assessment of scholarly work. We describe the metrics found on common bibliometric platforms, proposed metrics not commonly found in platforms, and how those metrics may differ based on scholar race and gender. We identify pitfalls of citation metrics present on bibliometric platforms. Finally, we identify areas for expansion of the research on bibliometric platforms and development of new metrics.

Perception of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on dental researchers

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Historical evidence shows a gender-based disproportionate effect of pandemics across different populations. In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began spreading its devastating effects worldwide. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on research productivity, work-life arrangements, and mental health of dental professionals worldwide with focus on gender differences.

METHODS

A 38-item survey, concerning demographics, career stage, employer support, family structure, mental health, and relationships, was distributed to 7692 active members of the International Association for Dental Research. Bivariate associations between independent variables and the primary outcome variable were tested using Spearman's correlation test. A logistic regression model was used to assess the simultaneous, independent associations between each variable and researcher productivity.

RESULTS

A total of 722 responses were obtained, indicating a 9.4% response rate. Higher productivity was reported by male respondents (p = 0.021), and by those in senior career stages (p = 0.001). Institutional support was associated with higher productivity (p < 0.0001). Lower productivity was reported by younger researchers (p = 0.003). Remote work negatively affected productivity (p < 0.0001) and female respondents reported working more hours, regardless of work location (p = 0.004). Poor mental health was associated with low productivity (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected dental professionals' perceived productivity and mental health around the globe. Younger individuals and women were disproportionally affected, and institutional support had a significant influence to mitigate effects of the pandemic for dental researchers.

Supporting women's research in predominantly undergraduate institutions: Experiences with a National Science Foundation ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Award

This paper describes the Gender Equity Project (GEP) at Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), funded by the U. S. NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Award (ITA) program. ADVANCE supports system-level strategies to promote gender equity in the social and natural sciences, but has supported very few teaching-intensive institutions. Hunter College is a teaching-intensive institution in which research productivity among faculty is highly valued and counts toward tenure and promotion. We created the GEP to address the particular challenges that faculty, especially White women and faculty of color, face in maintaining research programs and advancing in their careers at teaching-intensive institutions. During the course of the ADVANCE award, its centerpiece was the Sponsorship Program, a multifaceted paid mentorship/sponsorship program that paired each participant with a successful scholar in her discipline. It offered extensive professional development opportunities, including interactive workshops and internal grants to support research. The GEP helped change key policies and practices by ensuring that all faculty were treated fairly in areas like provision of research start-up funds and access to guidance on how to prepare for tenure and promotion. Qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests that participation in the Sponsorship Program boosted research productivity and advanced the careers of many of the women who participated; the Program was highly rated by all participants. Some of the policy and practice changes that the GEP helped bring about were sustained at Hunter beyond the award period and some were adopted and disseminated by the central office of CUNY. However, we were not able to sustain the relatively expensive (but cost-effective) Sponsorship Program. We share the lessons we learned, including that creating a diverse, successful social and natural scientific workforce requires sustained support of female faculty employed at teaching-intensive colleges. We acknowledge the difficulties of sustaining gains, and offer ideas about how to make the case for gender equity when women seem to be doing "well enough." We underscore the imperative of building support for women's research in teaching-intensive institutions, where most women scientists are employed, and well over 90% of all college students-a disproportionate percentage of whom are female, minoritized, or both-are educated.

U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities

There is a national interest in United States women's underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, gender inequality in the social sciences has not received similar attention. Although women increasingly earn postgraduate degrees in the social sciences, women faculty still experience gender inequities. Consistent gender inequities include slower career advancement, blunted salaries, unequal workloads, work-life conflict, systemic gender biases, underrepresentation in positions of power, and hostile work environments. Cultural biases suggest that once women have achieved parity, gender bias no longer exists. This review challenges that notion by providing evidence from social science domains in which women are well-represented but continue to face systemic gender biases. We examine cultural influences on gender representation and career advancement in psychology, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology. We make interdisciplinary comparisons of career trajectories and salaries using national data, documenting patterns across the social sciences. For example, women economists face gendered standards in publishing, and women political scientists are less likely to have their work cited than men. Furthermore, data show that salaries become stagnant as the representation of women in these fields increases. These disparities reflect cultural biases in perceptions of women's competence stemming from social role theory. We discuss best practices to address these problems, focusing on the ADVANCE organizational change programs funded by the National Science Foundation that target (a) improving academic climate, (b) providing professional development, and (c) fostering social networking. Federally supported interventions can reveal systemic gender biases in academia and reduce gender disparities for women academics in the social sciences.

The Social Science of Institutional Transformation: Intersectional Change in the Academy

This article examines intersectional praxis as an approach to institutional transformation, arguing that intersectionality is both a catalyst for and outcome of gender equity efforts in the social sciences and other academic STEM fields. As such, approaching gender equity intersectionally can be understood as a way that theory and practice are co-constitutive in social science and hence an important aspect of transforming academic institutions. Through a case study of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program for gender equity in STEM, I look at the development of ADVANCE from an effort to support women in scientific fields to becoming a program for institutional transformation grounded in an intersectional understanding of women's inequity in the academic labor force. I ask two related questions in the efforts to address gender inequities in STEM. First, what is the relationship between academic institutions (which are simultaneously sites for the discovery of knowledge and gender inequality) and the National Science foundation, as the premier American academic institutional funding agency? Second, how has this relationship, through those working on ADVANCE, fundamentally shifted the understanding of the social scientific tools and strategies necessary to advance equity for women in academia? In looking at these questions, I argue that, beyond women's representation in social sciences and academia broadly, intersectionality is an important scholarly advance in social science that offers a dialectical tool for change.