Academic Career Ladder Research Articles

A European perspective on structural barriers to women's career progression in neuroscience.

Despite an unprecedented number of women entering neuroscience, and decades-long recruitment and retention efforts, women continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in European academic tenure-track faculty and leadership positions. This Perspective focuses on two major career points where women exhibit diminished representation: the transition from postdoctoral fellow to junior professor and the promotion to more senior (tenured) faculty positions. We discuss below recently implemented country-specific and Europe-wide initiatives supporting equal career progression and propose further concrete steps to be taken to break down the structural barriers that prevent women's progression up the academic career ladder as European neuroscientists.

Women in academia: Why and where does the pipeline leak, and how can we fix it?

Women advance along the academic career ladder at lower rates than men. This phenomenon, dubbed the “leaky pipeline,” is pervasive across all academic disciplines and leads to lower levels of female representation in academic leadership positions despite gender parity at the college level. Higher drop-out rates by women from academic careers can be explained by various supply-side factors – women choosing to leave academia due to a lack of role models or different family responsibilities – and demand-side factors – expecting more volunteer and committee work from female researchers, giving less credit to women’s contributions to scientific teamwork, citing women’s work less often, giving women less access to mentorship and funding opportunities, and perceiving women as less competent and brilliant overall. Policies that seek to remedy one of these factors might have negative side effects when the broader societal and institutional context is disregarded.

Gender differences in time taken for peer review and publishing output in the physical sciences

Background: Despite decades of work to improve gender equality in science (and other science, technology, engineering, and maths fields), gender bias still exists and has been shown to impact the retention of women in academic scientific careers. Publication of peer-reviewed articles remains a key criterion for career progression and a common marker of success in academia. Any barriers to publication faced by women may therefore impact their retention and career progression. Objectives: To investigate gender differences within one potential barrier to publication, namely the time taken in peer review, by investigating the question: ‘Is the peer review process longer for papers with (assumed) women as first authors than those with (assumed) male first authors?’ Methods: Gender differences in peer review time were analysed for 1100 peer-reviewed papers published between 2006 and 2016 and selected from 5 journals covering a range of physical science disciplines and publication styles. Results: In the physical sciences, male first-authored papers outnumbered female first-authored papers 2:1. However, the analysis showed no statistical difference in the time taken for peer review between the two sets of papers. Conclusion: The time taken to peer review a paper is not linked to the gender of the paper’s first author. However, the large discrepancy in the number of papers with men as first authors compared to that with women as first authors could be a contributing factor to the attrition of women from the academic career ladder (the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’).

Ungendered writing: Writing styles are unlikely to account for gender differences in funding rates in the natural and technical sciences

• Structural differences in funding rates between male and female scientists have been reported. • We study the potential influence of gendered differences in writing style on funding decisions • Unlike previous studies, we only find minimal differences in writing style between the sexes, using full-text applications. • We conclude that writing styles are unlikely to account for skewed funding patterns in the natural and technical sciences Academia has traditionally faced a substantial gender gap in staff positions and career path progression. Women do not advance up the academic career ladder in the same rate as men, with evidence of gender bias in hiring, earnings, funding, and recognition by means of prestigious awards. In this study we focus on gender differences in funding applications. Multiple factors have been proposed as potentially underlying mechanisms creating differences in funding rates between men and women, including bias in peer review processes and differences in language use. In this study we use a set of 1560 full-text applications in the natural and technical sciences that were subjected to a double-blind review process at a Danish private funder to analyse gendered writing as a potential factor causing differences in funding rates. Reproducing analyses from previous studies that found significant differences in writing styles, we analyse patterns in the use of positive words, levels of readability, concreteness and sentiment. Unlike previous studies, we only find minimal differences in writing style between the sexes. We conclude that writing styles are unlikely to account for skewed funding patterns and suggest ways in which funding programmes can be designed to provide fair opportunities to all applicants.

Leaky pipeline or glass ceiling? Empirical evidence from the German academic career ladder

ABSTRACT Women are underrepresented in leadership positions – academia is no exception. Using data on careers of doctoral graduates in Germany, we study gender differences in the decision to stay at university as a postdoctoral researcher and in the intention to become a professor. We find that gender gaps related to aiming for a professorship can be fully explained by observable characteristics other than gender. On the contrary, even after adding controls for an array of characteristics relevant to academic careers, we find female graduates to be 5.9 percentage points less likely to hold a postdoctoral position which allows them to qualify for professorship.

