Abstract
The leaky pipeline phenomenon refers to the disproportionate decline of female scientists at higher academic career levels and is a major problem in the natural sciences. Identifying the underlying causes is challenging, and thus, solving the problem remains difficult. To better understand the reasons for the leaky pipeline, we assess the perceptions and impacts of gender bias and imbalance—two major drivers of the leakage—at different academic career levels with an anonymous survey in geoscience academia (n=1,220). The survey results show that both genders view male geoscientists as substantially more gender biased than female scientists. Moreover, female geoscientists are more than twice as likely to experience negative gender bias at their workplaces and scientific organizations compared to male geoscientists. There are also pronounced gender differences regarding (i) the relevance of role models, (ii) family‐friendly working conditions, and (iii) the approval of gender quotas for academic positions. Given the male dominance in senior career levels, our results emphasize that those feeling less impacted by the negative consequences of gender bias and imbalance are the ones in position to tackle the problem. We thus call for actions to better address gender biases and to ensure a balanced gender representation at decision‐making levels to ultimately retain more women in geoscience academia.
Highlights
The disproportional decline of female scientists with increasing academic rank—called the leaky pipeline—has been a continuing issue ever since the term was first introduced in the early 1990s (Alper, 1993)
Almost 30 years after its first recognition, the persistence of the leaky pipeline for female scientists still poses a great challenge to the geosciences community
The insights revealed by this survey underscore the gendered perceptions and impacts of gender inequality within geoscience academia
Summary
The disproportional decline of female scientists with increasing academic rank—called the leaky pipeline—has been a continuing issue ever since the term was first introduced in the early 1990s (Alper, 1993). The geosciences are among the least diverse scientific disciplines regarding gender and underrepresented minorities (Dutt et al, 2016; Holmes et al, 2008; Nature Geoscience Editorial, 2016). This allows identifying individual categories with significant differences between female and male participants (i.e., adjusted pvalue < 1.0e − 2) and permits statistical assertions on gender differences despite the overrepresentation of women in the survey population relative to their representation in the geosciences (Holmes et al, 2008; Wilson, 2016). The “Don't know” option for categorical variables was kept unless noted otherwise, as it accounted for more than 5% among female or male respondents in most cases (Figures 2a and 2e–2g)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