Just a Matter of Time? Women’s Career Advancement in Neo-Liberal Academia. An Analysis of Recruitment Trends in Italian Universities

Recently, the Italian higher education system has experienced two profound changes: the strong feminization of its academic staff and the implementation of market-based reforms aimed at fostering cost efficiency and economic productivity. Such reforms include the reshaping of the academic career ladder envisaged by the last university reform, the so called Gelmini reform (law 240/2010), and the adoption of a performance-based funding system. Both elements occurred in parallel with a strong cut in turnover. By accessing unique data on recruitment covering the last two decades, which were provided by the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research’s statistical office, this study aims at investigating these changes from a gendered perspective. More specifically, it firstly aims at analyzing if the feminization of the academic staff is due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment or, rather, to demographic dynamics; secondly, it investigates to what extent the recent neo-liberal transformations, and more specifically the reshaping of the career structure combined with the limitations on hiring, has had any implications in terms of women’s recruitment and advancement. The results suggest that the road to gender equality is extremely slow and non-linear. The introduction, with the Gelmini reform, of the new fixed-term assistant professor has tightened female access to the tenure track. Moreover, female recruitment remained substantially unchanged over the period among associate and full professors, thus suggesting that the feminization of the academic staff is not due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment, but also to demographic dynamics, such as the retirement of men who are concentrated in the older cohorts.

Worker Bees and Wild Roses: The Pleasure and Pain of Mid-Career Female Academics

Drawing on self-identified metaphorical expressions that represent women at work, this paper discusses how a group of mid- career academic women experience their work and workplace. The research was prompted by consistently high number of female academics who remain in the mid-levels in the academic career ladder despite research that shows this group is ambitious and holds leadership aspirations. Understanding the experiences at the mid-career levels, by gaining insights into their workplace experiences, may further our knowledge of how to advance women in leadership. The research draws on the metaphoric descriptions provided by 28 mid-career women working across three Australian universities. Metaphors elicit hidden and implicit values about how the subjects respond and give meaning to their work and working conditions and have been used in organisational practices to disclose underlying issues. The findings discuss the positive and negative work and workplace associations disclosed by the participants. However, the findings suggests that women find pleasure and desire in and through their work. It is through their work that academic women experience self-expression, creativity and adding value. By focussing on the value of doing academic work and the rewards of contributing to academia, there is potential to enhance the capacity for mid-career women to thrive in academia and build the foundations for leadership. Keywords: metaphors, mid-career academics, women, higher education

Should I stay or should I go? The effects of precariousness on the gendered career aspirations of postdocs in Switzerland

The assumption that men are more likely to undertake and succeed in an academic career, because the requirements of professional success in this occupation are compatible with normative gender assumptions, particularly that of fulfilling a ‘male breadwinner’ or main household earner role, implying reduced domestic and care commitments, is discussed. It is suggested that Switzerland offers a particularly interesting case for this study, because of the combination of the specific structure of academic careers, the characteristics of the non-academic labour market and the dominant gender regime. It is shown that, in this particular context, the aspirations of postdocs to remain in academic employment or to look for non-academic jobs are directly related to their position within the domestic division of labour and to their personal and family circumstances. However, this does not necessarily lead to a clear-cut divide between work-committed men, who ‘succeed’ (and hence stay), and care-committed women who ‘fail’ to climb up the academic career ladder (and hence leave). The results suggest that the situation is more complex and requires a subtle distinction between different ideal-types of post-doctoral experiences that do not always cut neatly across gender lines.

Predictors of Gender Inequalities in the Rank of Full Professor

This article examines whether age, work-related, and family-related predictors explain differences in the academic advancement of women and men in Iceland. Survey data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. The findings put that women climb the academic career ladder at a slower pace than men. This finding puts one of the widely known excuses for the underrepresentation of women in full professor positions into jeopardy, namely that this is because of family responsibilities. Work-related variables explain some of the gender differences. The study shows that as promotion is slower among women, even if family-related variables are not negatively affecting the odds, the academic pipeline is leaking despite Iceland's reputation for being at the forefront where gender equality issues are concerned.

Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin?

The number of submitted manuscripts is increasing sharply from year to year in almost all international journals. Among the many reasons for the increased number of manuscripts, salami slicing deserves special attention. Salami slicing consists of splitting data from the same research into small units, each of which is submitted—and in many cases published—separately. Whereas a single study previously led to the submission of a single—large—article, the data may now be divided into several manuscripts, which are subsequently submitted to a single journal or to several journals. The prevalence of salami slicing, although not unappreciable, is difficult to determine. Reported values have ranged from only 1 % [1] or 1.8 % [6] to more than 15 % [2]. Salami slicing is driven by an author’s desire or need to achieve a larger number of publications, in order to gain recognition, move up on the academic career ladder, attract research funds by increasing the institution’s visibility and/or obtain financial gain [3, 7, 9]. Dividing a research project into several papers is not always incorrect or should not be criticised, as some topics are too large for a single publication. A study of partial anterior cruciate ligament tears, for instance, needs to be reported in several papers, if only, to clarify the objectives (epidemiology, laxity, MRI ...). Moreover, a journal may ask experts to write about their field of knowledge, in which case the experts use data from their own previously published studies, which are cited in the new paper. At the other end of the spectrum, dual publication is a completely different phenomenon. In dual publication, the authors knowingly submit two manuscripts reporting identical data to two different journals, either simultaneously or successively. This behaviour, designated dual publication or self-plagiarism by ethics committees (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE [1]; and the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE [4]), clearly constitutes fraud, since the publication of a manuscript in a journal implies copyright transfer to that particular journal. However, the publication of the article in a different language can take place, provided the original article is cited and permission is obtained from the journal that published it. The detection of dual publication invariably leads to a serious sanction, namely the formal retraction of the article. A 2012 study [5] identified 742 retracted publications in the biomedical literature over the last 10 years, with an increased number in recent years. Dual publication is clearly the most common reason for retraction. Retraction involves the notification of international databases and journal publishers to explain the decision and its reasons. Banning decisions may be taken against the authors by the editorial board(s) of the journal(s) in which the articles were published or even by the publishers. In addition, if applicable, a notice may be sent to the administration of the university with which the authors are affiliated. This usually leads to serious negative consequences for the author in question and could even be described as ‘career suicide’. In real life, the limits between the appropriate division of a manuscript into smaller pieces worthy of publication as separate papers and dual publication are hazy: no situations are all black or all white [8, 9]. Instead, a continuum exists between the appropriate division of the data and dual J. Karlsson (&) Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-431 80 Molndal, Sweden e-mail: Jon.karlsson@telia.com

BiotecVisions 2012, February

BiotecVisions 2012, February

Climbing through Medicine's Glass Ceiling

Only 14 of 124 U.S. medical school deans are women. Dr. Nancy Andrews writes that if institutions are to accelerate the emergence of more female deans, they will need to consider women who have not stepped on every rung of the traditional academic career ladder.

Jack‐of‐all‐trades

Statistics from the USA and Europe point to the same fact: many graduate students currently embarking on PhD programmes will not pursue careers in academic research. Once they have completed their magnum opus —rarely to be read after the thesis defence—they inevitably face the realities of the job market. It quickly becomes clear that for most of them the dream that lured them into the world of research is not attainable and a job remains elusive. For those that do succeed, the position that they find is not a permanent one, but rather a modestly paid temporary appointment with insecure support for research. They might continue as postdoctoral researchers, but this by no means guarantees them an independent position in a competitive research environment—even with a good CV and strong publications. Many PhD students and postgraduates therefore come to the conclusion, at some point during their training, that the best way to find a ‘real’ job, with a reasonable level of stress, is to leave academic research altogether and look elsewhere. This is often the case when …

Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?

The percentage of economics doctorates awarded to women has increased over the past twenty years. This article considers whether women Ph.D. economists have increased their representation in academia, particularly at higher tenured ranks. Our study draws upon several empirical approaches and multiple data sets for the 1990s. We find that when compared with other academic disciplines, women in economics are less likely to get tenure and take longer to achieve it. Although gender differences in productivity and the effect of children on promotion partly explain women's lesser chances of receiving tenure in economics, a significant portion of the gender promotion gap remains unexplained by observable characteristics.

Development of an academic career ladder program in psychiatric rehabilitation: A field initiative.

Development of an academic career ladder program in psychiatric rehabilitation: A field initiative.

Gender disparity in the academic pipeline: Women in neuroscience

The percentages of females at critical steps in the academic career ladder were examined for one specific field, neuroscience. There was a slight attrition among females completing the Ph.D. However, the major drop-off occurred when qualified post-doctorates did not apply for faculty positions. Remedial actions should focus on not only the graduate school environment but also on the more critical postdoctoral experience.

Personal recollections of Frank C. Whitmore by Charles D. Hurd

Professor Hurd's correspondence is revealing about differing emphases in chemical education and the academic career ladder during the early 20th century.